    [Senate Hearing 106-887]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                         S. Hrg. 106-887

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2001

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                                   H.R. 4578

      AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
    RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001, AND FOR
                                 OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                           Department of Agriculture
                              Department of Energy
                    Department of Health and Human Services
                           Department of the Interior
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

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

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    62-781                     WASHINGTON : 2001

                                     ______

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

                          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
                                Christine Drager
                           Peter Kiefhaber (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                 Joseph Norrell

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, March 1, 2000

                                                                       Page

    Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service...     1

                           Wednesday, March 22, 2000

    Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................    39

                             Tuesday, April 4, 2000

    Department of the Interior:
        Office of the Special Trustee................................   141
        Bureau of Indian Affairs.....................................   141

                            Wednesday, April 5, 2000

    Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary..............   207

                            Tuesday, April 11, 2000

    Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary....................   333
    Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   395

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2000

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

                    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                             Indian Health Service

    STATEMENT OF MICHAEL H. TRUJILLO, M.D., M.P.H., M.S.,
                ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL, DIRECTOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            MICHEL E. LINCOLN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
            KERMIT SMITH, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER
            GARY J. HARTZ, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON

        Senator Gorton. This subcommittee hearing will come to
    order.
        We have here today Dr. Michael Trujillo, Executive Director
    of the Indian Health Service, and his colleagues, who I assume
    are prepared to testify on behalf of the Service's fiscal year
    2001 budget proposal. You are all welcome.
        The Indian Health Service for fiscal year 2001 is proposed
    at a level of $2.6 billion, an increase of $230 million, or ten
    percent above the current funding level. Of that amount, $125
    million is designated for maintaining current services, and
    $105 million is targeted for the improvement of the existing
    levels of health care and services.
        Many of the statistics on the state of Indian health are
    devastating compared to those of the U.S. population in
    general. To cite a few examples, the rate of alcoholism is 627
    percent greater, tuberculosis is 533 percent greater, and
    diabetes is 249 percent greater. A recent Harvard School of
    Public Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study
    found that the lowest life expectancies in the United States
    for both men and women exist in the Indian communities. These
    rates are the lowest of any nation in this hemisphere except
    for Haiti.
        At the same time, the Service has a positive record of
    achievement. Gains have been made. The mortality rates for many
    diseases have decreased significantly. The IHS itself serves as
    a model public health organization for other countries around
    the world.
        This subcommittee will consider the Indian Health Service's
    request for increased funding carefully, recognizing that the
    needs are great. I have to tell you, however, Dr. Trujillo,
    that larger budget decisions must be made before this
    subcommittee begins its work, and those decisions will in large
    measure determine the degree to which we can provide additional
    assistance.
        We may very well in the Senate be dealing with a budget
    resolution in committee as early as next week, but the budget
    resolution must go through both the committee, the Senate, the
    House, and a conference committee before we get our allocation
    for this subcommittee and begin setting our own priorities.
        With that, we do have Senator Dorgan here, and I will defer
    to him for his opening statement.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will be
    mercifully brief. I wanted to thank you for the timely hearing,
    and to say that I really think we face a crisis in health care,
    housing, and education on Indian reservations in this country,
    and we must address all three.
        Last year, I convened a meeting with the Indian tribal
    Chairs from the Northern Great Plains with President Clinton
    and five Cabinet officers in the White House and talked about
    these issues, but we must do better.
        I know that the President's budget request includes a $1.2
    billion increase over the 2000 levels in a range of areas, but
    frankly, we still are not going to meet the needs that exist on
    Indian reservations, even with that budget request.
        If you go to an Indian reservation--I know, Mr. Chairman,
    you visit them, and other members of the subcommittee do--and
    take a look at housing, health care, and education needs, you
    cannot but conclude that we have a full-blown emergency and a
    full-blown crisis in these areas, especially in health service.
        The Indian Health Service, in my judgment, does an awfully
    good job with limited resources, but we do not come anywhere
    near having the opportunity to provide the kind of health care
    that other Americans have come to expect in many areas of the
    country.
        If you are ill or your child is ill, and you are living on
    an Indian reservation, and you go to some of the health
    facilities that I have seen, they do not have the resources to
    provide the kind of health care those families should be able
    to expect.
        I have talked on the floor of the Senate about Sarah Swift
    Hawk, who was a grandmother on a reservation in South Dakota,
    and on January 21 last year went to bed sleeping on a cot in a
    house with plastic over where windows should have been. Sarah
    had only a thin blanket and the only cot. The other two adults
    and two children huddled on the floor, and at 45 degrees below
    zero, that was the way they spent the evening. The next
    morning, regrettably, Sarah Swift Hawk, was found frozen to
    death in a house on an Indian reservation.
        Is this a crisis? Darn right, it is. In a range of areas,
    and that is in housing, but it is equally true in health care.
    I am trying to get some information, Mr. Chairman, about the
    formularies that are used to determine which drugs are
    available for use on Indian reservations for those people who
    have the need for prescription drugs.
        Are the latest and best prescription drugs available, or
    are they not, and if not, why not? Cost? Does it mean that it
    is too expensive to provide a drug that is the latest and best
    drug available for someone on an Indian reservation, some
    Indian child, or someone who has difficulty?
        I will not go on, but I just want to say that I view Indian
    health care as a crisis that must be addressed on an urgent
    basis, and it requires money. I know you cannot throw money at
    things, but it requires more resources than we have been
    willing to devote, more resources than the President has been
    willing to request, and we just must do better, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you, Senator.

                 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL H. TRUJILLO

        Dr. Trujillo.
        Dr. Trujillo. Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. Your entire written statement, of course,
    will be put into the record.
        Dr. Trujillo. Yes. Good morning. Thank you very much for
    your opening comments, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for your comments, Senator Dorgan.
        I certainly concur with your assessments and your views,
    especially of the Aberdeen area, where I also used to live.
    Unfortunately, your description is sometimes the case with
    regard to housing. Economic opportunities and education play a
    major role in communities, individuals, and families.
        This morning, I am accompanied by three of my staff
    members. On your far left is Mr. Gary Hartz, who is in charge
    of environmental, sanitation, and also our health care
    programs; Mr. Mike Lincoln, who is the deputy director of our
    agency; and Dr. Kermit Smith, who is our chief medical officer
    for the agency. All of us have had field time, have come up
    through the ranks, and know the field, hospitals, tribal, and
    urban programs well.

                                 ORAL STATEMENT

        We have submitted a written statement for the record, which
    you have, and to summarize our budget, as you had stated
    earlier, we have proposed a $229 million increase, which is
    approximately a 9.25 percent increase over the fiscal year
    appropriations of last year. Our budget authority is about $2.6
    billion.
        To put it in perspective, the Department of Health and
    Human Services budget authority is $421.4 billion. Its
    discretionary portion of that budget for the Department is
    $48.5 billion. That discretionary budget is about 10.8 percent.
        The Agency, the Indian Health Service, represents 0.6
    percent of the Department's overall budget authority, and 5.3
    percent of its discretionary budget, so we are a small portion
    of the entire Department of Health and Human Services budget.
        In our proposed budget, we also estimate collections from
    Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance----
        Senator Gorton. I would like to interrupt----
        Dr. Trujillo. Yes.
        Senator Gorton [continuing]. With a question right now. You
    are sort of an odd part of our appropriations bill here for the
    Department of the Interior, and we have a quote here that you
    are competing against the moose and the deer, parks, and all
    kinds of items that are very, very different.
        Do you, just as a personal opinion, think you might be
    better off with the Department of Health and Human Services
    budget, where you would be treated along with other health care
    activities in the United States? Would that be an advantage to
    you, or are you better off here with us?
        Dr. Trujillo. Well, sometimes it is advantageous that we
    know the moose and the deer well. We live with them on our
    reservations.
        There are pros and cons, of course, for remaining within
    the Interior side of the House or going with Labor, Health and
    Human Services and Education. In Labor, Health and Human
    Services and Education, we would certainly be with other health
    care and social programs within the Department; however, we
    also would be competing against perhaps an elephant and a
    rhinoceros when we are competing against NIH and CDC. They are,
    respectfully, large animals within the Department.
        They do assist Indian programs nationwide, and we are
    making inroads to assure that some of their funds will also go
    to American Indian and Alaska Native programs.
        But we also need to look at the committee members. Many of
    you who sit on the Interior Subcommittee are very familiar with
    Indian programs and Indian affairs. Whether that is true on the
    Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee, I
    am not sure. I think some of you also sit on that subcommittee,
    too. But there are pros and cons.
        From my personal position, I feel quite comfortable with
    the relationships we have established over the years with both
    the House and the Senate subcommittees of the Interior. You
    know the budget well. You know us. You know the country. Tribes
    and urban groups also know you, and are respectful of that
    relationship. One thing that we can always build upon, is the
    positive aspect of our existing relationship.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Dorgan and I are flattered by that
    comment. Please go ahead with your statement.

                      HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

        Dr. Trujillo. I would like to highlight a few items in our
    proposed budget. In our clinical and preventive environmental
    programs, we are proposing a 7 percent increase, which is about
    $160 million.
        Our contract health services proposal, which pays for
    services that we obtain outside the Indian health program or
    tribal programs, is for a $41 million increase. Also, new
    staffing for some of our facilities is $12 million that will go
    primarily towards the Hopi health care program in Arizona and
    Talihina in Oklahoma.
        We have a category called health disparities, in which we
    have categorized a number of health diseases that we
    unfortunately have to contend with, such as cardiac, diabetes,
    cancer, and other diseases. We have made a proposal for a $35
    million increase in that particular large group of disease
    categories.
        The fund we utilize to help bring up health care programs
    which have not achieved all their services in the highest level
    is called a health equity or an Indian Health Care Improvement
    Fund. We proposed an $8 million increase in that particular
    category.
        We have to assess the salaries we pay our employees and
    employees in our tribal programs, because of inflation as well
    as the pay raises that come in the Federal programs. We attempt
    to keep salary parity with the other sectors of health care.
        We are also trying to assure that we have appropriate data
    systems, patient management information systems, and
    epidemiology data programs within our services, and we are
    proposing a $64 million increase. We also have authorization to
    fund and work with urban Indian health program centers, and in
    that category we are proposing a $3 million increase.
        In sanitation and health care facilities construction, we
    are proposing a $20 million increase, for a total of $162
    million. Most of that increase will be going toward several
    facilities: Fort Defiance, Winnebago, and Parker, Arizona.
    Hopefully there will be some grants to tribes to begin some
    small out-patient ambulatory care facilities.
        We also will be looking at some modular dental clinics,
    which we really need in the field, in Indian country, since our
    dental program is in great need of better facilities. This also
    includes some construction of sanitation systems.
        As Senator Dorgan pointed out, our health care facilities
    sometimes do not meet appropriate modern-day standards. In
    fact, the average age of Indian Health Service facilities
    across the Nation is 32 years old.
        Last, to help support those tribes who are taking over,
    managing, and administering their own health care programs
    through the self-determination effort, we are requesting an
    increase in our contract support cost funding. This fund is
    subject to appropriated and available funds within the budget
    and within the Congress for appropriation.
        We are proposing a $40 million increase in contract support
    cost funding to assist tribes who are taking over and managing
    their own health care programs.
        We have developed a new contract support costs policy with
    tribes this past fiscal year, which was published in January of
    this year. Now, all tribes will be able to benefit from this
    increase in contract support costs when they take over their
    health care programs under the Self-Determination Act.

               PER-CAPITA FUNDING, POPULATION GROWTH, FIXED COSTS

        Unfortunately, despite the increases that we see across-
    the-board and those that you and I mentioned, our per-capita
    funding for American Indians and Alaska Natives across the
    Nation remains relatively low compared to other populations.
        In 1994 dollars, the per-capita was $1,093, and in today's
    dollars it is $1,254. That is quite a difference from what the
    average American throughout the Nation receives for health care
    costs and expenditures.
        Also, in spite of the increase in our budget and our
    present proposed budget, there is still a necessity for having
    some funding for population growth. We have a rapidly growing
    population, as well as new tribes coming into our system. In
    that category, we had originally proposed a $44.5 million
    budget for Population Growth.
        Inflation has really made substantial inroads in our
    programs, and the programs of tribes and urban Indians. Senator
    Dorgan mentioned the problem with pharmaceutical costs. In some
    cases, some of our pharmacy supplies have increased 25 percent
    over the past year-and-half, because of inflation and the
    increase costs for drugs necessary to treat very complex
    diseases that chronic patients have. We estimate, to come back
    to parity, would require approximately $64.5 million.
        Over the past several years, because of population growth,
    inflation, and pay costs that were not fully funded, we have
    had to absorb within the agency, tribes, and urban programs
    close to three-quarters of $1 billion. Funds to maintain the
    existing programs had to come from somewhere, and they came
    primarily out of health services, since we did not get those
    funding increases.
        This year we are faced, of course, with the rescissions of
    fiscal years 2000 and 2001, which impact upon all our programs
    across our budgetary scene.

                    PARTNERSHIP WITH TRIBES AND URBAN GROUPS

        The budget, for your information, has been developed in
    partnership with tribal and urban programs. In fact, we have
    done that for the past 3 years. The budget that you see before
    you is based on many of the health priorities that were
    developed by the tribes and urban programs. Those priorities
    are alcohol and substance abuse, diabetes, and end-stage renal
    disease and its complications.
        There are also priorities in cancer, mental health, elder
    care, heart disease, injuries, and dental health. All those
    were considered in laying out the budgetary priorities, on
    where to concentrate to maintain services, and where to
    increase services in some areas.
        I personally have made numerous trips to the field. In
    fact, I spend about a third of my time in the field. Recently,
    I returned from visiting tribes in Louisiana and Mississippi,
    and I just returned this past Sunday night from a trip to the
    Northwest.
        In each of my trips, I continue to see pride from the
    staff, their creativity, and advances and what they are doing
    to deliver quality care and improve access to their population,
    despite the lack of resources, which has not come through time
    and time again.
        As you said earlier, unfortunately, we still face major
    problems in morbidity and mortality. We also face the
    remoteness at many of our sites and a lack of access to health
    services. The difficulty of just providing basic services on
    limited resources can sometimes severely impact individual
    patient care and families who come for services.
        As Senator Dorgan and you mentioned, I also see in my
    travels, the impact of poverty, the lack of employment and
    educational opportunities, poor housing, the lack of roads and
    transportation services, especially in the Aberdeen, Navajo,
    and Alaska areas. In addition, I also see individuals who do
    not see a productive life in their future.
        Finally, many times American Indians and Alaska Natives
    across the Nation unfortunately face discrimination and the
    negative effects of racism.
        What do our young American Indians and Alaska Natives see
    in the future? What is in the future for them and their
    children, and their children's children?
        Mr. Chairman, I am extremely respectful of the budgetary
    process and what has gone on prior to sitting here before this
    committee today, and the negotiations that will occur in the
    near future; however, I still am accountable as a health
    professional. I have spent most of my career in the field and I
    have seen the effects of a lack of resources.
        Earlier this year, the leaderships of tribal and urban
    programs presented a budget to the Secretary, as well as the
    Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget, Mr. John
    Callahan. In their budget, to bring parity to our American
    Indians and Alaska Natives health care programs across the
    Nation, it would take approximately $15.1 billion today. Today,
    we are proposing a budget of $2.6 billion. There is a slight
    gap between the two figures.
        I think, we and the Department and tribes have to fill the
    significant gap that will still exist, despite the increases
    that we may see from the budgetary process.
        We are trying to minimize the negative effects of the gap
    on Indian Health Service, tribal and urban programs by reaching
    out to foundations, universities, and other organizations to
    see how they may assist us in our efforts, and leveraging the
    relationship and funding from other Federal agencies, so that
    they also see the necessity and the responsibility to provide
    funding in programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives
    across the Nation.
        We are also working in any way we can with States and State
    Governors to make sure that we are all working in concert to
    provide American Indians and Alaska Natives appropriate
    resources and access to care that they are rightfully entitled
    to and to strengthen, collaboratively, the infrastructure of
    Indian communities so that they have a better economic base and
    better educational and social service systems, that they have
    better housing and judicial systems, and that we work towards
    continuity, consistency, and efficiency of their programs.
        I look forward to working with you and your staff this
    year, and in the next several months, to see what we all can do
    to bring immediate resources to American Indian and Alaska
    Native health care programs.
        I think we all need to correct the great disparities that
    exist in Indian country, as compared to the rest of the Nation.
    In this new millennium and in this new century we must work
    together to do things better than we have in the last century,
    and certainly the one previous to that.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The Congress, the administration, and American Indian and
    Alaska Native tribes must work together in a meaningful manner
    so that Indian youth and all Indian people may look forward to
    a more fruitful and productive life, instead of poor economic
    conditions, poor education, the lack of other opportunities,
    and to see that they can also be healthy, productive citizens,
    not only for their communities in their Indian Nations, but to
    their States and to the Nation as a whole.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael H. Trujillo

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Good morning. I am Dr.
    Michael H. Trujillo, Director of the Indian Health Service (IHS).
    Today, I am accompanied by Michel E. Lincoln, Deputy Director, Dr.
    Kermit C. Smith, Chief Medical Officer, Gary J. Hartz, Acting Director
    of Office of Public Health, and Dr. W. Craig Vanderwagen, Director,
    Division of Clinical and Preventive Services, Office of Public Health.
    We are also accompanied by Dennis P. Williams, Assistant Secretary for
    Budget, Department of Health and Human Services. We are pleased to have
    this opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2001 President's budget
    request for the Indian Health Service.
        As you know, the IHS has the responsibility for the delivery of
    health services to Federally-recognized American Indians and Alaska
    Natives (AI/AN's) through a system of IHS, tribal, and urban (I/T/U)
    operated facilities and programs based on treaties, judicial
    determinations, and Acts of Congress. The mission of the agency is to
    raise the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health of American
    Indians and Alaska Natives to the highest level, in partnership with
    the population served. The agency goal is to assure that comprehensive,
    culturally acceptable personal and public health services are available
    and accessible to the service population. The mission and goal are
    addressed through four agency strategic objectives, which are to (1)
    improve health status; (2) provide health services; (3) assure
    partnerships and consultation with IHS, Tribal, and Urban programs; and
    (4) perform core functions and advocacy.
        For the third year now, development of the IHS budget request
    originated at the health services delivery level. As full partners with
    the IHS in delivering needed health care to AI/AN's, Tribal and Urban
    programs participate at all levels of formulating the budget request
    and annual performance plan. The combined expertise of the IHS, Tribal,
    and Urban Program health providers, administrators, technicians, and
    elected officials, as well as the public health professionals at the
    Area and Headquarters offices, has resulted in a powerful statement of
    the health care funding needs for AI/AN people. The mission to address
    the disparities in health in the AI/AN population is tremendous and
    overwhelming at times. Comparing the 1994-1996 Indian (IHS Service
    Area) age-adjusted death rates with the U.S. All Races population in
    1995, the death rates in the AI/AN population is 7 times greater for
    alcoholism, 6 times greater for tuberculosis, 3.5 times greater for
    diabetes, and 3 times greater for unintentional injuries.
        The fiscal year 2001 President's budget request and performance
    plan represents a significant investment reducing the health
    disparities that prevail in the American Indian and Alaska Native
    population. It is consistent with the President's fiscal year 2001
    Native American Budget Initiative, the Agency's mission, the
    Department's strategic plan, and the Department of Health and Human
    Services' (DHHS) Initiative to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparities
    in Health.
        The President proposes a total net increase of $230 million to the
    IHS budget in fiscal year 2001 above the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation. This request provides an additional $178 million for
    current service items including contract support costs, pay related
    increases and health care facilities construction. There are $104
    million in program increases for services and facilities. In addition,
    this request includes a $52 million decrease in non-recurring funds for
    health care facilities construction and a reduction in funding for
    medical equipment associated with non-recurring Y2K funding. These
    significant investments will continue to improve the IHS, Tribal, and
    Urban programs' capacity and infrastructure to provide access to high
    quality primary and secondary medical services, and basic preventive
    services, and begin to slow down recent declines in certain health
    status indicators.
        From a policy perspective, this budget request is perhaps the most
    strongly supported proposal in the Agency's history; it is based on
    both new and longstanding Federal policy and commitment for improving
    health status by assuring the availability of basic health care
    services for members of Federally recognized Indian tribes. The request
    supports the following four policy initiatives:
      --President's fiscal year 2001 Native American Budget Initiative,
            which represents the largest Native American Budget Initiative
            ever. In order to better serve Native American communities and
            to honor the Federal government's trust responsibility to
            tribes, the President's budget includes a total of $9.4 billion
            for key new and existing programs that assist Native Americans
            and Indian reservations. This total is an increase of $1.2
            billion over fiscal year 2000--the largest increase ever. This
            initiative brings together several agencies in order to address
            the needs of Native American communities comprehensively,
            including $2.6 billion for the Indian Health Service.
      --President's Race Initiative, specifically the HHS Initiative to
            Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health,
      --Proposed Healthy People 2010 and its goal of achieving equivalent
            and improved health status for all Americans over the next
            decade,
      --DHHS Strategic Plan with goals to reduce major threats to health
            and productivity of all Americans; improve the economic and
            social well-being of individuals and families, and communities
            in the United States; improve access to health services and
            ensure the integrity of the Nation's health entitlement and
            safety net program; improve the quality of health care and
            human services; and improve public health systems.
        In addition, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act also reflects
    the reaffirmation of the U.S. government's commitment to Indian tribes
    to improve the health of their people. The Act states:

        ``The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of this
    Nation, in fulfillment of its special responsibilities and legal
    obligations to the American Indian people to assure the highest
    possible health status for Indians and urban Indians and to provide all
    the resources necessary to affect that policy.''

        Furthermore, the President of the United States reaffirmed the
    significance of the ``government to government'' relationship between
    tribes and the Federal government in his Executive memorandum of April
    1994, concerning consultation with American Indian and Alaska Native
    tribal leadership.
        The primary policy basis for this budget request is eliminating
    health disparities between the AI/AN population and the general U.S.
    population. The request supports this intent by continuing to invest in
    access to the basic health services, including assuring that there are
    adequate facilities and medical equipment for the provision of health
    services, providing adequate support services to the tribal health
    delivery system, and holding the line against further loss of health
    status improvements or actual declines in health status.
        A major priority in the budget proposal is to restore access to
    basic health services. The IHS has demonstrated the ability to
    effectively utilize available resources to provide effective services
    and improve the health status of AI/AN people. However, this record of
    achievement has eroded in recent years in the face of competing
    priorities, including an increase in patient demand to provide more
    acute and urgent care treatment. Thus, to redress the declining access
    to essential individual and community health services, the Area IHS,
    Tribal, and Urban programs identified funding of personnel-related
    costs and increases associated with on-going services as their first
    priority for budget increases for fiscal year 2001. In an effort to
    maintain the current level of services, the budget request includes
    $60.675 million for pay cost increases which meets 100 percent of the
    projected costs; $11.720 million to fund the staffing and operating
    costs of those facilities that will open in fiscal year 2001 or have
    recently opened; a total of $65.237 million to fund the design and
    construction of replacement health care facilities including $2.513
    million for the Small Ambulatory Grant Program; and $40 million for
    Contract Support Costs.
        The replacement of existing clinics and hospitals is an essential
    component of supporting access to services and improving health status.
    In the long run this assures that there are functional facilities and
    medical equipment for the effective and efficient provision of health
    services. The average age of IHS facilities is 32 years. The budget
    request includes a total of $65.237 million for replacement of existing
    health care facilities. This amount will fully-fund the third and final
    phase of construction of the hospital at Fort Defiance, Arizona; the
    design of the Fort Defiance, AZ staff quarters; the second phase
    construction of the hospital at Winnebago, Nebraska in fiscal year 2001
    with final funding to complete construction in fiscal year 2002 through
    advance appropriations; the final phase of the construction of a health
    center at Parker, Arizona; the design of a health center at Pawnee,
    Oklahoma; and 3 modular dental units.
        Also critical is the provision of adequate contract supports costs
    necessary to support the health services provided by tribal health
    programs. These requested funds are necessary for tribal communities to
    assure that there are utilities, training, clerical staff,
    administrative and financial services needed to operate health
    programs. Without this contract support funding, these support services
    are either not available or must be funded from resources that would
    otherwise fund health service activities. This investment is consistent
    with the Administration's commitment to expand tribal participation in
    the management of Federally funded programs, and reinforces the
    principles of the Indian Self-Determination Act.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget includes an increase of $40 million
    over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level for contract support costs
    (CSC). This amounts to a 17.5 percent increase over the fiscal year
    2000 level. The increase is necessary to provide CSC funding for new
    and expanded tribal programs to be contracted in fiscal year 2001. The
    $40 million increase will first be used to provide CSC for new
    assumptions of IHS programs under self-determination agreements. No new
    contracts will be funded at a higher funding level than the minimum
    percentage funded for existing contracts in fiscal year 2001. To the
    extent the $40 million is not needed for new assumptions, it will be
    used to increase contract support cost funding for existing contracts.
        In fiscal year 2000, the IHS, in conjunction with the National
    Congress of American Indians and the Contract Support Cost Workgroup,
    consulted with Tribal leaders on solutions to the critical issues
    surrounding CSC funding. This effort involved in excess of 10 meetings
    with Tribal leaders and resulted in development of joint Federal/tribal
    recommendations that were incorporated into a new IHS policy on
    contract support costs. I formally adopted the new policy in January
    and will be implemented fiscal year 2000.
        The requests that I have just described provide a continued
    investment required to maintain and support the IHS, Tribal, and Urban
    Indian public health system to provide access to high quality medical
    and preventive services as a means of improving health status. The
    following proposals are intended to restore access to basic health
    services.
        The request includes $85.589 million to address health disparities
    by targeting the specific disease entities identified as priority areas
    by the IHS, Tribal, and Urban programs and responsible for much of the
    disparity in health status for the AI/AN population. Alcohol &
    substance abuse, diabetes, cancer, mental health, elder health, heart
    disease, injuries, dental health, maternal & child health, domestic/
    community violence, infectious diseases, and emergency medical services
    are the specific health problems addressed with the funding proposed
    for health disparities. Proposed increases of $40.9 million for
    Contract Health Services, $3.961 million for Sanitation Facilities
    Construction, $2.027 million for Public Health Nurses, $3.339 million
    for Community Health Representatives, and $2.974 million for the Urban
    health program are also included in the health disparities funding
    request.
        Public health infrastructure is fundamental to these proposals.
    $18.974 million is requested for information/telecommunication systems-
    tribal epidemiology centers, the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund,
    Maintenance & Improvement, and Facilities & Environmental Health
    Support as part of the overall program increases proposed by this
    budget. This request also includes a $2.1 million reduction in funding
    for medical equipment associated with non-recurring Y2K funding.
        The proposed approach to addressing the health disparities
    supported by this budget request strongly promotes the integration of
    clinical expertise from medical, behavioral health, and community
    health staff in order to address the top I/T/U health problems. The
    community-based public health model is strengthened by emphasizing
    prevention strategies throughout the clinical services activities as
    well as by expanding the community health programs and supporting
    partnerships with community resources such as public safety programs,
    schools, and other community-based organizations.
        The disparity in health status that the I/T/U's must address is
    formidable, particularly in terms of death rates. Comparing the 1994-
    1996 Indian age-adjusted death rates with the U.S. all races population
    in 1995 reveals greater death rates, as much as 7 times greater, in the
    AI/AN population for alcoholism, tuberculosis, diabetes, unintentional
    injuries, suicide, pneumonia and influenza, homicide, gastrointestinal
    disease, infant mortality, and heart disease. Even more alarming, the
    most recent data documents that the mortality disparities for AI/AN
    people are actually worsening.
        Given these formidable challenges, the IHS and its partners are
    pleased to present this budget request for fiscal year 2001 as one that
    will improve access to basic health services and address the multiple
    health issues affecting AI/AN people. The request and associated
    performance plan represent a cost-effective public health approach to
    assure improvements in the health of AI/AN people. The request reflects
    the continued Federal commitment to enhance the IHS, Tribal, and Urban
    public health system so that it can again continue to make significant
    improvements in the health status of American Indian and Alaska Native
    people.
        Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2001
    President's budget request for the IHS. We are pleased to answer any
    questions that you may have.

        Senator Gorton. Thank you for an eloquent statement, Dr.
    Trujillo.
        This is one of those typical days in the session. We are
    going to have a vote in just a very few minutes, and I have to
    leave for that. Senator Dorgan had to go to another meeting,
    and has left some questions that we will submit to you in
    writing. Senator Campbell has also asked for the same
    privilege, and I will have some as well----
        Dr. Trujillo. Yes.

                             CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        Senator Gorton [continuing]. But there are a few that I
    would like to submit to you right now before we leave, and just
    get your thoughts on them.
        One has to do with the distribution of contract support
    dollars. We asked you in the current year's appropriations bill
    to continue to work with the tribes to come up with a fair
    distribution system, and you have issued new guidelines on
    that. Your response has been very, very prompt.
        Tell me a little bit about, within the constraints of our
    time, how you arrived at it, whether or not it is an ongoing
    process, and did you get both OMB and the Department of Health
    and Human Services to support you?
        Dr. Trujillo. Ever since last year's congressional
    language, we worked diligently with tribes on the contract
    support cost issue. We met with individual tribes and tribal
    organizations throughout the year, both in individual forums
    and in large national meetings.
        We also had a joint task force, a group of primarily tribal
    leadership and those who are very knowledgeable about the
    contract support cost issues, and we worked specifically with
    them and came up with proposed drafts of the new policy. The
    draft policy was then discussed in various forums and meetings
    with tribal leadership across the Nation.
        This took us approximately 9 to 10 months to do. I signed
    off in January on a new policy that both the tribes and the
    Indian Health Service agreed upon through compromise and
    working in all the aspects that we could. Now, tribes who are
    in the contracting and compacting process can receive
    distribution of the contract support cost dollars, and no tribe
    is above 100 percent. Each tribe can share in some of the
    distribution. At the present time, if they do not receive
    contract support costs or the full amount of their contract
    support costs, their health program dollars go toward the
    administrative and non-covered costs.
        We certainly understand that that funding is limited to
    appropriated funds, and that it is allocated on a year-to-year
    basis. However, as we go forward in our operations,
    approximately 41 percent of the Indian Health Service total
    budget is now managed and administered directly by tribes----
        Senator Gorton. And that percentage is increasing----
        Dr. Trujillo [continuing]. And that percentage is
    increasing. The increase is not specifically because of the
    changing rates or anything, but it is because of the increasing
    number of tribes who wish to take advantage of the self-
    determination process.
        Senator Gorton. How many tribes have gone into new
    contracts?
        Dr. Trujillo. Over half of the 558 tribes have now entered
    into the self-determination process through contracting and
    compacting. Of course, it is the tribe's decision as to what
    they wish to do, whether to contract or remain within the
    Federal system.
        Senator Gorton. Are you going to work yourself out of a
    job?
        Dr. Trujillo. I believe we have come to consensus that we
    all need to work together in self-determination.
        The necessity of having a Federal representative in
    Washington and an agency to assist with advocacy of the budget,
    making sure that the process of self-determination is adhered
    to, and to have people at the table is critically important in
    the Federal program and within the Administration. If we are
    not there, we can be lost and be forgotten.
        Mr. Lincoln, would you like to add anything on the contract
    support costs policy?
        Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Chairman, I think it is critical to know
    that over this past year we had 10 Contract Support Cost
    meetings with various tribal groups. And as a result of those
    meetings, the National Congress for American Indians, who also
    had a contract support cost policy group, has endorsed the
    policy that Dr. Trujillo signed in January. We believe that it
    is a sound policy.
        Certainly, our general counsel, as we have had a number of
    lawyers work the words from every side one can think of, we
    find it is a policy that can be defended. As we allocate the
    fiscal year 2000 increase of $25 million, we will obviously
    gain more experience relative to the impact of the policy.
        Senator Gorton. Has the OMB signed off on it?
        Dr. Trujillo. Mr. Chairman, the OMB has expressed some
    concerns about the policy, but the policy is in effect at this
    moment.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you. I must say, I think your
    progress on this is exemplary. I get very few groups that sit
    before me when we have given them instructions 4 or 5 months
    ago and can tell me about any results. You have done very well
    on it.
        Dr. Trujillo. Well, thank you. It has also come with a
    great deal of effort from the tribes and those representatives
    who were part of the work group.

                              IMPACT OF RESCISSION

        Senator Gorton. You mentioned in passing the impact of the
    rescissions. Give me a little more detail on that. Has there
    been a real impact on operations from those rescissions? Did
    you just have the straight 0.38 percent, three-eighths of 1
    percent?
        Dr. Trujillo. We made a proposal and worked with the
    Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget
    in regard to the need in Indian country. They were receptive,
    in that we did not receive the full 0.38 percent, but rather a
    0.28 percent----
        Senator Gorton. 0.28 percent.
        Dr. Trujillo. Yes, 0.28 percent--versus other agencies
    within the Department. So we were looked upon a little bit more
    favorably in that respect.
        However, the effect of the rescission also was towards
    congressional earmarks and some specific increases; and some of
    those congressional earmarks are of necessity, and some
    facilities, sanitation and engineering projects were
    eliminated, as well as decreases in some of our clinical
    programs.
        Mr. Lincoln, would you like to mention a little bit more on
    that?
        Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Chairman, the amount of the rescission was
    $6.9 million. That equaled a 0.28 percent rescission. The
    instructions that were given from the White House and from the
    Office of Management and Budget caused some restrictions in how
    we would actually take those rescissions.
        So we do have information on a line-by-line item, on a
    subcategory item that we can make available to the committee,
    if you would like to see those.
        Senator Gorton. Well, we had dual concerns. We thought that
    the appropriation we made was important for you. We had to
    balance the budget, and cannot work with the President on that.
        I am really interested not so much in the accounting, as to
    whether or not there was any genuine suffering from the point
    of the view of the health services that you are providing.
        Dr. Trujillo. There are two persons who I would like to
    call on, Mr. Gary Hartz, who could mention a couple areas in
    facilities and engineering, and Dr. Smith, on some of the
    clinical effects that happened through the rescission.
        Mr. Hartz. The facilities got hit for about $1.6 million.
    In some of the projects that are set up for phased funding, our
    intent would be to catch up the differential in subsequent
    years to finish the phased funding for facilities. There were
    some places where the 8 percent was targeted at projects where
    funding in fiscal year 2000 was expected to be the end of the
    funding cycle.
        An example that quickly comes to mind would be the support
    for the Hopi quarters project, where the tribe was financing
    their construction costs. The Congress came to their support by
    helping them offset part of their loan, which then got hit by
    an 8 percent reduction.
        Dr. Smith. As far as the health services program is
    concerned, any decrease, of course, is always significant, in
    my mind, because of the current funding. We are particularly
    concerned about the Community Health Representatives program.
        This is the program for primary health care providers in
    each of our communities. As you are probably aware, over the
    years this program has been on the firing line, and yet I
    consider it very instrumental in the entire health care team
    that we have in our service areas.
        One of the other areas is diabetes, specifically the Joslin
    Clinic with whom we have established a relationship, took a
    minor cut. However, we had allotted money last year to start a
    program, so since we are just in the process of developing it,
    we will make some modifications in that program.
        Senator Gorton. Well, I have a parochial part of the
    question. There was a modest $23,000 reduction, an amount
    dedicated to the Shoalwater, in Washington State, for infant
    mortality research.
        Does that affect the study, or do you feel that you could
    do the study with a little bit less money?
        Dr. Trujillo. We thought that we can do the study with this
    amount of funding. The study was getting under way. We are
    still developing plans with the Shoalwater Tribe to address
    this, so we feel that we will be able to continue investigating
    this tragedy on the Shoalwater Reservation.

                        ELEVATION TO ASSISTANT SECRETARY

        Senator Gorton. One more thing, Dr. Trujillo, your own
    personal status as to whether or not the House ever gets
    through with making your position that of Assistant Secretary
    for Indian Health: Would that create a substantive improvement
    in your relationships with the Department and the
    administration in general, particularly on the budget?
        Dr. Trujillo. Mr. Chairman, I do believe it will. The
    administration, from the President to the Secretary, is
    supportive of this particular elevation of the Agency to the
    Assistant Secretary level.
        The ability to be at the table, as I mentioned earlier, is
    critically important. Especially when there are budgetary and
    priority issues to be set within the Department or in other
    Federal agencies, where only Assistant Secretaries are able to
    attend.
        I remember one time when I first arrived in Washington,
    there was a meeting of the tribal leadership with President
    Clinton at the White House. Assistant Secretaries were able to
    enter into the White House.
        The Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    was able to enter onto the lawn of the White House and be a
    part of the meeting. But I was relegated to the theater to
    watch the program on TV. Unfortunately, I did not see all the
    proceedings because the TV died.
        So there are sometimes critical meetings that,
    unfortunately, I cannot attend. In this political atmosphere
    and in Washington, the title does make a difference. I believe
    the Assistant Secretary position will be a benefit nationwide
    to American Indians and Alaska Natives to give them a voice in
    very critical and important budgetary and priority decision
    meetings of the administration.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        I have other questions. I will submit them in writing.
        We now have the chairman of the full committee, who has a
    great deal to say. I do not know how much time is available,
    but at least a few more minutes longer. I defer to Senator
    Stevens.
        Senator Stevens. I am not sure that I can fulfill that
    obligation in the time we have available with the time we have
    left. Is the vote on now?
        Senator Gorton. Well, I guess the vote has started.
        Senator Stevens. I do welcome you here, Dr. Trujillo.
        Senator Gorton. I will let Senator Stevens complete the
    hearing.
        Thank you very much, Dr. Trujillo. I appreciate your help.
        Dr. Trujillo. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens [presiding]. I do have some concerns that I
    would like to express about the budget. The President's budget
    does call for a substantial increase, $229 million, in the
    Health Service.
        Of this amount, only $2.8 million as requested for alcohol
    and substance abuse, which I consider still to be the worst
    scourge that has hit our Native and Indian people, and I am
    painfully aware of the extent of that in my State.
        I am sure you know we have the dubious honor of having the
    highest per capita rate of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal
    alcohol effect in the Nation. We have the highest rates of
    suicide for young native men now in the country, at seven times
    the national average. More than 70 percent, I am told, of those
    suicides are related to alcohol and perhaps the percentage may
    be even higher.
        I think we are at risk now of losing a whole generation of
    young Native leaders because of alcohol, and we have really not
    been able to get together on this. I have been talking to the
    attorney general's people about this for some time.
        When I was out in the West Coast last year, one of the
    leaders of a small village told me that when he leaves my town,
    as he called it, of Anchorage, he has to go through a metal
    detector, subject to being searched, to see whether he is a
    danger to other people on the aircraft.
        He said, ``We cannot search your people when they come into
    my town to find out if they are carrying drugs or alcohol.''
        The Constitution prevents unreasonable search and seizures.
    This morning on the television it was indicated that some
    people think if there is a suspicion that someone has a gun,
    that is enough to have the right to search that individual.
    They are asserting that, I believe, in one of the Supreme Court
    cases today.
        When we look at it, I think that the incidence of drugs
    that come from Colombia all the way out in the little villages
    in the West Coast of Alaska makes us suspect that people from
    outside of the village are bringing it in. We have to find some
    way to search for drugs and alcohol, and really clamp down on
    this.
        Our State gave those villages the right to vote to go dry.
    Thus, we have one State where you can actually, by local
    option, prohibit the possession of alcohol, but there is no
    authority to search the boxes, and the freight, and the
    suitcases that come into these dry villages, and that is from
    where it is coming. The Postal Service has cooperated on it,
    absolutely, but we have not been able to find the answer.
        I do hope that there will be some further appreciation of
    the real importance of alcohol and drug abuse as we look at
    your budget. I hope you will not be surprised if we reallocate
    some of that money to make certain that there is an emphasis in
    that area that should be there.
        I am also concerned over the President's budget request
    that the funding for new school construction under BIA be more
    than doubled to over $300 million, while at the same time he
    requests only a $14.8 million increase in Indian Health Service
    funding for hospital and health facility construction.
        I understand the need for more schools, but the backlog
    that you have in the IHS for hospitals and clinics is so severe
    now that I do not think we will have the ability to catch up if
    we do not do something about it now, and start. I hope also
    that the subcommittee will agree with me that we have to pay
    some attention to that.
        In my State, we took over the BIA schools, as you know----
        Dr. Trujillo. Yes.
        Senator Stevens [continuing]. And the allocation of so much
    money to BIA schools misses the fact that the State of Alaska
    took over the Alaska BIA schools, and left the health
    responsibilities to the Federal Government. We were assured at
    the time that funding for Native health would be maintained,
    and it has not been.
        So I hope to have the subcommittee's understanding for more
    equitable distribution of requested construction increases to
    help Alaska, which now has more tribes in it than the whole
    country put together, as a result of the decision by Ada Deer
    at BIA, to classify Alaska Native villages as tribes.
        There is a rising level of expectation among my Native
    people because of that action that is not met by this budget.
    As a matter of fact, the budget is a severe blow to those
    people who thought that they were going to have more
    recognition and funding when they were classified as tribes.
        I do think that there are also some problems about the IHS
    cost estimates and the backlog of construction. I do not want
    to get the GAO involved in this yet, but it does seem to me
    that IHS cost-to-construct estimates in Alaska are much higher
    than they need to be.
        We have another problem: because of the designation of all
    of our villages as tribes, there is now a growing feeling that
    each tribe should have its own hospital.
        In the south 48 that is probably pretty close to being
    true, but we have 227 to 247 villages that are now tribes, and
    it is just beyond our financial capability to do that. So we
    have already regionalized the State-wide service with the
    Native Medical Center in Anchorage, and I do believe that we
    have to get down to a point where we coordinate the delivery of
    health services on a regional basis in our State so it will be
    fair.
        I want to work with you on that, but this concept of
    dealing with almost 250 tribes in one State just will not work,
    as far as this budget is concerned.
        Dr. Trujillo. Yes.
        Senator Stevens. You cannot do it, and we cannot do it, and
    we have to find somebody to make that decision, as unpopular as
    it might be in my State.
        Three years ago I authored a provision that prohibits the
    villages from pulling out of regional health systems. It was
    required in order that there be stability in those regional
    facilities; otherwise, we would have faced the small clinics
    that had no capability in the modern sense, and isolated the
    regional hospitals that had the capability to deliver modern
    health care.
        I do think that there is some flexibility that is required
    in that legislation, and we all are going to be asked to think
    about that. I urge you to use caution on it, and I want the
    Congress to use caution on it.
        I want to thank you in your service for what you are doing
    to work with us. I do not think any area in which you work has
    unique isolation, the weather conditions, the geography, or
    really the isolation for some of your people, that we have in
    Alaska.
        Last, since we are so far behind in construction, I want to
    ask you to take a look at the concept of having a period of
    time in which we would authorize private construction of health
    facilities, and have IHS lease them back.
        I think we could get several hospitals and clinics done in
    a very short period of time if it was possible to use the funds
    of the various regional organizations, and to lease those
    facilities to provide health services that are the
    responsibility of IHS. Instead of waiting for the Federal
    dollars to become available for the construction, we would have
    them go ahead and construct and lease them the way we did post
    offices for several years when we were just so far behind we
    could not replace them.
        It is going to be an interesting year for us in reviewing
    your budget, because I have had a lot of people, and that is a
    long way to come, fly in here just to talk about the problems
    of health care in one or two villages, and there has been a
    whole series of people who have come in from the State to talk
    to me about what to do about this budget. I look forward to
    working with you.
        I promise you that I will not try to surprise you in any
    way, but I will have a lot of questions. I may give you a
    couple for the record, but I do not have them with me here
    today.
        The next committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday,
    March 22nd, at 9:30, when we will hear from the Forest Service.
        Thank you very much.
        Dr. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator Stevens. I appreciate your
    comments very much, and I look forward to working with you and
    your staff. In fact, I hope to get up to Alaska in July and pay
    my annual visit for sure, to go to some of the areas that I
    have not been to yet, and I fully understand the problems
    that----
        Senator Stevens. I look forward to welcoming you, and I
    look forward to you having the classification of Assistant
    Secretary. I served in the administration for about 5 years in
    days gone by, and it makes a lot of difference.
        Dr. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton

                     DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRACT SUPPORT FUNDS

        The distribution of contract support dollars to tribes has been the
    single most debated issue for Congress and the IHS in recent years. In
    the conference report that accompanied the fiscal year 2000
    appropriations bill, IHS was directed to continue its work with the
    tribes in an effort to produce a distribution policy that would correct
    the wide disparities in the funding of existing contracts. In recent
    months, IHS has issued new guidelines for determining how contract
    support funds are to be distributed.
        Question. Please give us a brief overview of the new policy and
    what it will achieve in terms of greater equity among tribes?
        Answer. The current IHS contract support cost policy is titled IHS
    CSC Circular No. 2000-01. Under this policy CSC appropriations are
    divided into three separate pools of funding before it is allocated to
    tribes. Any funds appropriated for CSC associated with new or expanded
    contracts and compacts are placed into ``Pool No. 1.'' These funds are
    then allocated to all eligible awardees with new or expanded programs
    who have submitted a request for CSC prior to July 3rd of the current
    fiscal year. The pre-award and startup costs of all tribes with new or
    expanded programs are paid first, then the remaining funds are
    allocated to those tribes with new or expanded programs based on their
    overall level of CSC need funded. Those tribes with the greatest
    unfunded CSC estimates are funded first, up to the total of the need
    associated with their new or expanded programs, before funding is
    provided to other tribes. The goal is to raise the overall level of CSC
    funded to the highest possible level given the level of CSC funding
    appropriated for new or expanded programs.
        Funding for inflation and other salary-related and operating cost
    increases is placed in ``Pool No. 2.'' When appropriated by Congress.
    These funds are provided as an increase to all tribes with direct CSC
    funding based an inflationary factor. All tribes will receive an
    increase proportionate to their current direct CSC funding.
        Finally, ``Pool No. 3'' is intended to contain any funds
    appropriated by the Congress for existing contractors and compactors,
    for CSC for which tribes are eligible, based on indirect cost rates and
    other negotiated costs, which has not been funded. These funds are
    provided to all tribes on a pro-rata basis. Those tribes with the
    greatest ``CSC shortfalls'' receive proportionately greater increases
    than do those tribes with lesser ``shortfalls.''
        Question. This policy was adopted after lengthy consultation with
    tribes. What criteria did the tribes consider important in drafting a
    new policy? Is there consensus among the tribes in support of the
    revisions that have been made?
        Answer. The single most important factor to tribes was their
    recognition that full CSC funding is authorized by the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act and the IHS policy should
    work toward that as a goal. Tribes who are not yet funded at 100
    percent of their CSC need should not have their funding reduced in
    order to provide that funding to other tribes.
        There was general consensus among tribes that this version of the
    IHS CSC policy reflected a vast improvement over prior policies. While
    there was general consensus that the policy represented a fair and
    equitable approach to allocating CSC in an environment where the
    Congress has failed to appropriate sufficient funds, this was not a
    unanimous consensus. Tribal Governments are as unique as states or
    individuals and total consensus among them is rare.
        Question. Is there are specific process for tribal consultation
    that you can describe to us? Did tribal consultation provide the
    opportunity for all tribes to contribute to the process?
        Answer. The process for tribal consultation on the IHS CSC Policy
    may be somewhat unique to this policy. The IHS maintains a relationship
    with tribal leaders, administrators, and technicians as a part of our
    standing ``CSC Workgroup.'' This workgroup has been in existence for
    over 10 years. The membership on this workgroup is open and voluntary.
    Therefore, it has been somewhat fluid and changing over the years. The
    IHS uses this workgroup as a means of discussion and advice concerning
    CSC issues. Drafts of the current IHS CSC Circular were first developed
    by this workgroup. It, and even a more technical sub-workgroup of this
    group, met some 10 times over the course of a year and a half to
    develop the final draft of the policy.
        The true government to government consultation process commenced at
    this point in that the final draft of the Circular was mailed to all
    elected tribal leaders and tribal health directors and IHS Area offices
    for comment and recommendations. The IHS also presented the draft
    Circular at regional and national meetings looking for tribal input.
    All tribes were given an opportunity for input. The comment period was
    even extended in order to provide additional time for tribes to
    comment. At the close of the extended comment period, the IHS CSC
    Workgroup convened again to recommend adoption or rejection of specific
    comments received. Subsequent to that meeting, a revised draft of the
    Circular was presented to the Director, IHS for signature.
        Question. Does the Department of Health and Human Services support
    the new policy?
        Answer. The Department expressed support for the implementation of
    the new policy in a letter, dated August 1, 2000, to Congressman
    Regula, Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.

                  MORATORIUM LIFTED ON NEW CONTRACTS/COMPACTS

        Following a court ruling this past summer, which held that contract
    support funds are subject to appropriation, the two-year moratorium on
    entering into new contracts was dropped for fiscal year 2000. In
    addition, $12.5 million was included in a fund designated specifically
    to support the costs associated with new and expanded contracts and
    compacts.
        Question. To date, how many tribes have sought to enter into new
    contracts and compacts in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. The Indian Health Service has received 50 requests from 39
    separate tribes or tribal organizations for new contracts and compacts
    in fiscal year 2000 and is now processing these requests for the
    purpose of funding contract support costs. Some tribes have multiple
    requests encompassing different programs or activities for which they
    have contracted.
        Question. What portion of the funds associated with new contracts
    do you expect to use in this fiscal year?
        Answer. It is projected that the full $12.5 million will be used to
    fund the 50 new contracted or compacted programs.
        Question. Looking toward the next few years, what can we expect in
    terms of numbers of tribes seeking new contracts and compacts and the
    amount of additional funds that will be required to support them? Do
    you expect a steady expansion of tribally operated programs or do you
    foresee a leveling off of activity?
        Answer. Generally, there should be a leveling off of tribal
    contracting and compacting activities. However, the Navajo Nation's
    plan to contract all of their health activities from IHS can and would
    increase CSC estimates for new contracts dramatically.

                     REQUEST FOR CONTRACT SUPPORT LANGUAGE

        The fiscal year 2001 IHS budget estimate includes a request for
    bill language specifying that the appropriation for contract support is
    available first for new and expanded contracts/compacts, which would
    receive contract support costs at the minimum percentage of need funded
    for existing contracts/compacts in fiscal year 2001. Any remaining
    portion of the total sum appropriated would be used for contract
    support costs of existing contracts/compacts.
        Question. Does this request support the policy that IHS has
    recently implemented? Please explain why this language is necessary.
        Answer. The language was included to ensure that sufficient funding
    was available to accommodate a major increase in new contracting (e.g.,
    a proposal from the Navajo Nation) while leaving funding not needed for
    new contracts available to increase CSC funding for existing contracts.
    One of the difficulties of budgeting for CSC is uncertainty over the
    amount that will be needed to fund new contract proposals. The
    requested language would provide different levels of CSC funding for
    new and existing contracts. By contrast, the new policy funds tribes
    according to their total CSC need from both new and existing contracts.

                          FISCAL YEAR 2000 RESCISSIONS

        As part of the final agreement during last year's budget
    negotiations, a .38 percent across-the-board reduction was included in
    the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill. The amount by which IHS
    activities were reduced was $6.8 million.
        Question. Are there activities that will feel an immediate impact
    from these reductions? Or can these decreases be absorbed with
    relatively little disruption to ongoing activities?
        Answer. In general, disruption of services had a more immediate
    impact in on-going activities and the least impact on new activities.
    There were some programs that felt an immediate impact. The most
    immediate impact was felt in the lease package for the Anchorage
    outpatient facility and in the Epidemiology Center at Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board. New programs, such as the pharmacy
    residency program, were less dramatically impacted since there were no
    ongoing obligations adversely impacted in the way that the two
    activities above were impacted.
        Question. The 3 percent reduction of $1.5 million from the funding
    for community health representatives is the largest that IHS sustained
    for any one line item. This activity had been targeted earlier by the
    Administration for a proposed $5 million reduction in its fiscal year
    2000 budget. Congress restored that proposed reduction following
    numerous protests from tribes who consider these employees a vital link
    in their health care services. What impact, if any, will this
    rescission have on current operations?
        Answer. The rescission of $1,466,000 reduced the increase for the
    CHR program from $1,886,000 to $420,000. Approximately 1,600 CHR
    positions were supported in fiscal year 1999 and we estimate that the
    rescission will reduce this number by about 25.
        Question. Earmarked construction funds for projects such as the
    Hopi Health Care Center were also subject to reduction. This
    subcommittee would hope to restore some of those reductions in the
    coming budget cycle. Nevertheless, that will mean a delay in the
    availability of those funds for approximately one year. What impact, if
    any, will the delay have on these projects?
        Answer. For those construction projects that were reduced and are
    funded in phases, the fiscal year 2001 President's request includes the
    amounts to continue or complete the projects. There would be no
    significant impact expected for these projects if the rescission amount
    was restored after a 1-year delay. The rescissions to the Congressional
    earmarks would result in one less staff quarter constructed at the
    Zuni, NM location and $240,000 less for debt service for the Hopi tribe
    for providing staff quarters.

                               NEEDS-BASED BUDGET

        While the IHS request to Congress for fiscal year 2001 is $2.6
    billion, the needs-based budget assembled in conjunction with tribes at
    the beginning of the budget process totaled $15.1 billion.
        Question. Please describe the process that IHS uses to develop its
    needs-based budget?
        Answer. IHS utilizes area IHS/Tribal/Urban budget teams to develop
    and submit budget recommendations tied to specific area health and
    program priorities. These recommendations are used to develop proposed
    national needs-based budget by representatives of the area I/T/U budget
    teams. The National Indian Health Board, Tribal Self Governance
    Advisory Committee, National Council on Urban Indian Health and
    National Congress of American Indians formally adopt the national
    needs-based proposed budget. The IHS uses the budget recommendations as
    a basis for the submission of the formal budget request.
        Question. What particular issues of concern to tribes are not
    reflected in the budget proposal forwarded to Congress?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request for Indian Health
    Service reflects the most important priorities identified by the tribes
    within the overall context of the proposed national budget.

                               MEDICAL INFLATION

        The consumer price index for medical care increased 3.6 percent
    between 1999 and 1998. While recent IHS figures point to a higher
    overall inflation rate of 5.26 percent for the same period, additional
    statistics demonstrate that the cost of professional care rose by 8.79
    percent; other professional care rose by 27.48 percent; and the cost of
    drugs rose by 7.95 percent.
        Question. Using the 3.9 percent figure authorized by OMB for the
    calculation of medical inflation, approximately what amount did IHS
    determine it would need to offset medical inflation in fiscal year 2001
    and prevent the erosion of current funding levels for its programs?
        Answer. Using the 3.9 percent factor, the total amount needed for
    medical inflation in fiscal year 2001 is $46,326,000. The fiscal year
    2001 request for IHS is $3.1 billion, a +$230 million increase over
    fiscal year 2000, including an increase of $125 million to maintain and
    restore access to basic health care services.
        Question. Was any portion of this amount factored into the final
    IHS budget request for fiscal year 2001 or will the agency expected to
    absorb the entire amount?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 President's budget request did not
    include any funds specifically to address inflationary cost increases
    although it did include $61 million for increased pay costs. Our budget
    request was formulated based on the goal of restoring access to health
    services, which addresses fixed costs such as inflation and pay, and on
    the goal of reducing the gap in health disparities between American
    Indians and Alaska Natives and other Americans. It is really the
    combination of this 2-pronged approach that allows us to improve health
    status. If the increase entirely covered fixed costs, increase funding
    would have come at the expense of needed program increases to address
    health disparities. Given the amount of additional funding requested
    (+9.6 percent over fiscal year 2000) we believe the distribution
    between fixed costs and program increases is appropriate.
        Question. On a related note, some of the fiscal year 2001 agency
    budgets received by this subcommittee propose to include amounts to
    meet the estimated 10 percent increase in health insurance coverage for
    federal employees, underscoring the escalating costs of providing
    health care. Was IHS able to include this calculation in its increase
    for staff benefits?
        Answer. Salary amounts were calculated on projected pay increases
    and benefits were calculated at fiscal year 2000 levels.

                               POPULATION GROWTH

        The Native American and Alaska Native population is growing at the
    rate of 2.2 percent annually. The budget request for fiscal year 2001
    makes no provision for a corresponding adjustment in health services
    funding to meet this additional demand and, in fact, the IHS has been
    absorbing these increases annually since fiscal year 1995.
        Question. Approximately how much would IHS require to meet the
    additional demands placed on the system? Have you had to refuse
    treatment to new patients?
        Answer. While the fiscal year 2001 Budget does not provide a
    specific earmark for population growth, it does provide an additional
    $125 million over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level to restore and
    maintain access to basic health care and an additional $105 million in
    program increases to help reduce health disparities. IHS estimates that
    its service population (i.e., American Indian and Alaska Native living
    on or near reservations) has been growing by 2 percent per year. Based
    on this growth rate, we estimate that IHS, tribal, and urban (I/T/U)
    health programs would require $44,543,000 to address natural population
    growth in fiscal year 2001. The I/T/U programs have not refused
    treatment to any eligible patients.
        Question. Does this calculation also take into account newly
    recognized tribes that enter the IHS system? If not, where are those
    needs factored in to the budget?
        Answer. This calculation only addresses the natural growth in the
    American Indian and Alaska Native population, i.e., births minus
    deaths. Health care for members of newly recognized tribes has
    historically been addressed with the appropriation for contract health
    services. The budget requests an additional $41 million (+10 percent)
    for contract health services including funding for newly recognized
    tribes.
        Question. When coupled with unfunded medical inflation, how much
    have IHS and tribal health programs declined in their ability to
    maintain a baseline of needed services?
        Answer. The total budget request for IHS is $3.1 billion, an
    increase of $1.0 billion (+51 percent) since fiscal year 1993. Much of
    this increased funding has covered the cost of medical inflation and
    increases in the population eligible for services. Since the number of
    outpatient visits provided by IHS and tribal health programs has
    increased steadily, the increasing demand for urgent care has taken
    priority over non-urgent primary services (e.g., well-child visits).
    The $230 million increase requested for fiscal year 2001 includes $105
    million to provide additional health services to Indian people, for
    example: continuing to increase the percentage of diabetes with good
    glycemic control; increasing water fluoridation compliance in the
    Southwest; and increasing the number of hospital emergency departments
    which identify and treat victims of family violence and neglect.

                             JOINT VENTURE PROGRAM

        Section 818 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act authorizes
    the IHS to establish joint venture demonstration programs whereby
    tribes would acquire or construct a health facility and lease it back
    to the IHS at no cost for at least 20 years. The IHS would then take
    responsibility for providing the equipment, staff, operating and
    maintenance costs.
        Question. Three tribes were selected to participate in a
    demonstration program in fiscal year 1991, but no funding has been
    provided since that time to initiate additional projects. How
    successful have these first projects been?
        Answer. Three tribes were selected originally for the joint venture
    demonstration program of 1991, prior to the creation of the
    authorization under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Two tribes
    participated while the third tribe was unable to obtain financing.
    Funding appropriated in fiscal years 1991 and 1993, totaling
    $2,552,000, were used to equip the two joint venture demonstration
    projects; one in Poteau, Oklahoma, for the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma,
    and one in Warm Springs, Oregon, for the Confederated Tribes of Warm
    Springs. These two projects achieved the following:
        a. The new additional spaces met the specifications of the tribes
    and the IHS at the time of construction. The constructed facilities are
    still fully accredited. Each new facility increased their capacity, so
    each health center was able to increase their services by 100 percent.
    The operating efficiency was improved. Waiting times were reduced
    significantly.
        b. The partnership in 1991 led to two new facilities, with minimal
    Federal Government outlay for construction. The new facilities operate
    with approximately the same level of staffing as if the government had
    constructed them.
        However, equipment funding in year 1 is only a small piece of the
    long-term financial commitment associated with Joint Venture. For
    instance, if Congress initially funds $15 million for equipment for
    Joint Venture projects in year 1, subsequent additional appropriations
    of about $22 million per year, to the total cost of $440 million for 20
    years, will have to be available to address the IHS responsibilities to
    staff and operate these facilities.
        Question. To what extent do you believe that cooperative programs
    of this kind would permit us to accelerate the construction schedule
    for much needed health facilities? Are tribes interested in exploring
    alternative options for constructing and operating facilities?
        Answer. Depending on how a Joint Venture program is administered,
    Joint Venture projects have the potential to complement the IHS Health
    Facilities Construction Priority System (HFCPS) by allowing the
    construction of more health facilities than could be built by using
    only IHS appropriations. The IHS understands that a number of tribes,
    including some on the current priority list, could feasibly commit
    their own resources for the JVCP. Likewise, it is envisioned that Small
    Ambulatory Grants would be for construction of health care facilities
    smaller than those eligible under the IHS HFCPS.
        Question. What annual amount does IHS estimate it would need to
    implement and sustain a joint venture program?
        Answer. A minimum of $2.5 million per year, under the facilities
    appropriation, would be required to provide equipment for selected
    tribally constructed health care facilities. Facilities funding is only
    a small piece of the long-term financial commitment associated with the
    Joint Venture Construction Program. Once the facility is built, IHS is
    responsible for its staffing and operating costs. If the Congress
    initially funds $15 million for equipment for Joint Venture projects,
    subsequent year appropriations of up to about $22 million per year
    would have to be available for the IHS to carry out its
    responsibilities to staff, operate and maintain the new facilities.
        Question. Both this year and last, IHS proposed to include funds
    for joint venture projects, but a request was not forwarded for the
    subcommittee's consideration. What were the reasons were given for not
    moving forward with this initiative?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request is
    committed to supporting access to health care services and improving
    the health status of American Indian and Alaska Native people. This
    budget request provides a total of $65 million for Health Care
    Facilities Construction and includes investments for the ongoing
    construction of the replacement Fort Defiance Hospital and the Parker
    Health Center. In addition, the budget request includes funding for the
    second-phase construction of the Winnebago Hospital, the design of the
    Fort Defiance Staff Quarters, the design of the Pawnee Health Center,
    replacement dental units, and the Small Ambulatory Health Care Facility
    Construction Grants Program. Before moving ahead on any Joint Venture
    projects, IHS will need to examine the following issues:
        (a) Find a way to integrate and prioritize Joint Venture projects
    with the IHS Facilities Construction Priority List.
        (b) Ensure that long-term costs associated with staffing and
    operations are consistent with IHS standards for providing health care
    facilities and services to Federally-recognized American Indians and
    Alaska Natives and can be accommodated by future funding levels.
        (c) Assure that funding committed to Joint Venture projects
    addresses priority needs for health care facilities and the delivery of
    health care services with the highest relative need.

                             FACILITIES ROUNDTABLE

        The fiscal year 2000 conference report included a directive to
    revise the policy system that determines priorities for construction
    funding. This past August, IHS convened a working group to examine
    alternative methods for financing health care facilities that might
    give tribes options that are not available to them now.
        Question. Has there been any further consideration of how the
    current priority system for funding facilities construction might be
    redesigned to be of greater benefit to tribes? Please explain.
        Answer. The IHS is in the process of establishing a tribal
    workgroup that will review the current health care facilities
    construction priority system methodology. This workgroup will make
    recommendations to the IHS regarding changes necessary so that the
    prioritization process provides a greater benefit to all tribes. The
    Workgroup will also make recommendations, as well as develop standards
    and criteria, for evaluating health care facilities needs and
    developing a comprehensive inventory of needs for all IHS, tribal, and
    urban health care facilities in Indian Country.
        Question. Are there authorities that the IHS has in addition to the
    joint venture program that would permit the agency to widen its scope
    of construction projects?
        Answer. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) provides
    several authorities, including the Joint Venture Program that permits
    the Agency and tribes to widen the scope of the construction program.
    Under Section 305, IHS is authorized to accept renovations and
    modernizations that a tribe makes to an IHS facility. This program is
    limited to IHS facilities operated under a 638 contract. Under Section
    306, the IHS may make grants to tribes for the construction,
    renovation, or modernization of small ambulatory health centers. In
    addition to these Authorities in the IHCIA, Congress last year gave IHS
    the authority to use the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund under the
    Services Appropriation for construction and acquisition of space for
    expanding programs.

                            CONTRACT HEALTH SERVICES

        Contract Health Service dollars enable IHS and tribal health
    programs to purchase from hospitals and private health care providers
    medical care and services that are not available within the IHS-
    supported direct care system. In fiscal year 2000, $407 million was
    appropriated to support this activity. A $41 million increase is
    requested in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. The Contract Health Services program is especially
    critical in areas such as the Northwest, where there are no IHS
    hospitals. Do calculations for the distribution of CHS funds take into
    consideration the additional financial burden placed on CHS-dependent
    areas as opposed to those areas who do have IHS hospitals available for
    referral?
        Answer. The CHS Program uses a distribution methodology that is
    designed to provide equitable funding. The CHS distribution methodology
    was revised in fiscal year 1993 through a Resource Allocation Work
    Group (RAWG) that included tribal representatives to provide an
    allocation process that is more equitable and beneficial to its
    recipients. The RAWG CHS formula considers such factors as Workload,
    Years of Productive Life Loss (YPLL) and CHS dependency. The CHS
    dependency factor favors those Areas such as the Northwest that have no
    IHS direct care facilities and are more dependent on CHS to provide the
    needed medical care and is based on the percent of total inpatient
    admissions in the private sector. As an internal agency policy, funding
    is made to Areas on a recurring historical basis. Therefore, the
    revised CHS distribution methodology is only applied to new funding
    increases.
        The CHS methodology not only has prior approval and tribal
    sanction, but also has the capability to provide equity considerations
    by significantly structuring the formula drivers to support health
    indicators. Although this model is not perfect it begins to address the
    issues of funding inequity between Areas and gives additional support
    to those Areas that are highly dependent on CHS versus those that have
    direct services and comprehensive services.
        Question. The medical inflation rate experienced by IHS in making
    CHS payments is significantly higher than in the private sector. Was
    medical inflation a consideration in determining the funding increase
    requested for this program?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes an increase of
    10 percent for contract health services approximately double the 5.3
    percent average annual cost increase reported for this program by the
    fiscal intermediary. Funding above the rate of inflation was requested
    to provide higher levels of care to Indian people and to address
    medical inflation and population increases which have not been fully
    covered in previous years.

                                  HEADQUARTERS

        Question. How do you respond to those who see the role of IHS as
    evolving into that of a technical assistance agency for tribal
    operations?
        Answer. In 1996, the IHS Director adopted the recommendations of
    the IHS Indian Health Design Team (comprised of Tribal leaders and
    senior IHS officials) that provided a framework for the direction of
    the IHS, particular its headquarters operations and that of the area
    offices. The core functions are leadership, advocacy, broad health
    policy, networking with other governmental entities, Tribal
    consultation, budget formulation, and system performance evaluation. As
    Tribes have assumed management and operations of Indian health
    programs, the IHS will move to more of these core functions and for
    those Tribes that have elected to have the IHS to continue provide
    health care services, the IHS will balance the core functions with
    health care delivery.
        Question. Close to half of the IHS budget is now passed through
    directly to the tribes for programs that are contracted or compacted.
    What if any impact has this had on headquarters operations?
        Answer. The IHS headquarters operations have changed considerably
    over the past 6 years due to both the need to streamline to meet
    government-wide reinvention activities and the requirement to make
    resources available to Tribes contracting or compacting. In 1993 the
    total number of positions in headquarters was 893 and now, some 6 years
    later, headquarters staffing is at 460. In 1997, the Director, IHS,
    approved a headquarters reorganization plan that reduced the number of
    headquarters' offices from nine to three. These changes will continue
    as more Tribes opt to self-determine.

                               HEALTH DISPARITIES

        An increase of $85,589,000 is proposed to be spread among over more
    than 20 different programs in an effort to improve health services and
    access to health care in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. What are the agency's highest priorities for funding
    among these proposals?
        Answer. The increase of $85,589,000 is requested to address the
    most pressing health disparities between American Indian and Alaska
    Native people and other Americans. The priority areas included in the
    request were identified by IHS, Tribal, and urban health program
    representatives as being the appropriate blend of programs and
    disciplines (prevention, treatment, and health professional
    development) required to make any progress towards reducing the health
    status disparities.
        Question. Where could additional funds make the most significant
    difference in the provision of health care?
        Answer. The health problems addressed by the budget request were
    consistently identified as significant health problems across the IHS
    Areas. At the local health delivery level, however, the top health
    problems vary from community to community. For this reason, limited
    funding increases would have the most impact in those budget activities
    that provide the most flexibility for use and from which more
    communities would benefit. For example, contract health services
    funding addresses all of the health problems and all IHS and tribal
    programs would benefit.
        Question. The budget proposal appears to put an emphasis on further
    funding for diseases with a distinct behavioral component: diabetes,
    alcoholism and substance abuse, and mental health issues that are
    reflected in domestic violence, suicide and child abuse. What can you
    accomplish with the requested funding that you have been unable to
    achieve at current levels?
        Answer. Significant impacts have been documented in communities
    that have employed specific types of interventions in both prevention
    and treatment. In alcohol and mental health treatment, communities that
    have employed a continuum of care approach to the management of
    patients have had much greater measurable success. In these
    communities, there is a balance of services (including community
    prevention, ambulatory treatment, as well as inpatient treatment)
    available that can be tailored to patient needs with concise case
    management to assure that patients are able to maintain health
    functioning after treatment. The prevention programs with the greatest
    documented success are those which address youth and are built upon
    tribal values. The best documented example is the K'e project in
    Navajo. This program utilized family members, traditional medicine men,
    schools, and others in the community to nurture the embrace of
    traditional Navajo values in ``at-risk'' youth. The increase in funds
    will allow the agency to support these successes, many of which were
    developed under a limited term ``demonstration'' grant funding
    arrangement. In addition, increases in funds will allow the
    dissemination of these programs to other communities will require
    funding.

                                    HIV/AIDS

        Last year, language was included in the fiscal year 2000 conference
    report regarding the need for increased surveillance and monitoring of
    HIV/AIDS among the Native American and Alaskan Native populations.
    Since that time, concerns continue to be expressed to the subcommittee
    that the extent of this disease may be far more widespread among Native
    Americans than current statistics might demonstrate.
        Question. Do you share the concerns that have been expressed to the
    subcommittee regarding the prevalence of AIDS within the tribal
    communities? Please describe what steps IHS intends to take to address
    the need for additional surveillance.
        Answer. The true prevalence of HIV infections in American Indian
    and Alaska Native communities is unknown at this time. There has been
    no comprehensive availability of screening surveillance since 1993.
    While many are concerned that the prevalence may indeed by greater than
    we are aware of, there is no evidence to support that assertion. During
    the last year, the IHS has been able to acquire additional funding
    support for HIV surveillance efforts from CDC and other Federal
    entities with Ryan White and other specific funds for HIV. The agency
    has recently acquired an HIV surveillance specialist from CDC and this
    expertise has been put to work examining the most effective means to
    re-establish screening surveillance activities in Indian Country. Other
    funds received from our Federal partners has allowed for more extensive
    outreach and education for populations at risk. There is significant
    risk factor cross-over with Hepatitis C (which may in fact be much more
    prevalent and lethal than HIV in American Indian and Alaska Native
    communities) education and prevention efforts and funding support from
    CDC in Hepatitis prevention will also assist in HIV prevention efforts.
    Increasing HIV awareness among tribal leaders has also benefited the
    agency's efforts at outreach and education.

                            MEDICARE/MEDICAID FUNDS

        Question. An adjustment in the rate structure in January 1999
    increased Medicare and Medicaid returns by 15 percent. How were these
    funds used to supplement IHS and tribal programs?
        Answer. These funds (+13 percent) are used to maintain facility
    safety and program standards to comply with Joint Commission on
    Accreditation of Hospitals and Organizations (JCAHO). Accounting
    records indicate that about 85 percent of the funds are used for
    personnel, medical and facility contracts addressing areas of concern
    identified by JCAHO and maintaining compliance. These funds have
    resulted in 100 percent of IHS and Tribal hospital facilities being
    accredited by JCAHO.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

        Question. Dr. Trujillo, I have long been concerned with the
    devastating impact of alcohol on American citizens generally, and
    American children specifically. Unfortunately, the American Indian and
    Alaska Natives (AI/AN) population served by the Indian Health Service
    (IHS) has been particularly hard hit. Indeed, as the budget
    justification for the Service indicates, mortality rates attributable
    to alcohol abuse among American Indians and Alaska Natives is 7.3 times
    that of the overall U.S. population, and alcohol abuse has been singled
    out by 11 of the 12 IHS Areas as a top health problem. Even more
    disturbing, though, is the effect of alcohol on American Indian youth.
    As your agency states, the ``severity and intensity of the problems in
    AI/AN youth appear to be more treatment intensive than in the general
    U.S. population,'' while ``most completed suicides are highly
    correlated with alcohol abuse.'' Yet, despite this conclusion, I note
    that, while the Alcoholism and Substance Abuse program contains a
    specific line item for ``Adult Treatment,'' no such line item exits for
    children.
        Please tell this subcommittee what efforts the Indian Health
    Service is taking to strengthen alcohol abuse programs directed at
    minors, and, more specifically, how much of the $2.8 million increase
    being requested for fiscal year 2001 for Alcoholism and Substance Abuse
    will be allocated directly to youth?
        Answer. The Indian Health Service expends funds for chemical abuse
    treatment and prevention youth programs in a variety of its budget
    categories not limited to alcohol and substance abuse including
    expenditures from hospitals and clinics and contract health service.
    However, within the alcohol budget activity there are identified funds
    for youth regional treatment centers and community based prevention
    targeting youth as well as outpatient treatment for youth. These
    investments in youth are itemized in the table on page IHS-61 of the
    President's budget submission. Specifically, there is $15,727,000
    invested in youth regional treatment centers. An additional $16,875,000
    is requested for community rehabilitation and aftercare for youth.
    There is approximately $4,000,000 proposed for community-based
    education for prevention from the alcohol activity. (There is an
    additional $11,000,000 investment in the health education activity,
    significant components of which will fund preventive measures targeting
    youth.) The IHS also has developed partnerships with the Department of
    Justice and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
    Administration for programs targeting youth in detention or at risk
    youth that will increase available funding by an additional $5,000,000
    in 2001. The targeting of the funds requested has not been finalized
    since tribal programs will manage over 95 percent of the funds and
    consultation has not been completed on this matter.
        Question. The Indian Health Service has presented a very ambitious
    budget request with increases totaling $229 million. Within that
    request, you have identified over 20 different health disparities to be
    addressed with $85 million in program increases. These cover a very
    broad range of problems--from child health to elder health, from dental
    health to cancer research, and from health education to construction.
    While this subcommittee shares your concern about the health problems
    facing the American Indian and Alaska Natives community, the fact
    remains that there may not be enough funding to address all of the
    budget requests before us. Consequently, would you please share your
    thoughts on what the Indian Health Service considers the most urgent
    problems today, and which of those represent the highest priorities of
    the IHS?
        Answer. During the formulation process of this budget request, the
    local IHS, Tribal, and Urban Indian health program representatives
    focused on the need to restore access to basic health services and to
    reduce the health disparities that prevail between the AI/AN people and
    the rest of the U.S. This budget request represents the integrated
    clinical and public health [package] needed to address the needs
    identified as most critical in those areas by the I/T/U. Each component
    is equally critical in restoring and enhancing the clinical and public
    health capacity of the IHS/tribal/urban health delivery system. Even
    though small amounts are requested in many categories (e.g., cancer),
    the small amount provided allows the Agency and tribes to ``leverage''
    resources in partnership with other entities. For example, the IHS has
    developed a youth and alcohol initiative with Department of Justice
    that has tripled the amount that IHS contributed to addressing this
    critical problem.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                CLOSURE OF THE SIPI DENTAL CLINIC IN ALBUQUERQUE

        In September 1999, the IHS closed the dental clinic at the
    Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI).
        This dental clinic had been in operation since 1971, when the BIA
    and IHS jointly established a training facility for the dental
    assistant and laboratory technician training programs at SIPI, and to
    serve the Indian population of the Albuquerque area.
        Sometime in the mid 1980's there was a redesignation of this dental
    clinic, basically placing its funding under the authority of the
    Albuquerque Servicing Unit (ASU) of the IHS under the terms and
    conditions of the Public Law 93-638 Self-Determination Act. While a
    seemingly harmless move, the consequences of this new designation have
    now been made dramatically clear. Some 33,000 American Indians (24,000
    of them classified as ``urban Indians'' in Albuquerque) have lost a
    vital health service due to the recent reduction of available IHS
    funding as a direct result of the Self-Determination contracting by
    Jemez and Isleta Pueblos.
        The IHS has simply determined that the SIPI dental clinic would
    have to be sacrificed to meet the conditions of the new Self-
    Determination contracts whereby Jemez and Isleta Pueblos would operate
    their own health services. I am not objecting to these contracts under
    the ``638'' program, but I am very concerned that so many American
    Indians in the Albuquerque area have lost this important service.
        Question. Do you have the authority to reverse the ``638'' decision
    made more than a decade ago, so that the SIPI Dental Clinic would not
    be subject to a loss of funds when more Pueblos decide to operate their
    own health programs?
        Answer. After a self-determination contract is awarded, there are
    only a very limited number of circumstances in which the Indian Health
    Service can ``reassume'' control or operation of a contracted program
    without the consent of the contractor (i.e., the Indian tribe or tribal
    organization). There are two types of reassumptions. A reassumption is
    considered an emergency reassumption if an Indian tribe or organization
    fails to fulfill the requirements of the contract and this failure
    poses, as an example, ``an immediate threat of imminent harm to the
    safety of any person . . .'' A reassumption is considered a non-
    emergency reassumption if there has been, as an example, ``gross
    negligence or mismanagement in the handling or use of contract funds .
    . .'' Rules concerning reassumption can be found in part 900.246 to
    900.256 in chapter V of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
        Question. If this designation as a training facility cannot be
    reestablished, I would like to know why the large IHS Dental program
    increase of last year ($8 million) and the pending increase for fiscal
    year 2001 (another $8 million) could not be used to fund about $750,000
    necessary to keep the SIPI Dental Clinic open.
        Answer. The program increase for fiscal year 2000 has already been
    allocated to tribal and direct programs. The fiscal year 2001 dental
    program budget increase of $8 million that is in the President's budget
    was developed and agreed upon by IHS tribal and urban representatives.
    Of the $8 million dollar increase, $4.147 million will be used to pay
    for increases associated with on-going program operations such as
    salaries for tribal and direct programs. The remaining $3.257 million
    will be used to support the Secretary's fiscal year 2001 Health
    Promotion/Disease Prevention Initiative. Of those funds, $1 million
    will be used to hire new employees across all Areas. The share of the
    Albuquerque Area base budget is approximately 7.3 percent; therefore,
    $73,000 will be distributed to the Albuquerque Area for staff
    increases. The Area will determine what portion of these funds will go
    toward support of the SIPI dental clinic.
        Currently, the level of need funded in the Indian Health Service is
    approximately 60 percent. Hence, virtually all programs have
    significant portions of their population that go without dental
    services. While we agree that there is great need for dental care in
    Albuquerque, to single out that community at the expense of others is
    not equitable.
        I am well aware of the large effort made by a coalition of
    Albuquerque area urban Indians to inform you of this situation, and I
    am very disappointed in the seeming lack of interest from IHS
    headquarters in helping to provide the minimal dental services for over
    30,000 eligible Indian people in the Albuquerque area. They, in fact,
    could easily use about $2.2 million for the service level they once
    enjoyed. For example, in 1994, there were 5,240 dental patients served
    with 9 full-time dentists, 2 dental hygienists, and 27 assistants who
    supplied full lab support for partials, dentures, and bridges. By 1998,
    there were only 3 full-time dentists, no hygienists, and 9 assistants.
        Question. I will expect a plan of action from you in ample time for
    inclusion in this year's Interior Appropriations bill. Please include
    at least $750,000 to reopen the SIPI Dental Clinic, and a detailed
    explanation of how the IHS plans to continue dental care for current
    and expected dental patients.
        Answer. The IHS has no plans to close the SIPI dental clinic. IHS
    is currently forming a consortium to assure that dental services remain
    available to the Indian population that resides in Albuquerque. Dental
    services will be provided through the following network:
        1. A 3-chair clinic at University of New Mexico, which opened last
    month and has a sliding fee schedule.
        2. A 3-chair dental clinic at the First Nations Urban Indian Health
    Facility that will open in 4 months. First Nations has received state
    funds for clinic renovation and equipment installation and are
    currently seeking start up costs of approximately $250,000 to fund
    dental staff. Their plans include billing 3rd party providers as well
    as providing services on a sliding fee schedule.
        3. Two dentists providing care in the SIPI facility after May 1st.
        It is estimated that the shift dental care delivery will occur in
    May after Jemez and Isleta Pueblos contract for their share of the
    Albuquerque Service Unit Dental Program. Two IHS dentists will remain
    at SIPI to provide walk in services 3 days per week and services to
    children 18 yrs of age and below--5 days per week. IHS will contract
    with a local dentist to provide walk in services for the remaining 2
    days per week. As revenue increases, the services at SIPI will
    increase. Services for the urban Indians in Albuquerque will be reduced
    temporarily during this transition period; however, it is expected that
    they will exceed current levels in approximately 3 years.
        We have identified annual services costs at SIPI in these areas:

    Current General Dentists/Orthodontic Personnel Costs..........  $469,570
    Current Dental Assistants Personnel Costs.....................   277,674
    Current Support Staff Personnel Costs.........................    93,370
    Current Operational Support Costs.............................   133,003
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total...................................................   973,617

                     FORT DEFIANCE HOSPITAL, NAVAJO NATION

        The fiscal year 2001 request for replacement of the hospital
    portion of the project is $40.115 million, including $1.4 million for
    design of the much needed staff quarters. Critical health service from
    gynecological and general ambulatory surgery, to adolescent psychiatric
    nursing and intensive care will be available in this new facility. The
    acute care program will have 36 beds, and 20 beds will be used by the
    adolescent psychiatric nursing unit.
        The original 1938 structure is functionally inadequate, and I am
    glad to see this funding in the President's IHS construction budget for
    2001.

                             SANITATION FACILITIES

        The most recent request in my office for major water system
    improvements came from Laguna Pueblo at an estimated cost of $2.5
    million. Zuni Pueblo and Acoma Pueblo have continuing water and waste
    water needs, as do many other New Mexico Indian reservations, including
    the Navajo Nation, Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Santo Domingo Pueblo, and
    many others.
        Question. Given an estimated backlog of about $1.2 billion for
    these types of water and waste water projects on Indian lands across
    this country, I would like to know why this year's increase is only
    about $4.5 million over last year's amount of $89.3 million?
        Answer. Although much has been done in terms of providing
    sanitation facilities (water supply, sewage disposal, establishment of
    operation and maintenance organizations, and solid waste disposal), an
    unmet need of approximately $1.753 billion still existed at the end of
    fiscal year 1999. This unmet need includes approximately 20,000
    existing Indian homes that do not have potable water in the home. A
    majority of funding to address the backlog goes to serve deficiency
    level 4 and 5 homes (homes without water, sewer or both). Over $29.1
    million of the $45.2 million appropriated for regular projects to serve
    existing homes in fiscal year 1999 went toward projects to serve homes
    at these levels. In fiscal year 2000, IHS plans to fund over $30
    million to serve homes in these same levels. The most recent cost
    estimate to address feasible deficiency level 4 and 5 needs is
    approximately $375 million. In 1999 the funding level for new and like
    new housing is at a level of need of approximately 70 percent. The
    funding for the backlog of facilities for existing homes has been
    historically funded at approximately 60 percent of the need, based on
    the goal of meeting all current feasible sanitation facilities needs
    for existing homes in 10 years (the need is approximately $70 million
    per year), with the proposed funding for the year 2000 it is expected
    that these levels of need will remain approximately the same. In the
    initial IHS request a $30 million increase for fiscal year 2001 was
    recommended but other budget priorities required that this be reduced
    to the present level.
        Question. Is there any attention given in IHS to the deteriorating
    conditions of so many water and waste water systems that are, in many
    cases, over 50 years old? I would like to know more about how IHS
    decides to set priorities for the sanitation facilities funds.
        Answer. The Indian Health Care Amendments of 1988 (Public Law 100-
    713, Title III) require the IHS, starting in fiscal year 1990, to
    develop and begin implementation of a 10-year funding plan to provide
    safe water supply and sewage and solid waste disposal facilities to
    existing American Indian and Alaska Native homes and communities, and
    to new and renovated homes. In accordance with these requirements, the
    SFC Program annually estimates the total need to provide safe and
    adequate sanitation facilities for all Indian and Alaska Native homes
    and communities. Sanitation deficiencies are reported as proposed
    projects, or project phases. Each IHS Area develops priority lists in
    consultation with the tribes for projects to serve new and like-new
    homes and regular projects to serve existing homes. These projects
    represent the universe of need for existing homes eligible for IHS
    funding. Regular projects on the Area priority list are scored based in
    part on health risk, economic feasibility, tribal priority and the
    ability of the Tribe to operate and maintain the proposed facilities.
    However, some projects are prohibitively expensive to construct and/or
    operate, and therefore are considered to be economically infeasible and
    are not considered on the priority lists.
        Question. I would also like to ask if IHS participates in any
    economic development efforts that stress the importance of adequate
    sanitation infrastructure?
        Answer. IHS is authorized to serve Indian homes. While IHS does not
    provide funding for infrastructure serving economic development
    projects, at their request, IHS does work closely with the tribes in
    the review of water and sewer design plans for economic development
    infrastructure projects. When funds are provided by a Tribe for a
    system expansion to support economic development in a location with an
    active IHS sanitation facilities project, the agency can and has
    provided engineering and project management support to construct those
    additional facilities. IHS continues to work with the Tribes to seek
    contributions from other agencies such as the Department of Housing and
    Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grants and in
    acquiring loans and grants through the Rural Utility Service of the
    Department of Agriculture. The IHS recognizes that the provision of
    sanitation facilities also has other far-reaching, positive effects.
    The availability of such facilities is of fundamental importance to
    social and economic development. In turn, such development leads to an
    improved quality of life and an improved sense of well-being. IHS can
    participate in any project on a pro rata basis if eligible homes are to
    be served. IHS does not provide sanitation facilities for future homes,
    or unused excess capacity, unless there is a funding commitment to
    build the homes within the next year. In the course of designing a new
    facility, some future demand can be considered in the design and sizing
    requirements. IHS will mostly build flexibility into the design to
    accommodate future growth rather than build excess capacity.
        Question. Has the IHS become aware of its vital role in helping or
    hindering economic development plans that require minimal and standard
    capacities for handling water and waste water?
        Answer. Under the authority of Indian Sanitation Facilities Act
    (Public Law 86-121), the IHS provides essential sanitation facilities
    for Indian homes. The IHS sanitation facilities appropriations from
    Congress are predicated upon the number of Indian homes to be served.
    The IHS works with other agencies (HUD, Economic Development
    Administration (EDA)) in jointly funded projects where constructed
    sanitation facilities will serve Indian homes as well as non-
    residential units. Those other agencies have the authority to provide
    tribes with funding to enhance or improve their economic development,
    which includes sanitation facilities. The IHS is currently discussing
    with EDA potential areas where both agencies may cooperate to the
    benefit of Indian tribes (see preceding question).

                              DIABETES INITIATIVES

        Dr. Trujillo, for the past three years, the Department of Health
    and Human Services has received a total of $60 million annually
    pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 for diabetes initiatives.
    These funds will be available through fiscal year 2002 with the Indian
    Health Service receiving half the funding or $30 million per year for
    five years.
        I remain very concerned about the high incidence of diabetes in the
    nation, especially among Native Americans, Hispanics and other
    minorities.
        Question. Would you please provide the Subcommittee with an
    assessment of how the $30 million in annual funding has been utilized
    by the Indian Health Service for diabetes prevention and treatment?
        Answer. Using a non-competitive grant process, based on extensive
    tribal consultation, 333 tribal, IHS and urban programs have received
    funds through the 1997 Balanced Budget Act (BBA). These funds have been
    used by the Indian health care system for data improvement, direct
    clinical services, community prevention activities, the development and
    provision of diabetes education to patients, their families, their
    providers and communities. The funds have enhanced infrastructure and
    community capacity for diabetes care and education. A complete
    assessment of these activities is included in the Interim Report to
    Congress submitted to DHHS for approval in January 2000.
        Question. As I recall, Congress directed the IHS to do an interim
    evaluation of the program and provide a report this year. Will such a
    report be coming to Congress soon? Could you give me an anticipated
    date for it to be transmitted to Congress?
        Answer. The interim Report to Congress on the Special Diabetes
    Program for Indians has been completed. It was submitted to Congress in
    April 2000.
        Question. These issues may be addressed in the evaluation of the
    program, but how has IHS determined to best utilize the $30 million in
    annual funding?
        Answer. The IHS has conducted ongoing, extensive, nationwide tribal
    consultation activities in relation to the $30 million in funding. The
    IHS is committed to the belief that the answers to diabetes prevention
    and management lie within American Indian and Alaska Native
    communities. Prior to distribution of the funds, discussions began at
    the National Indian Health Board Consumer's Conference, and the
    Diabetes Advisory Workgroup was formed consisting of tribal leadership,
    American Indian physicians, and nationally recognized diabetes experts.
    Regional tribal consultations then occurred in every IHS Area. Results
    were compiled by the National Indian Health Board and reviewed by the
    Diabetes Workgroup, culminating in a set of recommendations to the IHS
    Director for grant funds distribution by Area. The IHS Director
    approved the Workgroup's recommendations with minor adjustments. The
    IHS Diabetes Program crafted a Request for Application (RFA) document,
    incorporating the basic public health principles of primary, secondary
    and tertiary prevention.
        The $30 million from the 1997 BBA has provided an opportunity for
    IHS, tribal and urban sites to implement innovative programs to address
    diabetes in AI/AN communities. Much good has come from this effort, yet
    it is only a start. Managed care organizations have published data in
    the diabetes literature indicating that the annual costs for caring for
    a person with diabetes are estimated at $5,000-$9,000. In contrast, IHS
    receives approximately $1,300 per capita to care for its patients. This
    is clearly not enough. Diabetes experts tell us that, on average,
    patients with diabetes are on 10-12 medications at one time. Many of
    these medications are expensive, as much as $5 per day. Pharmaceutical
    costs in IHS last year increased 25 percent. IHS simply cannot afford
    to provide the recommended standard of diabetes care at this level of
    funding.
        Question. Is the model diabetes program model being replicated
    among Native American Tribes? One of the earliest model programs was
    carried out by the Zuni Tribe as I recall.
        Answer. For 20 years, the IHS has relied on Model Diabetes Programs
    to demonstrate effective approaches to diabetes care, education and
    prevention in Native American communities. As IHS has expanded its
    programs through the 1997 BBA funds, the 19 Model Diabetes Programs
    have led the way in shaping the development of these new diabetes
    programs nationwide. The Model Diabetes Programs experiences, successes
    and ``lessons learned'' have been adapted by communities to fit their
    unique situations. These include clinical guidelines; program
    curriculums; training programs to providers, patients, families, and
    communities; diabetes tracking systems; materials; community capacity
    building; and technical expertise. The Zuni Diabetes Program was one of
    the first and most successful Model Diabetes Programs.
        Question. With the concern about diabetes being diagnosed more
    frequently in children, has IHS focused its prevention activities on
    this age group? What is the most effective way to reach children with
    prevention information?
        Answer. The IHS has collaborated with the CDC Division of Diabetes
    Translation to more clearly define the epidemiology of the problem of
    type 2 diabetes in children. Thirty six percent of the BBA grant
    programs indicate that they are placing a special emphasis on type 2
    diabetes prevention in adolescents, 27 percent are focusing on
    elementary school age children, and 19 percent are addressing the
    preschool age population. The IHS has also partnered with the Head
    Start Program on a Childhood Obesity Project; partnered with the
    Committee on Native American Child Health of the American Pediatric
    Association to develop diagnosis and treatment guidelines; serves on
    committees of the American Diabetes Association on type 2 diabetes in
    children; and has approached the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation regarding
    this problem. While we recognize the need to allow diabetes experts to
    nationally address these issues, IHS has aggressively pushed for this
    problem to remain at the forefront of diabetes agendas within many
    settings. The problem of type 2 diabetes in children is still too new
    to have learned what methods are best used for delivering prevention
    information to children and their families. The IHS Diabetes Program
    has recently hired an expert in children's issues to lead this
    prevention effort for the agency.
        Question. At this time with three years of funding, does IHS have a
    comprehensive program in place to assist all age groups affected by
    diabetes? What are the components of the program?
        Answer. The IHS maintains a comprehensive, global approach to
    diabetes, incorporating both clinical and public health approaches for
    prevention and treatment in all age groups. This approach includes
    surveillance activities, collection and analysis of quality process and
    outcomes data, complications tracking, all levels of prevention
    screening and treatment, family education, innovative approaches to
    nutrition education, clinical care, family interventions, promotion of
    physical activity programs, community activities and school based
    activities.
        For example, components of the program as a result of the 1997 BBA
    funds:
      --80 percent of grant sites are focusing on overweight people with
            diabetes
      --50 percent of sites are emphasizing tobacco cessation programs
      --79 percent of programs concentrate on people with diabetes who have
            high blood pressure (and thus are at higher risk for
            complications)
      --76 percent of sites report more emphasis on patients with newly
            diagnosed diabetes
      --68 percent of programs are targeting family members of people with
            diabetes
      --37 percent of grant programs now focus on pregnant women and their
            offspring
      --56 percent of sites are placing emphasis on overweight children
      --Nutrition counseling is provided in one-on-one sessions at 73
            percent of programs, group sessions at 66 percent of programs,
            and 43 percent of sites provide cooking classes. Over 50
            percent offer nutrition classes to family members of people
            with diabetes.
      --Grant sites offer physical activity programs in the form of walking
            clubs (53 percent), aerobics classes (48 percent), sports teams
            (30 percent), training of fitness leaders (31 percent) and
            traditional games & activities (30 percent)
      --Diabetes teams were newly established (42 percent) or improved upon
            (29 percent), diabetes registries were newly established (42
            percent) and existing registries improved upon (48 percent),
            and diabetes clinics were newly established (21 percent) or
            improved upon (43 percent) as a result of the grant funds
        Many programs are demonstrating success in addressing certain
    problems within their own communities. Resources are lacking for
    replicating these successful strategies in AI/AN communities throughout
    the nation.
        Question. What is the Administration's proposed budget for diabetes
    prevention and treatment for the Indian Health Service in fiscal year
    2001, excluding the $30 million annual appropriation pursuant to the
    1997 Balanced Budget Act? How does that compare to fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. As described in our Congressional Justification on page
    IHS-34, the increase for fiscal year 2001 over fiscal year 2000 is
    $3,880,000.
        Question. Within the additional $7 million proposed for priority
    diseases, how much does IHS propose to devote to diabetes?
        Answer. Again as on page IHS-34, the increase is $3,880,000.
        Question. Have the Balanced Budget Act funds complimented existing
    agency budgets, or have they supplanted existing resources being
    devoted to this dangerous disease?
        Answer. The Balanced Budget Act funds have most certainly been used
    to complement existing activities. Over 85 percent of the 333 programs
    funded through the BBA are tribally operated programs, most of who were
    unable to fund diabetes-related activities prior to 1997. The same is
    true for the 34 funded urban Indian health programs who had no funds
    specifically earmarked for diabetes prior to the 1997 BBA. The BBA
    funds have not supplanted existing resources; rather, they have been
    used to enhance existing programs and/or develop new, innovative
    community-driven approaches to diabetes. However, our existing
    recurring resources devoted to diabetes are quite limited and the BBA
    funds have allowed for a significant expansion of access to prevention
    and treatment services. The need for these services will only increase
    as the diabetes epidemic continues.
        Question. What are the Department's plans to utilize the remaining
    funding in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 in a comprehensive and
    coordinated fashion to prevent and treat diabetes?
        Answer. Five years is a very short time in the course of any
    chronic disease. The epidemic of diabetes in AI/AN tribes will not be
    contained or eradicated in the near future. The science of diabetes
    prevention is an emerging science, especially at the primary and
    secondary prevention levels. In the year 2002, the results of the
    large, NIH-funded, multi-center research trial of diabetes prevention,
    called the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), will be released. The
    DPP, which includes 4 American Indian study sites in Arizona and New
    Mexico, is designed to answer the question ``can type 2 diabetes be
    prevented in high risk individuals?'' If the results of this study
    suggest that pharmaceuticals or intensive lifestyle changes can prevent
    diabetes, then the IHS must be ready to launch a massive diabetes
    prevention program in all AI/AN communities. The impact of these
    results will be far-reaching, affecting the direction of all diabetes-
    related clinical and community programming, including staffing and
    financial aspects. The cost will be prohibitive, even in an ideal
    setting. The infrastructure built, the community capacity developed,
    and the lessons learned from the 333 BBA grant programs will serve as a
    basis for implementing a comprehensive prevention strategy within IHS,
    tribal and urban programs. Thus, the final 2 years of the BBA grant
    process will be spent solidifying, strengthening, and expanding program
    infrastructure and community capacity.
        Over the next 2 years IHS will continue to:
      --bring grantees together to share and learn from each others
            successes and mistakes at regional meetings;
      --facilitate the building of clinical and educational infrastructure;
      --promote the sharing of resources (particularly technical
            expertise);
      --encourage the development of regional diabetes coalitions;
      --identify other outside funding resources;
      --promote the expansion of clinical and educational services,
            partnering with tribal leadership, and incorporating
            technological advances.
        Question. Within the Centers for Disease Control, an effort is
    underway to establish a National Diabetes Prevention Center, which will
    be located in Gallup, New Mexico. How is IHS partnering with CDC in the
    National Diabetes Prevention Center? I expect this program to make a
    significant contribution to the prevention and treatment of diabetes
    among the Navajo Tribe, Zuni Pueblo, and other Native American tribes.
        Answer. The IHS has served as an active participant thus far in the
    development of the National Diabetes Prevention Center (NDPC).
      --The IHS National Diabetes Program serves as a partner on the NDPC
            Steering Committee
      --The Tribal Leaders Diabetes Committee, formed by IHS, advises the
            NDPC and oversees the national expansion plan
      --The Zuni IHS, the Zuni Model Diabetes Program, and Gallup Indian
            Medical Center are integral parts of the local partnership
      --The IHS National Diabetes Program has partnered with CDC and its
            contractor to host regional meetings across the US to obtain
            tribal input and guidance on the national direction and
            expansion of the NDPC
      --The IHS provided nominations for the Center Advisory Board and
            reviewed them with the other partners
      --The fully participated in providing input in the Forecast process
            and evaluation of the NDPC structure (another CDC contract)
      --The IHS Diabetes Program has provided direct expertise to the
            education and training proposal currently being designed by
            NDPC. In fact, the IHS Diabetes Program's training curriculum
            for health professionals will be used by NDPC to conduct this
            training
      --The IHS is working closely and is in regular contact with the CDC
            on the development and future direction of the NDPC.

                             MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

        Dr. Trujillo, it's been awhile since last we were able to speak
    about the need in Indian country for mental health services. I am
    pleased to see the President's requested increase of $6.2 million for
    mental health services and that these resources will build on some
    important initiatives already underway at IHS.
        Question. Would you please tell the Subcommittee what progress IHS
    has made over the past three years on providing mental health services
    to Native American tribes and pueblos?
        Answer. Funding for mental health budget has increased by about 4
    percent annually between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2000. Most
    improvements which have occurred are related to local innovations.
    Perhaps the activity with the most wide-ranging impact has been the
    suicide prevention activity emanating from the Jicarilla Apache Tribe
    of New Mexico. Because of a local outbreak of youth suicides a few
    years ago, the tribe initiated a program of prevention aimed at youth.
    The program quickly demonstrated a successful approach. This model was
    then disseminated to other AI/AN communities and is now in operation in
    over 80 tribal communities nation-wide.
        Question. What are the highest priority areas for IHS within the
    mental health program?
        Answer. The tribal budget formulation priorities within mental
    health include youth suicide prevention, domestic violence treatment
    and prevention, and the mental health needs of elders. The GPRA
    Objectives described on page IHS-51 of the President's Budget
    submission reflect these priorities.
        Question. How does IHS propose to allocate the proposed $6.2
    million increase to meet these priority needs?
        Answer. The IHS will allocate on the basis of equity and utilize an
    approach that has the support of tribal programs to support screening
    programs and comprehensive community based mental health care system.
        Question. The provision of health services is difficult at best in
    rural areas, such as on many Indian reservations. How is IHS delivering
    mental health services in rural areas? Within the budget request for
    information technology resources, will any be devoted to improving the
    delivery of mental health services in rural areas, such as through
    telehealth activities?
        Answer. The agency currently uses a range of approaches and
    providers to deliver mental health services. There are community mental
    health technicians who are often local people with limited specialized
    training that can provide many of the primary mental health counseling
    services in remote locations. These paraprofessionals are supported by
    counseling social workers and primary care medical providers who have
    skills and aptitudes in behavioral health. Specialized mental health
    providers such as clinical psychologists and psychiatrists are used in
    more complex cases as needed. The use of telehealth technologies is
    just beginning to emerge in rural environments. The availability of
    transmission media (broad band phone lines and satellite links) has
    limited the availability in many locations. The initial uses for these
    technologies in behavioral health includes teletherapy, but are more
    commonly used for training support in behavioral disciplines. The
    investments in information technology include small investments in
    telecommunications support.
        Question. This Administration has focused attention on interagency
    cooperation on many fronts. How is IHS working with other federal
    agencies, such as the Department of Justice, to help in the provision
    of health care and related support services?
        Answer. The agency has formed coalitions with a variety of Federal
    agencies both within DHHS and in other Departments. Within DHHS the
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has provided
    funding to many Native communities through its three centers. The
    Center for Substance Abuse Treatment has awarded almost $10M to states
    through block grants and directly to tribes for programs that address
    chemical abuse. This is critical support in the mental health arena
    since many AI/AN youth are dually diagnosed with both chemical abuse
    and a mental health diagnosis. The Center for Mental Health Services
    has developed an AI/AN specific program called Circles of Care that has
    brought an additional $10M to Native communities for mental health
    services. In addition, the Headstart programs and IHS work together to
    address prevention efforts with young parents. The agency has
    partnerships with other Departments such as DOJ that link funds for
    youth in detention with treatment services for the behavioral health
    problems that often contribute to the reason they are in detention
    (e.g., violent behaviors). Such arrangements have also been developed
    with the Department of Interior in its detention environments. The
    agency also works with BIA-Education to support prevention efforts.
    There are other smaller examples of partnerships with the Department of
    Education, and with the Department of HUD.
        Question. Is this a successful way to leverage federal resources to
    meet program needs? Are there additional partnerships that IHS is
    considering, especially in the mental health area?
        Answer. The service capabilities for mental health reside primarily
    in the agencies identified in the previous question (i.e., SAMHSA, DOEd
    and DOI), however, the scope of relations with DOJ may well expand in
    the next two or three years. Partnerships in researching mental illness
    and other behavioral concerns in AI/AN communities need to be developed
    further. Accordingly, the agency is pursuing partnerships with the
    National Institutes of Health who have research responsibilities and
    resources. Since economic health is so influential in determining
    mental health status, partnerships with the Department of Commerce are
    being developed.

                  FISCAL YEAR 2000 ACROSS-THE-BOARD REDUCTION

        Dr. Trujillo, in last year's Consolidated Appropriations Act for
    fiscal year 2000 (Public Law 106-113), the President and the Congress
    agreed to an across-the-board reduction of 0.38 percent in
    discretionary programs as part of an effort to ensure that spending in
    fiscal year 2000 did not dip into the Social Security surplus. We were
    successful in that effort, but in the process the Department of Health
    and Human Services had to reduce program spending by $166.8 million in
    fiscal year 2000.
        It appears from the Administration's report on the implementation
    of the across-the-board reduction that most offices and programs within
    the Department took a part of the reduction with $6.8 million coming
    from the Indian Health Service--$4.8 million from Indian Health
    Services, and $2.0 million from Indian Health Facilities.
        Question. Dr. Trujillo, would you please provide the Subcommittee
    with the program, project, and activity details underlying the across-
    the-board reductions in each program area for IHS?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Interior Appropriations included a
    rescission of 0.38 percent across the board government-wide. The IHS'
    share is $6.8 million, or 0.28 percent, from the appropriation of $2.4
    billion and detailed in the table that follows.

                                               FISCAL YEAR 2000 RESCISSION
                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year                       Percent
                                 Program                               2000 enacted     Rescission       reduction
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Services:
        Hospital/Health Clinics.....................................      $1,007.140         -$1.728           -0.17
        Dental Health...............................................          80.283          -0.221           -0.28
        Mental Health...............................................          43.294          -0.049           -0.11
        Alcohol/Substance Abuse.....................................          97.024          -0.200           -0.21
        Contract Health Services....................................         407.290          -0.534           -0.13
        Public Health Nursing.......................................          34.556          -0.104           -0.30
        Health Education............................................           9.654          -0.029           -0.30
        Community Health Reps.......................................          47.826          -1.446           -3.02
        Immunization AK.............................................           1.407          -0.005           -0.36
        Urban Health................................................          27.849          -0.036           -0.13
        Indian Health Professions...................................          30.728          -0.237           -0.77
        Tribal Management...........................................           2.418          -0.007           -0.29
        Direct Operations...........................................          51.145          -0.157           -0.31
        Self Governance.............................................           9.572          -0.041           -0.43
        Contract Support Costs......................................         228.781  ..............  ..............
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Services........................................       2,078.967          -4.794           -0.23
    Facilities:
        Maintenance & Improvement...................................          43.504         -$0.071           -0.16
        Sanitation Facilities.......................................          92.188          -0.071           -0.08
        Health Care Fac. Construction...............................          52.000          -1.607           -3.09
        Fac. & Environmental Hlth Support...........................         116.501          -0.219           -0.19
        Equipment...................................................          14.387          -0.057           -0.40
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Facilities:.....................................         318.580          -2.025           -0.64
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total IHS:................................................       2,397.547          -6.819           -0.28
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Did the Department follow the provisions of the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act that no program, project, or activity
    could be reduced by more than 15 percent?
        Answer. Yes. The IHS was treated fairly.
        Question. What was the maximum reduction taken from any program,
    project or activity?
        Answer. Funding for Community Health Representatives was reduced by
    3 percent, the largest percent reduction in IHS, because Congress
    provided 17 percent more funds for this program than the Administration
    requested.
        Question. Did the Department follow the guidance of OMB that:
      --reductions should be taken from the least critical funding
            available to the agency;
      --reductions should be considered from funding above the President's
            request;
      --no reductions should be taken that would require reductions-in-
            force (RIF); and
      --agencies should make targeted recommendations rather than across-
            the-board funding cuts?
        Answer. The broad breakdown of the $6.8 million reduction is as
    follows:
        $0.7 million was taken from Congressional earmarked projects:
          --Hospitals/Clinics was reduced by $346,000 for projects which
                would benefit a specific Tribe, IHS Region or area of
                concern.
          --Facility Construction was reduced by $320,000 for specific
                construction projects.
        $6.1 million was taken from all line items, except for Contract
    Support Costs which was a high priority project and exempted from this
    reduction. The rescission was isolated, to the extent possible, to
    funds provided for inflationary cost increases.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
        I continue to be concerned about unpaid balances owed by the IHS
    for Priority I contract health services provided by private health care
    providers. In particular, I am aware that the Lake Region Clinic in
    Devils Lake, ND, is still owed $44,000 by the IHS for services dating
    back as far as fiscal year 1996. These are services that the IHS
    authorized for Priority I medical services and the local Service Unit
    agrees that the federal government owes this money. Yet the Lake Region
    Clinic is being told the funds don't exist to pay them. In addition,
    the Lake Region Clinic is owed another $39,000 for fiscal year 1999
    claims that have been authorized and for which purchase orders have
    been obtained, but the IHS Fiscal Intermediary in New Mexico says that
    the funding hasn't been released. This may not be a lot of money for
    large health care providers, but for a relatively small clinic like the
    one in Devils Lake, this creates a serious financial burden.
        Question. Dr. Trujillo, in May of last year, you sent me a letter
    indicating that it would take about 60 days to reconcile the claims
    owed the Lake Region Clinic. You also stated that, ``The IHS has
    sufficient money available to pay the Lake Region Clinic.'' Can you
    explain to me why, nine months later, this money still hasn't been
    paid? Can I get your personal commitment that these claims will be paid
    as promptly as possible?
        Answer. The IHS met with the Lake Region Clinic to review claims
    and resolved the claims that were presented at that time for fiscal
    years 1996 through 1998. For the Lake Region Clinic, the total billed
    amount for 1,493 claims submitted for FYs 1996-1998 was $590,320. The
    IHS has paid or authorized payment for $452,229; the remainder was
    disallowed or paid by a third party. This information is reported by
    the IHS Fiscal Intermediary and includes all claims through February
    25, 2000.
        Very recently, the Clinic presented the additional claims totaling
    $44,000. The IHS has the funds to provide payment for the new claims
    from the Lake Region Clinic submitted for FYs 1996-98. However, since
    the staff at the Fort Totten Service Unit were not aware of the new
    bills until recently, sufficient time is needed to review and determine
    if they meet the IHS eligibility requirements relating to referrals,
    notification, and availability of third party resources.
        In past years, the Fort Totten Service Unit has held regular
    meetings with the health care providers including Lake Region Clinic to
    monitor the payment process. The Area Office has implemented a
    ``Standards of Practice'' plan whereby the Service Unit assesses the
    amount that it is responsible for and develops a payment plan for any
    outstanding claims. Unfortunately, some payments have been affected by
    the recent conversion to a new accounting system. The IHS is working to
    ensure that any problems arising from the conversion are resolved in
    order to make payments in a timely manner.
        Question. I am also concerned that this is not an isolated problem.
    I am aware of another North Dakota IHS Service Unit that has $3 million
    in backlogged unpaid Priority I claims owed to a range of private
    health care providers. Does the IHS budget for fiscal year 2001 include
    funding specifically to pay these outstanding debts? How much does the
    IHS owe nationally for prior-year, authorized, Priority I contract
    health services?
        Answer. Currently, there is no backlog of priority one claims for
    the Ft. Totten facility. All bills submitted by Devils Lake vendors
    have been either approved for payment or denied.
        The IHS budget for fiscal year 2001 does not include any new
    funding that is specific for any prior year outstanding debts. All
    claims are paid through the IHS Area offices and the IHS fiscal
    intermediary contract with Blue Cross and Blue Shield and not
    segregated by the established priority levels.
        It is not unusual for claims to pend. In many cases, additional
    data is required before payment can be made. The information reviewed,
    such as diagnosis codes, patient/provider data, availability of third
    party resources, implementation of contractual requirements as well as
    any provider rate agreements, needs to be fully analyzed to assure that
    the most responsible use of the limited resources is achieved. By
    following these review practices the IHS is able to discount its
    payments by about 50 percent below the billed charges. At any given
    time there are a number of claims pending for all reasons in all
    locations for all priorities.
        Question. While I am glad that the fiscal year 2001 IHS budget
    includes a $41 million increase for contract health services, is this
    funding sufficient to pay for all anticipated Priority I contract
    health services in order to prevent future shortfalls?
        Answer. The increase is not sufficient to pay for all anticipated
    priority I claims. The increase will reduce the shortfalls in CHS
    funding experienced by IHS and tribal programs but services will still
    be deferred, and denials will still be issued for care not within
    medical priorities to eligible patients.
        Question. As I understand it, once sufficient documentation has
    been provided to the Service Unit by a private health care provider,
    the Service Unit has 5 days to either issue a denial or a purchase
    order. If the health care provider doesn't receive that decision within
    the required timeframe, is the IHS responsible for paying that claim?
    Is there any deadline imposed on the Service Unit for notifying the
    health care provider if sufficient documentation has not been received?
        Answer. For a claim to be considered viable all the necessary
    medical and demographic information must be at the service unit before
    the 5 day rule applies. Once the claim is determined viable, then a
    medical purchase order or denial must be issued for each bill received.
    The IHS will respond to a notification of a correct claim by a provider
    of a contract care service with either an individual purchase order or
    a denial of the claim within 5 working days after the receipt of such
    notification. If the SU fails to respond to a notification of a claim
    the IHS will accept as valid the claim submitted by the provider. In
    the case of the Fort Totten Service Unit, the interval from provision
    of service to the time the agency receives a bill has been
    significantly longer then the average across the system as has the time
    from service provision to issuance of a purchase order. In fiscal year
    1999, these intervals improved significantly and in fact are now
    shorter than the system wide intervals.
        Question. I also noted that, in the IHS' budget justification for
    fiscal year 2001, the number of reported deferred services has
    increased 42 percent from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 1998. As you
    know, when a patient waits to receive care on a deferred basis, the
    nature of the illness or injury is likely to worsen, and the cost of
    treating the condition increases. For instance, in 1993, the cost per
    case for deferred services was $176, and in 1997, this had risen to
    $257 per case. How much funding would be required to eliminate the
    deferral of contract care services? Is this amount incorporated in the
    fiscal year 2001 budget request?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999 the reported number of deferred
    services was 85,025 cases, which totaled approximately $31.4 million.
    Deferred services are services for care that are lower in priority and
    not emergent or urgent that can be delayed until funds become
    available. The definition of urgent and emergent has also become
    increasingly rigorous as the resources have become more constrained.
    With the increasing demand for contract health services there are
    generally no funds available at the end of the year to meet this need.
    Refractions, routine mammogram, orthodontics, ultrasound examinations,
    arthroscopies, physical therapy, dental hygiene, organ transplants, and
    orthopedic services are some examples of cases that are deferred.
        Question. I am also concerned that Native Americans living in the
    Aberdeen Area are not receiving an equitable amount of IHS funding.
    Over the last decade, the service population of the Aberdeen Area has
    increased by 25,000 people, but it doesn't appear that the funding
    allocated to the Area or to local Service Units has kept pace with that
    growth. What method does the IHS use to allocate funding for Area
    Offices? For individual Service Units? Does that method take into
    account current needs and reliance on contract health services or is it
    based on historical costs?
        Answer. The CHS funding has not kept pace with the cost of medical
    inflation and population growth. The IHS distributes recurring funds
    using a methodology based on each Area's historical base. New funds or
    non-recurring funds are distributed according to an approved CHS
    distribution formula developed to provide equitable funding. The
    formula factors in elements that consider Workload, Years of Productive
    Life Loss and CHS dependency. The dependency factor is based on the
    percent of total inpatient admissions in the private sector and
    benefits CHS programs that have no direct care facilities and are
    totally dependent on CHS to provide the needed medical care. Each year,
    the methodology is reviewed and consideration given to adjusting the
    weights of each factor in the methodology. Since these factors are
    based on national averages Areas have the authority to use local
    averages and distribute funds according to Area need.
        The distribution at each Area for funding to the service units
    varies. The Aberdeen Area has a 3-tiered Formula approved by the
    Aberdeen Area Tribes. The formula multiplies user population times the
    amount designated for the type of facility:

    Type of Facility:
        Large facility with extensive service available...........   $327.00
        Medium facility with less services available..............    377.00
        Ambulatory facility (8am-5pm availability)................    427.00

        The IHS just completed a Level of Need Funded (LNF) study as a
    means to address some of the funding deficiencies. The IHS is currently
    consulting with tribes on the study. If the LNF is accepted, it may be
    our source document for funding levels and a tool for working toward
    funding equity for all programs.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl

                      JOINT-VENTURE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

        There is tremendous backlog estimated at nearly $900 million on the
    IHS construction priority list. The fiscal year 2001 budget request
    addresses just 7 percent of this need. According to an IHS report
    issued last August, a tribe fortunate enough to get on the health care
    facilities construction priority list right now will have an estimated
    wait of 70 years before a facility is built. We can do better.
        Section 818 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Public Law
    94-437) provides the authority for a Joint Venture Health Facilities
    demonstration program, an innovative program to leverage tribal funds
    to provide health care to Indian tribes. To date, two tribes funded the
    building of facilities through this program in the early 1990's. In
    addition to accelerating improved access to health care for the two
    tribes, reports indicate that these projects were built more quickly
    and at less cost than comparable federally-funded construction. Three
    Wisconsin tribes--the St. Croix Chippewa, the Oneida and the Ho-Chunk
    are now in a position to make one-time expenditures to build health
    facilities, but they need IHS to provide equipment and staffing. The
    Joint-Venture program could help them meet that need.
        Two years ago, the House report to the Interior bill included
    language directing that the fiscal year 2000 budget should address the
    advisability of re-instituting the Joint Venture Health Facilities
    program. That didn't happen last year and I am doubly disappointed that
    the Administration chose not to include this request in its budget
    submission this year. It is my hope that our Subcommittee will revisit
    this issue.
        Question. The last time IHS funded joint-venture health facilities
    was in 1993 in Oregon and 1994 in Oklahoma. In your view, were these
    projects successful? What is IHS' position on the Joint-Venture
    program? Don't you think it makes sense to be leveraging federal
    dollars with tribal funds, if they are fortunate to have funds?
        Answer. Previous joint venture demonstration appropriations in
    fiscal year 1991 and 1993, totaling $2,552,000 in the facilities
    appropriations, were used to equip two joint venture demonstration
    projects; one in Poteau, Oklahoma, for the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma,
    and one in Warm Springs, Oregon, for the Confederated Tribes of Warm
    Springs. These two projects achieved the following:
        (a) The new additional space met the needs of the Tribes and the
    IHS at the time of construction. The constructed facilities are still
    fully accredited. Each new facility increased their capacity, so each
    health center was able to increase their services by 100 percent. The
    operating efficiency was improved. Waiting times were reduced
    significantly.
        (b) The partnership of this program allowed the new facilities to
    be provided more quickly and before they were on a priority list. This
    resulted in less Federal Government outlay for the construction of
    these facilities although the staffing and operating costs for these
    facilities would still be the same if IHS funded the construction.
    Involving the tribes in this manner, helps the development of long term
    health plans and infrastructure.
        Before moving ahead on any new administering a Joint Venture
    Program projects in the future, IHS will need to examine the following
    issues:
        (a) Find a way to integrate and prioritize joint ventures with the
    IHS Facilities Construction Priority Lists.
        (b) Ensure that long term costs associated with staffing and
    operations are consistent with IHS standards for providing health care
    facilities and services to Federally Recognized American Indians and
    Alaska Natives, and can be accommodated by future funding levels.
        (c) Assure that funding committed to Joint Venture projects must
    addresses priority needs for health care facilities and the delivery of
    health care services with the highest relative need.
        IHS will continue to work with Congress and the Tribes on how to
    best balance projects currently on the IHS priority lists and the
    potential of a Joint Venture Program.
        Question. Can you explain to me why we have seen no funding for
    this program?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 Budget is committed to supporting
    access to health care services and improving the health status of
    Native Americans. The Budget provides a total of $65.237 million for
    Health Care Facilities Construction and includes investments to fund
    the final phase of construction for the Fort Defiance, Arizona Hospital
    ($38.715 million) and design of the staff quarters ($1.4 million),
    complete construction of the Parker, Arizona Health Center ($7.578
    million), second-phase construction of the Winnebago, Nebraska Hospital
    ($12.286 million), design of the Pawnee, Oklahoma Health Center ($1.745
    million), modular dental units ($1 million), and Small Ambulatory
    Construction Grants ($2.513 million). These and other budget priorities
    precluded the inclusion of the Joint Venture Program in the President's
    fiscal year 2001 budget request.
        Question. What do you recommend to those tribes that are in a
    position to build facilities but do not have the funds to equip and
    staff them?
        Answer. We encourage tribes to continue addressing the health care
    needs of their communities. The IHS recommends for tribes to seek
    alternative financing through other agencies like the Department of
    Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development grants, and private
    foundations or to wait until funding is appropriated to IHS for
    equipment and staffing. Last year IHS held a Roundtable discussion
    where tribes shared information on how they were able to finance
    construction of their health care facility. The results of the
    Roundtable were documented and this valuable information is available
    to all tribes contemplating obtaining their own health care facility.
    We will continue to work with tribes and Congress on how to best
    balance projects currently on the IHS priority lists and the potential
    of a Joint Venture Program.

                              Subcommittee Recess

        Senator Stevens. So the subcommittee will stand in recess
    until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 22, when we will receive
    testimony on the fiscal year 2001 budget requests for the U.S.
    Forest Service; Hon. Mike Dombeck, Chief, U.S. Forest Service
    and Hon. Jim Lyons, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
    Environment, Department of Agriculture.
        [Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., Wednesday, March 1, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, March 22.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2000

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

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

    STATEMENT OF:
            JAMES LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
            MIKE DOMBECK, CHIEF
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            VINCETTE L. GOERL, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, DEPUTY CHIEF,
                OFFICE OF FINANCE
            RANDLE PHILLIPS, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS AND LEGISLATION
            JAMES R. FURNISH, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
            JANICE McDOUGAL, DEPUTY CHIEF, STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY
            ROBERT LEWIS, DEPUTY CHIEF, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON

        Senator Gorton. This hearing will come to order.
        I am pleased to recognize our witnesses, Jim Lyons, Under
    Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, of the USDA,
    and Mike Dombeck, Chief of the Forest Service, both of whom are
    familiar with this subcommittee, and have testified frequently
    in the past.
        Before we take up the Forest Service budget request for
    fiscal year 2001 let me make a few observations about the
    current fiscal climate in which the subcommittee must do its
    work.
        We are close, I think, to a debate over a budget resolution
    for 2001. That resolution is likely to recommend a non-defense
    discretionary spending level that is similar to this year's
    level, or has perhaps an inflationary increase, and is perhaps
    as much as $30 billion less than the administration's overall
    budget authority request. As a consequence, this subcommittee
    can expect that its allocation will be considerably less than
    what the President requested.
        I do not see how Congress is going to be able to provide
    more than $1 billion in increases proposed by the President for
    this year's Interior and related agencies bill. It is in this
    context that we look at the Forest Service budget today, as
    well as the budgets of all of the other entities that go within
    our jurisdiction.
        The President proposes to increase the agency's budget by
    about $230 million, or 8\1/2\ percent. I must tell you that I
    find the priorities in the budget troubling. The most
    significant increases, for example, are for research, $13
    million, the purchase of conservation easements, $30 million,
    land acquisition, $51 million, recreation, $49 million, and
    planning and monitoring, $65 million.
        I can and will support additional funds for public
    recreation on our national forests. I am also personally
    intrigued by the purchase of conservation easements, the
    retention of the property in private ownership, and its
    preservation in its present form which is often highly
    desirable.
        I do find it difficult, however, to support large increases
    for the Forest Service to do seemingly endless amounts of
    planning and to count various fungi and mollusks, while
    critical programs like fire preparedness, reconstruction and
    maintenance, and timber sales are slated for decreases. I hope
    that we will get an explanation for these priorities today.
        Perhaps the most significant aspect of this year's request
    is a massive restructuring of the budget. This proposed
    restructuring would reduce the number of line items in the
    National Forest System appropriation from 20 to 3. The need for
    this restructuring is suggested not only by the Agency, but
    also by the National Academy of Public Administration, which
    prepared a report on the Forest Service budget pursuant to
    congressional direction last year.
        According to both the Academy and the Forest Service, the
    current budget structure does not reflect the integrated nature
    of the agency's work. Indeed, agency personnel must often
    decide how to charge the total cost of a project with multiple
    benefits across 15 or more line items.
        The way the cost of a project is charged can become quite
    arbitrary, and the number of entries required in the agency's
    books overwhelms the agency's accounting system. The simplified
    budget structure and a new accounting principle advocated by
    the agency, called Primary Purpose, would mean that most
    projects would be funded from a single line item. Clearly, a
    simpler budget would make the accounting tasks much easier.
        I am sympathetic to attempts to improve the fiscal
    accountability of the Forest Service, and I have been
    encouraged by recent statements by the General Accounting
    Office that indicate that the agency is making progress on
    getting its fiscal house in order. There are, however, a number
    of aspects of the proposed restructuring proposal that I find
    questionable. Let me give a bit of detail on that subject.
        We have had great difficulty in agreeing to on-the-ground
    management objectives with the administration. In fact, I
    believe that many of my colleagues feel that the agency
    frequently ignores congressional direction or oversight. For
    example, the agency is now engaged in a major new rulemaking on
    roadless areas for which money was never requested in any
    budget.
        We are still trying to determine how much this effort will
    cost and what other critical activities are being neglected
    while personnel are diverted. It seems to me that in this
    environment providing the Forest Service with more discretion
    with respect to how it spends appropriated dollars may give
    Congress even less control over how the Service spends money
    and what is being accomplished.
        Another problem I see with changing the budget structure is
    that the NAPA report, which forms the basis for the proposal,
    contains other important recommendations that the Forest
    Service has not addressed.
        These other recommendations include the development of
    criteria that would do a better job of basing field allocations
    on agency priorities and establishing better links between
    annual performance and the agency's strategic goals and
    objectives. Since these issues have yet to be addressed, I am
    concerned about whether it is prudent to go forward on a
    piecemeal basis.
        Finally, I believe that the Agency's performance-based
    budgeting philosophy needs more work. As I understand it, the
    agency is asking the Congress to worry less about what pot of
    money funds are put into and more about what is being
    accomplished with the dollars. Accomplishments would be judged
    by performance measures developed by the Forest Service. The
    performance measures, however, that we have seen are seriously
    deficient.
        As the General Accounting Office found, most of them
    confused quantity with quality. For example, the performance
    measure for the hazardous fuels program is the number of acres
    treated. This measure encourages the agency's field offices to
    focus on the easiest and least costly areas to maximize the
    number of areas treated, and, thus, show high performance. Many
    of the top priority areas for fuel reductions, however, are in
    the urban interface where the cost of treatment is the
    greatest. Performance measures should be developed that show
    not only what the agency is doing, but also whether it is doing
    it well.
        Another problem with the performance measures is that there
    are many groups that measure their satisfaction with the Forest
    Service budget based on how much funding is included in the
    budget line items associated with their particular programs.
    The Forest Service has encouraged this approach.
        Many groups are not certain that the specific measures that
    are being proposed will provide them with the same quality of
    information they feel they currently get from the existing
    budget structure. It may be appropriate to establish a
    collaborative framework in which interested stakeholders can
    provide input on the development of performance measures.
        I hope the witnesses can address the concerns that I have
    raised today with respect to the budget restructuring proposal.
    I know we have struggled over differences on policy issues. As
    I said last year, however, we should all be able to work
    together to create a better budget structure that enhances the
    ability of the Service to account for appropriated dollars and
    to get work done on the ground.
        Now, my partner in this effort, Senator Byrd.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

        Senator Byrd. I am going to be your partner, also, in
    sharing the concerns you have expressed. I will be very
    interested in hearing the explanations of the witnesses to
    those concerns.
        I will have some questions of my own dealing with those
    same concerns, but I would like to take the opportunity to say
    how much I look forward to working with you again, Mr.
    Chairman, this year on the Interior bill. It has been a
    pleasure thus far to do so.
        Again, I salute the chairman, who I think is as good as any
    chairman. He is effective, well prepared, and is as
    knowledgeable as any chairman with whom I have served, and I
    have been on this committee longer than anybody who has ever
    served. I am in my 42d year on this committee.
        So I thank you for the many courtesies that you always
    extend to me, and for the courtesies extended by your staff to
    my staff.
        These are all the hallmarks of the close relationships that
    we on the Appropriations Committee have developed. This bill
    could not become a reality without a commitment to work
    together, and the dedication of members like you. I thank you
    for that.
        Now, to the witnesses: Let me welcome Under Secretary Lyons
    and Chief Dombeck. You are here first and foremost, of course,
    to present the administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request
    for the Forest Service.
        At more than $3.1 billion, an increase of nearly 10 percent
    over fiscal year 2000 enacted levels, this budget presents an
    ambitious, some might say unrealistic, agenda for your agency.
    Beyond merely providing this committee with copies of the
    request, you are here to answer some questions on a range of
    topics that are important to the American people as a whole,
    and to our respective constituents, in particular.
        There are, as there have been in the past, some rather
    contentious issues facing the Forest Service today. Timber
    harvest, grazing on Forest Service lands, roadless areas,
    backlogs of watershed maintenance, and basic matters of agency
    accountability. Let me say that again--basic matters of agency
    accountability and efficiency, all of these and more bear
    looking into.
        As we proceed, I will have several questions of my own
    related to the Forest Service facilities located in West
    Virginia. I will be interested in knowing, for example, why the
    administration has chosen to stop funding the ongoing work of
    upgrading the antiquated radio systems at the Monongahela
    National Forest. I think a good argument can be made, and I
    fully intend to make it, that this project is not some
    frivolous pie-in-the-sky endeavor. On the contrary, a modern
    communication system is absolutely central to the safety and
    well-being of not only Forest Service personnel, but also the
    nearly 2 million Americans who will visit the Monongahela
    National Forest this year.
        As is customary, I will reserve my specific questions until
    after the witnesses have had an opportunity to offer their
    testimony. I look forward to hearing your statements. I trust
    that you are prepared to provide the American taxpayers with a
    full accounting of the activities of the Forest Service. Thank
    you.
        Senator Gorton. The chairman of the full committee, Senator
    Stevens.

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, it is with great sadness
    that once again I come to this subcommittee as a former
    solicitor of the Interior Department to make the statement that
    I am going to make.
        I will try to get back, but we are having battles on the
    budget, as you well know, all of you, and I may not be able to
    get back. But I will say to our friends from the Forest Service
    that when I came here the cut from the Tongass was a billion-
    and-a-half board feet a year, on a 100-year cutting cycle, a
    scientifically created one by your predecessors.
        We then entered into the Tongass Timber Reform Act, carried
    through by Congressman Udall, which cut that down to 450
    million board feet. This administration has now, through a
    series of actions, including the resolution of 30
    administrative appeals without public review, removed another
    100,000 acres from the timber base, and cut the allowable sale
    quantity by a third.
        With the roadless areas being proposed now for the Tongass,
    contrary to the provisions of the Jackson amendment to the 1980
    act that said there would be no more withdrawals of any kind in
    Alaska without congressional approval, there will be less than
    400,000 acres available out of a 17-million-acre forest for
    harvesting timber.
        We believe that the net result will be that the total
    amount available for sale in Alaska will be under 100 million
    board feet.
        Now, I cannot think of any time when an agency has been so
    derelict in its duty to maintain the concepts of the national
    forest. Mr. Chairman, I will oppose any increase of any kind
    for the Tongass this year.
        The proposal in the budget is to increase the number of
    people that come to Alaska to determine how much more of it
    should be set aside, not to determine what should be made
    available for those who make their livelihood off harvesting
    that timber.
        I would invite you sometime to come up to the Admiralty
    Island. Most people who came to Alaska in the seventies did not
    know that Admiralty Island was cut over in the sixties, and
    today it is a wilderness area.
        The regrowth capability of this forest is enormous, but
    this administration has now completely turned the Tongass
    National Forest into a national park, and I see no reason why
    we should continue to hire people from the Forest Service to
    run a national park.
        I cannot tell you the number of times I have been here
    before and complained about this or that, but this time we are
    at the bottom. You just cannot run a timber industry with 100
    million board feet out of a 17-million-acre forest, and I think
    you have been duplicitous, you have not followed the law, and
    as a matter of fact, if I was Solicitor of the Interior
    Department, I would proceed to somehow or another bring some
    action against you for invading their jurisdiction with your
    actions.
        You really have made Southeastern Alaska a national park,
    and I think there are a few people in Alaska that might welcome
    that, but very few, I am sorry to tell you.
        I will have some other suggestions about this budget as a
    whole. I do not believe that the Forest Service should continue
    to keep people on the payroll who are there to manage
    harvesting timber and overlay them with people who tell them
    they cannot harvest timber.
        It is going on all over the country, and this budget is way
    out of whack. Before we are through this year, I hope it is
    substantially lower than the request.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Kohl.

                     OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL

        Senator Kohl. Let me say that the atmosphere in Northern
    Wisconsin, when it comes to forest issues, is not nearly as
    charged as it is in the West. I wish the Forest Service paid
    more attention to the differences between the East, when it
    comes to forest issues in Wisconsin, and the West, especially
    when you formulate policy.
        Unlike Western States, although Wisconsin is heavily
    forested, 46 percent of our State, only 10 percent of our
    forest land is federally owned. In this context, imagine my
    surprise when representatives of Wisconsin's 72 counties came
    to me several weeks ago, and their number one issue of concern
    was the Roadless Initiative, even though only 8 to 10 counties
    may be directly affected by the proposals.
        If these counties are so vehement, I am concerned that
    relations with the Forest Service are seriously deteriorating,
    despite a good history of working together, even when there
    were disagreements. The counties have even considered suing the
    Forest Service.
        I believe that many of the concerns are a result of a lack
    of information about how this proposal will be implemented. I
    share the administration's desires to protect sensitive
    forestland, but we must do so in a way that is respectful of
    those who live in forest communities, recreational users, and
    those who rely on the forest for their livelihood. I will have
    questions at a later time.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Bennett.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me start by saying that my personal relationships with
    the witnesses here have been very good. I have found them to be
    responsive when we have had specific kinds of problems in Utah,
    and very anxious to answer my phone calls and talk through the
    issues, and I have to make sure the record reflects that, but I
    have no personal animosity. Indeed, I have personal gratitude
    to both Mr. Dombeck and Mr. Lyons and their staff for their
    willingness to work with us.
        I do have some of the same problems with the general
    policies of this administration with respect to the Forest
    Service that my colleagues have. I would not be responsive to
    the cries of anguish that have come out of Utah if I did not
    have those concerns.
        The only comment that I would make to add to those that
    have already been made with respect to the Roadless Initiative,
    and other comments, is this general philosophic comment that I
    want to get on the table. There is an assumption that if an
    area goes roadless, it is, therefore, protected, that if an
    area walls out human beings it is, therefore, protected, and
    the next assumption is, if it is protected, things get better.
        So behind that assumption is that man is a predator, and
    that man destroys wherever he goes, and that pure nature is
    benefitted if human beings can be walled away from it forever.
        We have an example in Utah, which Mr. Dombeck is familiar
    with, but which I need to get on the record before the
    subcommittee, which I think flies in the face of that. Because
    of certain management procedures during this administration
    with respect to certain portions of the Dixie National Forest,
    because of the 32-cent appeals, I guess it is now a 33-cent
    appeal, that have been honored as a group with nothing more
    than a letterhead and a stamp, puts in an appeal that stops
    everything until the appeal is handled, and thereby shuts down
    any kind of intelligent activity, from my point of view, we
    have beetle infestation in large parts of the Dixie National
    Forest, which infestation is killing the forest.
        If the Forest Service were managing the forest, it would be
    in better shape. Human beings do not destroy the forest when
    they enter it. Human beings do not interfere with benign
    nature.
        Nature many times can be anything but benign. Nature causes
    earthquakes. Nature causes avalanches. Nature causes eruptions
    of volcanoes, and nature causes beetle infestation that kills
    trees, and we have trees that are being killed because of the
    philosophy that says that human beings should not be allowed
    into the Dixie Forest to in any way interfere with nature, and
    then we are being told we cannot harvest those trees that are
    already dead, but still useable as timber.
        I think the whole rethinking of this notion that somehow
    protection means ignoring what is going on in nature is wrong,
    and the ultimate responsibility of the Forest Service, it seems
    to me, is to see to it that when you are through things are
    better than they were when you started, and there are certain
    portions of the National Forest in Utah where I have to look at
    it and say, when this administration is through, the forest
    will be in worse shape than it was when this administration
    started, and I find that very difficult.
        Now, I do not call up the kind of anger and excitement that
    my chairman from Alaska does, but I do think this is a
    philosophical point that could be applied in Alaska as well,
    and I would hope that this administration would think about
    that for a while.
        Again, as I say, the legacy that I would hope any
    management of the Forest Service would leave would be that at
    the end of its term the forests are in better shape than they
    were at the beginning of the term, and I can take you to places
    in my State where that is not true.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and, again, I close as
    I began, I have no personal animosity towards either of these
    witnesses, because I have found them very approachable and
    helpful, but I do have that general philosophical point of view
    that I think ought to be on the record.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Leahy.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary
    Lyons, Chief Dombeck, and your colleagues. I am happy to see
    you are here, probably happier than you are to be here, but
    thank you for coming up. I, too, have found that I have had
    calls or questions that have been answered very quickly. We are
    trying to give you the white-haired, bald-headed compliments
    here from both sides of the table.
        Chief, I want to single out one particular thing, because I
    may have to be at another hearing, and that is to commend your
    support in this year's budget for the Forest Legacy program.
        In my own State of Vermont, that is considered over 35,000
    acres, and it has created some very valuable partnerships
    between local, State, and Federal agencies, and in a little
    State like Vermont, 35,000 acres is a great deal, but the land
    conservation, as you know, is only one part of the picture if
    you are going to maintain viable continuing forested
    communities.
        I think you have to add economic assistance to those
    communities. That is an essential component to maintain the
    vitality of these royal areas.
        So I am concerned that the budget does not include a
    comparable level of support for economic development programs,
    such as the economic action programs, and the forest
    stewardship programs. In fact, the administration's request is
    a lot less than last year's.
        On one hand we have the Forest Legacy program, support for
    that, a very good thing, but we need more support for the
    economic action programs and the forest stewardship programs;
    otherwise, you do not have a balanced effort to preserve, not
    just the rural landscape, but a sustainable landscape in rural
    America.
        I want Chairman Gorton, Senator Byrd, and you, and others
    to know that a number of us are working on a letter, with
    Senator Bond, Senator Lugar, and Senator Murray. This is a
    letter that is going to have 40 signatures in support of
    increasing these economic development programs.
        The question I would have for you at some point in your
    testimony is whether you agree that the committee should
    continue to support these economic development programs, and
    what they do for the economic vitality. It is a careful balance
    that you have to work out, but unfortunately it is a balance
    that cannot be sustained without enough money into the
    community. So Slade and Bob, we will have this letter. We will
    be encouraging more in that area.
        I thank you for having this hearing.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Craig.

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

        Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kohl, let me address first of all the question and
    the comments you have just made, because they are so paramount
    in all that we are doing now with the Forest Service. I chair
    both of the forestry subcommittees of this Senate, and I must
    tell you that the roads initiative that your counties are
    concerned about is one that the West is all but ready to revolt
    over.
        The irony of this in the hearings that we have had with all
    of these gentlemen here is that when our States ask to be
    participants, and I believe now five or six State Governors
    have asked these gentlemen to become involved as cooperating
    agencies in trying to sort out these new relationships and
    potentially new designations of this roadless land, they were
    told no, even though this administration, over a good number of
    years has talked about the concept of cooperating agencies, and
    bringing States into the decision-making process.
        My State of Idaho has 8.2 million acres of this land that
    is being considered now. It is, without question, key to my
    State's future in so many ways, and yet my State is being told,
    stand back and stand down.
        Our State filed a lawsuit sometime ago, dismissed by a
    Federal judge, because the issue had not ripened enough, but
    the Federal judge at that time admonished the Forest Service to
    involve the States and the Federal--these gentlemen right here
    said no. The reason is they have a time schedule they must stay
    to. It is an agenda that has a great deal of politics tied to
    it, sadly enough.
        New lawsuits have been filed as this issue ripens, and more
    lawsuits will be filed, and we will look at a variety of
    aspects, and I will probably have to become a participant in
    most of those, because they are ignoring the impact of States
    out west.
        We have State lands that are tied up inside these Federal
    lands that could be locked away, and, of course, those lands
    directly involve State funding, State agencies, mostly schools,
    education, or denied access to them, or management of them. It
    could damage the economy.
        So that is one issue that I would very much like to visit
    with you about in detail, because it has neared a crisis
    situation in the West and in large public land States, but it
    affects all States that have U.S. forestlands, as the right of
    the State to somehow participate to some degree in the future
    land designations and uses of these forests.
        Mr. Chairman, my comments today will probably come mostly
    in questions, so I will spend most of the morning with you
    here, because there are some key questions. I have some of the
    very similar concerns that the Senator from West Virginia has
    expressed about this budget, and its priorities, and the
    accountability of this agency and their commitment to that
    accountability, and somehow their inability to get to that
    point. I think that is very important for us.
        There are a lot of other issues that I will be dealing with
    as we move through these questions, but thank you very much. We
    ought to hear from these gentlemen and get on with the
    questions.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Domenici.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I am struggling to get a
    budget that has enough money in it for you to have something to
    appropriate.
        Senator Gorton. I hear you talking.
        Senator Domenici. I am not very preoccupied with this
    hearing, except on some drought issues and emergency issues,
    and in my turn I will ask about issues.
        Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to correct the
    record, especially for Senator Kohl. His Governor has asked for
    cooperating agency status, and that has been denied. Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. We are going to have a vote fairly soon. We
    have a large number of members here, and with Senator Byrd's
    permission I am going to ask members like Senator Domenici and
    Senator Kohl, if you have a relatively small number of
    questions, we will let you go now, and then you will not have
    to come back after the vote is over.
        So I will start with you, and if it is all right with my
    colleagues, with Senator Domenici, who has this whole budget to
    do. We will hear your full statements, but it will be after we
    come back from the vote.
        So, Senator Kohl, please go ahead.
        Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My questions are on the Roadless Initiative. For the State
    of Wisconsin, of course, there are reports that 69,000 acres in
    the Chequamegon Forest are inventoried roadless areas, which
    will be affected by the Roadless Initiative. There seems to be
    some confusion about where these acres are actually located.
    When will we know exactly where these 69,000 areas are located?
        Mr. Dombeck. Senator, we have that information. In fact,
    after the hearing is over, I am traveling to Milwaukee to meet
    with the regional leadership team. So that information is on
    the Web. We have that mapped. Those areas have been
    inventoried. I think there is much confusion over where they
    are, and knowing where they are is not the issue, I do not
    believe.
        Senator Kohl. Thank you. Can you clarify what is meant by
    inventoried roadless areas? Are these areas truly roadless? For
    example, in phase one, one option identified is to prohibit
    road construction or reconstruction in roadless areas. If these
    areas are truly roadless, why would you need to prohibit
    reconstruction?
        Mr. Dombeck. The 69,000 acres on the Chequamegon and
    Nicholet National Forests were inventoried under the RARE I and
    RARE II exercises that occurred in, I believe, the late
    seventies. Some of those areas may have trails, other kinds of
    things that had never been classified, and have never been
    inventoried in any way.
        Senator Kohl. Will more forestlands beyond the 69,000 acres
    in Wisconsin be set aside when phase two of the Roadless
    Initiative is implemented? How many acres will be included in
    phase two? I know you may not have the exact numbers, but does
    anyone in the Forest Service have even an estimate?
        Mr. Dombeck. Let me point out that on the roadless proposal
    now, the proposals are in the process of being developed based
    upon the scoping meetings that we have had around the country.
        The current thinking, as this evolves, is that part two
    would basically be a local decisionmaking process. We would ask
    the local communities to take a look at what is important to
    them with regard to values, and then make that determination.
    It is just like the decision as to whether something is
    officially a road or needs to be decommissioned, or whatever.
    Those decisions all need to be made at the local level.
        There are some interesting facts with the Chequamegon and
    Nicolet, however, and that is that there is virtually no impact
    on timber volume. Essentially, these forests are roaded. In the
    Chequamegon and Nicolet we have--79 percent of these national
    forests are within a \1/4\ mile of an existing road. So it is
    an area of concern. We really have limited impact.
        Senator Kohl. I have heard from a number of people who are
    concerned that they were unable to attend meetings on the
    Roadless Initiative because they were too far away. Why were so
    many of the public comment sessions that were held during the
    scoping period located far from the affected forest
    communities, and will you make an effort to hold future
    meetings closer to the affected forest communities?
        Mr. Dombeck. Yes, we will. Of the 185 meetings that we
    had--and I believe we did have one on or very near every
    national forest--we are planning a two-staged approach.
        When the proposal is out there and all the information is
    available, there will be a round of public meetings--with a
    meeting on every national forest as well--to make sure people
    understand where the data are, the maps that are available.
    They can take a look at that information, take it back and
    digest it, and understand what it really means. Then, after a
    period of time, they can come back and comment on that
    information. So we are looking at extensive public involvement
    on an issue that has been very, very challenging for the Forest
    Service and, I think, for everyone here for a long, long time.
        If we can get this issue behind us, so we can dedicate more
    energy to areas of agreement, I think it will be to everybody's
    benefit.
        Senator Kohl. Last question. I have been following with
    interest the Path Initiative and Partnership for Advanced
    Technology for Housing Act. This initiative to speed the
    creation and use of advanced housing technologies will help
    make housing more affordable and attractive, while conserving
    our wood fiber resources.
        Since it was launched in 1998, PATH has earned the support
    of the major wood industry associations and the housing
    industry. The Forest Products Lab is taking the lead in this
    initiative, with its research in woodframe housing. More than
    30 universities across the country are poised to participate in
    PATH.
        The funding required to fully implement and maintain the
    Advanced Housing Research Center at the Forest Products Lab, so
    that all of the partner universities can participate is $10
    million annually.
        Does the Forest Service support PATH? Can you tell me why
    there is only $1 million in the budget for the PATH Initiative?
        Mr. Dombeck. We are very, very supportive of the PATH
    program. In fact, the part of the equation that we also need to
    spend more time on when we talk about supply and demand with
    timber is the efficiency of use. We currently now recycle about
    40 percent of our paper. Well, there is 60 percent more that we
    can focus on as we deal with the supply and demand issues.
        I am really proud of the work that is going on with the
    Forest Products Lab in Madison. Robert Lewis, our Deputy Chief
    for Research, is here, and is intimately familiar with that,
    and I will have him give you the details.
        Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Senator. The PATH program, we
    believe, is an outstanding one, and at the Forest Products Lab,
    as well as here in the Washington office, we have been working
    to develop that initiative.
        As you pointed out, we have been working with our partners,
    who are very much interested in advancing this. We have a
    request of $1 million of new money in the administration's
    budget.
        This is the first year of the initiative that we hope will
    pay good dividends down the line. You can be assured that we
    will continue to support it in out-year budget planning.
        Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Domenici, we will let you have your
    questions, so that you can go on to other work, and at that
    point we will take a recess while we vote.
        Senator Domenici. I just have a question that relates to
    two things. It may be irrelevant, because Mexico may have
    received an onslaught of moisture in the last 2 days. If we got
    2 or 3 days, these questions will not be terribly relevant. But
    certainly last Friday, if you would have been here, they would
    have been very relevant, so I think they remain so.
        As you know, we are in a big drought in the Southwest. New
    Mexico and Arizona, in particular, are predicted to have very,
    very significant difficulties this year.
        You are behind schedule with reference to some of the
    mitigation activities regarding fire danger in the national
    forests, and I discussed this with you last year, but could you
    tell me what specific measures are being taken to mitigate fire
    danger in New Mexico, and in particular, Arizona and related
    States, and do you need some reserve money, if we do an urgent
    supplemental for such a thing as a drought emergency in this
    area?
        Mr. Dombeck. We will be taking a look at that. The drought
    situation is severe in the Southwest, and, in fact, the band of
    drought goes across Texas and into Florida. We have a tough
    situation. Thank goodness, just recently, Idaho and other
    places north have gotten more precipitation following the
    pattern as we had last year.
        We are allocating more fire prevention dollars. We have had
    continual increases from 1998, 1999, to 2000, and we are going
    to continue to do that. I might ask Janice McDougal, from our
    State and Private Forestry program who manages the fire effort,
    to give us some more details.
        Ms. McDougal. Senator, we have been paying very close
    attention to the drought conditions in the Southwest. We have
    not yet received a severity request from the region. This money
    would allow them to bring on the people they need just in case
    there is a severe outbreak of fire.
        We also understand that $150 million could be included in
    the supplemental package that is being developed for that.
        Senator Domenici. Has there been a request for that money?
        Ms. McDougal. Yes.
        Senator Domenici. Were you aware of that, Mr. Dombeck?
        Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you. With reference to a National
    Drought Policy Commission, are you familiar with that----
        Mr. Dombeck. I am, Senator.
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. Do you represent the
    Secretary on that?
        Mr. Dombeck. Actually Deputy Secretary Rominger co-chairs
    that effort.
        Senator Domenici. Could I ask you, is your department
    concerned about what ought to be in that report, in terms of
    Forest Service emergencies that are caused by drought? As we
    look at the Federal law, drought as an emergency is one of the
    incidents of severe damage that has no real assistance
    provisions.
        You can run out of rural water wells, and it could be the
    equivalent of losing a sewer system or a water system, but we
    do not have any way of helping these people in a severe
    drought. Are you participating as a Department to get specifics
    in the National Commission's recommendations?
        Secretary Lyons. I will have to visit with Deputy Secretary
    Rominger on that specific point----
        Senator Domenici. Would you?
        Secretary Lyons [continuing]. Mr. Chairman. I will be glad
    to do that. I know Rich and I have talked both about the
    wildfire issues, as well as the potential impacts on
    agriculture.
        Senator Domenici. Would you put that in the record after
    you have consulted as to what you-all are thinking about in
    that regard?
        Mr. Dombeck. We will be pleased to do that, and we will
    send you a letter as well.
        Senator Domenici. I thank you. Thank you very much.
        Senator Gorton. We apologize, but as you know, we have a
    vote now. We will recess. When we come back we will allow both
    of you, invite both of you, to make your opening statements,
    and then go on with questions. Thank you.
        Senator Bennett [presiding]. The subcommittee will come to
    order. Senator Gorton has asked that we get started as he
    votes, and Senator Craig has a series of questions prepared.
        So, Senator Craig, we will recognize you.
        Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett.
        Jim and Mike, we are going to wait for your opening
    statements until the chairman and the ranking member return. I
    have a series of questions that I will ask for the record up
    until that time.
        First of all, Chief Dombeck, we have just sent down to you,
    as of yesterday, I believe, some revising efforts on our part.
    When I say ours, Senator Ron Wyden and myself, as it relates to
    the issue of the timber-dependent school district. We would
    hope to do markup by next Wednesday, and would like to have
    your comments back or reactions to that prior to that if we
    could. Is that something that we could expect you could respond
    to?
        Mr. Dombeck. Well, we hope to. We will sure make that a
    priority. As I have said in the past, I think that of all the
    issues that we are working on, that is one that I think that we
    are all hopeful that we can resolve some of the differences and
    move forward with. It is a very high priority for us.
        Senator Craig. Well, we are working from your language, so
    we hope that that is an effort to accommodate, so we can move
    this thing forward. I have a sense that we may be closer than
    some would like to have us at this moment, and if that is true,
    maybe some good policy could occur.
        Let me go on to ask questions. As you know, for the last
    several years, the Forest Service and the Idaho delegation has
    worked together to purchase conservation easements in the
    Sawtooth National Recreation Area.
        This program has worked well to protect the traditional
    ranching industry of the area, recognizing the private property
    rights, and conserving the beauty of the area, perhaps one of
    the crown jewels of the national forest system.
        It was unique when it was originally created, in that it
    was a combination of a natural area, and an alpine ranching
    valley, in an effort to maintain the pastoral setting that had
    become so well known in Idaho in that part of the West.
        This year, the administration requests $5 million for these
    easements; however, according to a March 13 letter by your
    forest supervisor, Bill Levere, $12.5 million in additional
    money is needed to purchase the easements for the current
    willing sellers. I guess, Jim, this is a question of you,
    because you and I have visited about this issue.
        I think we are all concerned of the bidding war that goes
    on out there over scenic easements, when we cannot keep current
    and respond to them, and get them acquired, as was the intent
    of the law and the original legislation that created the
    Sawtooth National Recreation area. I know that you had talked
    about a desire, as is mine, to try to get this problem out of
    the way sooner rather than later.
        I am not sure that we can do that this year, or are
    prepared to do it. Senator Crapo and I request that the $12.5
    million be included in the fiscal year 2001 budget. Is the
    Forest Service prepared to support that amount?
        Secretary Lyons. Well, Senator, let me take one step back
    and revisit our conversation, because I, too, share a desire to
    resolve these issues, and have worked very closely with you,
    your colleague, Senator Crapo, with the Sawtooth Society,
    Bethene Church, Senator Church's widow, and former Governor
    Andrews to try to pull these pieces together.
        I know Bill has made this estimate of $12.4 million. I
    cannot give you a point-blank estimate of what we are willing
    to support. I think the way to address this--and this is what I
    proposed to you previously and would like to pursue--would be
    for all of us to sit down at a certain time. I have actually
    asked my staff to look into a possible meeting in early May to
    get a handle of where willing sellers remain, the estimated
    property or, in this case, easement values, and the best way to
    get at that, whether it is $12.4 million, whether it is
    something less or more, whether we can do it in 1 year or 2
    years.
        My understanding is that not all the properties have been
    lined up, that is, not all the agreements have been reached.
        Senator Craig. That is correct.
        Secretary Lyons. My goal, and I know you share this, given
    our conversations, is to try and avoid the value-creep that
    comes of each last parcel awaiting its turn to come in line for
    acquisition easement. So I would suggest we sit down with the
    appropriate officials. I have talked to the lands staff at the
    Forest Service, if you are willing to do that with Senator
    Crapo----
        Senator Craig. Sure.
        Secretary Lyons [continuing]. And the colleagues in the
    Sawtooth Society. We figure out what it is going to take. Then
    I commit to work with you to try and secure the resources to
    make sure we can finish this once and for all. I know you, and
    Senator McClure, and others who were instrumental in the
    legislation, would like to see it completed.
        Senator Craig. Well, I am very willing to accept that
    initiative. I would like to get our hands around the issue and
    the values. We have already had phenomenal creep in values
    compared to what the original easements were purchased for, but
    then, of course, values have changed, in a real sense. So let
    me say, yes. Let us work on a date----
        Secretary Lyons. Very good.
        Senator Craig [continuing]. And see that we can come
    together to get that done. Of course, I would suggest sooner
    rather than later, as we work on this budget and the
    priorities. Hopefully, we can get more achieved this year than
    less, even if it is a 2-year cycle, and our effort to resolve
    takes that kind of time.
        On February 14, President Clinton asked Secretary Glickman
    to present his recommendations regarding whether appropriate
    stewardship of the giant sequoia groves warrants exercise of,
    quote, ``My authority under the Antiquities Act.'' I do not
    think it is any secret of my opposition to the way this
    President has used that act. It is no small coincidence that
    these designations come, in my opinion, in a prime election
    year. I think they are as political as they are conservation
    driven, and I have always viewed that as pretty shameful, in a
    misuse of the act itself.
        My colleague to my right had his State trampled in the last
    electoral process by that kind of an initiative, and there is a
    great apprehension out in the West, as it relates to our lands,
    and how that act might get used.
        The Secretary has received a request recently to appoint an
    independent panel of experts in giant sequoia matters to
    provide an unbiased review of the available scientific
    information. Does the Secretary plan to appoint such a panel
    prior to forwarding his recommendation to the President? Do
    either of you know of that?
        Mr. Dombeck. What I can tell you--I do not know the
    specific answer to that question--but I do know that I have
    asked the forest supervisor of the Sequoia National Forest, the
    regional forester, and a local team to take a look at this
    whole effort.
        They have had a couple of public meetings to make their
    recommendations to us, which we will then forward to the
    Secretary. I know that they are keen on the need for a
    scientific panel.
        Secretary Lyons. Senator, if I could just amplify one
    thing, and that is to recognize your concern about process. I
    think you also recognize the public concern, the fact that half
    of the giant sequoia groves that remain are part of the Sequoia
    National Forest, and a strong belief that through proper
    stewardship they should obviously be retained as a unique
    legacy to this country. That is the reason we are proceeding
    with this initiative, and the Secretary directed Mike to
    proceed with the analysis.
        Of course, we had two rather vociferous hearings recently
    in another part of the world. I think it is clear that there
    are concerns that need to be addressed. We seek to do this in a
    way that not only invites public participation, but ensures the
    best scientific guidance in the management of those groves, and
    also close coordination with the Park Service for the groves
    that they have under their jurisdiction, should a
    recommendation move forward to create a monument.
        Senator Craig. Well, Jim, it would be a bit of a precedent
    to involve the public in an antiquities move. You have not done
    that in the past. In fact, in the past you have not even
    consulted Members of Congress.
        The President directed the Secretary to consult with the
    appropriate Members of Congress during his review process. Do
    you know if he has, and whom that might be.
        Secretary Lyons. I would have to follow up on that,
    Senator.
        Senator Craig. OK. Do all of the area Members of Congress
    support the new national monument concept there?
        Secretary Lyons. Again, from some conversations, I know
    there is interest. I think it depends on who you are referring
    to specifically.
        I do not want to characterize particular Members' views on
    this, but there have been some concerns expressed about local
    impacts, obviously. There are others who have been very
    supportive and concerned about retention of the groves.
        Senator Craig. Sure. Well, I think all of us recognize the
    tremendous value of the giant sequoias. One last question in
    that realm, the chairman is here, and I know he wants me to
    move on.
        Senator Gorton [presiding]. You can finish your questions,
    Senator.
        Senator Craig. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In the last few days I have been contacted by a group of
    people who use Hume Lake Christian Camp. The camp is private
    property, and from what I understand, is located entirely
    within the boundaries of a proposed national monument. These
    people are scared.
        I think that is the only way I can express the emotion I
    sensed from conversations with them. They are scared that the
    Forest Service will attempt to control what they do with their
    private property, all in the name of protecting these
    magnificent sequoias.
        I realize that the monument does not exist yet, therefore,
    no management plan is in place. However, Secretary Glickman
    will be making recommendations to the President soon, and I
    would hope that this administration would be sensitive to these
    private property needs.
        I think any private property that would find itself located
    within a national monument would all of a sudden find itself
    having a different kind of relationship than it had in a non-
    national monument setting, access, restrictions, that kind of
    thing, and I think that the Hume Lake Christian Camp has
    expressed that to me.
        They are very frustrated, and bluntly put, they are
    frightened, because they have seen what has happened with this
    agency and these kinds of dictates in the past.
        Secretary Lyons. Well, Senator, obviously, uncertainty
    breeds fear and concern. I want to emphasize two things. This
    administration is committed to protecting the property rights
    of individuals and entities such as the church that you
    identified.
        Under ANILCA, of course, we are required to provide access
    to in-holders and private individuals. We intend to respect
    those private property rights, both in the context of what we
    are reviewing here--the presidential direction to consider the
    creation of the national monument for the giant sequoias--and
    also in the context of our discussions on the future of
    roadless areas.
        Senator Craig. Well, I appreciate you saying that. I have
    seen some very ill-thought-out processes rushed on by politics,
    where private property rights were not recognized until after
    the fact.
        Senator Bennett. Senator, would you yield?
        Senator Craig. I would be happy to yield.
        Senator Bennett. When the national monument was created in
    Utah, I decided somewhat facetiously that it was drawn with a
    soft crayon somewhere in the bowels of the Interior Department,
    because some of my constituents woke up the next morning to
    find that portions of their driveways were in the national
    monument.
        I would hope that you would be a little more exact in
    drawing the boundaries of this one than of the last one.
        Secretary Lyons. We will use a fine-point pen, I can assure
    you, Senator.
        Senator Craig. That is why I bring it up now. Well-worn,
    folks, let me put it that way. Do your homework and do it well,
    and do it publicly. This closed door politics has got to stop
    when it comes to re-designation of the public lands. It is a
    public process, that this policy-making body requires.
        The Supreme Court spoke yesterday to an over-extension of
    agency authority, and this Congress is going to react. So
    please do it right.
        Secretary Lyons. Thank you, Senator.

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES LYONS

        Senator Gorton. It might be appropriate now to let the two
    of you make your opening statements.
        Secretary Lyons. I am not quite sure where to begin, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. They will, of course, be included in the
    record, and perhaps a summary would be appropriate, but it is
    your turn to say what you would like to say.
        Secretary Lyons. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I
    appreciate Senator Dorgan joining us, and certainly Senator
    Bennett and Senator Craig. We are honored to have had the
    chairman of the Budget Committee and the chairman of the full
    Appropriations Committee join us as well for a while.
        In light of your opening comments about priorities in the
    budget situation we face, or the ongoing debate about a budget
    resolution, I will try to make things easier for you and focus
    in on priorities, at least as far as I think we see them. Then
    Mike will address some issues certainly related to our efforts
    to deal with accountability and, obviously, some of the other
    particular concerns he is addressing now.
        Let me start out by saying, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate
    certainly your kind words, Senator Bennett's kind words, and
    the working relationship we have had with all the members of
    the subcommittee. At times, we have had some very strong
    disagreements about policy. But I believe we have been able to
    work through some very difficult issues in the past. This
    budget will be a difficult one as well.
        But I really appreciate your personal commitment and those
    of the other members of the subcommittee to try and do the
    right thing. I think that is the best guide we can all follow
    in trying to resolve the issues that we face and trying to work
    together in a collaborative way to best help the people we
    serve.
        You represent particular States and particular interests.
    Unfortunately, Mike and I are put in the position of trying to
    represent all interests in the United States and a very diverse
    set of interests. When it comes to the management of the
    national forests, public lands complicate things immeasurably.
    We really do appreciate the extent to which you continue to
    work with us to try and move forward in making progress for the
    future years in the national forests and our conservation
    legacy.
        What I would like to focus on, Mr. Chairman, is just a few
    items. Some of these have already been alluded to and questions
    raised. We have put a great deal of emphasis, certainly during
    my tenure in office and certainly during Mike's tenure as
    chief, on the issue of roads, and road management, and road
    access. We have a number of initiatives underway to attempt to
    deal with issues associated with roads.
        There is a reason for this, and that is, not only do we
    have an extensive road system in the national forests--I will
    not go into the numbers, but we know they are huge, they are
    around 380,000 miles--we have a tremendous backlog in
    maintenance and management of that road system.
        It seems prudent, as managers of this public estate, to try
    and do a better job of managing the infrastructure that we
    have. One key to ensuring continued access to the national
    forests--whether it is for management or recreation use, to
    protect resources, or to provide access to utilize those
    resources--we need to make sure we have better management of
    the existing road system.
        Obviously, we have proposed a significant initiative with
    regard to roadless areas. The issue of roadless areas has tied
    up the Forest Service in knots for two decades. It was not
    resolved in the late seventies with RARE I and RARE II.
        It was not resolved, unfortunately, in the process we
    followed in the early eighties by working through the State-
    wide wilderness bills. There was still concern about the future
    years of inventoried roadless areas.
        So with certainly encouragement and strong direction from
    the President, we have attempted to take this issue on. We have
    attempted to take it on not, in my mind, because of any
    political agenda--more because we need to resolve this issue to
    try and simplify the lives of those who are responsible for
    managing those resources--to provide more certainty to those
    communities that are impacted--to try and put this issue behind
    us so that we can get on with the business of being stewards of
    the landscapes that we are entrusted to manage.
        The roadless issue, in my mind--and I think the numbers
    would back us up--is not a matter of timber supply. Less than 5
    percent of what we project would be harvested from the national
    forests over the next 5 years would come from roadless areas;
    less than 5 percent.
        There are five forests, though, where more than 25 percent
    of their volume would come from roadless areas and,
    unfortunately, Senator Bennett has four of those. So I
    understand Senator Bennett's concerns, because some of the
    localized impacts would be significant.
        The fifth is the Tongass, where more than 50 percent of the
    program would come from roadless areas. For those of you who
    have had a chance to look at the Notice of Intent that was
    issued, we gave deference to that in not recommending or
    suggesting that the Tongass not be addressed. At least in part
    one of our Roadless Initiative--that is--to how we would deal
    with the inventory of roadless areas initially.
        I do not believe that this is an issue of wildfire risk. We
    have done an extensive job of mapping wildfire risk across the
    United States. We find that only 3 million acres of the
    roadless areas coincide with areas of high wildfire risk in the
    United States.
        We believe we should focus our efforts in managing wildfire
    risks in those areas where there is a high threat to public
    safety and property. That is why we are focusing our efforts in
    areas in closer proximity to urban areas and communities that
    might be impacted by wildfire.
        Given the resources we have been able to obtain--the
    resources you have provided to us for fuel treatment, and the
    like--we have made considerable progress in that regard. We
    still are woefully short of the dollars that we need to address
    this issue. We appreciate the support you have provided. What
    you will find is that if we were simply to--under an assumption
    that we will continue to be funded at the current levels for
    fuel treatment, if we continue to treat those areas that are
    roaded, it would take upwards of 15 to 17 years just to catch
    up with the backlog of work we have on the already roaded
    estate.
        So I do not believe the roadless issue impacts our efforts
    to deal with fuel treatment with regard to wildfire risk.
        Finally, I do not think this is really an issue of access.
    The real issue affecting access is going to be determined by
    how we manage that existing infrastructure--that road and trail
    infrastructure, so the chart that was first put up I think
    illustrates--these are numbers adjusted for fiscal year 2000 in
    constant dollars, and what they show is, construction and
    reconstruction has declined over time. We have not placed as
    much emphasis on building new roads, though we are trying to
    put more money into reconstruction.
        Road maintenance dollars, where we put most of our effort,
    have increased slightly; though, as adjusted for inflation, you
    can see, Mr. Chairman, we are not quite keeping up. In fact,
    our engineering staff tells us that each year the backlog of
    maintenance needs increases by $120 million on just that
    portion of the road system that is highly trafficked for
    recreation, for management purposes, for simply rural commerce.
        The larger portion of the system, which is about 300,000
    miles, which is largely natural cover, is simply not
    maintained, and it is eroding in a rapid rate.
        So we think dealing with roads, dealing with road
    management--another proposal that is currently pending, out for
    public consideration, and dealing with road maintenance--is a
    critical need that we need to address.
        We also have placed a great deal of emphasis in recent
    years in trying to increase funding for recreation. We
    appreciate that tools that have been provided to us by the
    Congress to charge fees to the Rec Fee Demo Program--and I
    know, Senator Craig, we have had our problems with rec fee
    demo, but I hope I can convince you at some point in time that
    it warrants your continued support, because I think it is
    critical to securing the additional resources to deal with the
    infrastructure needs--the improvements that are critical to
    ensure better customer service on the national forest estate.
        Recreation demand continues to skyrocket. We are close to a
    billion visitor-days a year. We have a difficult time keeping
    up with and managing for that system. One of the reasons is, we
    have always viewed recreation as fun, not really a critical
    management issue, and more and more we find it is.
        It is from the standpoint of ensuring that the public has a
    chance to enjoy recreation; it is from the standpoint of
    minimizing the impacts of excessive recreation use in certain
    places, on natural resources; and it is from the standpoint of
    maintaining the quality of the experience.
        More and more we are finding, for example, in wilderness
    areas, we have to go through a permitting system--I think
    Alpine Lakes Wilderness is now under a permit system--simply to
    try and ensure that those who can get a chance to get in the
    back country can enjoy the experience they anticipated, as a
    part of that system. The budget includes increased funding,
    27.5 percent increase for recreation, and I think that is a
    critical need.
        I also want to address the issue of land acquisition
    because this is an issue that comes up in most of these
    hearings. Unfortunately, there is a perception that some
    Federal agencies--and I do not think we are as guilty perhaps
    as some--but some Federal agencies are aggressively seeking
    funds to increase land acquisition and bring more lands into
    the Federal estate.
        The truth of the matter is, Mr. Chairman--these are actual
    dollars. The truth of the matter is, we had relatively high
    levels of funding for land acquisition back during the Bush
    administration.
        The fiscal years 1991 and 1992 budgets there, you will see
    reflected, were, of course, Bush budgets. Then funding levels
    declined as we attempted to deal with budget deficits and the
    like.
        We are now requesting additional funds for land
    acquisition. The chart you have in front of you, gentlemen,
    shows how those numbers will be adjusted for constant dollars.
    I think if you drew a line across from fiscal year 1991 over to
    2000, 2001, you would see we are just now getting back to
    slight increases above the funding levels we had, in real
    terms, earlier in this decade.
        I want to emphasize that we do not acquire lands other than
    on a willing-seller basis. I cannot think of, during my 7 years
    in office, more than one time in which we used condemnation
    authority, and that was a friendly condemnation. The landowner
    asked us to go through that process.
        We are trying to use new tools. Mr. Chairman, you
    emphasized the use of conservation easements. We found the
    public reaction and concern about the tax rules was such that
    we needed to come up with new approaches of doing business.
        The Forest Legacy program has helped tremendously. We
    appreciate the support you gave us last year. We seek to double
    that program this year to $60 million as part of the
    President's Lands Legacy Initiative. In fact, our goal is to
    permanently fund not only land acquisition, but Forest Legacy,
    and another important program, the Urban and Community Forestry
    Program, in the context of the Kara bill, whatever form it
    takes, when it eventually passes the House and the Senate.
        Other initiatives in the budget that I would just emphasize
    briefly--because I think they reflect, I know they reflect our
    efforts to try and deal with some of the issues that we have
    discussed in this room before, Mr. Chairman--one is the
    payments to States initiative that Senator Craig and Senator
    Wyden have worked with us on.
        We initiated efforts to try and reform payments to States 2
    years ago. We appreciate, certainly, the engagement and
    leadership in the Congress that they have provided. We still
    have some concerns about the legislation.
        We have not had a chance to review what has been presented
    by Senator Craig most recently. Those concerns, Senator, are
    around identifying a funding source, how we handle the advisory
    committees that are a part of that package, and also the issue
    of flexibility.
        We believe that the counties ought to have the right to
    choose whether or not they want the 25 percent of the funds
    that are currently committed to projects--whether or not those
    funds should go to education and roads, as the counties would
    normally have them do--or whether they should go to projects.
        I do not think anyone in Washington, DC, should dictate to
    the counties how they want their money used. In fact, I have
    heard this said to me many times in this room, I would
    emphasize.
        So we suggest that rule of thumb should apply here as well;
    although, we are anxious, I would suggest to you, to develop
    joint projects with communities on the ground. I think there is
    a tremendous opportunity to do good stewardship work and
    develop a closer working relationship with those communities.
    So we would hope the communities would exercise that authority,
    but we want to give them that choice.
        Another initiative in the budget, we call HIRE, Healthy
    Investments in Rural Environments. This is an attempt, Mr.
    Chairman, a creative attempt to reform the existing trust
    funds--salvage, Knutson-Vandenberg, reforestation, and timber
    sales pipeline fund--to create a pool of resources that we
    could then use to work with local communities to provide local
    employment to deal with some of the infrastructure issues we
    have, such as road maintenance and road reconstruction, timber
    salvage, trail maintenance work, work on recreation facilities,
    and the like.
        One of the things that has always thwarted us in providing
    opportunities for local employment is the certainty of having
    that funding available. No community can make an investment--no
    State is willing to partner up with an entity who has money
    this year, but not next year. It is not worth the investment.
    We have learned this through the Northwest Forest Plan and in
    other efforts.
        So we have proposed to generate a pool of funds that would
    provide some certainty. In this next year, we provide $300
    million to begin the process of providing local employment and
    dealing with the infrastructure issues that face us. So we are
    trying to be creative in how we deal with these issues, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Let me emphasize one other thing that is ongoing that I
    think is significant. Reference was made in your opening
    comments, Mr. Chairman, to monies requested for forest
    planning. We are in the process of reforming our forest
    planning process.
        Actually, it has been a process that has been underway for
    11 years. It is one I would like to wrap up this year. We are
    seeking to revolutionize, if you will, how we do forest
    planning, to place more emphasis on collaboration and up-front
    involvement from communities of interest, from individuals in
    communities that are affected by forest planning.
        We are seeking to enhance the linkage between the research
    we do in research and development, and what guides us in terms
    of management. We are trying to deal with some of the thorny
    issues that have really hurt us in terms of past management--
    issues associated with viability--and what viability standards
    should apply--issues associated with monitoring--so that if we,
    in fact, are able to come up with a system of accountability
    that measures performance by what they do on the ground, we can
    actually monitor that and determine that.
        I think that will help us as managers and it will help us
    build public trust. All too often we make commitments to do
    things on the ground, never gone back to check, and lo and
    behold, the public has and said: ``Wait a minute, you did not
    do what you said you were going to do,'' or the outcome was not
    what we anticipated, and maybe you need to readjust.
        When Jack Ward Thomas was Chief, Jack would often come up
    and talk about ecosystem management and adaptive management.
    Our whole budget is built on this framework of adaptive
    management, and Mike and I have tried to carry that forward.
        It is critical that we are able to make changes in the
    forest planning process and secure the additional resources to
    put that planning process in place--to do the monitoring, to
    develop better linkage to the science, and better improve
    public involvement in this process--so we can start to build
    partnerships for the management of the national forests instead
    of the adversarial relationships that exist all too often in
    places that all you gentlemen know.
        Let me sum up, Mr. Chairman, by suggesting to you, as you
    might anticipate, that I think this budget is on track. We may
    not have the money to do what we have proposed to do. We will
    have to work with you to deal within the constraints that we
    operate. In this last budget--at least, that I will be
    presenting to you--I thought that it was important that we made
    a statement about where we want to head--a statement that
    reflected what we believe is a continuing trend towards
    improving resource stewardship--of improving service to the
    public, of trying to tackle and resolve some of the difficult
    issues--and of trying to strike a balance that is called for in
    the Multiple-Use, Sustained Act.
        I think for too many years we have placed focus on
    commodity production. Senator Bennett, I really appreciated
    your bringing up the issues associated with forest health and
    the concern.
        Our challenge is to manage the health of the forest in its
    broadest sense. That means to improve watersheds and watershed
    health. It means to improve recreation access and facilities.
    It means to clean up roads and deal with road construction. It
    means to be a friend and an ally, working with private
    landowners. It means to protect critical lands on a willing-
    seller basis. And to use new tools to provide protections for
    those lands with conservation easements.
        It means serving rural communities. It means serving urban
    communities as well, particularly communities like Seattle,
    which are surrounded by national forests and have a big impact
    on our forests--and depend on their forests for recreation and
    tourism--and a quality of life that attracts more and more
    people to that part of the world--and that is true in other
    parts of the world. Salt Lake is an excellent example, as well,
    as you know, Senator Bennett.
        I think we are on the right track. Are the forests in
    better shape? In some places, they may not be; in other places,
    I think we are moving in a direction so that they will be, and
    we are trying to lay a foundation to achieve that.
        I certainly am proud of what we have been able to
    accomplish, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased and proud of the
    working relationship we have had with you; in our ability to
    try and move forward and deal with the tough issues--and leave
    a legacy that we are all going to be proud of. I believe this
    budget is a critical part of moving in the direction that will
    assure that we can, in fact, do that.
        Now, I would like to yield to Chief Dombeck.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Hon. James Lyons

        Chairman gorton, Senator Byrd, amd 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 2001.
        I would like to present a brief overview of our budget request and
    highlight some of the priorities we've identified in three broad areas.
    Chief Dombeck will address these and other areas in greater detail. The
    three areas I want to highlight are: (1) the major Presidential
    initiatives, as reflected in the fiscal year 2001 Budget, to promote
    the long-term sustainability and productivity of the Nation's forests
    and grasslands; (2) the strides that have been made in restoring
    program and financial accountability within the Forest Service; and (3)
    our ongoing efforts to resolve issues of long-standing concern to the
    public and the Forest Service as we better prepare the agency to meet
    the challenges it will face this next century.
        Today more than ever, we are involved in important debates about
    the future of America's forests. Underlying all of these debates is a
    common thread: what we do today will ensure that our forests,
    grasslands and river systems retain their health, diversity, resilience
    and productivity for future generations. While there are differing
    approaches, I think that we would all agree that it is in the best
    interests of the Forest Service and the Congress to work together to
    ensure that we have sustainable communities that thrive and prosper in
    ways that promote land health and community well-being.
        First, a brief overview. Overall, we are requesting $3.1 billion
    for Forest Service discretionary spending in fiscal year 2001. This is
    a 14 percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation and
    includes the funding to do such things as institutionalize
    accountability and provide the quality service that the American public
    expects the Forest Service to provide.
        The budget requests a $138.6 million increase in funding for the
    National Forest System. This is a 12 percent increase from fiscal year
    2000. In addition, the budget proposes an increase of $13.3 million to
    enhance the agency's widely recognized role in forest and rangeland
    research, including increased research for better utilization of small
    diameter timber and woody material and the relationship of soil
    productivity to the carbon cycle. The budget also proposes an increase
    of over 22 percent in the State and Private Forestry appropriation that
    now also includes International Programs.

                       BUDGET PRIORITIES OF THE PRESIDENT

        Lands Legacy Initiative.--Again President Clinton proposed funding
    for the Lands Legacy Initiative in the fiscal year 2001 budget to help
    protect environmentally sensitive lands from development, preserve
    great places, and provide more open, green space for Americans in
    suburban and urban areas. The Forest Service has three programs that
    play a role in this initiative: its land acquisition program; the
    Forest Legacy program; and the Urban and Community Forestry programs.
    While many in Congress are very familiar with the agency's valuable
    land acquisition program for which the President has requested $130
    million, the Forest Legacy and Urban and Community Forestry programs
    are just getting the attention and recognition they deserve from the
    public as two additional valuable conservations programs.
        The Urban and Community Forestry program provides grants and
    technical assistance to thousands of communities and major cites across
    America helping them to maintain or expand their ``green
    infrastructure.'' The program helps them plant trees along city
    streets, abandoned lots, parks, as well as understand all of the
    different ways trees can help solve environmental problems such as
    reducing storm water run off. While many are focused on providing money
    to build parks, Urban and Community Forestry funding actually provides
    the technical assistance to help decide how and what is planted in
    those parks. It is a program that complements such state-side programs
    like the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program. Because the
    demand for this program has grown so strongly over the last five years,
    the President has again requested $40 million for this program.
        The Forest Legacy program is unique in that it provides States
    money to acquire easements on private forested lands that are under
    pressure from development. Over twenty States are now participating in
    the Forest Legacy Program and are requesting nearly $100 million in
    assistance to purchase easements. The States utilize these lands for a
    number of purposes, including providing public recreation opportunities
    as well as preserving habitat for critical wildlife. As a result of
    this increase in demand, the President has requested $60 million for
    fiscal year 2001.
        HIRE Proposal.--The President's 2001 budget includes the Healthy
    Investments in Rural Environments (HIRE) initiative that accomplishes a
    number of important goals for the Forest Service including:
      --Creating new private-sector jobs in rural and forest dependent
            communities, where jobs for skilled workers continue to be in
            dire need;
      --Providing the Forest Service more management flexibility to address
            the growing forest and rangeland health, ecosystem restoration,
            and facility, trail, and road maintenance challenges facing the
            national forests;
      --Improving the accountability and manageability of the Forest
            Service's trust fund system;
      --Continuing work currently performed by the Forest Service under the
            trusts, to address both the priority work funded by the
            existing trust funds and support a wide-scale jobs creation
            program.
        To achieve these goals, the Forest Service proposes replacing four
    permanent and trust fund accounts (the Salvage Sale, Knutson-Vandenberg
    (K-V), Reforestation, and Timber Sale Pipeline Restoration (USDA-only)
    funds) with a new mandatory appropriation called HIRE.
        Under the HIRE proposal, all timber sale receipts would return to
    the Treasury. At the same time, the Forest Service would receive a new
    mandatory appropriation of more than $300 million a year. The Forest
    Service would allocate this money to the field through the same
    allocation criteria methods it uses for discretionary funds and would
    display its allocations to Congress for greater accountability.
        Payments to States.--The Administration has also been working
    diligently to stabilize county payments for education and road
    maintenance that have previously been linked to timber sale levels.
    Faced with declining timber sales on our National Forests, we have put
    forth proposals that would instead provide a more reliable stream of
    funding. Our proposal has evolved a great deal and we are now working
    with Congress to craft legislation that would stabilize payments,
    maintain healthy ecosystems, and restore a closer working relationship
    between rural counties and the Forest Service.
        Clean Water Action Plan.--The President's Clean Water Action Plan
    emphasizes targeting priority watersheds to improve water quality.
    Several actions in the plan are related to management of national
    forests and grasslands, including restoration of stream corridors and
    riparian areas, inventory and monitoring, cleanup of abandoned mine
    lands and hazardous material sites, decommissioning/maintenance of
    roads; and improved rangeland vegetation and grazing management. The
    fiscal year 2001 budget includes an increase of $84 million for this
    initiative compared to fiscal year 2000. This funding is critical to
    meeting the requirements of the Clean Water Act, among other State and
    Federal laws.
        Watershed Health and Restoration.--Forest Service lands also serve
    as the headwaters for many major river systems and aquifers that are
    essential for the nation's water supply, and contain valuable riparian,
    wetland, and coastal areas. Although there have been significant
    improvements in water quality since the Clean Water Act of 1972, 40 to
    50 percent of our watersheds are still in need of restoration and
    protection. For this reason, the President is requesting $487.7 million
    for fiscal year 2001 for these activities, which is a 9 percent
    increase over fiscal year 2000.
        With this money, the Forest Service hopes to continue investing in
    twelve large-scale watershed restoration projects begun in fiscal year
    2000. The main purpose of this effort is to develop an agency-wide
    strategy that focuses resource actions on significant portions of land
    to enhance its clean water, wetlands, migratory birds, fisheries,
    riparian areas, and watersheds as well as provide other goods and
    services to communities.
        Recreation.--Americans cherish the national forests and grasslands
    for the values they provide--clean water, clean air, natural scenic
    beauty, important natural resources, protection of rare species,
    majestic forests, wilderness, a connection with their history, and
    opportunities for unparalleled outdoor adventure. In an increasingly
    urbanized society, outdoor recreation provides most Americans with an
    opportunity to reconnect to the lands and waters that sustain them.
    Recreation visitors expect a great deal from the Forest Service in
    terms of settings, experiences, facilities and services; and they will
    expect even more in the future. Recreation is the fastest growing use
    on the national forests and grasslands.
        The Forest Service will finalize its new recreation strategy this
    year with the help and input of the public. Our recreation strategy
    will be founded more on quality customer service, based on a complete
    understanding of customers' wants and needs. The strategy will help
    sustain ecosystems, highlight special places and stimulate rural
    economies. We pride ourselves in innovative partnerships and
    collaborative relationships to accomplish the recreation job, all while
    ensuring that recreation opportunities take place within the ecological
    sideboards necessary to maintain land health. We strive to serve new
    constituencies, urban populations, the underserved and low-income
    people to maintain the relevancy of national forests for future
    generations.
        The fiscal year 2001 funding request includes $30 million proposed
    for developing tourism; reengineering the special use permitting
    process; and developing trails, recreational facilities and attractions
    targeted toward lower income and resource-dependent areas adjacent to
    National Forests, where there are excellent tourism opportunities. The
    fiscal year 2001 proposed funding for the recreation component of the
    Natural Resource Agenda totals $397.4 million, a 13 percent increase
    over fiscal year 2000.

                        OTHER ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES

        Mr. Chairman, I would also like to make you aware of a few other
    initiatives that are being undertaken by the Administration:
        Roadless Area Initiative.--In October 1999, President Clinton asked
    the Forest Service to begin an open public process to address how
    roadless areas within the national forest system would be managed in
    the future. Roadless areas have typically remained without roads
    because of inaccessibility, rugged terrain, low timber values,
    environmental concerns and high costs associated with litigation. In
    fact, historically, Forest Service entry into roadless areas has a
    fifty percent failure rate due to the reasons stated above.
        Understandably, Forest Service managers often choose to invest
    resources in projects that have broader public support, less cost, and
    fewer environmental impacts than building roads in roadless areas.
        So, in response to the President's announcement, the Forest Service
    released a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact
    statement (EIS) on October 19, 1999, and proposed a two part process to
    determine how the public would prefer.
      --Part one would address restriction of certain activities, such as
            new road construction, in inventoried roadless areas.
      --Part two would establish national direction for managing
            inventoried roadless areas, and for determining whether and to
            what extent similar protections should be extended to un-
            inventoried roadless areas. Part two would be implemented
            through local forest planning.
      --Both part one and part two would be implemented with extensive
            public involvement.
        On December 20, 1999, the Forest Service concluded a comment period
    on the scope of the proposal. During this comment period, the agency:
      --Hosted an unprecedented 190 regional and local public meetings;
      --Received more than 500,000 comments.
        The Forest Service is now preparing a draft environmental impact
    statement (DEIS) that will detail the agency's proposed action and its
    likely effects. The agency plans to conduct another comment period and
    an equal number of public meetings when it releases the draft
    environmental impact statement and a proposed rule in spring 2000. The
    agency plans to release a final environmental impact statement and
    regulation before the end of 2000.
        Forest Service Roads Policy.--On the other side of the coin, the
    proposed Forest Service Roads Policy would revise how the Forest
    Service manages the more than 380,000 miles of existing roads already
    in the national forest transportation system.
        The Forest Service currently has a deferred maintenance backlog of
    more than $8.4 billion dollars and only receives about 20 percent of
    the funding it needs annually to maintain its existing road system to
    safety and environmental standards.
        The proposed policy is an attempt to:
      --Make the existing forest road system more safe, responsive to
            public needs, environmentally sound, affordable, and efficient
            to manage;
      --Implement a public involvement process and scientific analysis
            procedure at the local level to:
                      Help land managers and the public identify heavily
                    used roads that the agency should prioritize in terms
                    of its limited maintenance and reconstruction spending;
                      Help land managers and the public identify roads that
                    are unused or environmentally damaging that can be
                    decommissioned; and
      --Place a new emphasis on maintaining and reconstructing existing
            roads rather than building new roads.
        A draft rule and procedures were released for public review on
    March 2, 2000.
        Forest Service Planning Regulations.--All of these proposals would
    be implemented in the context of the new forest planning regulations.
    The proposed planning rule would rewrite the existing Forest Service
    regulations implementing the National Forest Management Act of 1976.
    The proposed rule is based on the recommendations of a Committee of
    Scientists and 20 years of experience implementing forest planning.
        The proposed rule would:
      --Base forest and grassland planning on the principles of ecological,
            economic, and social sustainability;
      --Require the Forest Service to actively engage the public and our
            other federal, state, local, and tribal partners in the
            management of our national forests and grasslands;
      --Integrate science and scientists into the planning process and
            requires the Forest Service to focus on managing entire
            ecosystems rather than single species or outcomes; and,
      --Integrate planning and management activities more closely so that
            the Forest Service can respond to new information and
            opportunities in a timely manner.
        Last fall the Forest Service hosted a series of 23 town meetings
    across the country to discuss the proposed planning rule. The planning
    rule would provide the overarching framework for implementing the
    roadless area and road management initiatives, if the three initiatives
    are adopted. All of these initiatives seek to provide for long-term
    sustainability, ensure collaboration with the public, integrate science
    more effectively in the planning process, and incorporate new
    information and opportunities.

                             ACCOUNTABILTY ACTIONS

        I think that we would all agree that the debate about the
    management of our national forests has been clouded in recent years
    with issues of accountability. In the past ten years the Forest Service
    has been the subject of more than 315 audits by the General Accounting
    Office and the Office of the Inspector General. And the agency as well
    as the Department of Agriculture has yet to receive a clean financial
    opinion since they were first required of governmental agencies.
        Under the capable direction of Chief Dombeck, the agency has worked
    very closely with my office, other parts of the Department of
    Agriculture and the Secretary to implement the needed financial and
    programmatic reforms.
        These changes were made to position the Forest Service to achieve
    an unqualified audit opinion on its fiscal year 2000 financial
    statements. The agency knows, however, a clean audit opinion by itself
    will not restore the agency's credibility with Congress and the
    American people. A change in agency culture must occur--a change based
    on the knowledge that the Forest Service cannot be effective resource
    managers if they are not first accountable for the taxpayers' money and
    for their own actions on the landscape. The Forest Service has
    presented its fiscal year 2001 budget in a performance-based manner
    that allows it to accomplish its conservation mission based upon
    performance measures that fully display on-the-ground outcomes of its
    management practices and services to the public.
        This budget presents a program that is not simply based on a set of
    funding requests. Rather, the budget justification presents the
    President's budget in terms of direct on-the-ground accomplishment of
    work. Mr. Chairman, with the implementation of significantly improved
    accountability measures, we can refocus the debate about the Forest
    Service where it should be, on natural resource management policy.
        I can vouch for the fact that Chief Dombeck is committed to making
    the necessary changes. Some of the more significant accomplishments
    include implementing a new accounting system, developing a simplified
    budget structure for the National Forest System, submitting a
    performance-based fiscal year 2001 budget, developing an integrated set
    of land health and service to people performance measures, and
    publishing its draft Strategic Plan (2000 Revision).
        In addition, for the first time in many years, all leadership
    positions have been filled. Chief Dombeck has established the offices
    of the Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Financial Officer to take
    leadership responsibility for improved program analysis and the linking
    of budget processes to agency performance and strategic planning.
        Mr. Chairman, I do not think that there should be any doubt that
    these bold, decisive actions demonstrate leadership commitment to
    correct the Forest Service's program and financial accountability
    deficiencies.

                                   CONCLUSION

        I am proud to say that during my tenure, the Forest Service has
    made significant progress in restoring accountability while refocusing
    the agency's attention to its multiple use mandate. In so doing, we
    have placed a new priority on maintaining and restoring the health of
    the land while ensuring the sustainability of goods and services
    produced on our National Forests. We have renewed our commitment to re-
    greening our communities--both urban and rural--and sought ways to
    improve the economies of forest dependent communities by broadening
    their economic base. We are emphasizing collaboration in working with
    our public and private partners, and encouraging innovative solutions
    to our resource management challenges.
        I'm proud of the progress we've made and look forward to the
    opportunities ahead. Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any
    questions that you may have.

        Senator Gorton. Chief, if you would wait for a moment.
    Senator Dorgan has only a couple of moments. He simply would
    like to make a short statement, and I am going to let him do
    that, so he can go on to his other----

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief.
    I have been over in the Commerce Committee. I did not make an
    opening statement, because I was late, but I wanted to make
    just a comment.
        Mr. Lyons and Mr. Dombeck, I appreciate your being here and
    your testimony.
        I have been working, particularly with Mr. Dombeck, on the
    issue of the Chadron planning that had preceded the grasslands
    management plan in Western North Dakota, and I am very
    concerned where all this is taking us. The planning process was
    designed to bring people together and to involve people.
        In fact, what has happened is radical division and the
    potential, according to a North Dakota State University study,
    of up to 30 and 40 percent reductions in grazing in Western
    North Dakota.
        Now, my colleague, Senator Burns, over there, he
    understands Western North Dakota. It is almost a wilderness out
    there. We get calls for wilderness. We do not need wilderness.
    It is happening. We do not need the wilderness designation. You
    can drive out there and not find anybody for a long while. We
    have ranchers trying to make a living, and if they are hit with
    a 40-percent reduction in grazing on these grasslands----
        Senator Kohl. Well, if it were wilderness, Senator, you
    could not drive out there.
        Senator Dorgan. I understand.
        Senator Kohl. You would have to walk.
        Senator Dorgan. That is why I have opposed the wilderness
    designation, because people have left. My home county out there
    has shrunk from 5,000 to 3,000 people, and the county next to
    it is now 900 people.
        We have real serious economic troubles in Western North
    Dakota, and a plan that could potentially reduce grazing up to
    40 percent would be devastating. Now, those numbers don't come
    from the Forest Service, because the Forest Service people
    cannot tell us exactly what the impact will be, but they come
    from studies by Dr. Leistretch, North Dakota State University,
    and others.
        I just wanted to say this: Mr. Dombeck, you have been very
    open and we have had good discussions, and I have told you all
    of this. You are working through some of these issues.
        The comment period was long and extensive. You have had a
    lot of comments from a lot of different sides on this. It is
    very important that this be done right, and the right way to do
    this is to go back historically and look at the conditions
    under which the Federal Government acquired these lands in
    Western North Dakota from farmers who were forced to sell in
    most cases, and the Bankhead-Jones Act described the
    circumstances, that they wanted these lands to remain in
    agriculture, and they are multiple use, to be sure, and we want
    to be sensitive to all of those issues.
        I just wanted to make a point of how important this is.
    There are such passions out there that I am very concerned
    about. There is such anger and polarization, and that is not
    the way the Chadron planning process was designed to end.
        The process was designed to bring everybody together, and
    everybody have a voice in this. That really did not happen, and
    I am not blaming anybody. I am just saying that we need to take
    a fresh look, have some mediation, and review all those
    circumstances.
        Mr. Chairman, I took a little longer than I intended, but I
    am going to submit a series of questions, if I might, to Mr.
    Dombeck and Mr. Lyons.
        Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Let me inform the other members of the
    committee here that if we are going to hear from you now, then
    I am going to defer my questions for last, because I have a lot
    of them, and I do not particularly--you, Senator Bennett, have
    been extremely patient.

                       SUMMARY STATEMENT OF MIKE DOMBECK

        You will be next, as soon as Chief Dombeck has finished his
    statement, and then we will hear from Senator Burns, and then
    we will take the chairman and ranking member.
        Chief, go ahead.
        Mr. Dombeck. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Senator Byrd,
    committee members.
        I would like to introduce some guests that we have here.
    Chuck Meyers is the Forest Supervisor of the Monongahela
    National Forest, and Kate Goodrich is with him. Kate is the
    Public Affairs Officer on the Monongahela. They perhaps could
    offer a forest supervisor's perspective on budgets, and some
    things like that, that I think might be helpful.
        I also have with me Randy Phillips, who is Deputy Chief for
    Programs and Legislation. Our Chief Financial Officer, Vincette
    Goerl, Jim Furnish, National Forest System, and sitting in the
    first row we have Janice McDougal, from State and Private
    Forestry, and Dr. Robert Lewis, who heads our research
    programs. So hopefully, we will be able to deal with most of
    the issues of interest to the committee.
        You alluded to the debate about natural resources in your
    opening statement. I think we have all been part of that.
    Sometimes we get more of that than we would like. The debate is
    not new to this era.
        It was here in Gifford Pinchot's time, it was here in the
    thirties, the seventies, and I presume it will be here for a
    while. What we are really talking about is balance and the
    changing needs of society, changing economies, and our
    sensitivities to that. I always think about how wonderful it is
    that we live in a country where we have choices, because
    balance is about choices, and when we have choices to make,
    there are differences of opinion.
        I am pleased with some of the issues, and I always like to
    step back and think about what had gone on 10 years ago, and 20
    years ago, 30 years ago.
        In the mid-nineties, the dialogue was that the Forest
    Service had lost its way. It had a muddled mission. I am proud
    of the leadership of the Forest Service in crafting the Natural
    Resources Agenda to better articulate where we were going--to
    focus on roads and infrastructure; to focus on sustainable
    forest and grassland management; to focus on recreation; to
    focus on watershed health and restoration; to focus on things
    like urban forestry and education. We have made progress there.
        The Forest Service is perhaps one of the more complex
    agencies--with a complex and really challenging mission
    almost--with expectations that we would be all things to all
    people, from the preservation side or the commodity side. One
    area that I really appreciate your support on and the
    committee's support is the area of business management and
    accountability. As Congress, in the nineties, began to demand
    more accountability from agencies--and the Chief Financial
    Officer Act was passed, and others--the Forest Service was slow
    to adapt.
        It is decentralized by its nature. West Virginia decisions
    ought to be made in West Virginia; likewise, Washington, Idaho,
    Utah, Alaska. Our business management side was also
    decentralized.
        We had, for example, 40 systems, data management systems,
    that really did not communicate with one another--that were not
    linked with 800 data entry points, and some hundred-million
    transactions a month. I think I have had more hearings on this
    issue of accountability and financial management than all the
    other chiefs put together. We have made that our highest
    priority. We have made significant progress.
        It is a big job. It took Jack Welsh 10 years with General
    Electric, and General Electric did not have all the constraints
    that come with bureaucracies and the Federal Government.
        I am pleased that we have our first-ever Chief Financial
    Officer. We have the foundation financial information system in
    place and running. We have our first-ever real-property
    inventory complete--and employees struggle to understand even
    why that is important as resource issues go on. I say to them,
    would they invest in a company that did not know what its
    assets are? Yet, it is important, I believe, that we be able to
    tell the American public and you what our assets are. We have
    made progress on that front.
        I am pleased with the response of the National Academy of
    Public Administration. They gave us the first framework to tie
    a simplified budget structure with an organizational structure
    and performance measures that are important. I am pleased with
    your willingness and Senator Byrd's willingness to want to
    explore further how we can make progress on that front.
        We are moving forward with business plans for the
    organization and our recreational units. We put 1,300 employees
    through business management training last year. Lots going on
    in that area. We ask for your continued support. Keep the
    pressure on. This is something that we drifted into over time,
    decades. We need the support, the prodding, the constructive
    criticism of Congress to get there. So we are making good
    progress.
        It is also important--as we talk about the national issues
    that are somewhat heated at times--to think about the
    accomplishments of an organization the size of the Forest
    Service and what we do. We have the best science in the world
    in the United States.
        Some of the best resource managers in the world work for
    the Forest Service--and the other agencies, local, State, and
    Federal--in the United States. We put out 98.5 percent of the
    fires in initial attack in the United States. We provide
    drinking water for 60 million Americans from the national
    forests.
        We have 133,000 miles of trails, 380,000 miles of roads--
    that was mentioned earlier. There is more visitation to the
    national forests today than there has ever been.
        When we talk about access, and the concerns with access,
    our challenge is to provide the infrastructure, maintain that
    infrastructure, and the services that people expect. So we have
    more people visiting the national forests than ever, and all
    the projections are up.
        Eighty percent of the big-horn sheep habitat in the United
    States--half of the blue ribbon trout streams--and hunting and
    fishing alone generate about $21 billion to the gross domestic
    product. Multiple-use is alive and well. We issued over a 1,000
    energy and mineral permits last year and 9.3 million animal-
    unit-months of grazing. We have 5.2 billion board feet of
    timber currently under contract.
        We assisted 9,600 urban communities with their natural
    resource programs. We assisted 146,000 private woodland owners
    to be better stewards of their land with technical and
    scientific information. Our research program produced more than
    2,700 scientific and technical documents and textbooks. We did
    all this with about 10,000 fewer employees that we had in the
    early nineties. So I am proud of the Forest Service workforce.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        No matter what our natural resource philosophy is, I
    certainly share the concern of this committee that our common
    objective is that we have an organization that functions well--
    that is efficient--that is responsive--that is accountable for
    the monies that you allocate to us, and to the taxpayers. I
    hope that we can focus on that common goal and appreciate your
    support.
        Jim and I, and the staff, would be happy to answer any
    questions you have on any of the issues that we can.
        Thank you.
        [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 today to discuss the
    Forest Service's proposed budget for fiscal year 2001.
        Performance and financial accountability will be key to building
    agency credibility, without which we will be unable to obtain the
    necessary resources to accomplish the agency's mission. As I testified
    before the House Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee on February
    16, 2000, the Forest Service is implementing a variety of actions to
    enhance its financial management, fully integrate strategic planning
    and budgeting, and demonstrate organizational effectiveness through the
    application of sound business practices.
        In my testimony today, I want to discuss four key areas: (1)
    sustainable communities; (2) funding and objectives for the Natural
    Resource Agenda program areas; (3) actions the Forest Service is taking
    to ensure it improves program and financial accountability; and (4)
    other highlights from of the President's budget.
        The President's budget supports the Forest Service Natural Resource
    Agenda and is directly tied to the Government Performance and Results
    Act (Results Act). The budget proposes a simplified budget structure
    for the National Forest System appropriation to improve both financial
    and program accountability while ensuring the long-term health,
    diversity, and productivity of the land to meet the needs of present
    and future generations.
        Overall, the President's budget is requesting $3.1 billion for
    Forest Service discretionary spending in fiscal year 2001. This is a 14
    percent increase over fiscal year 2000 that is necessary to ensure the
    Forest Service accomplishes its multiple-use mission of caring for the
    land and serving people.
        The budget requests a $138.6 million increase in funding for the
    National Forest System. This is a 12 percent increase from fiscal year
    2000. The budget proposes an increase of $13.3 million to enhance the
    agency's role in forest and rangeland research. It includes funding for
    such priorities as the use of agricultural products for energy and
    fiber, the role of carbon in productivity cycles, applications of new
    technology in resource management and coordination of the Forest
    Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. The budget also proposes an
    increase of over 22 percent in the State and Private Forestry
    appropriation that now includes funding for International Programs.
    This increase will help State and private land managers practice
    sustainable forestry and conservation of their lands.

                    LAND HEALTH AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

        Let me first share some thoughts with you about how we can work
    together to ensure we have sustainable communities that thrive, prosper
    and promote land health and community well-being. To accommodate these
    goals the Forest Service is shifting its focus to pay greater attention
    to what we leave behind on the land, as reflected in the following
    major policy initiatives.
        Roadless Initiative.--Our roadless initiative recognizes the unique
    role that public lands play in maintaining large blocks of unfragmented
    forest. In an increasingly developed landscape, the ecological and
    social values of roadless areas are essential for protecting drinking
    water supplies, providing habitat for rare and vanishing fish and
    wildlife species, hunting and fishing and other recreation
    opportunities, bulwarks against the spread of invasive species, and
    reference areas for research. Less than 2.5 percent of our planned
    timber harvest in the lower 48 states is projected from these areas.
        Roads Policy.--We proposed a new road management policy on March 2,
    2000. The proposed policy will help us better manage more than 380,000
    miles of roads to ensure safe public access while stemming erosion and
    protecting water quality. Providing sufficient access is especially
    important considering that we soon expect to see one billion visits
    made to our National Forests in a year.
        Land Management Planning Regulations.--Our draft planning
    regulations will ensure the protection of ecological sustainability
    through a framework of collaborative stewardship and better integration
    of science and management. To meet the social and economic needs of
    local communities, I believe the Forest Service should operate in an
    open and transparent manner, so the American people have every
    opportunity to influence and shape the way their land legacy is
    managed; these new regulations will help accomplish that objective.
        Mr. Chairman, I pledge to you today that we will keep the Congress
    fully informed as these policy initiatives mature and develop and
    invite you to be a part of the public process.

                            NATURAL RESOURCE AGENDA

        When I became Chief, many people, including members of Congress,
    complained that the Forest Service had lost sense of its mission. In
    response, I outlined a Forest Service ``Natural Resource Agenda for the
    21st Century.'' The Natural Resource Agenda makes clear that land and
    watershed health is the agency's highest priority. This is based on the
    simple premise that we cannot meet the social and economic needs of the
    people without first securing our goal of healthy, diverse, and
    productive ecosystems.
        The Natural Resource Agenda sets agency priorities and gives
    strategic focus to Forest Service programs, emphasizing watershed
    health and restoration, sustainable forest ecosystem management, the
    National Forest road system, and recreation.
        Watershed Health and Restoration.--The Forest Service is the
    Nation's largest and most important water provider. National Forest
    lands are the largest single source of water in the continental United
    States. Over 3,400 communities rely on National Forest lands in 33
    states for their drinking water, serving over 60 million people. We
    recently determined the water on National Forest lands to be valued, at
    a minimum, of more than $3.7 billion per year. This $3.7 billion does
    not include the value of maintaining fish species, recreation values,
    nor the savings to municipalities who have low filtration costs because
    water from National Forests is so clean.
        Although there have been significant improvements in water quality
    since the Clean Water Act of 1972, 40 to 50 percent of our watersheds
    still need restoration and protection. The Forest Service is a full
    partner in carrying out the President's Clean Water Action Plan that
    aims to protect public health and restore our Nation's precious
    waterways by setting strong goals and providing States, communities,
    farmers, and landowners with the tools and resources to meet these
    goals. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes an increase of $84 million
    for continued implementation of the Clean Water Action Plan.
        The Forest Service will use cooperative strategies built around
    watersheds and the communities they sustain to implement the Clean
    Water Action Plan, including restoring stream corridors and riparian
    areas, cleaning abandoned mine lands and hazardous material sites,
    decommissioning and maintaining roads, and improving rangeland
    vegetation and grazing management.
        In fiscal year 2001, the Forest Service will focus on twelve large-
    scale watershed restoration projects begun in fiscal year 2000,
    investing more than $18 million to accelerate implementation of the
    projects. The Forest Service expects partner organizations such as
    conservation, wildlife and forest management groups, American Indian
    tribes, State and local governments, and community organizations to
    match its funding commitment. The 12 projects include:
      --Research and development in New York City's municipal watersheds
            and the Chesapeake Bay;
      --River restoration on the Chattooga, Conasauga, Rio Penasco, Upper
            Sevier, Upper South Platte, Warner Mountain/Hackamore, and
            White Rivers; and
      --Pacific Costal watersheds, the Blue Mountains of Oregon, and the
            Lower Mississippi Valley.
        In carrying out these projects and the agency-wide focus on
    watershed health, the Forest Service will draw upon many disciplines,
    including State, Private and International Forestry, the National
    Forest System, and Research.
        An important aspect of restoring and improving watershed health
    addresses the lands at risk. Traditionally, risk has meant fire danger
    and insect and disease infestation. Over 58 million acres of the
    nation's forest lands are at risk due to mortality from insects and
    disease and 40 million acres within the National Forests are at risk of
    catastrophic wildfire due to past management practices and fire
    suppression. The Forest Service fully intends to use active management
    to treat these stands to restore forest health and in the process,
    provide jobs and wood fiber to local communities.
        We need to look at risk with a different perspective, thinking of
    risk in terms of the 40 to 50 percent of agency managed lands that
    require attention on a broad scale for a variety of reasons. For
    example, recreation facilities, trails, and roads that are poorly
    maintained result in national forest lands being at risk due to
    degraded water quality which harms fisheries, wetlands and riparian
    areas. Further, we need to expand the discussion of risk beyond
    National Forest System lands to the non-federal forest lands at risk
    not only due to watershed quality problems, but also due to conversion
    from open space. The Administration has proposed several strategies to
    address this broad risk issue including a $9.5 million effort to
    research and implement new methods for economical use of small diameter
    trees to meet national wood fiber demands.
        This expanded concept of risk is also portrayed in the agency's
    performance-based budget request for fiscal year 2001. For example, we
    are requesting an additional $19.2 million for the performance measure
    acres of forest, rangeland and lakes improved. With this additional
    funding, we propose to improve 430,000 acres of habitat for inland and
    anadromous fisheries, threatened and endangered species, and wildlife,
    which is an increase of 135,000 acres from fiscal year 2000 enacted.
        Watershed restoration and protection will also serve as the focus
    of future forest plan revisions. The fiscal year 2001 funding request
    for the watershed health and restoration component of the Natural
    Resource Agenda totals $487.7 million, a 9 percent increase over fiscal
    year 2000.
        Sustainable Forest Ecosystem Management.--The Forest Service and
    its partners are using a comprehensive criteria and indicator framework
    to achieve sustainable forest and range management in the Untied
    States. In 1999, the agency released new draft planning regulations
    that provide a framework for implementing collaborative stewardship.
    When completed, these regulations will govern administration of 192
    million acres of National Forest System lands.
        Sustainable management of all of the Nation's forest and rangelands
    requires collaboration among many interests and coordination across the
    landscape. The United States has adopted the Sustainable Forest
    Management Criteria and Indicators developed through the international
    Montreal Process. They provide a common framework allowing the Forest
    Service to work with interested State and private landowners to
    evaluate the health, diversity, and resiliency of our nation's forests.
    The Forest Service is leading a national effort to gather and report on
    the state of the Nation's forests in 2003.
        The fiscal year 2001 requested funding for the Sustainable Forest
    Ecosystem Management component of the Natural Resource Agenda totals
    $406.7 million, a 16 percent increase over fiscal year 2000.
        National Forest Road System.--Mr. Chairman, I know there is
    significant interest about our roadless initiative. We must put the 30-
    year controversy over roadless areas to rest. One of the reasons I
    think it is so important to resolve the roadless issue is so we can
    begin to address other pressing demands, such as forest health.
        The National Forest System has more than 380,000 miles of
    classified roads and more than 60,000 miles of unclassified roads.
    However, the agency only receives about 20 percent of the funding it
    needs annually to maintain these roads to Federal safety and
    environmental standards. As a result, the deferred maintenance backlog
    is in the billions of dollars.
        One of the 47 performance measures within the agency's performance-
    based budget addresses Forest Service roads and is an example of how
    performance measures will be used. The road condition index performance
    measure displays year-to-year changes in the condition of the road
    system based upon five attributes. The proposed index for fiscal year
    2001 is constant with the prior year, based upon a relatively static
    fiscal year 2001 funding request. In out years, the index will likely
    decline year to year without significant increases in funding.
        Last fall the President asked the Forest Service to begin
    developing a proposal to conserve and protect National Forest roadless
    areas that have remained unroaded for a variety of reasons including
    inaccessibility, rugged terrain, or environmental sensitivity. These
    areas also serve as the headwaters to many watersheds and provide clean
    water and wildlife habitat as well as aesthetic values.
        The proposal we are developing has two parts. First, we are
    considering restricting certain activities, such as road construction
    and reconstruction in the unroaded portions of inventoried roadless
    areas, the areas inventoried in the 1970's during two Roadless Area
    Reviews (RARE I and RARE II) and through the forest planning efforts of
    the 1980's and 1990's. Today, a large number of these areas remain
    roadless.
        Second, we will consider establishing procedures for local forests
    to consider as they plan activities in roadless areas. More than
    500,000 people have already participated in the rulemaking. To
    accommodate this level of interest, we have taken the unprecedented
    step of holding public meetings on every National Forest to discuss the
    issue.
        We released the proposed road management policy and draft
    environmental assessment for public comment on March 2, 2000. The
    policy outlines a process by which the Forest Service and local people
    can work together to determine the best way to manage local forest
    transportation systems, to make the existing forest road system safe,
    responsive to public needs, environmentally sound, affordable, and
    efficient to manage. It would:
        1. Be implemented through extensive public involvement and analysis
    at the local level;
        2. Require use of a scientific analysis procedure to help land
    managers and the public identify both heavily used roads that need to
    be maintained or upgraded, and roads that are unused or environmentally
    damaging that can be decommissioned; and
        3. Place a new emphasis on maintaining and reconstructing existing
    roads rather than building new roads, given the extensive road system
    that is already in place in most National Forests.
        Before the Forest Service builds news roads in roadless areas, it
    should invest its limited resources on projects that have broader
    support, cost less, and have fewer environmental effects. Our fiscal
    year 2001 funding request for the National Forest Road System of the
    Natural Resource Agenda totals $129.5 million, an 11 percent increase
    over fiscal year 2000.
        Recreation.--Recreation is the fastest growing use of the National
    Forests and Grasslands. The Forest Service is the Nation's largest
    supplier of public outdoor recreation opportunities, providing more
    that 2.5 million jobs and contributing more than $100 billion to the
    Nation's gross national product.
        The Natural Resource Agenda seeks to provide recreation
    opportunities that do not compromise land health and that increase
    customer satisfaction, educate Americans about their public lands,
    build community partnerships, and develop new business relationships
    with partners to expand recreation opportunities. Some of the
    recreation assets on our National Forests include:

      --31 National recreation areas, scenic areas and monuments;
      --133 scenic byways;
      --56 major visitor centers;
      --Over 133,000 miles of trails;
      --Over 4,000 miles of wild and scenic rivers;
      --More than 18,000 campgrounds, picnic areas and visitor facilities;
      --50 percent of the habitat for salmon and trout in the lower 48
            States;
      --80 percent of the habitat for elk, bighorn sheep and mountain goat
            in the lower 48 States;
      --63 percent of the designated wilderness in the lower 48 States;
      --2.3 million acres of fishable lakes, ponds and reservoirs;
      --200,000 miles of fishable streams; and
      --Hundreds of thousands of listings on the National Register of
            Historic Places.
        In an urbanized society, outdoor recreation provides most Americans
    with an opportunity to connect to the lands and waters that sustain
    them. The Forest Service has a unique brand of nature-based recreation
    to offer, including undeveloped settings and an array of services that
    complement the enjoyment of these special places. Recreation visitors
    expect a great deal from the Forest Service and they will expect even
    more in the future.
        The fiscal year 2001 funding request includes $30 million proposed
    for developing tourism, reengineering the special use permitting
    process, developing trails, and improving operations at recreational
    facilities and attractions, many of which will be targeted toward lower
    income or resource-dependent areas adjacent to National Forests.
        The recreation component of the Natural Resource Agenda has
    developed a 6-point action plan to serve better the American public,
    including:

        1. Conduct market research to get to better understand what people
    want;
        2. Invest in special places, especially those being--loved to
    death--by visitation exceeding the capacity of the site;
        3. Reduce deferred maintenance through the application of
    techniques that assuring long-term sustainability of the site;
        4. Invest in natural resource conservation education and
    interpretive services;
        5. Take advantage of new business opportunities and provide
    services for underserved and low-income people; and
        6. Aggressively secure, provide, and maintain a forest road system
    that is ecologically sound and available to all Americans.
        Among the most valuable products of the National Forests are the
    experiences that live on a roll of film, or live as childhood memories
    of family hiking or camping experiences, or in the exhilaration one
    feels while running a wild river or seeing the crystal clear waters of
    Lake Tahoe. There is something for everyone to enjoy on the National
    Forests. We strive to serve new constituencies, urban populations,
    underserved and low-income people, and to maintain the relevancy of
    National Forests for future generations. The fiscal year 2001 proposed
    funding for the recreation component of the Natural Resource Agenda
    totals $397.4 million, a 13 percent increase over fiscal year 2000.

                      PROGRAM AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

        I would like to now discuss our progress in restoring program and
    financial accountability to the Forest Service. With the dedicated help
    of Secretary Dan Glickman, we have worked very closely with other parts
    of the Department of Agriculture to implement the needed financial and
    programmatic reforms.
        As I have said many times, if the Forest Service were in the
    private sector, with our 30,000-person workforce and 3.3 billion dollar
    budget, we would rival any Fortune 500 company. At the same time, due
    to persistent management weaknesses, financial accounting deficiencies,
    weak data, and poor strategic planning, I doubt very much we would last
    long in that environment.
        The Forest Service has not yet received a clean financial audit.
    When I arrived here, I had more than 35 individuals directly reporting
    to me. Our complex and cumbersome accounting system was staggering
    under the weight of 100 million individual financial transactions per
    month. Our Byzantine budget structure made it common that a district
    ranger interested in accomplishing 15 projects on the ground might have
    to make 250 budget entries simply to establish the projects in the
    accounting system. Meanwhile, because we have not sufficiently focused
    on strategic planning, appropriated budgets rarely, if ever, track
    expected outcomes described in agency forest plans.
        The fiscal year 2001 President's budget proposes significant reform
    of the agency's budget structure. As noted by the National Academy of
    Public Administration, the current budget structure does not reflect
    the nature of agency work performed on the ground and forces our
    district rangers to spend too much time balancing the books and too
    little time focusing on the natural resources for which they are
    responsible. The new proposed structure is performance-based. It
    presents the budget directly linked to 47 performance measures, that
    are in turn, directly linked to the agency's strategic plan, the
    Results Act, and the Natural Resource Agenda.
        The budget simplification and performance measures proposals are a
    cornerstone of our financial and accountability reform efforts. I am
    confident that with implementation, we will be able to clearly show how
    the Forest Service is using the taxpayers' money to conserve and
    restore the health, diversity, and resiliency of our lands and waters,
    and provide services to the American public.
        No Chief of the Forest Service in recent history has had to address
    the issue of accountability more than I have. I know that a clean audit
    by itself will not restore the agency's credibility with Congress and
    the American people; the agency must change its culture based on the
    knowledge we cannot be effective resource managers if we are not first
    accountable for the taxpayers' money and for our own actions on the
    landscape. We are making significant progress.
        I am happy to report to you that the Forest Service has:
      --Successfully implemented a new accounting system;
      --Developed an integrated set of land health and service to people
            performance measures, that link land health and other outcomes
            on the land to its strategic plan and budget information;
      --Published its draft Strategic Plan (2000 Revision) for comment that
            shifts the focus of agency management away from inputs, outputs
            and process to outcomes on the landscape;
      --For the first time in many years, filled all leadership positions
            and also established the offices of the Chief Operating Officer
            and the Chief Financial Officer to take responsibility for
            improved program analysis and the linking of budget processes
            to agency performance and strategic planning;
      --Conducted the first thorough real property inventory in the
            agency's history that is critical for our financial audit;
      --Developed and implemented standard definitions for indirect costs;
      --Eliminated the backlog of over 1,000 civil rights complaints;
      --Replaced its crumbling technology infrastructure with a totally new
            platform for management of information technology; and
      --Implemented controls on trust fund expenditures to assure
            compliance with Congressional direction regarding indirect
            expenses.
        A key component of our accountability reform effort involves the
    implementation of the Primary Purpose method of expenditures. Beginning
    in August of last year, we began informing appropriations and
    authorizing staff from both the House and Senate of our intent to
    implement this program in fiscal year 2000. Our request for realignment
    of funds is a result of that implementation. Operating under the
    Primary Purpose principle, the agency is now able to provide an
    accurate accounting of its expenditures, which it was unable to do in
    the past.
        Mr. Chairman, I do not think there should be any doubt that these
    actions demonstrate Forest Service leadership is committed to fix
    program and financial accountability deficiencies.

                   OTHER HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

        I want to emphasize some other important aspects of the President's
    budget.
        President's Lands Legacy Initiative.--This initiative highlights
    the Administration's continued commitment to protect public open space
    by acquiring lands for conservation and recreation.
        By working with States, tribes, local governments and private
    partners, the Forest Service acquires lands to protect cultural and
    historic treasures, conserve open space for recreation and wildlife
    habitat, protect clean water supplies and wilderness areas and preserve
    forests, farmlands, and coastal areas. The fiscal year 2001 budget
    includes $236 million for the programs within the Lands Legacy
    Initiative.
        The land acquisition portion of the initiative is funded through
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Many of the acquired lands are
    located in congressionally designated areas such as Wilderness,
    National Recreation Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Scenic
    Trails. Acquisitions also improve forest management through
    consolidation of boundaries and providing access to existing National
    Forests and Grasslands.
        Forest Legacy, Urban and Community Forestry and Economic Action
    Programs also provide an avenue for the Forest Service to work with
    States and willing private landowners to provide jobs while conserving
    important forest economic, ecological-environmental and social values
    that represent national priorities.
        Legislative Proposals.--The Administration will advance several new
    legislative proposals including Payments to States Stabilization,
    Healthy Investments in Rural Environments (HIRE), Land Acquisition
    Reinvestment Fund, and Facilities Acquisition and Enhancement Fund. Mr.
    Chairman, I am especially excited about our payments to states
    legislation that we will transmit shortly. It focuses on providing
    States with stable and permanent education funding, while allowing more
    money to be spent on forest health restoration and restoring a closer
    working relationship between rural counties and the Forest Service.
        The President's budget includes special emphasis on employing rural
    workers and enhancing the skills of America's youth. The Administration
    is proposing the HIRE program in conjunction with a comprehensive
    proposal to reform four of our trust funds. This proposal eliminates
    the trust funds that have historically been dependent on timber
    receipts and proposes establishing a new permanent mandatory
    appropriation. All the work conducted under the existing trust fund
    authorities would be authorized under this new mandatory appropriation,
    but with preference for local contracting and employing of skilled
    rural workers to accomplish the work. With this expanded authority and
    appropriate funding levels, attention will be focused on addressing our
    critical facility, road, and watershed restoration backlog.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget also reflects a number of legislative
    proposals that would reform selected programs to initiate or increase
    fee collections and expand the involvement of the private sector where
    appropriate.

                                 IN CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman, this budget effectively provides the resources
    necessary to implement our programs consistent with the Forest
    Service's Natural Resource Agenda, Presidential Initiatives and other
    priority funding areas. More importantly, the proposed new budget
    structure and performance-based approach shows the ecosystem
    conservation activities and public services that will benefit ours and
    future generations.
        This concludes my written statement. I would be pleased to answer
    any questions that you may have.

        Senator Gorton. Well, I think with all the patience that he
    has shown, I will give that first opportunity to Senator
    Bennett.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Dombeck and Mr. Lyons, both, you have talked about
    collaboration on the local level, and local involvement, and
    how much that is needed, and how important it is. The State of
    Utah formally asked to be a participant and has been denied.
    Can you square those two for me?
        Secretary Lyons. I will be pleased to address that,
    Senator. We received requests from a number of States for
    cooperating status in this rulemaking related to roadless
    areas. We met with a number of the Western governors.
        Governor Leavitt, unfortunately, was not a part of that,
    but several others were there, and we discussed ways in which
    we could, in essence, provide the functional equivalent of
    cooperating status without the formal designation.
        Our reason for that, to be candid, was that we are
    concerned with the large number of entities that seek
    cooperating status--a large number of States, Tribes, community
    groups, and the like--who would like to secure that status. The
    difficulty is trying to manage a process with all those
    cooperators, and, frankly, the potential for someone monkey-
    wrenching the system. In fact, it was interesting to have one
    of the Governors acknowledge that that could be a cause for
    concern with all those entities wanting cooperating status.
        Mike and I sent a letter to Governor Cayetano, who chairs
    the Western Governors' Association currently, and I ask, Mr.
    Chairman, if this could be made a part of the record.
        Senator Gorton. Certainly. Without objection.
        [The letter follows:]

       Letter From Under Secretary James R. Lyons and Chief Mike Dombeck

                        U.S. Department of Agriculture,
                                                Forest Service,
                                        Washington, DC, March 14, 2000.

    Hon. Benjamin J. Cayetano,
    Chairman, Western Governors' Association,
    Denver, CO.
        Dear Governor Cayetano: We appreciated meeting with Governors
    Geringer, Kempthorne, Racicot, Knowles, and the staffs of the other
    western Governors on Saturday, February 25, 2000, to discuss the
    participation of the western Governors in our roadless area rulemaking.
    We agree that the State agencies possess important information that may
    be of use to the Forest Service in conducting its social and
    environmental analyses associated with the roadless rulemaking.
        Working together in a collaborative manner can help to expedite and
    improve our environmental analysis. We would like to improve the
    information flow and exchange of ideas between the States and the
    Forest Service relative to roadless areas. To that end, we propose the
    following procedures to maximize cooperation with interested western
    Governors' offices and State agencies:
      --The Governors of the western States could designate representatives
            to serve as a conduit to solicit, collect, and syntnesize input
            from those Governors' offices and State agencies and to serve
            as a forum for communication between the States and the Forest
            Service. The Forest Service will, in turn, use the Governors'
            designees as their principal communications vehicle for seeking
            information, asking questions, or communicating updated
            progress reports to the western States and State agencies. The
            Governors or their representatives will assist in expediting
            and making this communication more efficient and effective,
            running both ways.
      --Randy Phillips, Deputy Chief for Programs and Legislation, will
            serve as our liaison to the Governors and with other
            intergovernmental organizations to ensure open communication
            and coordination on this and other issues. Jim Furnish, Deputy
            Chief of the National Forest System, and Chris Wood, Chief's
            Office, will meet, with the western Governors and their
            designated representatives specifically on this issue, to be
            scheduled by mutual agreement.
      --The States will assist the Forest Service in identifying locations
            and other potential forums for public involvement during the
            public comment phase of the rulemaking.
      --Forest Service can be available to answer technical questions at
            one or two coordinated State work session(s) as the States
            develop input on the DEIS and proposed rule.
        To give you a sense of our public involvement process, when the
    proposed rule and draft EIS are published, we are contemplating
    distribution of 100,000 executive summaries and up to 50,000 full
    copies of the DEIS, making available 10,000 CD-Roms containing the
    DEIS, and making it available on our website. The printed copies, CD-
    Roms, and website will all contain (as the website does now) complete
    detailed maps of every inventoried roadless area. Over 200 additional
    community meetings are anticipated. In addition, we foresee
    distributing copies to every public library in the country; around
    16,000 in total. We would welcome additional suggestions for
    communicating directly with the public.
        As you know, we believe very strongly in the tenets of
    collaborative stewardship. We also believe that given the thousands of
    comments we have received and the years of debate surrounding the
    roadless area issue, it is clear that this is an issue of both national
    and local significance. In the Notice of Intent, we outlined a strategy
    to deal with the issue at both national and local scales. We would like
    very much to work with you in the manner described above as we address
    the national aspects of this issue. In addition, there will be a
    variety of opportunities for the States and their many agencies to
    participate in future planning efforts that address the significant
    local aspects of the roadless area issue.
        We value our partnership very much and look forward to working with
    you on the roadless area rulemaking and other pressing problems such as
    water quality, forest health, rural jobs, and our growing maintenance
    backlog. I am sending copies of this to the other western Governors.
        Thank you for your continued interest in national forests and
    grasslands.
                Sincerely,
                                       James R. Lyons,
                                               Under Secretary, NRE.
                                       Mike Dombeck,
                                               Chief.

        Secretary Lyons. It outlines the steps that we are very
    interested in taking in working with the Western governors. We
    have extended similar offers to the National Association of
    Counties and to the National Governors' Association, to work
    with them in facilitating the transfer of information, sharing
    of data, in the development of public meetings, and in the
    process of providing answers to the technical questions and
    concerns that are likely to be raised as we go through this
    NEPA process.
        Senator Bennett. In other words, you will be happy to share
    information with them and tell them what you are doing, but you
    will not be interested in their ultimate opinion as to what you
    ought to be doing. In other words, you reserve to yourselves
    the right to make a decision basically without any more than
    just receiving input from them.
        Secretary Lyons. No, sir. I want to be clear. I was not
    suggesting one-way communication. In fact, the letter says:

        The Governors of the Western States could designate
    representatives to serve as a conduit to solicit, collect, and
    synthesize input from those governors, offices, and State
    agencies, and to serve as a forum for communication between the
    States and the Forest Service.

        Senator Bennett. Senator Craig, you had a comment on that.
    Do you want to----
        Senator Craig. I am frustrated. When we held the hearing I
    asked both of you, are you going to allow this, and the answer
    was no, no lead-on, no follow, no. When you met with the
    Governors, no. Now that it is a national issue, and the heat is
    on, you are changing your story.
        Secretary Lyons. That is not true, Senator.
        Senator Craig. Well, it is true, and that is what the
    record shows. I am sorry.
        Secretary Lyons. Senator, I hate to disagree with you,
    but----
        Senator Craig. Please go ahead. You do often.
        Secretary Lyons. Thank you, sir. What we said in the
    hearing was, we were not going to grant formal cooperating
    status, and we have not offered that to the Governors. We are
    recommending to them a process that will grant them the
    functional equivalent of that status, and, in essence, the
    rights and privileges that come with that.
        Senator Craig. Cover thy tail. Thank you.
        Secretary Lyons. Well, more emphasis on process, I think,
    in trying to satisfy their concerns than the formal legal
    issues that could come of a potential granting of the status,
    and concern about monkey-wrenching the system.
        Senator Bennett. The proposed rule with respect to the
    transportation policy says that there must be a compelling need
    for a new road in a roadless area. What is a compelling need?
    Can you give me an example of something that might be a
    compelling need?
        Mr. Dombeck. Yes. Forest health--level of forest health
    issues--other kinds of things that the forest supervisor--and I
    believe, is at the discretion of the regional forester to make
    that decision. I think there could be a variety of----
        Senator Bennett. Is mitigating insect damage a compelling
    need? It comes under the heading of forest health.
        Mr. Dombeck. I guess I cannot--we are not providing that
    level of direction at the national level. That is something
    that a local community, perhaps, that is dealing with fire risk
    concerns of the wildland/urban interface--I assume that we
    would have a scientific analysis and recommendations that would
    be made at the local level.
        Senator Bennett. Well, again, not to be too parochial about
    it, the local people in Utah are very concerned about the
    beetle infestation in the Dixie, and have been unable for years
    to do anything about it, and the beetle infestation grows to
    the point where a portion of the Dixie Forest now is considered
    by some who have knowledge in this area as being basically
    dead. The forest has died.
        Now, some of my colleagues have said the whole Dixie Forest
    has been killed by the Clinton administration, and that is
    overstatement, and I do not endorse that, but significant
    portions of the Dixie Forest have been killed by the beetle
    infestation, and every attempt, coming out of local
    participation, local concern, to get something done about it
    has been stymied at the national level.
        Now, some of this happened before your watch, so I am not
    putting it at your feet, Mr. Dombeck, but you have words in
    here that say ``compelling need will allow the need for a new
    road in a roadless area.''
        We are not talking about roadless areas now. We are talking
    about areas you are trying to turn into roadless areas by
    saying that the roads that have been used cannot be, but the
    continual battle in the Dixie Forest to keep people out in the
    name of environmental preservation has produced devastation
    within the forest, and I do not understand that. I do not
    understand why that is good for the environment.
        Now, maybe it is a natural process to let the beetle come
    along and destroy the trees, but that is not your challenge.
    Your challenge is to keep the trees healthy, and there have
    been other places where the Forest Service has been able to
    keep the trees healthy.
        We have a problem in the Dixie Forest, it is very serious,
    it is not getting any better, and I would hope that this
    language in the proposed rule would be interpreted in such a
    way at the national level that local people could be encouraged
    to say the health of the forest is in jeopardy here.
        Now, this is separate and apart from the timber issue. The
    timber issue is an emotional one that we get into. This is
    separate and apart. This is forest health issue, and it is one
    where a particular stakeholder, and I grant the environmental
    community that status, absolutely, they have every bit as much
    right to be concerned about this as any other stakeholder, but
    this is a particular stakeholder that has been dominating for
    years the management practices in this area, and the forest is
    paying the price, not the local community. The local community
    has their price that they have paid. The forest is paying the
    price as trees are being killed.
        Now, one last comment. You talk about roadless issue not
    being an access issue. There are those who will disagree with
    that, who insist that the roadless position taken by this
    Administration is, indeed, an attempt to restrict access. I
    would like to suggest to you and have you comment on, as a
    national policy, no net loss of access.
        Our population is growing rapidly. Our open spaces are not.
    Our open spaces are finite, whether they are in national
    forests, or in BLM land, or wherever they may be. National
    forests are a unique asset. I think it is counterproductive to
    have a policy that says as the population goes up, access to
    public lands will come down, and I would like you to address
    what would happen if we adopted as a national policy no net
    loss of public access to public lands.
        What would that do to you and your attitude about roadless
    areas?
        Mr. Dombeck. First, the reality is--as we look at the
    infrastructure and the road system--we are losing access
    because of lack of maintenance. In our arterial and collector
    systems, which are the systems that a two-wheel-drive vehicle
    can drive down, we are losing somewhere in the neighborhood of
    a 1,000 to 1,200 miles every year because of bridges that are
    no longer safe, because of washouts, and other kinds of things
    as the backlog grows.
        I commend this committee and others for having provided us
    increases in road maintenance. I think we have had significant
    increases there. Our request this year is $129 million; again,
    an increase, I believe, of 11 percent. So I would encourage
    your support for that.
        I think the reality is that Americans have greater access
    today than they have ever had with a much wider variety of
    everything--from motorized, to non-motorized kinds of
    equipment--to not only national forests, but all lands, as we
    look at the increasing use of mountain bikes, which, in fact, I
    think is one of the fastest growing recreational activities in
    the United States. We have the four-wheelers and hikers getting
    into more places.
        I think that you are going to see more people in the
    national forests. Just on the Wasatch Front, with the number of
    people that live in Salt Lake City. We have literally thousands
    of people every day that go out and enjoy the national forests.
        Senator Bennett. That is not necessarily my question. Yes,
    we are seeing more and more people trying to access the
    forests, and I take your point about the maintenance of roads.
    I think that is a legitimate point. I am talking about total
    acreage, no net loss of total acreage available for public
    access to public lands.
        At least the efforts that I have seen out of this
    Administration have been going in the other direction. They
    have been trying to reduce the amount of acres of public lands
    to which the public will have access. Certainly, that step was
    taken with respect to the creation of the national monument in
    my State, shut down public access to lands.
        Would you endorse a position that says no net loss,
    measured in acreage, of public access to public land, in
    exchange for our helping you with maintaining the roads and
    maintaining the access that is there?
        Mr. Dombeck. I guess I am not sure I am in the position to
    give you an answer right now. What I would like to do is really
    take a look at the data. One of the things that is coming out
    of this roadless exercise is probably the best data that we
    have had, or will have, on the relationship of roadless areas
    to forest health issues, to fire risk issues, to population
    density, and to a wide variety of things. I think that will
    really give us a picture. I would be happy to have that
    conversation with the data at hand.
        Senator Gorton. I do not think you are going to get an
    answer to your question, Senator.
        Secretary Lyons. I will take a shot at it, Senator. I think
    the answer to that is: I do not think we can commit to that
    because we do not know, as Mike just suggested, what access we
    currently have. We know we are losing access.
        We have just completed, through a two percent sample, an
    inventory of our road system. We discover roads that we did not
    know we had as we go through these inventories. That is why we
    need to go through a process to understand what is out there,
    what access is available, and go through a public process at
    the local level--to work with communities to determine what
    roads should be improved--what access is required--and what
    roads the community might desire be set aside, be closed off
    for periods of time, or even put to bed.
        So I will commit to you to a process to attempt to do that
    with the road system and work with communities in that regard.
    I cannot commit to net access, although it has a lot of appeal.
    It is a difficult question to address until you know what you
    have out there.
        Senator Bennett. I appreciate that, and I will accept your
    commitment to help us get the necessary data, but I will tell
    you and representatives of the Interior Department, who may
    come before us, that I have decided that is going to be my
    goal, that we have no net loss of public access to public
    lands.
        Some of the public lands are under your stewardship, some
    are under the Interior Department's stewardship, but I am
    frightened by the trend that I see, and data you develop may
    demonstrate that my data is wrong, but at least the data that I
    see tell me that this administration is committed to reducing
    public access to public lands, in the name of protecting those
    lands. I do not buy the argument that that is protection, and I
    feel to take the argument that we hear often on this committee,
    and elsewhere, that the public lands belong to the public, and
    not to the people of Utah.
        I hear that a lot: ``This is public land, this does not
    belong to the people of Utah. You are a Senator from Utah, you
    should not have anything to say about this. These are public
    lands. They belong to all the people.''
        In the spirit of that argument, I think we should say, all
    of the people should be able to maintain at least the current
    access they have to public lands, and we should, as a Nation,
    adopt a policy that says no net loss of public access to public
    land.
        So any data you can give me will be much appreciated, and I
    hope I have stimulated you to start looking in a direction that
    you may not have looked in before.
        Secretary Lyons. Well, I would enjoy the opportunity to
    explore that more with you, Senator, but I just wanted to make
    one point, and that is: All of us acknowledge that the public
    lives in Utah, too; we are all part of the public, and----
        Senator Bennett. You have not necessarily made that
    argument, but a lot of folks have.
        Secretary Lyons. OK. But just one other point, because this
    is critical. You have helped us tremendously in providing
    resources for road maintenance, but one thing gets lost in the
    shuffle: All the burden has fallen to the subcommittee to
    provide us the funds to deal with this issue.
        When the T-21 bill was passed, the Forest Service got no
    money for maintenance of national forest system roads at all.
    That is why I am confident in sharing with you the figure that
    every year we lose about 1,100 miles of road access. That
    backlog of maintenance increases by $120 million annually.
        So just to address the concern of no net loss of access, we
    need at least another $120 million a year to keep up with what
    we are losing. So I would enjoy the dialogue with you.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you. I happen to sit on that
    subcommittee, too.
        Secretary Lyons. That is why I mentioned that.
        Senator Bennett. Yes.
        Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Byrd, I will defer to you at this
    point.
        Senator Byrd. Last year the Senate and House appropriations
    committees advised the Forest Service to heed the management
    conclusions of the National Academy of Public Administration's
    report. The conference report for the fiscal year 2000
    appropriations specifically focused on the lack of sufficient
    linkage between the budget processes and beyond the groundwork
    of the Forest Service.
        This year, the Forest Service has presented a budget
    request, according to a budget structure, that has not been
    approved by the Congress. I have some reservations about the
    proposed budget structure.
        What happens if Congress does not approve the budget
    structure that you presented? Do you have a fallback position,
    or is it too late in the process?
        Mr. Dombeck. Well, Senator, I hope that we can make
    progress on simplifying the budget structure of the Forest
    Service.
        You will also note in the explanatory notes that we have a
    crosswalk that compares the present budget structure with the
    proposed budget structure. We can see at each juncture what it
    would have been and where it was. I think the common goal that
    we share in this is that we need to simplify the process,
    simplify the accounting processes, and we would hope that you
    would help us with that.
        Senator Byrd. You did not answer my question. What happens
    if Congress does not approve the budget structure you have
    presented? It might not, you know, you know, you know, you
    know. I am going to use that inanity of inanities, you know.
    What happens?
        Mr. Dombeck. Well, my assumption is that we have the
    current budget structure, and we move forward with that. I want
    to ask our Chief Financial Officer, who knows this inside-out
    in immense detail, if she has a comment.
        Ms. Goerl. Well, Senator, we would, of course, proceed with
    whatever budget structure that is appropriated by the
    Appropriations Committee. We would proceed in that regard.
        I would like to point out, though, that we very
    purposefully--in the interest of gaining support and interest,
    and involvement of the appropriations committees--included the
    staff in a meeting that we had with GAO and NAPA, shortly after
    the report was produced in August, for a 2-day meeting to
    review the NAPA recommendations. We looked at proposals for the
    future so that we could have that dialogue with both the
    appropriations staff from the House and from the Senate and,
    along with GAO and NAPA, other members of our staff, to take
    that and see what we would do with that. We had very good
    discussions. The budget structure that is presented here today
    is what evolved out of that discussion.
        Senator Byrd. That is all well and good, but I am
    interested in knowing what you would do in case the Congress
    does not accept the structure that you have presented. It is a
    possibility, you know.
        Ms. Goerl. Absolutely.
        Senator Byrd. The Congress may not approve the proposed
    budget structure.
        Mr. Dombeck. Senator, I think that what we would continue
    with is continue with some of the burden of the complexities
    that we have.
        I have an example that I would like to describe of the
    current budget structure, with the future budget structure that
    is proposed, that I think can shed some light on the importance
    of this.
        This is a--if the staff would put up a chart--typical
    Forest Service project. This one happens to be from the
    Willamette National Forest----
        Senator Byrd. How much time is this going to take?
        Mr. Dombeck. Pardon?
        Senator Byrd. I guess I have a limited amount of time, do I
    not?
        Senator Gorton. No, Senator, you have as much as you need.
        Mr. Dombeck. I will make it as quick as I can. This is a
    $97,000 project. Under the current benefitting function
    approach that we use now, an individual employee would charge
    15 accounts for this project.
        So, then, if we take a look at the accounting procedures
    associated with this, and then the payroll processing, we have:
    salary; retirement; life insurance; Social Security deductions;
    health benefits; and so on. We basically end up with 90
    transactions with these 15 line items. Using the primary
    purpose principle, we end up with one transaction in our
    financial system.
        Now, typically, an employee would work on several projects
    in a pay period, not just one. This would be multiplied, 90
    transactions times the number of projects they worked on.
        Then if we take a look at the agency, with 30,000
    employees, it is--I hope this points out the complexity that we
    are trying to get out from underneath. All of this energy that
    goes into the accounting procedures really does not improve the
    project on the ground. It relegates more field employees doing
    more work on the budget rather than on the natural resources.
        We hope together that we can simplify the process so we can
    deliver more resources to the ground.
        Senator Byrd. It is commendable that the Forest Service has
    acknowledged the over-complexity of its budget, and is
    proposing to do something about it, but I am concerned that the
    proposal goes too far. For example, the proposal before us
    combines, as you have indicated, dissimilar activities into a
    single category titled National Forest System.
        You include recreation, grazing, wildlife habitat
    management, timber sales management, and law enforcement
    operations in the same budget line item. Is this not a rather
    radical solution? Have you considered anything less radical
    than this?
        Mr. Dombeck. We have backed off in the discussion with the
    Appropriations Committee staff, NAPA, and others--to provide a
    little bit more detail than the simplification that NAPA
    recommended--and I would ask Vincette to give us those details.
        Ms. Goerl. Well, in the presentation of the budget, we
    looked at presenting the information along the lines of
    ecosystem health and conservation, public service, and uses. We
    also looked at program components. We presented performance
    measures and program components within each of those particular
    areas.
        For instance, looking at wilderness areas and other kinds
    of ecosystem health areas--underneath ecosystems health--and
    then looking at timber management as a program component under
    public uses and services--so that we could support those
    particular line items--but also we presented 23 performance
    measures--and we very purposefully looked at this as a
    performance-based budget--and to look at the measures and the
    dollars associated with those measures underneath each of those
    budget line items in our effort to move toward looking at the
    results of what we wanted to achieve with the investment rather
    than just the amount of dollars that would be invested in that
    line item.
        We have addressed some of the issues where appropriations
    committees and others have questioned whether those performance
    measures need more work. In fact, in recreation we believe they
    do. We are working within the agencies to come back with some
    additional measures in those areas to support better just
    exactly what we expect to achieve in those particular program
    components.
        Senator Byrd. I am concerned that accountability for the
    monies that are being given to your control for various items
    may suffer. How will you be able to account for many different
    activities, if you have only one budget category titled,
    National Forest System?
        How will the Congress, which has constitutional oversight
    over your program and all the other programs in this
    Government, although some people in the executive branch tend
    to forget it, be assured that there will be accountability for
    these monies, if everything is going to be categorized under
    one single item?
        Mr. Dombeck. The place that I think that we are headed, as
    required by the Government Performance and Results Act, is to
    move to an accountability and outcome-based performance system,
    to really track what gets done, rather than tracking the
    dollars through the system.
        Now, we will continue to be tracking dollars through
    systems like the amounts of money that go to--whether it is
    Princeton, or the Monongahela National Forest, or to Idaho, or
    to individual units--but we really want to look at the endpoint
    of what we are delivering to the public.
        Senator Byrd. How are we going to know whether that end
    point is justified? How are we going to know whether it was
    achieved with the utmost efficiency? How are we going to know
    if the monies that were appropriated to your agency have been
    spent wisely? How can you assure the Senate that you will be
    spending appropriations according to the will of Congress?
        We may not know that now, but soon we are going to be in a
    greater fog if we go down that road of diminishing line items.
    How can you assure the Senate you will be spending
    appropriations according to the will of Congress?
        I am not saying we are perfect in our oversight. We are
    unfortunately pretty lacking ourselves. We need to sharpen up
    our oversight. It seems to me that you are going to make it
    more difficult for us.
        Mr. Dombeck. Well, an important piece of this is the
    accounting system, and having the general ledger in place that
    tracks the transactions. This is something in which we have
    been woefully lacking. Part of it is because of the complexity,
    and I think Vincette can explain that system.
        Ms. Goerl. With the implementation of our new financial
    system on October 1, we have, really, the foundation for much
    better accountability that we have had for the last 10 or 15
    years, certainly, because we did not have a standard general
    ledger.
        At the same time, we set up a structure in the current year
    with the current budget structure to ensure that accounting for
    that down to the unit and such was tracked and had audit
    trails, which we did not have before. So I can assure you--as a
    base level, under any new budget, the current budget structure
    or the future--we are going to have a better accountability
    with regard to that.
        With the new budget structure, we are looking at some of
    the issues that Mr. Dombeck mentioned with regard to the
    simplicity of our programs. Many of our programs have moved
    toward multiple projects with multiple outcomes. The accounting
    for those, because of the numerous line items, very quickly
    gets lost in terms of accountability because of the number of
    transactions. It causes a tremendous amount of work that goes
    through the system that can easily be confused. Less
    accountability can come about that even with the simplified
    structure.
        There are a couple of things that come into play that NAPA
    encouraged us to do. We are implementing--along with a new
    budget structure and a new financial system--a performance-
    based, outcome-associated measurement system. We have proposed
    it in this budget. We need to work on it, but we intend to
    provide accountability through those outcomes and results
    measures. Finally, program review and monitoring--which I think
    we have been woefully inadequate in supporting--is to review
    what has actually happened as we move through the year. We were
    not doing that. We did not have the systems. We did not have
    the structure to go about doing that on a more orderly basis.
    We fully expect to do that this year--with any new budget
    structure--should the appropriations committee agree with our
    request.
        Mr. Dombeck. Senator, I have also asked our Chief Operating
    Officer to really revitalize our program review function within
    the Forest Service. I think if you talk to many retirees of the
    Forest Service, and others, we spend more and more time dealing
    with tough issues.
        As the size of the agency has been reduced now in the
    nineties, we are spending less and less time on field level
    program reviews--to actually take a look at that slide on the
    Highland Scenic Highway and see if it has been taken care of
    appropriately--or the standards of the Hiawatha Trail--or
    whatever the project may be--and really bolster that side of it
    so that we have a connection between the bookkeeping system of
    the Agency as well as the quality of work that is taking place
    on the land. The part of monitoring of our many, many programs
    is also an area that--in the desire to do more projects, there
    is the tendency to invest less time and energy into the
    monitoring of those that is very important and then making
    adjustments as we need to in dealing with situations. It is a
    multifaceted effort.
        Senator Byrd. I am just as concerned about funds intended
    for on-the-ground operations being diverted for administrative
    uses in Washington, DC. How would you be able to control
    spending for administration, when it is combined with the
    programs?
        Mr. Dombeck. Again, I will ask Vincette, our Chief
    Financial Officer, who has been the architect of much of this,
    to provide you with the details.
        Senator Byrd. Why can you not provide them?
        Mr. Dombeck. Well, I can, and I will ask Vincette to fill
    in the details. With regard to the dollars that have gone to
    the field, some data that I have are that there have been
    increasing allocations out of the Washington office. Now, let
    me ask you, is your concern the increase of money at the
    Washington level?
        Senator Byrd. Let me ask you the question again. I do not
    think it needs an explanation. Congress is concerned about
    funds intended for on-the-ground operations being diverted for
    administrative uses in Washington.
        How would you be able to control spending for
    administration when it is combined with the program? What level
    of accountability can you provide this committee?
        Mr. Dombeck. I think there are two ways we will accomplish
    that. One is through using the Federal Accounting Standards
    Board definition of indirect costs, and we have asked for--some
    changes are occurring now, associated with the General
    Administration account. The data tells us that about less than
    50 percent of the actual indirect costs come from GA. So,
    therefore, the remainder of that is charged to the individual
    programs.
        The advantage of having the kind of data system that the
    Chief Financial Officer described--well, that will give us a
    clearer picture of exactly where the money is going through the
    system and what it is being used for.
        Senator Byrd. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would say I am less
    than impressed. Perhaps, it is not too important, whether I am
    impressed or not.
        What is your situation? I do not want to overdo my----
        Senator Gorton. Well, if you would not mind, I would like
    to ask a few questions, and then we can come back to you----
        Senator Byrd. Move on. Let us do that.
        Senator Gorton [continuing]. Particularly since I want to
    ask one or two on the subject that you have just covered.
        Senator Byrd. OK.
        Senator Gorton. I will try to simplify it. Obviously, there
    is an advantage to the Forest Service itself in being able to
    dramatically reduce this number of categories. Obviously, you
    will save money and can use it programmatically, if you do not
    have to go through all of these details, with every minor
    project, with literally dozens of employees, but Senator Byrd's
    question is quite an appropriate one.
        We, as Members of Congress, have a great deal of interest
    in how much money you will spend on recreation, timber
    programs, habitat management, law enforcement. If we give you
    these three categories only, how in the world are we ever going
    to know how much money you have spent on recreation?
        Mr. Dombeck. Again, I think if we look at the way a field
    employee does a job on a typical day or a typical week--of a
    field employee--that may work on several aspects of a major
    project--that has influences on vegetation management--
    something perhaps associated with fuel treatment--has
    influences or impacts on the fisheries program--on the
    watershed program--what we are essentially doing is, through
    the accounting system, asking that unit to go through and
    charge these various hours or days--with a lot of resolution--
    that adds tremendous complexity. I think what we are looking
    for is an outcome-based system where we can take a look at the
    endpoint of the project.
        Senator Gorton. Mike, that does not answer my question,
    unless what you are saying is, we do not know how much you are
    spending on recreation now, and we are not going to know it
    after you change the accounting system. Is that what you are
    telling me?
        Secretary Lyons. Mr. Chairman, I think this is getting
    infinitely complex. I think the answer is that we would report
    back to you what we spent in recreation and accomplishments in
    that regard.
        Senator Gorton. OK. Then, Jim, that is good, but is that
    not going to require you to keep the same kind of time charts
    on this employee out there who is doing five different kinds of
    jobs a day as you are doing now?
        Secretary Lyons. I am venturing into areas that I do not
    spend a lot of time on. I think Mike and his staff have
    invested a lot here.
        I would be honest, Mr. Chairman, in telling you that the
    direction I have gotten from the Secretary is that the
    Department of Agriculture will have a clean audit at some point
    in time. The Forest Service is the problem, so fix it, and we
    are fixing it.
        With regard with how we work with you--to share that
    information--I know Vincette has been spending time in trying
    to design a system that would allow us--perhaps through project
    planning, I think that is what NAPA recommended--to add up that
    information--but try and limit the number of transactions, so
    we could report outcomes, and tie that back to investments,
    whether it is for recreation, or whatever categories we agree
    we are going to add that information up in.
        Ms. Goerl. If I might add to the discussion, one of the
    things that occurs after--obviously, when we develop project
    plans through the year, then we get very specific about whether
    it is a recreation project or otherwise. The expectation is
    that we would be able to, to some extent in the system, track
    large projects at the higher levels. We would be able to look
    at categorizing in such ways that you could come up with those
    particular investments.
        But more importantly, with the performance measures that we
    have proposed in there, we expect to be able to account for the
    funds that are associated with delivering those performance
    measures. The system that we have put in place and that we
    expect to implement--if you would give us the new budget
    structure--would be able to look at the investment and be able
    to track the investment on what the dollars were to accomplish
    under those measures.
        There are 27 of them that we have presented. We have said
    that we agree with the staff's comments to date. Recreation
    probably needs to have better performance measures. We expect,
    in the next 3 to 4 weeks, to be back with you on those
    measures.
        Senator Gorton. Perhaps we have beaten this subject as far
    as we can in this connection, but you know from Senator Byrd's
    questions and from mine our deep apprehension about the
    proposition that we know too little now about how the money we
    are appropriating is spent. I have a couple of parochial
    questions on that, matters that we went through just in the
    course of the last couple of weeks.
        I think you must understand, there is a deep distress on
    the part of members of the subcommittee as to whether or not we
    will better be able to make those determinations if we give you
    this broad grant of authority. It has many appealing features,
    obviously, from the point of view of your accounting.
        The question that we have to ask ourselves is, does it have
    any appealing features, as far as we are concerned in
    understanding where these billions of dollars that we are
    appropriating are actually going, and to reach your goal you
    are going to have to satisfy that connection.
        It is safe to say both for me and for Senator Byrd, if you
    are going to have some of those measures in three or four
    weeks, that will be in plenty of time, but I think you need to
    be warned that if you want to get something that is greatly
    desirable to you, we are going to have to feel comfortable with
    it, comfortable with the way you account for the money.
        Ms. Goerl. Senator, I would be willing to work with you and
    your staff to do anything that we can to move us forward and to
    satisfy your concerns.
        Secretary Lyons. Senator, I know we would be pleased to sit
    down with you, and Senator Byrd as well, to walk through these
    things. I think one thing I want to emphasize, in addition to
    my comments about the direction I have gotten from the
    Secretary, is, you know, for years, the handle the subcommittee
    has had to track performance and how we spent appropriations--
    where those dollars went--frankly, as a manager, I do not know
    that that is an adequate handle--because we ought to be
    concerned about--and I know you have this concern--is the
    efficiency with which we spend those resources.
        Part of what we are trying to do here, in reforming the
    system, is to come up with a better way to track
    accomplishments and actually provided incentives to do work, as
    opposed to simply track dollars by managers. Hopefully, in that
    regard, the flexibility that will come with this new system
    will give managers the incentive to spend more wisely and more
    efficiently.
        Now, if we can design a system that satisfies your needs
    and the management needs we have described, I think that would
    be wonderful. We will work as best as we can to try and do
    that, and to address your concerns.
        Mr. Dombeck. The key that I think we are all interested in
    is linking the budget process outcome-based performance--and
    have as simple a budget process as we can have to meet your
    needs--and to meet our management needs--and link that then to
    what happens on the land.
        Senator Gorton. Well, we all share those goals. What has
    not been proven to us yet is whether or not this will help us
    reach those goals.
        Senator Byrd, I had an 11:45 meeting that is waiting for me
    outside now. I think I will defer back to you for a few more
    questions at least, while I go meet with this group, and you
    can share the time with Senator Craig, but he has already had a
    fair amount of questions. So go ahead.
        Senator Byrd. I will not be long. Thank you very much. The
    administration is proposing a $30 million tourism initiative
    for the Forest Service. Your budget states that the Forest
    Service intends to focus on 20 priority locations around the
    country. Do you have a list of these priority locations?
        Mr. Dombeck. The development of that list is occurring now,
    and we will provide that list to you. There is no current list
    finalized at this time.
        Senator Byrd. Well, how are you able to focus on the number
    20 if there is no current list? Do you have any ideas as to
    where these locations would be? I would be interested in
    knowing if West Virginia is on that list.
        Mr. Dombeck. Well, the regions have been asked to develop
    proposals for this within the next few weeks. I can assure you
    that we will be working with West Virginia, and other States as
    well, as we focus on those goals.
        Senator Byrd. Well, I am going to want to see that list,
    and I am sure that other senators will also be interested. When
    do you think you would be able to do that, by what date?
        Mr. Dombeck. Let me ask the staff how far along we are in
    that. We would assume within a couple of weeks.
        Senator Byrd. There is a very real chance that this
    subcommittee may mark up its fiscal year 2001 appropriations
    bills as early as late May.
        Mr. Dombeck. We will have it to you before then, Senator.
        Senator Byrd. You will. OK.
        Mr. Dombeck. Yes, sir.
        Senator Byrd. Very well. The Forest Service is also
    requesting a $40 million increase for recreation special use
    permit activities to private companies, allowing them to
    provide services on Forest Service lands.
        This is an increase of more than 25 percent; yet, there is
    no corresponding increase expected in the number of special use
    concession permits in 2001.
        According to your budget justification, the number of
    permits issued will actually decline from 23,700 in fiscal year
    2000, to 23,000 in fiscal 2001. Why do you need the additional
    $40 million?
        Mr. Dombeck. Senator, this is a perfect example of the
    dialogue that we had earlier about the performance measures.
    What I have done in this area--because of the way the budget
    was structured--I have asked the deputy chiefs to go back to
    the drawing board on this one.
        As we develop performance measures--the concern that both
    you and Senator Gorton expressed--this is our first year in
    that effort. We want to be able to continue to refine them.
    This is something that we will be refining very shortly and
    providing the staff here with the information.
        Senator Byrd. You are requesting that the Congress
    eliminate the administrative provision that requires consent of
    the House and Senate appropriations committees before
    obligating any funds to close or move any regional office for
    National Forest System administration.
        I understand there is not an agency in this Nation that
    does not want more latitude when it comes to conducting its
    affairs. I also understand that control of the purse strings
    was placed in the legislative branch of the Government by the
    Founding Fathers for good reason. Thank God for the Supreme
    Court for knocking down the Line Item Veto Act. Would you
    please tell us why you want this provision to be deleted?
        Mr. Dombeck. Well, I can assure you that even the
    modifications within district offices is something that we
    discussed in detail with the appropriate delegation and the
    Members of Congress. I would not consider closing a regional
    office without significant dialogue with Members of Congress. I
    believe if I tried, I would not get away with it.
        Senator Byrd. I am asking the question with respect to the
    consent that is required, not with: ``Members of Congress,''
    and the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. Do you
    think we are going to go along with that?
        Mr. Dombeck. I would say we do not feel strongly about that
    request. As I said, we defer to your wisdom, Senator.
        Senator Byrd. Well, it is the wisdom of the Forefathers.
    Let me read it to you: ``No money shall be drawn from the
    treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.''
    This is from the ninth section of Article I of the Constitution
    of the United States of America.
        So I just want to be sure, Mr. Chairman, that we do not go
    along with this idea. As long as I have lungs of brass and can
    stand on my feet on the Senate floor, I will be opposed to
    that.
        Senator Gorton. Well, we know that that is true, Senator
    Byrd. You have not lost that ability.
        Senator Byrd. Well, you have completely disarmed me. I
    think I will yield.
        Senator Gorton. I want to take up the subject that Senator
    Craig took up with you I think some considerable time ago. Tell
    me what the goals are of the Roadless Area Initiative.
        Do you plan, before the end of this administration, to put
    into place, without an act of Congress, a set of rules and
    regulations with respect to some 40 million to 60 million acres
    of our national forest lands that are thereafter essentially
    irreversible?
        Secretary Lyons. Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are going
    through a rulemaking process. We published a Notice of Intent,
    and received public comment, a huge volume of public comment.
    We are in the process of developing a draft EIS and a proposed
    rule that would be issued in May for public comment.
        So our proposal would be--depending on the outcome of the
    EIS and public response--to finalize a rule that would provide
    direction for future use or disposition of inventoried roadless
    areas and perhaps other issues associated with the roadless
    area debate. That will be a function of what we issue as a
    draft and the kind of comments we receive. Yes, this is a
    rulemaking process that is intended to try and deal with this
    issue.
        Senator Gorton. At what time do you plan to issue a final
    rule?
        Secretary Lyons. Hopefully, by the end of the year.
        Senator Gorton. Do you think it is wise or appropriate for
    this administration to issue a final rule on a matter of such
    profound importance to so many people, or would it not be
    better public policy to make all of the necessary preparations
    and allow an administration, whatever administration it is, to
    be elected in November to make that final decision?
        Secretary Lyons. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will offer my
    personal view, and that is: I was appointed to this position
    and confirmed by the Senate to do a job. That job does not end
    until either we leave office or I resign. I think I feel an
    obligation to follow through with the President's direction to
    try and bring closure to this issue. As I discussed in my
    opening statement, this issue has plagued the Forest Service,
    and the community of interest related to the national forests,
    for several decades.
        I think it is wise to try and bring this issue to closure
    by going through a process that will involve relevant
    stakeholders in the public in an open dialogue about an issue
    that never really has gotten that kind of a national dialogue
    before. I think that is an appropriate thing to do, to invite
    the public to participate in that, and to try to bring it to
    closure, yes.
        Senator Gorton. It is your view that this is an appropriate
    executive function, without the intervention of Congress.
        Secretary Lyons. It is fully consistent with our legal
    authority, that is correct. We are certainly proceeding
    consistent with NEPA, the Administrative Procedures Act, and
    all relevant statutes.
        Senator Gorton. You use the word ``closure,'' and yet you
    do know that these matters are matters that are of intense
    public interest and, to a considerable degree, will be debated
    between the two candidates for president this fall, but you do
    not believe that the outcome of that election should affect
    this process.
        Secretary Lyons. I do not see this as a political issue,
    Senator. I see this as a management issue of some significance
    that needs to be brought to closure.
        Senator Gorton. Well, that is a very interesting
    definition, but at least your answers are clear.
        In doing so, however, you have diverted a massive amount of
    manpower, and the National Federation of Federal Employees,
    that represents half of the people who work for you, recently
    issued a letter condemning the initiatives as ``More massive
    Washington mandates that are hampering work in the field and
    inflating the Washington office bureaucracy.'' I think that was
    implicit in some of Senator Byrd's questions.
        No word of this was given to us when we were making
    appropriations last year. From what other functions does--is
    all of the work on this rule making being taken, that otherwise
    would have been accomplished?
        Secretary Lyons. If I could, I would ask the Chief to talk
    about the specifics, in terms of the funding that has been
    provided to support this initiative.
        Mr. Dombeck. This is largely a planning effort. It is
    currently being supported from the Land Management Planning
    line item. As you know--as we move forward with the realignment
    request--as we focus on the budget structure--that will also be
    reflected there.
        Senator Gorton. Well, again, I am not sure that that is
    much of an answer. What is not being done because of this that
    would otherwise have been done, had the President not come up
    with this directive after the time at which you submitted, and
    for that matter, received your budget for the current year?
        Mr. Dombeck. The amount of money that has been spent on the
    roadless effort, or is estimated for this fiscal year, this
    current fiscal year, is $8.6 million, headquarters costs. About
    $1.2 million has been spent at the field level. The estimated
    cost for 2001 is about $2.1 million. We are looking at this as
    a planning function.
        Senator Gorton. Now, my staff says, how can you tell us
    that the cost in the field is a little over a million dollars,
    with the huge number of public hearings that you have boasted
    about holding in connection with it, and the obvious amount of
    work that must go on in the field to inform you of what you
    want to do?
        Mr. Dombeck. Well, this is the information on the money
    spent thus far that we have received from the regions and the
    forests, with about 185 public meetings that have been
    conducted. All but 10 of those have been at the forest level.
        Senator Gorton. I am not sure that I can go much further in
    this, but you see, that answer, which seems so obviously phony,
    is one of the reasons you have so much difficulty with us in
    changing an accounting system, to give you even more authority.
        It is doubtful that the Forest Service has done anything
    more important in the last 4 to 6 years, from the point of view
    of its actual impact, not only on the forest, but of the people
    who live in the States in which there are national forests, and
    yet, you have engaged in this entire activity without ever
    asking for a dime from the Congress in an appropriation with
    which to carry it out.
        That does not instill confidence in members of this
    committee in the Forest Service or in wanting to grant you a
    broader authority, even when it seems logical to do so. That is
    an answer which destroys itself, it seems to me, Mr. Dombeck.
    It just obviously is not the case, however creatively you
    account for your money.
        Mr. Dombeck. Well, I might ask either Jim Furnish or
    Vincette to talk about some details. We will get, with the
    Foundation Financial Information System, clarity in the
    transactions, so all of us will know exactly what those
    transactions were. Then I think the picture that we will have
    will be much clearer. We may not agree with that picture, but
    at least that will give us the information base that is needed
    to really have the kind of information that we are not getting
    from our current accounting system.
        Mr. Furnish. Senator, if I could, I would like to address
    particularly your concerns about the apparently relative low
    cost associated with the field effort. This is a national issue
    which is being handled primarily by a national analysis team.
        The reason the costs are so low in the field is that,
    basically, each of our national forests has been asked to do
    one meeting to date. The costs attributed to conducting one
    meeting, with no full-time effort, are remarkably low. So even
    though we have a large number of these, there is not a large
    aggregate cost associated with these field meetings.
        Senator Gorton. Well, about 20 minutes ago, in answer to
    someone else's questions, we were told that you were constantly
    discovering new roads that you did not even know were out there
    in the field, and yet, apparently, national headquarters, for
    almost nothing, can decide the fate of areas in which there are
    roads that you do not know about.
        There is a certain degree of inconsistency in those
    answers. I am going to go on to another question, another
    subject, one with I hope a happier result.
        Tell me, either one of you, about the recreation fee
    demonstration program, how well it is working, how much you are
    collecting, what kind of critiques you are getting from the
    public on the ground, and whether or not we are really getting
    the money spent on the ground, rather than just substituted for
    money that you would otherwise have spent on exactly the same
    projects.
        Secretary Lyons. I am going to ask somebody to give you the
    specific numbers, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk, though, about
    what I think we are getting from Rec Fee Demo.
        As you know, I have testified before to the extent to which
    recreation funding has been inadequate to meet the growing
    demand--from the standpoint of maintaining facilities and
    access, improving signage, and public health and safety at
    certain facilities. I think the Rec Fee Demo Program has
    afforded us an opportunity to put money back into projects on
    the ground and in the places in which those fees have been
    collected. That has certainly helped improve customer
    satisfaction. It has helped to improve our ability to meet
    growing recreation demand. I think it has developed a stronger
    partnership with the recreation community. It is going to be
    critical, since we provide the resources but, in many respects,
    do not provide the recreation opportunities that others partner
    with us do.
        In order to evaluate the program--aside from the reviews
    that have been conducted by GAO, which have been rather
    favorable to date--we do have a consultant who has been looking
    at the issues associated with: Rec Fee Demo and some of the
    particular concerns that have been raised with regard to the
    public's concern that they are being asked to pay a fee to use
    public lands that they feel should be open and fairly
    available. The consultant is particularly looking at ways in
    which we could improve delivery of services to recreation users
    in the national forests. That study is underway and we expect
    some feedback from that later this year.
        But, in general, I think the response has been positive. We
    feel, certainly, from going out and looking at sites, and
    visiting the accomplishments, that a great deal has been
    accomplished.
        Senator Gorton. What kind of public objections are you
    getting to it, Mike?
        Mr. Dombeck. The issues that remain to be worked out on
    this vary in different parts of the country, like interactions
    with other agencies.
        For example, if somebody is on a vacation, they might visit
    a national park, a national forest, Bureau of Land Management
    lands, or a national wildlife refuge. I do not think we want to
    evolve into a system where they have to get four different
    pieces of paper, or stop at four different places to do
    something. I think that is an important issue to address.
        Another one, I think, is the interaction of local publics
    and someone who is on vacation. I am one who grew up in the
    national forests. When we went out in the woods, we were out in
    the national forest. So it is those kinds of issues that need
    to be determined, the equity in the fees from one unit to
    another.
        There are examples of where it is working well. In the
    Pacific Northwest, we are working through some issues with the
    Park Service now, as you know. In Southern California, we are
    looking at a system where the four national forests have a pass
    that seems to be generating quite a bit of money. So we have
    some bugs to work out of the system, but I think that is the
    purpose of a pilot.
        I can give you some examples of some things that are
    happening on the ground. As a result of a Fee Demo Project on
    the White Mountain National Forest, for example, that generated
    about $785,000, and what was done with that money--two new
    public toilet facilities--we hired 39 seasonal employees to
    perform maintenance on the facilities, and improve the
    facilities.
        We initiated some community partnerships to the tune of
    over $100,000 to deal with projects like a bridge replacement,
    turn outs on scenic highways, snowmobile trail repairs, a
    variety of things like that. The neat thing about this
    program--and we have been judicious about--that money is
    returned to that site for work on the land.
        Senator Gorton. That is, of course, I think absolutely key
    to it. But how much money total? Do you have that answer?
        Mr. Furnish. We are generating about $28 million annually.
    We ramped up initially from figures in the low teens, and we
    are at about that $28 million to $30 million figure.
        I wanted to add, Senator, that at least our survey data
    shows that we probably have 10 percent of the, quote, ``paying
    public,'' who are unalterably, philosophically, adamantly
    opposed to any institution of fees under any circumstance.
        Most of our survey data, though--that shows from meeting
    customers on the ground--is that the vast majority are
    supportive of fees, provided that they see evidence of those
    fees at work for their recreational use.
        Senator Gorton. We hear some from the 90 percent. We hear a
    lot from the 10 percent.
        Secretary Lyons. Senator, if I could just make one point. I
    know we are aware of the Northwest Forest pass that was issued
    in March. That was in direct response to concerns that were
    raised by the public about the need for paying multiple fees.
    We are trying to fix these problems as we go along.
        This is a new and very entrepreneurial way of doing
    business for us. Our managers are learning as they go. We have
    hired some consultants to help us through this.
        One issue that has come up is trying to cooperate or
    collaborate with the Park Service. I know you have an interest
    in the Park Service as well, given the important parks there. I
    think we would appreciate your encouragement to the agencies in
    trying to work out any differences that exist. I think we owe
    it to the public to make it simple for them to pay their fees,
    to get access, and to ensure that they are going to get good
    service, and a high-quality experience, whether they are on
    national park or national forest system lands.
        Senator Gorton. Mike, one parochial question. Do I have
    your commitment that the Mount St. Helen's visitor center will
    remain open at its historic staffing levels through the end of
    the fiscal year?
        Mr. Dombeck. I do not know what the staffing levels were,
    but, yes, we are going to keep it open. As I mentioned to you,
    we are working with the local community and the series of the
    five visitors' centers--all the way from Silver Lake to Johnson
    Ridge--to really take a look at how they complement one another
    and the role that each can play--and then asking, at least on
    the part of the Forest Service, that we have business plans for
    the operation of those. Then, as we take a look at Silver
    Lake--the one that has been at issue this year, that you and I
    visited about last week--that we really take a look to see what
    options there are for partnerships, for, perhaps,
    concessionaires, or others. What we have there is, we have a
    Forest Service facility on State lands. So what kinds of
    partnerships can increase the efficiency and make sure that, of
    the five centers, that they all complement one another?
        Senator Gorton. I certainly got gratifyingly prompt action
    on my request, and I appreciate that. I suspect the fact that I
    have this gavel had something to do with how promptly it took
    place, but I want to ask whether or not there are other places
    in the country where the same kind of thing has happened.
        Have you closed down other visitor centers elsewhere, where
    the local reaction will be as negative as it was near Mount St.
    Helen's?
        Mr. Dombeck. Not that I am aware of. I might ask Jim
    Furnish. I was at, for example, Seneca Rocks, in Cranberry
    Mountain, on the Monongahela, just a couple of weeks ago. I
    think the thing that pleased me there was that I got briefed by
    the staff on other ways--for example, authorities that we might
    need to explore to utilize the Monongahela Institute, for
    example, in helping through partnerships, keep those centers
    open longer hours, better services to the public that come
    there--in ways that we utilize everything, from volunteers, to
    profits realized from partners that do business there.
        Mr. Furnish. I would like to add that the Forest Service
    has a large number of these interpretative sites throughout the
    United States. Having been a manager of those myself, I would
    safely predict that there is not a manager alive today that is
    not struggling mightily to cobble together the resources to
    keep those operating at good efficiency every year.
        At the Cape Perpetual Visitor Center that I managed on the
    Oregon Coast, we could not keep the facility open year-round.
    We had to regulate it and keep it open during peak seasons,
    peak holidays, during the wintertime, and during whale
    watching, and that type of thing. It would have been my dream
    to have the facility open 365 days a year. It was simply
    impossible.
        I think that is why you see the funding requests that the
    agency is making, to try and improve our recreation capacity
    through increased funding. Even though we are trying to
    maintain a fairly flat budget, this is an area of importance
    that we think the public has spoken loud and clear about.
    Recreation on public lands is important. We are trying to
    enhance our posture.
        Senator Gorton. OK. I want to thank you for being here,
    even in connection with explaining some of our differences and
    some of our frustrations. You now know, at least in connection
    with your major requests, what you have to do in order to have
    any chances of succeeding.
        I know that Senator Craig has a few more questions, and it
    may very well that Senator Byrd does. I have another
    engagement.
        And, Senator Craig, you have the gavel again, but I hope
    you will take the time you need and allow Senator Byrd that he
    needs to finish any questions that you have.
        Senator Craig [presiding]. Mr. Chairman, thank you very
    much.
        I have one additional question, and then some others that I
    will probably submit for the record. Jim, I do not mean us to
    sound like a broken record today, but clearly I am growing
    increasingly curious of what you have presented to us this
    morning in relation to the letter now that you have proposed to
    the governors as to how you might associate them with this
    rulemaking process you are under.
        How do you view, as an agency, the CEQ July 28th guidance
    as a part of your responsibility in fulfilling that?
        Secretary Lyons. You are talking about the specific
    guidance with regard to the cooperating agencies.
        Senator Craig. That is the July 28, 1999, guidance. Yes.
        Secretary Lyons. Well, as with all directives from the
    Executive, we do our best to comply and----
        Senator Craig. In a legal way, Jim, if you found yourself
    in a lawsuit and alleged to be in violation of NEPA, and it
    became apparent that you had ignored or denied the guidance
    directive, would that not weaken your case?
        Secretary Lyons. Oh, I would not speculate on the legal
    arguments, Senator.
        Senator Craig. I do not think any of us would. I think
    that, clearly, a question would come up then, why, and you
    understand the legal guidance.
        You probably understand it better than I do, but it is very
    clear, when it says: ``No later than the scoping process, to
    identify States and other agencies to become cooperators, and
    to routinely solicit cooperating agencies.''
        Now, at our February 22 hearing, long after the close of
    your scoping process, you told us that cooperating agency
    status was inappropriate, due to the national scope of the
    rulemaking, and at an earlier March meeting, you mentioned, and
    your Deputy Chief here, Jim Furnish, that the State's role was
    no different than the timber industry's role in the rulemaking.
    Subsequently, the governors wrote the letter you mentioned, and
    now seven governors have asked for cooperating agency status.
        Today, you have given us another story, that is when we
    will give the States what I think you call a functional
    equivalent of the status. It sounds to me like a backfilling to
    cover the NEPA problem that we exposed you had found yourself
    in, and I think it is very important that I say it just exactly
    that way.
        It is very difficult for me to understand why you do this
    when this is a national rulemaking. I think that is the
    conflict you are going to find yourselves in, and probably in
    court.
        You have the obligation to do it at a scope to meet the
    responsibility of the effort, that is the whole intent, and you
    are basically trying to redefine the effort; although, you have
    just told us you cannot do it, because it is national in scope.
        You have inherently put yourself in a major conflict, in my
    opinion. Now, I know a little bit about the law, and I try to
    work with it on a regular basis. Explain to me where I am
    wrong.
        Secretary Lyons. Senator, first of all, I would not agree
    with the characterization that you offered.
        Senator Craig. I did not expect you would, but tell me
    where I might be wrong here.
        Secretary Lyons. Well, we are aware of the guidance that we
    have, not legal requirement, but guidance we have under NEPA to
    deal with these issues of cooperators, and trying to facilitate
    the process.
        I think the key is--if granting cooperating status would
    facilitate the process, that is one thing. But in this
    instance, we are trying to come up with a mechanism that is
    going to facilitate a dialogue between the States and
    ourselves, and other entities--since, as you point out, seven
    States have an interest in this status--while ensuring that it
    does not--given the broad degree of interests and the extent to
    which other entities might want to participate as cooperators--
    that it does not, in fact, hamper the process.
        We are very supportive of a collaborative effort, very
    interested in sharing information with the States, and
    receiving information from the States, and in working with the
    entities that represent them, such as WGA. That was the vein in
    which George Frampton, and Mike, and I met with several of the
    Western Governors. It is in that vein that we presented them
    with a proposal to engage in a dialogue with us in a number of
    ways that we have outlined in the letter that we have made a
    part of the record.
        So we think we are operating consistent with the guidance
    we have, and in a manner that hopefully will encourage
    collaboration and facilitate this rulemaking.
        Senator Craig. Well, I was just reminded to go back and
    look at the RARE II process and the way the courts treated it.
    They threw a hell of a lot of it out for the very reason that I
    think you found yourselves in the problem you are in today.
        Secretary Lyons. Well, I think this is very different than
    the RARE II process.
        Senator Craig. I think there is clear precedent here that
    you cannot argue your way out of. I am not a lawyer, and we
    will cease here. You have obviously established your position
    for the record, and I think that is important, but when you are
    dealing with a national scope, you have a certain
    responsibility, and that is clear, and the courts have argued
    that. You can deal with this on a State-by-State basis, and a
    forest-by-forest basis, and that is a different story.
        Let me ask one other question, and then I will move on. I
    know Senator Byrd has others. I am, like the Senators who just
    expressed themselves, the chairman our ranking member,
    tremendously frustrated over where we are with budgets, and
    staff, and how we develop a level of accountability, and I
    remember, Chief, you coming here and talking about the Forest
    Service comparable to a Fortune 500 company, and you were
    working, striving to get us to a level of accountability so
    that we could objectively review what you were doing, and you
    could objectively review what your people were doing, and you
    could make this agency function better.
        I have also looked at your budget as it relates to the size
    of the Washington office and its growth, and the argument of
    why you need that, and I understand that the Washington office
    has distributed the final advice out to the regions only last
    week. That means that the forests will be lucky to get their
    budgets by April Fool's Day.
        Now, what is the point here? The process that takes until
    our cherry blossoms bloom here, or 5 months into a fiscal
    cycle, can only lead to phenomenal inefficiencies out on the
    ground, as it relates to the management of our forests, and I
    say that because you are going to have people, instead of
    having done their work and being ready when the snow melts,
    they are still going to be bound up and trying to figure out if
    they can do a project based on the money that will or will not
    be available.
        And I must tell you, I have had some supervisors say, ``We
    do not know. We are just going to go ahead, because we cannot
    spend all of our time inside, simply because the directives
    coming down are so late to truly understand where we are.'' Why
    is that happening now, at this point, or am I misinformed?
        Mr. Dombeck. The program and budget advice that goes out
    early in the fiscal year basically looks at the House and
    Senate marks--and within the bounds of where we think the
    appropriation will come out--and the field has that
    information.
        I think some of the instances that you are referring to
    really focus on the fine-tuning of some of those
    appropriations, then, that are made as the process is
    finalized. I really do not see this--it may be a concern on a
    few specific projects, but for the most part, they know within
    the limits of what they have to deal with.
        Senator Craig. And that is enough to proceed with projects
    already generally planned.
        Mr. Dombeck. For the most part, because they have the
    remainder of the fiscal year to go ahead and complete--and move
    forward with those. Essentially, we know what the earmarks are,
    if we have some, and focus on that. But I certainly agree, it
    is imperative to get a final budget out as quickly as possible.
    It is important.
        Let me ask Vincette, who manages the system, to----
        Ms. Goerl. One of the things I want to add is that we are
    changing this next year's process to get it out sooner. We did
    have an advice out on October 1, based on the lower of the
    Senate and the House recommendations at that point, so that
    people could--and they prepared their budget before that time.
    We sent them guidance out at that time: What the report
    language is, what the marks were. We did not have a bill until
    late November that was final, so that we could do the final
    PBA.
        I think we call it the initial PBA, but it is not until we
    have a final bill that we then go back and make the adjustments
    for----
        Senator Craig. The final advice did not go out last week?
        Ms. Goerl. The final advice went out March--a couple of
    weeks ago, that incorporated--including--we did not get
    guidance on the across-the-board 0.38 percent cut until the end
    of December, from OMB, and so we had to go back and make some
    final adjustments on that.
        Senator Craig. December, January, February, late March,
    mid-March----
        Ms. Goerl. The first of March.
        Senator Craig. The first of March. OK.
        Ms. Goerl. In addition to that, we are looking to change
    the process. Again, because I think we always need to improve
    upon that, and to get our information out more quickly. With
    our new financial system, I think that will be much easier to
    do.
        Senator Craig. I hope that is the result of it. I sense
    confusion in the field. One last question relates to the size
    of your national commitments that you displayed in this budget.
    Do you really need $83.5 million, and I will say it this way,
    cream off the top of a budget, and dribbled out to the forests
    that have already received their budgets?
        It seems to me that managing all those little and not-so-
    little pots of money in the Washington office just add to your
    overhead costs. Would it not be easier just to give it to the
    forests and through their regular budgets?
        Ms. Goerl. In many cases, I think one of the things that
    leads to confusion to many people is what is called Washington
    Office Budget.
        In the last 3 years, about 73 percent, on average, went to
    the field, of that amount. It includes many of our nationwide
    programs--not just including the national commitments--but like
    our fire center and our Missoula Technology and Development
    Center, and other nationwide activities that we choose to
    account for centrally, that provide services across the
    country.
        It also includes all of our basic infrastructure costs for
    our IBM architecture, our computer facilities. So a lot of the
    things that we find better--not only for accounting, but for
    management--that are included in one place--but do benefit the
    field, are included in the Washington Office budget, in that 75
    percent of that Washington Office figure.
        In fact, with the new financial system, we consolidated
    some rent charges. We were creating additional kinds of
    transactions by sending out the allocation for it, and then
    billing centrally, and having to do additional transactions for
    that.
        So part of what we are trying to do in that particular area
    are national activities that provide benefits across the field
    that we are managing, in an accounting sense, centrally. The
    benefits go to the field. Then I believe, second, that as we
    are moving forward, I think you are going to find--as we are
    finding in some of our activities--that we can more efficiently
    reduce costs by providing some of those services centrally in
    the future. We are working through that, not only in the
    financial area, but in the human resources area. The fire area
    is one example where that has been in place for a number of
    years.
        Senator Craig. Well, I am sitting here trying to develop an
    analysis. If Congress dribbled its money out to you the way it
    appears you are doing that to the regions, and in some
    instances--or to the regional forest offices--I mean we
    establish budgets and priorities within those budgets, and hand
    them over to you to execute, I cannot understand why you cannot
    earmark priorities within a budget, allow your regional
    foresters to run with them, instead of basically--I use the
    word dribble out, because that appears to be what is going on
    at this moment.
        $83 million is a significant amount of money, unless I am
    misinterpreting it. Anyway, we will watch it. We are very
    anxious for your agency to become more efficient in justifying
    the way it proceeds with the monies that the taxpayers provide.
        One last comment, as it relates to fees. I guess the way to
    say it is, I am less an advocate or a fan today of the fee
    demonstration projects than I was before. I have worked awfully
    hard at trying to justify them with my constituency, while
    consistently getting beat over the head.
        I am trying to explain why an agency that was once in the
    black is now in the red, and we are trying to find new revenue
    sources for it, because of changes of priorities and attitudes
    in our country.
        When someone from out of State either violates or is fined,
    or a failure to adhere, and the Justice Department says it is
    not worth pursuing, people in my State say, well then, why
    should we in-Staters be so royal to the rule, or loyal to the
    law, or loyal to the process. These are national forests.
        In my State, I believe the lady was from Oregon, a
    precedent was established, sometimes they just are not worth
    chasing. That is why oftentimes States that administer traffic
    laws do not allow folks from out of State to escape without
    paying. They collect the fee at the point, or the fine at the
    point.
        That really roughed up the feathers of the folks of Idaho.
    If you are a loyal citizen in State, you pay the fee; if you
    are out of State, you do not necessarily have to, or at least
    the Forest Service will not do due diligence in pursuing it. I
    only use that as an example.
        That makes my job in trying to support what you are doing
    increasingly more difficult, and that happened this past year
    in the State, to a point where I have basically said to my
    constituents, I am probably going to have to not be an advocate
    of this fee demonstration project any longer. I will have to
    become one of its opponents.
        Anyway, let me turn it back to you, Senator Byrd.
        Senator Byrd [presiding]. Thank you. I will not be long.
        I want to speak with you about the Wood Education Resource
    Center. The Forest Service is proposing to establish a distance
    learning center, a national center for collaborative
    decisionmaking at the Wood Education and Resource Center, in
    Princeton; not Princeton, NJ, but Princeton, WV.
        Please tell the committee what these two centers are, and
    what benefits you expect to derive from them.
        Mr. Dombeck. The distance-learning component of the Wood
    Education and Resource Center is a partnership with the West
    Virginia Army National Guard to utilize some of their
    communications, to reduce costs, to provide communications and
    technologies across the State, I think, in a more cost-
    effective way, hopefully, delivering more services to
    individuals at a cheaper cost, and pulling in more partnerships
    within the State.
        Senator Byrd. How much does the Forest Service expect to
    spend to establish the centers, and how much will be required
    on an annual basis to keep them operating?
        Mr. Dombeck. Let me ask Janice McDougal, who manages these,
    to give you the details.
        Senator Byrd. Very well.
        Ms. McDougal. I do not have the dollar figures on that
    particular thing, but I think that it is within the budget of
    the Northeastern Area Office. It is an electronic training
    opportunity for people in the industry. We think the costs for
    delivering those services will be minimal.
        Senator Byrd. Well, can you not give us some estimate of
    the----
        Mr. Dombeck. The estimate, Senator, is $2.5 million.
        Senator Byrd. That is what you expect to spend to establish
    the centers?
        Mr. Dombeck. No. That is the cost of operation of the
    entire center.
        Senator Byrd. The annual cost.
        Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
        Senator Byrd. The annual cost.
        Ms. Goerl. Yes.
        Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
        Senator Byrd. Now, what about the costs you expect to spend
    to establish the centers. You surely must have some idea.
        Ms. Goerl. I am not sure I understand your question. It is
    part of the--at least, the collaboration effort is part of the
    Wood and Education Resource Center.
        Mr. Dombeck. Senator, it is established as part of the
    ongoing efforts at Princeton. The Distance-Learning Center has
    been part of the effort that is moving forward, as I understand
    it.
        Senator Byrd. Are you going to establish one or two
    centers?
        Ms. Goerl. One.
        Senator Byrd. How much do you expect to spend to establish
    that one?
        Mr. Dombeck. I think we are not looking at a new physical
    facility or physical plant. I think what we are doing is--this
    could appropriately be described as a program, a cooperative
    program within the existing center, with partnership with the
    West Virginia National Guard.
        Senator Byrd. OK. The Forest Service is also proposing a
    new research effort called Bio-based Products Bio-Energy, made
    up of two programs, one of which is called Small-Diameter Trees
    and Low-Valued Sources Research. This proposal merits serious
    consideration, because it would lead to better forest health,
    provide new jobs in the forest communities, and help reduce the
    risk of fire.
        In explaining this particular project, the budget
    justification does not say where the research will be
    conducted.
        As you may know, the Forest Sciences Research Center in
    Princeton, WV, has conducted product and market development for
    small-diameter tree products in the past, and remains equipped
    to resume this function. Based on its past experience, do you
    not think the Princeton lab would be a good location for this
    research program to be placed?
        Mr. Dombeck. Yes. I think the current plan is that about
    $100,000 will go to Princeton that will focus on the hardwood
    components of that. Other funding would go to collaborative
    efforts around the country that deal with softwoods and others,
    places like the Forest Products lab. Robert Lewis can give you
    more details on that, if you wish.
        Mr. Lewis. Yes. Thank you, Senator Byrd. We do plan to add
    $100,000 to the Princeton, WV, research. The work that we do at
    Princeton is based on the small-diameter hardwood. We have been
    experts in developing technology for small mill owners, and for
    processing small, undeveloped products into higher-value
    products.
        But this particular initiative, building on the small-
    diameter valued material, will be much broader than that. We
    also have major problems in the conifer forests. We will deal
    with the forest health problems, where we have stands that are
    too dense. The Forest Products Laboratory, in Madison, WI, will
    be one of the key players in that particular research. They
    will collaborate with Princeton in this overall effort.
        Senator Byrd. Very well. With respect to the Monongahela
    National Forest, especially the radio system, as you are aware,
    Chief, the forest-wide radio system at the Monongahela National
    Forest is inadequate. I touched upon that in my earlier
    statement.
        The current low-band system is obsolete, unreliable, and
    requires high maintenance. Furthermore, many parts of the
    Monongahela are in radio dead spots.
        This situation presents a serious safety issue for the
    Forest Service employees who may be required to travel to
    remote areas by themselves, and also for the public.
        Since Forest Service personnel may not be able to
    communicate effectively in emergency situations, last year the
    Congress appropriated $250,000 for the first phase of a two-
    phase project aimed at upgrading the Monongahela's radio
    system.
        This year, the budget for the Forest Service did not
    contain the final installment of $250,000. Has this item been
    overlooked by the Forest Service?
        Mr. Dombeck. No, it has not been overlooked. In fact, when
    I was on the Monongahela just a couple of weeks ago, I was
    briefed by Forest Supervisor Chuck Myers--who is here--and the
    staff about these concerns. I can assure you that the $250,000
    to complete that is in the budget.
        It is a concern on the part of the employees--and all
    employee safety things and public safety things. We have to
    take that very seriously, and I give that a high priority. I
    appreciate your support and concern over that issue. I know the
    employees do as well.
        Senator Byrd. I am looking at a sheet from the fiscal year
    2001 budget justification, and I see a zero down here under the
    congressional earmarks table labeled, ``Preparedness,
    Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Acquire forest-wide
    high-band radio system, zero.''
        Mr. Dombeck. That is an error, and it has already been
    corrected.
        Senator Byrd. OK. Thank you. It will not come out of the
    Monongahela's base operating budget, will it?
        Mr. Dombeck. I believe not.
        Senator Byrd. Will you provide the committee with a letter
    that states that the $250,000 will be provided? If it is on the
    basis of an error, you might want to state that the funding
    will not come out of the Monongahela's base operating budget.
        Mr. Dombeck. I will be happy to do that, Senator.
        Senator Byrd. Very well. Well, I want to thank you, Chief
    Dombeck, for all your assistance today, and also, Secretary
    Lyons, and for all of your staff, and the people who work in
    the Forest Service. We are very proud of the Forest Service
    down in West Virginia.
        Well, thank you. I thank all of you. Continue in your work,
    and we will meet again.
        Mr. Dombeck. Thank you, Senator.
        Secretary Lyons. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Byrd. Can I have the gavel? Can we get a picture?

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

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

        The Forest Service claims that its budget restructuring proposal is
    based on the recommendations from the National Academy of Public
    Administration (NAPA). However, aside from the recommendation for a
    simplified budget structure, NAPA stated that Forest Service
    accountability also depends on developing ways to allocate funds to the
    field based on agency priorities and better links between annual
    performance and the agency's strategic goals and objectives.
        Question. How are these important recommendations being implemented
    by the Forest Service?
        Answer. The Forest Service agrees with NAPA recommendations that
    accountability is much more than a simplified budget structure. A whole
    series of integrated actions have been completed or are underway that
    will improve agency accountability by developing an integrated planning
    and budget process that is linked to land health performance measures.
    These performance measures will provide internal and external
    accountability for agency performance in restoring and maintaining land
    health and also for providing public services and benefits as detailed
    in the Natural Resource Agenda.
        We have established a field-based team to develop a revised funding
    allocation and decision feedback process that is based upon national
    priorities, program analysis and the agency's strategic plan. It is our
    intention to pilot this new process for developing agency-wide funding
    requirements and allocating budget obligation authority in fiscal year
    2001. Based upon the outcome of the pilot, agency-wide implementation
    of this new process will occur in the following fiscal year.
        The agency has also developed an integrated set of Land Health and
    Service to People performance measures that link to mission-orientated
    outcomes and financial information. It is these performance measures
    that were used to justify the fiscal year 2001 budget--utilizing the
    simplified budget structure.
        The format for the fiscal year 2001 budget justifications was
    completely revised to reflect both the simplified budget structure and
    the presentation of a performance-based budget. The agency has proposed
    47 performance measures that are linked to the draft Strategic Plan
    (2000 Revision) to justify its budget. Rather than evaluate our budget
    simply on the money we spend, for the first time Congress will be able
    to appropriate the agency's funding based on its performance.
        In November of 1999, the Forest Service published its draft
    Strategic Plan (2000 revision) for internal and external comment. The
    revised plan: (1) is the keystone in the agency's management system;
    (2) provides the context and purpose for near-term actions; and (3) is
    the agency's focus for long-term land health and public service
    outcomes. The revised plan shifts agency management away from ``inputs,
    outputs and process'' to ``outcomes'' on the landscape The final plan
    is expected to be released in September of 2000.
        Question. Why should the Committee go forward with the agency's
    budget restructuring proposal until we have a concrete plan from you in
    these areas as well?
        Answer. On December 22, 1999, the Secretary of Agriculture sent a
    letter to Congressman Regula outlining all of the action items, with
    completion dates, that the USDA Forest Service plans to undertake
    relative to each recommendation contained in the NAPA report. Specific
    dates relative to your area of questioning are included in the answer
    to your previous question.
        Question. The GAO has criticized many of the Forest Service's
    performance measures as confusing quantity with quality. Does the
    agency agree with this assessment?
        Answer. The performance measures in the fiscal year 2001 Budget
    Justification can be placed in these categories as follows:

            Category                                         No. of measures
    Workload..........................................................    33
    Quality of Work...................................................     7
    Changed conditions on the ground........................................
    Public Use & Satisfaction.........................................     9
                                                                      ______
          Total.......................................................    49

        Question. Is the agency working on improvements to its performance
    measures?
        Answer. Yes, annual performance measures will be evaluated to
    determine if they relate directly to the objectives and long-term
    measures in the revised strategic plan. We will incorporate new
    measures that reflect quality and priority factors related to Land
    Health and Service To People into our planning and budgeting processes.
    To the extent possible, annual measures will reflect movement towards
    the end-results or outcomes identified in the revised strategic plan.
        Development of a draft revision of the agency's strategic plan has
    resulted in the refinement of long-term outcome measures and the
    identification of milestones for achieving objectives. The agency used
    this information to identify a set of annual measures that link
    directly to the budget as well as tier more closely to the agency's
    strategic goals and objectives.
        We recognize that additional work is needed in some areas. In
    particular, the agency will be making a concerted effort to identify
    the next generation of annual land health performance measures that
    reflect the quality and priority of treatments linked directly to
    conditions on the ground. These measures should replace many of the
    existing measures that merely count how much of certain types of work
    are accomplished. The agency will begin integrating these measures into
    its annual performance plans and budget documents beginning with fiscal
    year 2002. As a result, we would expect a continued evolution of
    performance measures that would not only tier to strategic goals and
    objectives, but would also justify funding requests in the agency's
    current or any proposed budget structures.
        Question. When will new measures be available for the Congress and
    the public to review?
        Answer. The Forest Service plans to implement improved performance
    measures with the fiscal year 2002 budget justification. These measures
    will closely link the Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan, and the
    on-the-ground program of work.
        Question. With budget restructuring the Forest Service is promising
    greater accountability in exchange for increased flexibility with
    respect to how money is spent. It is unclear to the Committee that this
    is the case. For example, the Forest Service missed the Congressionally
    directed timber offer level to be accomplished with timber sales
    management dollars by over 1.3 billion board feet last year. That's
    roughly one-third of the targeted volume. The agency proposes
    eliminating the timber sales budget line item for timber in fiscal year
    2001. Since eliminating this line item will mean the Congress won't
    know what the agency is spending on this activity, wouldn't budget
    restructuring give the Congress even less certainty over whether the
    agency will accomplish the timber target?
        Answer. The Forest Service will continue its timber sale reporting
    quarterly as it does now, which should provide the Congress the
    information it requires in regard to how we are progressing toward
    meeting the timber target.
        Question. How will eliminating other line items in your budget lead
    to greater accountability?
        Answer. The format for the fiscal year 2001 Budget Justification
    was completely revised to reflect both the simplified budget structure
    and the presentation of a performance-based budget. Rather than
    evaluate our budget simply on the money we spend, for the first time
    the Agency proposed that Congress appropriate funding based on
    performance.
        The Forest Service's current budget structure contributes heavily
    to the agency's fiscal disarray. Much of the trouble comes from the
    numerous and overlapping budget line items that the agency must treat
    as an appropriation goal. For example, currently, there are about 23
    funding sources (including forest health, timber sales management,
    timber salvage sales, wildlife management, hazardous fuels reductions,
    timber stand improvement, etc.) that could be used to restore or
    protect a forested ecosystem. Most individual's salaries, even when
    performing a single task, are funded from multiple accounts. 12 of the
    23 potential funding sources for forested ecosystems also fund one or
    more objective, making it hard to determine the effects of different
    funding sources on outcomes. In general, most Forest Service activities
    overlap over multiple funding sources.
        As an outcome of the NAPA report, and many, many other audits/
    reviews highly critical of accountability within the Forest Service,
    the Agency presented the fiscal year 2001 budget request in a format
    that supports a performance-based approach. The major changes in the
    budget are that the budget structure for the National Forest System has
    been simplified, reducing the budget and expanded budget line items
    from 33 to 3, and an integrated set of performance measures has been
    developed that link mission-orientated outcomes and financial
    information. These will:
      --Focus debate on outputs and outcomes rather than budget line items;
      --Reflect the nature of the real work being done by the Forest
            Service (ecosystem and multiple-use management), allowing the
            field staff to avoid artificially categorizing a task to match
            budget line items;
      --Improve linkage of forest plans to the budget with the development
            of effective program analysis capability;
      --Provide increased accountability in Agency program delivery;
      --Simplify Agency accounting, allowing more field staff to do mission
            related work rather than accounting work; and
      --Support of the goal of achieving a clean opinion for the Agency's
            financial books by dramatically simplifying the budget
            structure.
        Question. Under your new budget structure how will the Congress be
    able to tell how much the agency is spending on recreation, habitat
    management, timber, or other various programs that are important to
    Congress and to its constituents?
        Answer. In order to provide information relevant to the performance
    elements, the Forest Service plans to retain financial reporting to the
    program component level through the use of program codes. However, as
    discussed above, it is important to keep in mind that a major reason
    that we have proposed the new budget structure is to allow for the
    integrated management of forest resources.
        Question. If the Forest Service is going to continue to track this
    information anyway then what is the point of reducing line items?
        Answer. See answer to the previous question.
        Question. Many groups, over time, have come to measure their
    satisfaction with the Forest Service budget based upon how much funding
    is included in the budget line-items associated with the programs they
    care about. How will the agency satisfy these various group's concerns
    about budget restructuring?
        Answer. Our objective is appropriate outcomes on the land. The real
    interest of the group is best served by focusing our energy on results
    not inputs.
        Question. Did the agency work with any outside groups in the
    creation of its performance measures? If not, why not?
        Answer. No. The agency worked through a team comprised of senior
    Washington Office and field representatives to develop the performance
    measures proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget. The knowledge base
    and expertise of its own core of employees was deemed the best way to
    determine what performance measures best reflect the goals and work of
    the agency. There are no doubt areas that need improvement, and as we
    work to improve our measures, we may consider outside consultations if
    necessary.
        Question. In 1987, and in 1995, the Forest Service promised to
    improve its performance accountability in exchange for a simplified
    budget structure. The Appropriations Committees provided this authority
    to the agency. The GAO recently testified that in both of these
    instances a simplified budget structure did not lead to improvements in
    performance or financial reporting. Why would a simplified budget
    structure would be any different this time?
        Answer. The budget structure changes in 1987 and 1995 did not go
    far enough in simplifying the Forest Service budget structure. Many
    complex issues still remained. In regard to the question of why a
    simplified structure be different this time, the format for the fiscal
    year 2001 Budget Justification was completely revised to reflect both
    the simplified budget structure and the presentation of a performance-
    based budget. Rather than evaluate our budget simply on the money we
    spend, for the first time the Agency proposed that Congress appropriate
    funding based on performance.
        The Forest Service's current budget structure contributes heavily
    to the agency's fiscal disarray. Much of the trouble comes from the
    numerous and overlapping budget line items that the agency must treat
    as an appropriation goal. For example, currently, there are about 23
    funding sources (including forest health, timber sales management,
    timber salvage sales, wildlife management, hazardous fuels reductions,
    timber stand improvement, etc.) that could be used to restore or
    protect a forested ecosystem. Most individual's salaries, even when
    performing a single task, are funded from multiple accounts. 12 of the
    23 potential funding sources for forested ecosystems also fund one or
    more objective, making it hard to determine the effects of different
    funding sources on outcomes. In general, most Forest Service activities
    overlap over multiple funding sources.
        As an outcome of the NAPA report, and many, many other audits/
    reviews highly critical of accountability within the Forest Service,
    the Agency presented the fiscal year 2001 budget request in a format
    that supports a performance-based approach. The major changes in the
    budget are that the budget structure for the National Forest System has
    been simplified, reducing the budget and expanded budget line items
    from 33 to 3, and an integrated set of performance measures has been
    developed that link mission-orientated outcomes and financial
    information. These will:
      --Focus debate on outputs and outcomes rather than budget line items;
      --Reflect the nature of the real work being done by the Forest
            Service (ecosystem and multiple-use management), allowing the
            field staff to avoid artificially categorizing a task to match
            budget line items;
      --Improve linkage of forest plans to the budget with the development
            of effective program analysis capability;
      --Provide increased accountability in Agency program delivery;
      --Simplify Agency accounting, allowing more field staff to do mission
            related work rather than accounting work; and
      --Support of the goal of achieving a clean opinion for the Agency's
            financial books by dramatically simplifying the budget
            structure.
        Question. Some Congressional members have proposed that the
    Appropriations Committee should not approve your budget restructuring
    proposal in the fiscal year 2001 budget. Instead, they recommend that
    the Committee direct the agency to: (1) publish the proposal in the
    Federal Register; (2) solicit public comments on it; (3) meet with
    affected groups to discuss it, particularly the specific performance
    measures; (4) refine it in response to these comments; and (5)
    repropose it in the fiscal year 2002 budget request. Why, if at all,
    would this be a bad approach?
        Answer. While this might not be a bad approach given an ideal
    budgeting environment, the reality of the situation is that going
    through all of the steps outlined above would be a costly and lengthy
    undertaking. The budget process for fiscal year 2002 is already
    underway. We simply do not have time to both develop a budget through
    all the necessary steps, as well as implement all the suggestions
    above. The budget must first be submitted to USDA, and the decisions
    they make on our agency request cannot simply be changed in midstream.
    The same applies to OMB. In addition, until the President's Budget is
    submitted on the first Tuesday in February, the supplemental
    information we provide in our budget justification is treated as
    privileged information within the Administration.

                                 SURVEY/MANAGE

        Many promises were made to the people of the Pacific Northwest by
    the Administration under the President's Northwest Forest Plan. Last
    year, because of a provision in the Forest Plan that the agency did not
    comply with related to the counting of individual members of various
    species like fungi and mollusks, a majority of the timber sales under
    the plan were enjoined or held up administratively for fear that they
    would violate the Court's injunction.
        Question. What is the agency doing to fix this problem?
        Answer. In August of 1999 District Court Judge William Dwyer ruled
    against the Forest Service's and Bureau of Land Management's
    implementation of survey requirements for little known species, as
    described in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Northwest Forest Plan
    (NWFP). At the same time, the Judge supported the agencies' adaptive
    management approach in responding to new information as it becomes
    available. In order to clarify some of the management direction in the
    NWFP related to survey and manage species, and to address Judge Dwyer's
    decision, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are in the
    process of amending the ROD with a narrowly focused Supplemental
    Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).
        As the agencies have implemented these surveys for the 400 survey
    and manage species named in the ROD, and as other information has
    become available, it has become apparent that some species are more
    abundant that previously believed, or for other reasons do not warrant
    continued coverage under the survey and manage measures. For others,
    survey and manage categories need to be refined, direction clarified,
    or processes need to be established for responding to new information
    more rapidly. To deal with those concerns the Draft Supplemental
    Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) that would amend the NWFP survey
    and manage provisions examines a ``No Action'' (current direction)
    alternative and three action alternatives. The action alternatives are
    similar in that they all refine categories for survey and manage
    species based on relative rarity, survey practicality, and level of
    knowledge about the species. They also all drop 63 species from survey
    and manage requirements. The alternatives rely on strategic surveys to
    answer specific questions about the needs of the remaining species. The
    three action alternatives vary in the number of species for which
    surveys would be required prior to ground disturbing activities. Two of
    the three action alternatives would require fewer species be surveyed
    compared to the ``No Action'' alternative, while the third action
    alternative differs from the others by combining more than one category
    of surveys such that the total number of required surveys would
    increase. A final decision on a selected alternative is expected this
    summer.
        In fiscal year 2000 the Forest Service has allocated $2.4 million
    to accomplish strategic surveys. Those surveys are the first year of a
    multi-year project that will lay the foundations for future decisions
    relative to the management of rare and uncommon species across the
    landscape in the NWFP area. In fiscal year 2001 the Forest Service has
    requested $7.1 million for survey and manage extensive surveys. The
    fiscal year 2001 program is intended to accomplish about 10 percent of
    the total strategic survey program under the DEIS alternatives.
        In addition to the extensive survey strategy, the agencies have put
    high priority on finishing pre-disturbance surveys on timber sales that
    were already awarded, but enjoined, and other timber sales that were
    delayed. The plan is for those surveys to be completed as soon as
    possible given the seasonal timing requirements of the surveys. Any
    additional, necessary rework of projects is also planned to start right
    after the surveys are finished. The Forest Service is funding this
    effort with the $7 million Congress provided as part of the fiscal year
    2000 appropriation, plus existing program funds and carryover funds.
        Question. What level of timber will the agency offer in fiscal year
    2000 and fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The Forest Service has proposed to offer 3.6 billion board
    feet of timber in fiscal year 2000 and 3.0 billion board feet in fiscal
    year 2001. The fiscal year 2001 estimate has been reduced from the 3.2
    billion board feet shown in the President's Budget because of the
    Administration's requirement to provide $10 million in timber sales
    management funds to cover survey and manage needs under the President's
    Plan for the Pacific Northwest.
        In addition to the extensive survey strategy, the agencies have put
    high priority on finishing pre-disturbance surveys on timber sales that
    were already awarded, but enjoined, and other timber sales that were
    delayed. The plan is for those surveys to be completed as soon as
    possible given the seasonal timing requirements of the surveys. Any
    additional, necessary rework of projects is also planned to start right
    after the surveys are finished. The Forest Service is funding this
    effort with the $7 million Congress provided as part of the fiscal year
    2000 appropriation, plus existing program funds and carryover funds.
        Question. How much is it going to cost for the agency to comply
    with the onerous survey requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan in
    fiscal year 2000 and in fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2000 the Forest Service has allocated $2.4
    million to accomplish strategic surveys. Those surveys are the first
    year of a multi-year project that will lay the foundations for future
    decisions relative to the management of rare and uncommon species
    across the landscape in the NWFP area. In fiscal year 2001 the Forest
    Service has requested $7.1 million for survey and manage extensive
    surveys. The fiscal year 2001 program is intended to accomplish about
    10 percent of the total strategic survey program under the DEIS
    alternatives.
        In addition to the extensive survey strategy, the agencies have put
    high priority on finishing pre-disturbance surveys on timber sales that
    were already awarded, but enjoined, and other timber sales that were
    delayed. The plan is for those surveys to be completed as soon as
    possible given the seasonal timing requirements of the surveys. Any
    additional, necessary rework of projects is also planned to start right
    after the surveys are finished. The Forest Service is funding this
    effort with the $7 million Congress provided as part of the fiscal year
    2000 appropriation, plus existing program funds and carryover funds.
        Question. What line items will be assessed to pay for these costs?
        Answer. We anticipate that each of our three proposed budget line
    items (BLI) in the National Forest System appropriation would bear some
    costs associated with survey and manage activities. In addition, the
    Operations BLI (for hazardous fuels projects) in the Wildland Fire
    Management appropriation and each of the BLIs within the proposed
    Infrastructure appropriation would have survey and manage project
    related costs.
        Question. What has happened in the wake of last year's Sierra Club
    v. Martin decision that held that the Forest Service had to count
    individual members of species pursuant to its viability regulations as
    opposed to monitoring their habitat?
        Answer. The Sierra Club v. Martin decision did not hold that the
    Forest Service had to count individual members of species. Rather, the
    ruling in Sierra Club v. Martin, issued by the Eleventh Circuit Court
    of Appeals on February 18, 1999, held that the Chattahoochee-Oconee
    National Forests did not adequately monitor population trends of
    management indicator species (MIS), as required by NFMA regulations
    (36CFR 219.19). The ruling also held that the forest had not met a
    requirement in their forest plan to obtain population data for
    proposed, threatened, endangered or sensitive (PETS) species when such
    data are needed for evaluating effects of proposed actions and making
    management decisions.
        The Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests suspended major
    vegetation management activities until the Court's ruling could be
    complied with through the issuance of Forest Plan amendments. Amendment
    No. 18 to the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests Land and Resource
    Management Plan was recently issued to address the PETS species portion
    of the court's ruling and is presently under appeal before the agency.
    Amendment No. 19 is presently available for public notice and comment
    and it addresses the management indicator species portion of the
    ruling.
        The Eleventh Circuit's interpretation of the regulatory language is
    binding throughout the Circuit, and thus applies to the national
    forests in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. The Forest Service is
    complying with the Court's decision in a way that is consistent with
    current policy and regulations. Since the Court's ruling, the Southern
    Region Regional Forester has emphasized the need for Forests to monitor
    and evaluate MIS, and to ensure that regulations and agency procedures
    regarding MIS are followed. In June 1999, she issued a letter to Forest
    Supervisors to clarify MIS monitoring and evaluation expectations. It
    outlined various scientifically credible methods that can be used to
    monitor MIS populations, with the choice of method depending on various
    factors. The letter indicates that depending on the risk to species and
    the management questions that need to be addressed, it may be
    appropriate to directly monitor species populations rather than relying
    on making inferences about the population trends based only on habitat
    data. The National Forests in Alabama have also issued an amendment to
    the forest plan, which deals with the PETS species portion of the
    ruling. The recent revisions of the forest plans for the National
    Forests in Florida as well as the Kisatchie and Louisiana National
    Forests include language that addresses monitoring in light of the
    Eleventh Circuit decision.
        Question. Has other litigation on this issue occurred?
        Answer. There has been other litigation that, in part, has involved
    monitoring species. The outcomes of these cases have varied and some
    are still pending.
        Question. How do the agency's new planning regulations address
    viability and monitoring issues?
        Answer. Our response on these two issues is based upon the language
    of the proposed planning regulation as it was posted for public comment
    on October 5, 1999. The agency received over 9,000 comments that are
    currently being evaluated in preparation of the final rule text. Thus,
    final regulation language for these two sections is subject to change.
    Our responses are highlights only. We refer you to the cited sections
    of the proposed regulations for specifics.
        Viability (219.20): The proposed regulation provides more specific
    guidelines for assessing viability that will help establish common
    expectations and reduce litigation. These include: an ecological
    systems approach that focuses on ecosystem integrity to complement the
    existing focus on species viability in assessment and management to
    achieve ecological sustainability, a clarified requirement to maintain
    well-distributed and interacting populations and a clarified objective
    for viability given different patterns of overlap between species range
    and the planning area. The proposed regulation also provides the basis
    for more realistic expectations for the role of National Forests land
    in the maintenance of species viability.
        Monitoring (219.11): Under the proposed regulation, the Monitoring
    & Evaluation (M&E) emphasis is on provisions for adaptive management
    and achieving desired conditions as identified in planning decisions.
    We suggest you refer to Section 219.11 in the proposed rule for
    specifics. However, in brief, the proposed rule section requires the
    development of a written monitoring strategy for the land and resource
    management plan; coordination with and involvement of other agencies,
    constituent groups, the public, and scientists; project monitoring; an
    annual M&E report; and monitoring and evaluation of ecological,
    economic, and social sustainability.
        Question. What is it going to cost the agency nationally to meet
    the elevated standards for inventorying and monitoring of various
    species established in recent litigation?
        Answer. Recent litigation did not elevate standards for inventories
    or monitoring species. A ruling last year by the 11th Circuit Court of
    Appeals held that the Forest Service (the Chattahoochee-Oconee National
    Forests in Georgia) had not met the requirement to monitoring
    population trends of management indicator species (36 CFR 219.19).
    Funding needs for species monitoring consistent with 36 CFR 219.19 are
    developed by the individual national forests and are included as part
    of the total funding for the inventory and monitoring line item.
        In separate litigation in the Pacific Northwest, the court held
    that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management did not
    appropriately interpret and implement two specific aspects of the
    ``survey and manage'' standards and guidelines that were adopted as
    part of the Northwest Forest Plan. The agencies are preparing a
    Supplemental EIS that clarifies and modifies the survey and manage
    standards and guidelines. Based on the alternatives analyzed in the
    Draft Supplemental EIS that was issued last Fall for public review and
    comment, the estimated costs for implementing the survey and manage
    program range from a low of $19.4 million/year (Alternative 2) to a
    high of $132 million/year (``No Action'' alternative. A final decision
    on this SEIS is scheduled to be issued later this year.

                           FOREST PLANNING/MONITORING

        The agency has asked for a 34 percent increase ($65 million) in
    planning and monitoring in the fiscal year 2001 budget. It seems like
    the Forest Service is endlessly planning while little money is left to
    actually do work on the ground.
        Question. Why is there such a large increase requested for
    planning?
        Answer. The Land Management Planning program is one of four basic
    components within the agency's Ecosystem Assessment and Planning budget
    line item proposed under the new budget structure for fiscal year 2001.
    However, we are assuming, with your specific reference to planning,
    that the increase you are referring to is that reflected by the $39.7
    million appropriated in fiscal year 2000 versus the $65 million
    proposed in the fiscal year 2001 President's Budget under the current
    budget structure for the Land Management Planning budget line item.
        This $25 million increase will focus on our continual emphasis on
    eliminating the Land and Resource Management Plan (commonly referred to
    as a forest plan) revision backlog. In fiscal year 2001, the budget
    proposes to increase the number of forest plan revisions being worked
    on to fifty compared to thirty-six in fiscal year 2000. In addition,
    all plans not under revision will be funded to keep their plans current
    as conditions change. In fiscal year 2000, there were insufficient
    funds to finance the maintenance of all plans not under revision.
    Finally, the agency will be directing funds in fiscal year 2001 toward
    implementing the revised planning regulations to be promulgated in
    fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Many groups such as the Society of American Foresters
    believe that your proposed planning regulations will be much more
    expensive to administer than the current regulations. Is the large
    increase you have asked for in fiscal year 2001 indicate that this is
    the case?
        Answer. The reasons for the fiscal year 2001 increase are
    identified in our answer to the previous question. Regarding the
    expense of administering the new rule, we do not expect it to be more
    expensive. There will be some initial and near-term costs associated
    with publishing the rule in fiscal year 2000 as well as subsequent
    implementation costs for training field staff and bringing some of the
    existing plans into compliance with the new rule. However, as for the
    expense of administering the new rule over the long run, our cost-
    benefit analysis determined both increased costs and costs savings
    associated with amending, revising, monitoring, and maintaining
    National Forest System plans under the proposed rule. For example,
    eliminating regional guides and reducing the length of the planning
    process will reduce costs. Increased costs would result from new
    requirements for FACA-type advisory boards, science advisory boards,
    and broad-scale assessments. Overall, our cost analysis showed that the
    proposed regulation would result in an estimated average annual cost
    savings of $2.3 million compared to the existing regulation.
        Beyond the economic expense, however, it is the non-quantified
    benefits of the proposed planning rule, in the mid- to long-term, that
    are expected to be substantial and result in cost savings through an
    overall improvement in the public understanding, use of, and benefits
    from the National Forest System. Key among these expected benefits are
    better, more informed decisions and decreased costs for litigation and
    appeals; costs which as you know, are currently excessive in both staff
    time and budget. We anticipate that cost savings in the latter area
    will be realized through the regulation's planning framework that
    fosters collaborative stewardship of the National Forest System lands
    and improves the likelihood of achieving ecological, social, and
    economic sustainability. These improvements will come, in large part,
    through better collaboration with the public, improved monitoring and
    evaluation, integration of science into product and collaborative work,
    and a more flexible process that reduces the burden on both the public
    and the agency. The value of benefits accrued through these processes
    will lead, in the long run, toward the mutually desired health of the
    shared landscape.
        Question. How much of this increase is for national initiatives
    like the roadless rule, and finalizing new planning regulations?
        Answer. An estimated $1.2 million will be spent in fiscal year 2001
    at the national level to finalize the Roadless Rule. We do anticipate
    some field level costs to be incurred in fiscal year 2001. An estimate
    of those costs can be made once the agency has determined specific
    field unit requirements for completing the Final Environmental Impact
    Statement.
        With regard to the new planning regulations, we plan to publish the
    final rule during fiscal year 2000. Therefore, we have not budgeted any
    funds for this purpose in fiscal year 2001. However, we do expect to
    incur implementation costs for training field staff and bringing some
    of the existing plans into compliance with the new rule.
        Question. What are you doing, if anything, to lower your unit costs
    for planning?
        Answer. The cost/benefit analysis for the proposed rule estimates
    an annual cost savings of $2.3 million compared to the existing
    regulation. This estimate was determined by examining costs associated
    with amending, revising, monitoring, and maintaining National Forest
    System plans under the proposed rule compared to the existing
    regulation.
        Question. Won't research funding have to be greatly increased under
    the new planning regulations given the emphasis on science-based
    planning? What are the agency's estimates in this regard?
        Answer. Some increases will be necessary if recent history is
    projected forward. But experiences of the recent past need should not
    automatically be accepted as the most desirable way to staff future
    planning activities. Researchers from the Research & Development
    organization did make substantial contributions to recent planning
    efforts, including FEMAT, the Tongass Land Management Plan, Sierra
    Nevada Ecosystem Project, and the Southern Appalachian Assessment.
    Their expertise and skills were exceptionally valuable in these
    efforts. But the need to involve researchers in planning activities
    arose largely from inadequate funding and subsequent personnel
    attrition during the 1990s within the National Forest System. Large
    numbers of national forest technical staff--scientists in many
    disciplines, such as hydrology and silviculture--retired or left the
    agency and were not replaced. Thus, when the demand for special plans
    and projects came, national forests were understaffed in critical
    scientific skills. Because of the urgent nature of these planning
    efforts and the fact that researchers had the skills and expertise in
    short supply on national forests, researchers were pulled away from
    their studies and reassigned temporarily to planning activities. In
    many cases, ongoing research was disrupted. Consequently, Stations will
    not provide new knowledge and technology in the near future at normal
    rates because the research was interrupted. Augmenting the funding of
    the National Forest System so that they can hire new scientists into
    essential technical staff positions is an alternative to a massive
    increase in funding for the Research & Development program. But a
    significant infusion of funds somewhere within the agency will be
    required to redeem the planning functions embodied in existing legal
    authorities, such as the National Forest Management Act, and Endangered
    Species Act.

                              NATIONAL INITIATIVES

        In the final year of this Administration, the Forest Service is
    attempting to finalize major rulemakings and initiatives all at once
    including forest planning regulations, roadless area policy,
    transportation policy, and a new strategic plan. These have all been
    presented to the public in a helter-skelter fashion, with little
    description of how the pieces fit together or an evaluation of their
    interaction.
        Question. How do all of these major new policies fit together?
        Answer. The strategic plan is intended to guide future agency
    actions in managing the national forest and grasslands resources. The
    plan does this by putting forth four strategic goals--ecosystem health,
    multiple benefits for people, scientific and technical assistance, and
    effective public service--which will establish the overall focus for
    agency programs for the next three to five years. This is the
    foundation for the development of future policies including the three
    of interest in your question.
        The proposed planning rule provides the framework for land and
    resource planning. The planning rule and the draft strategic plan are
    designed to complement each other. The strategic plan provides the
    Forest Service's national goals and objectives. Land and resource
    management plans, developed under the planning rule, articulate
    regional and local goals and objectives the guide on the ground site-
    specific management actions. Provisions in the proposed planning rule
    ensure that the agency's national goals and objectives, articulated in
    the strategic plan, will be considered in the revision and amendment of
    land and resource management plans, the development of site-specific
    projects and ongoing monitoring efforts. The proposed rules for
    managing our road transportation system and for roadless area
    conservation are consistent with the proposed planning rule and add
    specificity for road and roadless area management planning.
        The proposed rule for road management is designed to help us make
    the Forest Service road system safe, responsive to public and agency
    needs, environmentally sound and affordable to manage. This rule
    contains analysis requirements that will be incorporated into
    individual forest plans through the amendment or revision process,
    which would be guided by the sustainability, collaboration, science,
    and other requirements of the planning rule. The proposed road
    management policy will complement the proposed planning rule in
    achieving the several major goals of the strategic plan. The proposed
    road policy by requiring a hard look at its existing and future road
    system in order to better protect water quality, soil resources and
    watershed health will assist in meeting the Ecosystem Health goal in
    the strategic plan. Likewise, the proposed road management policy would
    make our road system safe and efficient to manage with its focus on
    maintaining needed roads will help attain the Effective Public Service
    goal in the strategic plan. Together, the proposed roads management
    rule and the roadless area conservation strategy form a cohesive
    strategy for moving the agency away from building new roads and towards
    maintaining and repairing its existing roads.
        The third new policy in question is the roadless area conservation
    proposal. As mentioned previously this strategy works in concert with
    the roads management policy to add specificity and guidance for the
    management of roads and roadless areas within the scope of land and
    resource management plans. The proposed roadless area conservation rule
    also contributes to several of the goals proposed in the draft
    strategic plan. For example, by prohibiting road construction in
    inventoried roadless areas and then protecting roadless characteristics
    at the local level, the proposal would protect critical watersheds and
    promote water quality thereby accomplishing the strategic plan's
    Ecosystem Health goal.
        We believe these policies are critical in moving the mission of the
    Forest Service forward. The proposed revision of the Forest Service's
    strategic plan will provide the framework and focus for future agency
    action over the next three to five years in caring for our National
    Forests. Within this framework, the proposed planning rule, proposed
    road management policy and the proposed roadless area conservation rule
    will provide a comprehensive strategy for accomplishing long-term
    sustainability of our National Forests.
        Question. Why does the agency need new initiatives dealing with
    roadless areas and the transportation network when new planning rules
    are about to be issued?
        Answer. As mentioned in the previous questions response, all the
    proposed rules are complementary and work together to form a
    comprehensive strategy to address long-term sustainability of National
    Forests.
        Question. It seems that these issues are appropriately addressed at
    the local level through the planning process. Is there a logical
    sequence in which you plan to issue these proposals?
        If so, what is this order?
        Answer. Given the interrelated and complementary nature of these
    proposals, they are being developed concurrently and will be issued
    upon their completion.
        Question. How much do all these activities cost?
        Answer. Forest Planning Regulation.--In the fiscal year 2000 final
    budget, $3.5 million is programmed for the agency to process and
    finalize planning regulations. This includes $2.4 million to be spent
    at the national level for analyzing public comments, completing final
    regulatory text, publishing in the Federal Register, completing manual
    and handbook direction and initiating training to help field staff
    implement the revised planning regulations. The remaining $1.1 million
    is programmed for regional level costs associated with beginning the
    conversion, where needed, of existing land and resource management
    plans to comply with the new regulations.
        The fiscal year 2001 President's Budget includes an estimated $6
    million for training associated with implementing the new planning
    regulations and conversion, where needed, of existing plans to meet the
    new regulation requirements.
        Roadless.--The roadless initiative to address the need to conserve
    and enhance the social and economic values of roadless areas is
    estimated to cost $8.6 million for fiscal year 2000 at the national
    (i.e., headquarters) level. We have established a mechanism in our
    accounting system to track costs that are incurred by units below the
    national level, i.e., regional office and field level costs. As of
    March 31, 2000, regional office costs incurred total $.1 million and
    costs at the field level total $1.1 million. We expect some additional
    costs to be incurred at regional office and field levels during the
    remaining six months of this fiscal year.
        Transportation Policy.--National efforts in the development of the
    Road Policy primarily impacted employees in the Chief's office and did
    not impact the field this fiscal year. Impacts to the employees in the
    Chief's Office were primarily part of the regular program of work. The
    final road policy is expected to be complete in September;
    subsequently, there should not be any major impacts to the field for
    the remainder of this fiscal year.
        Strategic Plan.--In the fiscal year 2000 final budget, $1.5 million
    is programmed for the Agency to prepare and publish a draft and a final
    Forest service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision) under the Government
    Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). The strategic plan applies
    to all Agency programs, and thus it is financed from multiple budget
    line items, including Forest and Rangeland Research, state and Private
    Forestry, National Forest System, Wildland Fire Management, and
    Reconstruction and Maintenance. A draft strategic plan was published
    for public and employee review and comment on December 1, 1999, and a
    final plan is expected to be completed by September 30, 2000.
        Question. What is going to be the impact on timber harvesting and
    recreational opportunities within the Forests of these various
    proposals?
        Answer. Forest Planning Regulation.--Neither the existing nor the
    expected revised planning regulation, in and of itself, imposes impacts
    on timber harvest, recreation, or any other multiple resource use.
    Rather, the regulation stipulates a framework under which forest plans/
    revisions are developed and implemented. NEPA requires that
    environmental analysis be completed and disclosed to determine the
    impact of management activities on a given resource use at the site-
    specific level when a project is proposed to implement the plan.
        Further, the proposed planning regulation is designed to more fully
    ensure, than does the existing regulation, that all uses of National
    Forest System lands are sustainable in the long-term. The goal of
    ecological sustainability is consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained
    Yield Act direction to provide for ``harmonious and coordinated
    management of the various resources--without impairment of the
    productivity of the land.'' Under the proposed regulation, the Forest
    Service approach for ensuring achievement of multiple use management in
    the context of environment, economic, and social sustainability will be
    one of more extensively engaging the public and other partners in an
    open, collaborative process that considers issues, alternatives, and
    environmental effects.
        Roadless.--The total timber volume offered from inventoried
    roadless areas would drop from an estimated 220 MMBF per year to 140
    MMBF until April 2004, when the prohibition takes effect on the Tongass
    National Forest. At that time, the amount of timber offer would be
    further reduced to an anticipated 32 MMBF per year, a total reduction
    of 85 percent from these lands. The Forest Service timber program
    currently offers approximately 3,300 MMBF per year. The total reduction
    in timber offer from National Forest System lands would be about 6
    percent. The roadless policy should not have significant impact on
    recreation opportunities.
        Transportation Policy.--No direct impact. Decisions on roads will
    be made at the local level.
        Strategic Plan.--None.
        Question. The National Federation of Federal Employees, which
    represents half of the Forest Service's employees, recently issued a
    letter condemning these initiatives as more massive Washington mandates
    that are hampering work in the field and inflating the Washington
    Office bureaucracy. How do you respond to these charges from your own
    employees?
        Answer. We share the National Federation of Federal Employees
    (NFFE) concerns about downsizing, particularly as it impacts the
    ``operational end'' of the organization and its ability to complete its
    on-the-ground mission. As indicated in the NFFE letter, downsizing at
    the FS has been greater at the lower grades. It is important to note
    that in the short term the nature and volume of the work at the FS is
    changing while budgets remain more or less stagnant. For example, the
    early 1990's ushered in attention to resource restoration and
    improvement, which impacted timber harvest levels across the FS land
    base, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, and increased the Agency's
    attention to fish and wildlife management. Therefore, certain job
    classifications were reduced or even eliminated while others became
    more critical to the on-the-ground mission. Shifts in program workload
    necessitated change at the District level rather than at the Regional
    Offices, Station Headquarters, or Washington Office. For example, a
    reduction in the FS timber program had a direct adverse impact on the
    number of positions the FS could finance in the field. Nevertheless,
    today over 21,000 of the FS 28,000 permanent employees, and nearly all
    of the FS 14,000 non-permanent workforce are employed at national
    forest locations.
        In addition, the roadless rule, transportation policy and planning
    regulations do not have a significant impact on performance of field
    work. Most of the field people involved in these initiatives are line
    officers, public information officers and other administrative
    personnel.
        Question. Please provide the staff year dispersion charts for the
    last 5 years which show the number of Washington Office employees
    versus the number of employees in the field.
        Answer. The information follows:

                                        U.S. FOREST SERVICE STAFF-YEAR DISPERSION
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Fiscal year
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              2000
                                                                      1996      1997      1998      1999     enacted
                                                                      final     final     final     final    to date
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Field offices:
        Region and Station Headquarters...........................     3,304     3,359     3,410     3,350     3,300
        Forest HQ/Labs/S&PF/IITF..................................    13,378    12,768    11,194    11,090    11,018
        Ranger District Offices...................................    17,863    17,472    17,472    17,119    18,451
        Washington Office Detached Units..........................     1,929     1,970     2,025     2,047     2,025
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal--field.........................................    36,474    35,569    34,101    33,606    34,794
    Washington office:
        Sidney R. Yates Federal Building..........................       505       522       502       523       520
        Buildings C and E, Rosslyn Plaza..........................       194       193       168       210       273
        Franklin Court............................................        32        27        27        27        27
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal--Washington Office.............................       731       742       697       760       820
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------
          Total staff-years.......................................    37,205    36,311    34,798    34,366    35,614
                                                                   =================================================
    End-of-year employment:
        Permanent Full-Time.......................................    28,885    28,542    27,010    27,245    27,518
        Other Than Permanent Full-Time............................     8,320     7,769     7,788     7,121     8,096
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------
          Total E-O-Y employment..................................    37,205    36,311    34,798    34,366    35,614
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. We hear from many forests around the country that their
    personnel are tied up working on these proposals at the expense of
    performing needed field work. What work isn't being done as a result of
    Forest Service personnel being forced to spend much of their time on
    these rulemakings and initiatives?
        Answer. The rulemakings are either substantially complete or will
    be completed by late fall. In either case, the majority of workload
    associated with the rulemakings was completed by Washington Office
    staff. Field review, public meetings and public comment opportunities
    presented the greatest impact of time on our personnel outside of the
    Washington Office; however, the vast majority of these individuals are
    not field going people, but are our Line Officers, Public Information
    Officers and other administrative types. Thus, the rulemakings and
    initiatives do not have any significant effect on performance of field
    work.
        Question. Many of the western governors have asked that their
    states be granted cooperating agency status with respect to the
    proposed roadless area rulemaking. How is the agency going to respond
    to this request?
        Answer. The Forest Service will work closely with the Western
    Governors, other interest groups, and local communities. It is not
    likely that individual states will be granted full cooperating agency
    status with respect to the proposed roadless area rulemaking. There are
    potentially hundreds of cooperating agencies, given the number of
    states, counties and tribal governments in the country. From a
    management perspective, allocating work assignments among these
    widespread agencies is not feasible or practical. However, we do very
    much recognize the importance of communication and consultation with
    our non-federal partners.
        Question. Don't the existing CEQ regulations encourage this kind of
    collaborative process with interested stakeholders?
        Answer. CEQ believes that a maximum effort to collaborate is
    important, and involvement of non-federal agencies is useful and
    appropriate
        Question. The Forest Service claims it cannot afford to maintain
    the thousands of miles of roads on the National Forest System. The oil
    and gas industry, in full compliance with Forest Service standards and
    requirements, constructs, maintains and reclaims all roads required for
    exploration and development activities. Why shouldn't oil and gas roads
    be exempted for the construction ban?
        Answer. Oil and gas road construction is permitted under the
    current moratorium if there is a pre-existing agreement. Future road
    building in roadless areas is being addressed in the draft
    environmental assessment now being completed.
        Question. Given the new policies adopted by the Forest Service
    within the last 8 years, has the agency's policy become similar to that
    of the National Park Service or other single mission agencies?
        Answer. No, the agency's policies are not single mission in nature.
    Recreation, watershed protection, and ecosystem management to preserve
    our national forests for future generations are very important aspects
    of the multiple-use mandate.
        Question. How does the agency reconcile its congressionally
    mandated multiple-use mandate with the proposal to place an additional
    55 million acres off limits to most multiple-use activities, including
    commodity and motorized recreational uses?
        Answer. The agency believes that the roadless rule supports the
    multiple-use mandate. Roadless areas provide multiple opportunities for
    dispersed outdoor recreation. They serve as a bulwark against the
    spread of non-native invasive plant species. Roadless areas also
    contain all or portions of 354 municipal watersheds contributing
    drinking water to millions of citizens. Maintaining these areas in a
    relatively undisturbed condition saves downstream communities millions
    of dollars in water filtration costs. They also function as biological
    strongholds for imperiled wildlife, fish and plant species.
        Question. What specific economic impacts to the economy are
    anticipated by the Forest Service's roadless proposal?
        Answer. It is currently estimated that, over the next five years,
    up to 4,550 jobs nationwide could be impacted by the roadless rule.
    Prohibiting timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas could reduce
    total personal income by $36.2 million annually over the next five
    years. Prohibiting mining-related road construction in inventoried
    roadless areas could affect approximately $125 million of personal
    income annually.
        Question. The Forest Service appears to believe its only option to
    protect wildlife and ecological values is to preclude activities that
    could intrude upon them. Has the Forest Service considered the many
    mitigation measures instituted on surface disturbing activities to
    protect just these resources? Isn't there some less drastic approach
    available to achieve the same goal while permitting multiple uses of
    the taxpayers' lands and resources?
        Answer. Standards, guidelines, and mitigation measures are an
    integral part of Forest Plans and projects, providing the framework for
    managing multiple uses on National Forest System lands. This includes
    full consideration of various mitigation measures to help address the
    effects of surface disturbing activities on some species of wildlife,
    fish, and rare plants. In some cases, projects can be designed to avoid
    adverse impacts to species, and in other cases mitigation can be
    developed to offset or substantially reduce adverse impacts. In some
    instances, however, mitigation is not sufficient to avoid substantial
    adverse impacts, but even in those situations the projects often are
    allowed to occur with the acknowledgement that species populations and
    their habitat will decline.
        In efforts to conserve species and their ecosystems, the Forest
    Service makes every effort to avoid any unnecessary preclusion of human
    activities. However, the status of some species and their habitat has
    declined to the point that their conservation depends on greater
    protection than they have been afforded in the past through various
    mitigation measures, and additional protections are needed including
    restrictions on certain types of surface disturbing activities.
        Under certain circumstances, the restrictions placed on surface
    disturbing activities on Forest Service lands can become even more
    prohibitive due to the proximity, condition, and management on adjacent
    lands under other ownership. The Forest Service has an obligation under
    the Endangered Species Act to take an active role in the conservation
    of these species. In some instances involving species- at- risk,
    additional restrictions on activities on National Forest System lands
    are taken in order to allow continued management flexibility on
    adjacent non-federal lands. This clearly benefits private landowners.

                   MT. ST. HELEN'S NATIONAL VOLCANIC MONUMENT

        Of particular concern to the Committee is an issue that came up
    with respect to a Forest Service visitor center at the Mt. St. Helen's
    National Volcanic Monument. This is the 20th anniversary of the
    eruption at Mt. St. Helen's. The allocation that the Monument gets for
    operations money has declined drastically in recent years, at the same
    time as more money was being collected through the Recreation Fee
    Demonstration program. When Fee collections decreased this past year
    due to a change in the collection policy, a visitor's center at the
    monument was slated for closure due to a lack of appropriated dollars.
        Question. The Recreation Fee Demonstration program was never
    intended to be used as an offset for appropriated dollars, but isn't
    that what happened here?
        Answer. The reduction in funding is not because of an offset. The
    allocation of recreation funds to the Pacific Northwest Region (Region
    6), and all regions, is the result of applying a standard set of
    allocation criteria. Region 6 allocates recreation funds within the
    region using the national formula, modified to place additional
    emphasis on special areas, urban National Forests, visitor centers and
    facilities. This has resulted in a higher level of funding for the
    Gifford Pinchot National Forest, which administers the Mount St. Helens
    NVM, than what might otherwise have been allocated.
        At all levels of the agency we have strived to reduce indirect
    costs and become more efficient and cost-effective in how we conduct
    our business. Still, many fixed costs remain. With timber funds
    substantially reduced compared to historic levels, the steady decline
    in General Administration (GA) funding, and legislative prohibitions
    against using special funds such as the fee demo revenues on fixed and
    indirect costs, the increased burden for covering these expenses falls
    on the remaining program allocations, including Recreation.
        The agency, specifically, the Pacific NW Region, makes no
    adjustment or offset based on the Recreation Fee Demonstration Project
    and its revenue. While the revenues generated by the Recreation Fee
    Demonstration Project have been significant, they have been used only
    to enhance the recreation experience at Mount St. Helens NVM. Examples
    include increased interpretive staffing at Monument visitor centers,
    summer operation of the Woods Creek and Pine Creek Information
    Stations, expanded backcountry and climbing patrols, and the completion
    of several large-scale backlog maintenance projects. Fee revenues do
    fluctuate based on changing visitor numbers, weather patterns, and
    broad policy changes in the fee program. This impacts the level of
    service enhancements that may be provided in any given year.
        The decline in funding for the Monument is attributable to several,
    interconnected reasons occurring on the Gifford Pinchot National
    Forest. The funding dilemma we are currently dealing with would have
    presented itself regardless of the availability of Recreation Fee
    Demonstration revenues. It should also be noted that while we are
    focusing on Mount St. Helens visitor centers, other visitor centers
    throughout the agency face similar funding challenges to manage
    associated infrastructure.
        We will continue at all levels to assist the Gifford Pinchot
    National Forest in reducing costs, seeking alternative funds, reviewing
    the user fee program, and expanding the use of volunteers and external
    partners. We will continue to work with partners and community leaders
    to develop long-term solutions for stability at the visitor centers.
        Question. What is the agency doing to prevent this situation from
    happening elsewhere?
        Answer. The Forest Service has been very specific that it is
    unacceptable for Agency field units to reduce (offset) locally
    available appropriated dollars as fee demonstration receipts have
    increased. While it is apparent that appropriated funds available for
    field use for direct program activities have declined in many
    locations, those declines are due to the need to use their appropriated
    funds for increased overhead, national commitments, earmarks etc. but
    are not due to offsets associated with recreation fee demonstration
    collections. Congress has not reduced or offset appropriated dollars as
    a result of fee demo collections, and it is the agency's full intent to
    assure that we also do not offset.
        Question. It doesn't seem that any of the $10 million increase the
    Congress provided in the Recreation budget line item over and above the
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2000 made it to the ground
    for facilities like those at Mt. St. Helen's. How was this increase
    allocated to the field? How much went to Region 6?
        Answer. The following information shows the funding change between
    fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 for Recreation Management:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year
                                              ---------------------  Change
                                                  1999      2000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Appropriation............................      145       155.5     +10.5
    Adjusted for Land Between The Lakes and    .........     158.3     +13.3
     the Congressional Reduction.............
    Amount Distributed to Field..............      132       136.1      +4.1
    Region 6 Allocation......................       17.3      18.8      +1.5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      FIRE

        Question. The Committee is very concerned about the fire risk on
    our national forests, particularly those in the West. Last year, the
    GAO prepared a report which stated that 39 million acres of national
    forest lands in the interior West are a ``tinderbox.'' This year you
    have asked for less money for Fire Preparedness than last year. Is this
    a prudent allocation of resources given the high risk of fire on many
    of our national forests?
        Answer. The Forest Service budget represents a balance between many
    priorities. The budget request for Fire Preparedness provides an
    adequate number of firefighting resources, within the scope of agency
    priorities.
        Question. As I understand it, the agency's budget request
    represents only 71 percent of the optimal level of funding which you
    call MEL (Most Efficient Level). This is down from last year's level.
    The Department of the Interior is funding preparedness operations at 82
    percent of MEL. Why does there continue to be such a discrepancy
    between the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior with
    respect to percentage of the MEL funded?
        Answer. The seeming discrepancy represents a difference in program
    priorities and scale between Departments. Moving from 71 percent to 82
    percent of MEL would increase protection capability. However, given
    other agency priorities, a 71 percent of MEL budget is within
    acceptable limits of risk. Moving from funding 71 percent of MEL to 82
    percent of MEL represents a budget increase of $52 million.
        Question. The GAO also stated in its report that ``the Forest
    Service lacks a cohesive strategy for reducing fuels on our National
    Forests.'' What is the Forest Service doing to develop such a strategy?
        Answer. In response to Congressional direction, the Forest Service
    undertook a project to develop a strategy to reduce wildfire risk and
    restore forest health in the interior West. The resulting document,
    ``Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted
    Ecosystems, A Cohesive Strategy,'' is currently under review by the
    Office of Management and Budget (OMB). While the OMB has not approved
    the document, the Forest Service has implemented key components of the
    strategy.
        Question. When will this strategy be available to the Congress and
    the public?
        Answer. The document will be available as soon as the necessary
    clearance processes are completed.
        Question. How much money will it cost to deal with the fire hazard
    on our forests in the West?
        Answer. The strategy calls for an investment of approximately $11.5
    billion over 15 years. Once full implementation is reached, 4.2 million
    acres per year would be treated for fuel reduction, restoration of
    forest health, and maintenance of healthy ecosystems.
        Question. What will be the impact of your new roadless area policy
    on the ability to reduce fuel loads on the national forests?
        Answer. The agency anticipates that the final roadless policy will
    have little impact on the ability to reduce fuel loads on national
    forests. Most high priority treatment areas are accessible by road
    systems that will not be affected by the roadless policy.
        Question. Doesn't the agency need access to these areas to do
    necessary treatments to avoid forest fires?
        Answer. Closing some road systems will not eliminate access to
    forests. It is likely that areas requiring fuel treatment or forest
    health restoration work, that are also within an area of road closure
    consideration, are low priority treatment areas. Methods of
    transportation, other than vehicles, can be used to access treatment
    projects.
        Question. Recently, the use of certain fire retardants was halted
    because of environmental concerns. What is the agency doing to replace
    the use of these retardants? To what extent will firefighting
    capability be jeopardized?
        Answer. On April 20, 2000, following 2 weeks of consultation with
    the Department of the Interior wildland firefighting agencies, the
    Office of General Counsel, the Interior Office of the Solicitor, the
    Environmental Protection Agency, and affected States, the Forest
    Service issued a Resume Work Order for the use of the retardants in
    question. Along with the Resume Work Order, a revised set of
    ``Operational Guidelines for Aerial Application of Retardant and Foam''
    was issued to all personnel involved with the use and delivery of these
    retardants. The impact of these revised guidelines to firefighting
    capability is expected to be negligible.

                                     TIMBER

        Question. For fiscal year 1999, the Congress provided the Forest
    Service with sufficient funds to offer 3.6 billion board feet of
    timber. The agency missed this target by over 1.3 billion board feet.
    Why did the agency miss this target by such a large amount?
        Answer. The timber sale offer volumes planned each year can only be
    accomplished if there are no problems experienced during the year.
    Appeals and litigation on timber sales has delayed, and will continue
    to delay, our ability to achieve our planned offer of timber sales. In
    many cases, successful litigation results in further delay as sales are
    reworked to incorporate new standards and direction. In some cases
    timber sales have to be withdrawn, or are reworked such that the
    planned timber sale volume cannot be accomplished. All of these
    difficulties contribute to shortfalls in planned timber sale volume
    offer. Fiscal year 1999 was a particularly challenging year as the
    timber sale program was affected by the interim roads rule, survey and
    manage requirements, delays in the consultations required for listed
    fish species east of the Cascades in the Pacific Northwest Region,
    implementation of California spotted owl guidelines, old growth issues,
    litigation in the Eastern and Southern Regions, and low market demands
    for small diameter material that has caused the agency to reduce the
    offer of these products from what was originally planned.
        Question. How will the agency fix the problems with the timber
    program so that specific Congressional directives are complied with?
        Answer. Timber volume targets are based upon field capabilities for
    the timber sales management funding appropriated by the Congress.
    However, our timber sale capabilities are being affected by a host of
    issues surrounding the management of our National Forests, such as the
    proper procedures necessary to comply with the National Environmental
    Policy Act, the kinds of practices necessary to protect all species
    listed under the Endangered Species Act, and full implementation of new
    procedures required by recent legal decisions. The new practices and
    procedures required from each new legal decision become the new
    standard upon which all other similar past and future management
    activities are also judged. The agency is working through the current
    issues affecting our ability to offer and sell timber sales, however
    there is no guarantee that new issues will be not be raised in the
    future.
        Timber sales management funding is spent for a number of activities
    that contribute to the program, including silvicultural examination,
    environmental analysis, timber sale preparation, preparation of
    appraisals and contracts, the offer of sales, the qualification of
    bidders, timber sale award, harvest administration, record keeping and
    reporting, and other forest products sales. This work is done
    regardless of the amount of timber volume that is actually offered or
    sold. Evaluating performance based on the volume of timber offered for
    sale does not reflect the underlying work being performed to manage the
    National Forests for multiple benefits and uses.
        Question. What harvest level will be accomplished in fiscal year
    2000 and in fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. For outyear planning estimates the agency assumes that the
    volume of timber offered will also be the volume of timber sold and
    harvested. The planned offer amounts are 3.6 billion board feet in
    fiscal year 2000 and 3.0 billion board feet in fiscal year 2001.
    However, this is not specifically accurate because the sales sold and
    harvested also include timber sales offered in previous years. It is
    not possible to provide an accurate estimate of what timber companies
    may bid on, actually purchase, or actually harvest in a given year.
        Question. Does the agency expect similar problems in meeting timber
    targets in these years?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. In light of the problems the agency has had with
    accomplishing timber targets why did the agency propose reducing the
    timber program by $15 million?
        Answer. The Administration's budget proposal for fiscal year 2001
    was formulated within existing budget constraints to balance various
    priorities among all discretionary programs.
        Question. Does the timber program need additional funds to
    accomplish timber offer targets?
        Answer. Accomplishing timber offer target depends on the number and
    kinds of issues the agency faces in managing the National Forests,
    particularly for timber production. We no not believe that these issues
    will disappear in the next few years. The regions have indicated that
    they have the capacity to increase timber volume offer in fiscal year
    2001. Based upon data collected last year that has not been updated,
    the regions have indicated they could accomplish an additional 623
    million board feet of timber offered for sale if provided with an
    additional $58.2 million for timber sales management and $13.1 in
    engineering support. The required units costs are $93 per MBF for
    timber sales and $21 per MBF for engineering support. Undoubtedly, some
    of today's issues would also apply to some of any additional timber
    sale volume that is planned.

                                      GPRA

        Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
    the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
    budget request?
        Answer. The Strategic Plan of the Forest Service, 2000 Revision,
    provides the agency's goals and objectives to which regional, forest,
    and site specific plans will ultimately link. The 2000 Revision shifts
    the focus of agency management away from ``inputs, outputs, and
    process'' to ``outcomes'' on the landscape. The 2000 Revision refines
    agency strategic goals, objectives, and strategies for achieving the
    goals. With this guidance, national forests will develop Land and
    Resource Management Plans and annual work plans.
        Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
    performance goals to your budget activities?
        Answer. The 1997 Strategic Plan was constructed based on the old
    budget structure, which emphasized inputs and outputs. The compromise
    sought with the fiscal year 2000 Annual Performance Plan began the
    shift from output planning and reporting to a focus on landscape
    outcomes for management investments. The recent proposals to reform
    budget structure are based in part on the need to better align the
    budget with the 2000 Revision of the strategic plan and annual
    performance goals. The integration of these two systems has begun and
    will take a significant step forward in the fiscal year 2002 budget
    planning cycle as the agency continues to move toward a focus on
    outcomes and more fully implement the Results Act requirements.
        Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
    lessons did you learn?
        Answer. The process of linking the agency's revised strategic goals
    and objectives with annual performance goals and the agency's budget
    structure is continuing and we are experiencing many of the same
    difficulties we have had in the past. We are working to overcome
    difficulties associated with quantifying outcome measures, linking them
    to annual performance goals and measures, adjusting annual performance
    measures to reflect quality and priority of work as well as quantity,
    and linking the annual performance measures and budget structure to
    outcome-oriented goals and objectives that can only be achieved through
    work funded from multiple accounts. Lessons learned include:
      --There is a distinct need for meaningful outcomes that can be
            quantified as well as qualified.
      --The ability to ensure that the relationships among strategic goals,
            objectives, outcomes, and annual performance goals are worked
            out is necessary before a strong link to the budget process and
            structure is possible.
      --We have difficulty making and communicating these relationships
            because our budget structure does not align well with our
            mission.
        Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
    measures to its budget?
        Answer. The agency's annual Performance Plan uses a set of
    performance measures that links directly to its budget structure. Each
    measure relates directly to a strategic objective and performance goal
    as well as a specific line item or program within our budget.
        Question. Does each account have performance measures?
        Answer. Each account in our budget is represented by at least one
    performance measure.
        Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
    differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
    justification?
        Answer. The agency's performance planning structure, as defined by
    our strategic and performance plans prepared under the requirements of
    the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, is quite
    different than our account and activity structure. The agency is funded
    through a series of discretionary and mandatory appropriations which
    consist of approximately 70 line items for which funds are either
    appropriated in or spending authorized from (permanent appropriations
    and trust funds) on an annual basis. The agency's budget structure
    reflects a Congressional focus on resource programs that has evolved
    over a long period of time based on constituency interest in various
    goods, services, outputs and outcomes.
        In contrast, the agency's performance planning structure is defined
    by 15-20 objectives which aggregate or split elements of the agency's
    budget structure. Each objective has a series of performance measures
    that are linked to the programmatic budget structure.
        The agency has proposed some significant changes to its budget
    structure for fiscal year 2001. Most of the changes reflect a
    consolidation of the 20 or so budget line items and expanded budget
    line items in the National Forest System appropriation. If approved,
    the agency would receive funding in three budget line items in fiscal
    year 2001: Ecosystem Planning and Inventory, Ecosystem Conservation,
    and Public Services and Uses. This structure would facilitate a better
    linkage to all goals and objectives focused solely around the National
    Forest System. There would be no change to objectives funded from
    multiple appropriations in that the agency is not proposing changes to
    these major accounts. The splitting or lumping of accounts for plan
    objectives will still occur.
        Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
    structure for fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. The only changes we plan to propose to the account
    structure for fiscal year 2000 are those involved with primary purpose.
    This involves movement of funds but not an actual change in the account
    structure.
        Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
    described under that account structure?
        Answer. We will not propose any changes to the program activities
    during fiscal year 2000.
        Question. How were performance measures chosen?
        Answer. Performance measures were chosen by senior management and
    program managers to reflect the major activities, outputs, or outcomes
    related to the Forest Service mission and strategic objectives. New
    measures may be adopted as we improve our ability to collect data or
    measure more directly the intended results of our programs.
        Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
    and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
        Answer. Data for most annual performance measures used in the
    agency's performance plans and budget justification currently exist.
    Annual performance measures have been defined and data are being
    collected through a variety of systems. There was little or no
    additional cost to collect data for these measures. For some plan
    objectives, the agency is moving towards new or refined measures that
    will better reflect the quality of work and differentiate between work
    that is of higher priority due to risk, location or other factors.
    Efforts are underway to define these measures and develop protocols for
    collecting this information. We expect to begin using some of these
    measures in fiscal year 2001. As we develop these measures, one option
    that we continue to examine is whether proxy indicators or sampling
    will allow us to collect and validate data that will provide us with
    the necessary information at a lower cost.
        Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
    reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
    performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. Our current performance plan includes some measures for
    which reliable data were not available in time for our fiscal year 1999
    Performance Report. The agency's Performance Report was submitted in
    January 2000 to the Department of Agriculture for consolidation into a
    Departmental Report. Some of the data in our report were identified as
    ``estimated'' because of our inability to validate the data within the
    timeframe available to us. The agency is working to address the
    timeliness issue so that all or most data will be available when the
    fiscal year 2000 performance report is due.
        Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
    1999 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
    to track program results?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Annual Performance Plan for the USDA
    Forest Service is a comprehensive plan that defines performance goals
    and measures based on the 1997 Strategic Plan and represents the wide
    variety of Forest Service programs and activities. All of these goals
    are critical to tracking achievement of the agency's overall mission
    and all of the measures are used to hold resource managers accountable
    for their performance. However, special emphasis is placed on those
    goals directly related to the Forest Service's Natural Resource Agenda.
    In addition to the four emphasis areas that define the Natural Resource
    Agenda, the Forest Service also closely tracks performance measures
    associated with the production of forest-based commodities. The
    following table lists the four emphasis areas of the Natural Resource
    Agenda and their associated performance and outcome measures as well as
    two of the key measures associated with the production of goods and
    services. The table also lists whether the measure represents an output
    or an outcome and how it relates to the 2000 Revision of the strategic
    plan.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Relation to
                                                                                                       2000 revision
                                                                                                          of the
                               Measure                                     Type of  measure           strategic plan
                                                                                                          (goal/
                                                                                                        objective)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Watershed Health and Restoration:\1\
        Stream miles restored or enhanced for fish habitat......  Output............................             1.b
        Lake acres restored or enhanced for fish habitat........  Output............................             1.b
        Hazardous fuels reduction--acres........................  Output............................             1.c
        Land reforested--acres..................................  Output............................             1.c
    Sustainable Forest Management:\1\
        Forest health surveys and evaluations, Federal and        Output............................             1.a
         Cooperative lands--acres.
        Non-industrial private forest lands covered by            Output............................             1.a
         Stewardship Management Plans--acres.
        Communities participating in the Urban Forestry program-- Output............................             2.d
         number.
        Forest legacy acquisition projects--acres...............  Outcome...........................             1.b
    Roads:\1\
        Roads decommissioned--miles.............................  Output............................             1.a
        Road condition index rating.............................  Outcome...........................             1.a
    Recreation:\1\
        Seasonal capacity available--million persons at one time  Output............................             2.a
         days.
        Recreation special uses administered--number of permits.  Output............................             2.a
    Commodities:
        Timber volume offered--million cubic feet...............  Output............................             2.c
        Minerals nonenergy/energy operations administered to      Outcome...........................            2.c
         standard--number.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Natural Resource Agenda item.

        Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
    it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
    well'').
        Answer. This is shown in the second column in the chart above.
        Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
    objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
    linked.
        Answer. This is shown in the third column in the chart above.
        Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
    did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
    a significant number of outcome measures?
        Answer. The Forest Service has developed an integrated set of land
    health and service to the people performance measures. These measures
    link to outcomes in our existing (1997) strategic plan and support our
    budget request. These measures include areas of treatment (acres),
    quantities of products (million cubic feet), and other items that
    represent the annual outputs and outcomes of management activities and
    investments. The Forest Service is in the final stages of preparing the
    2000 Revision of the Forest Service Strategic Plan. In developing this
    plan, the Forest Service emphasized outcome-based measures. The fiscal
    year 2002 Annual Performance Plan will incorporate annual outcome and
    performance measures that directly tie to the long-term outcomes in the
    2000 Revision of the strategic plan.
        Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
    difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
    measure effectiveness (outcome)?
        Answer. Yes. The proof of this will be in the implementation of the
    2000 Revision through subsequent annual plans, beginning with the
    fiscal year 2002 performance plan now being developed.
        Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
    that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
    external customers.
        Answer. Starting in 1997, the USDA Forest Service began to
    implement a series of surveys to measure customer satisfaction across a
    wide range of programs and activities. The initial round of surveys
    will establish benchmarks, with subsequent surveys providing data to
    measure trends in customer satisfaction. Additionally, the Forest
    Service is one of 30 federal agencies participating in the American
    Customer Service Index (ACSI). The ACSI is a survey used to rate
    various organizations, including 170 private firms. By using the same
    survey instrument, ACSI allows comparisons across organizations and
    over time, providing a rich source of information related to customer
    satisfaction. The customer service indices that result from the
    agency's surveys as well as the ASCI results will be incorporated into
    the fiscal year 2002 Performance Plan as appropriate.
        Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
    Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
        Answer. Program and budget managers use performance reports from
    prior years to assess progress toward long-term goals. Prior year
    Performance Plans are also used to help allocate funds and annual
    performance targets to the field for each of the agency's program
    areas.
        Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
    this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
    the change would have on the level of program performance and the
    achievement of various goals?
        Answer. In most cases, annual performance targets are budget-
    sensitive, allowing the Forest Service to discuss the impacts of budget
    changes on the achievement of annual goals.
        Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
    reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
    so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
    results?
        Answer. The Financial Management and Information Management staffs
    have begun efforts to design and establish an agency data warehouse.
    The success in implementing the Foundation Financial Information System
    (FFIS) provides a key set of information for the warehouse. However,
    the design for the data warehouse is to integrate financial and other
    information (i.e. outcomes) about the agency's operations and
    performance, both annually and longer term. As the data warehouse is
    established, agency managers will increasingly have access to
    financial, program, and management performance information.
        Some ecosystem management activities easily translate into outcome
    measures, others do not. The Strategic Plan, 2000 Revision recognizes
    where work needs to be accomplished to establish verifiable, auditable
    outcome measures. As measures are developed, they will be incorporated
    into data warehouse structures mentioned above. The needs for data
    collection and access are being designed into the warehouse.
    Integration of these efforts will permit the Forest Service to monitor
    annual outcome performance, and the long-term trends of the Strategic
    Plan.
        Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
    management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
        Answer. Corporate access to performance data occurs through the
    annual performance report, published after the close of the fiscal
    year. As part of our data warehouse project, we are looking at ways to
    improve the timely dissemination of data throughout the organization,
    as well as improving public access to these data. Our goal is to get
    data into the hands of key decision makers at all levels of the
    organization to improve performance and track progress toward our
    strategic goals and objectives.
        Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
    performance-related data located throughout your various information
    systems?
        Answer. We currently use several databases throughout the
    organization as well as end of year reports for performance measures.
    In many cases, we do have problems gaining timely access to
    performance-related data. We are currently working on several projects,
    such as the data warehouse, that should dramatically improve our
    ability to provide more timely access to higher quality data within the
    next several years.
        Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
    your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
    define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
    set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
    present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
    results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
        Answer. As discussed previously, the Forest Service faces a good
    degree of difficulty in linking dollars to results. The agency is
    funded through a series of discretionary and mandatory appropriations
    that consist of approximately 70 line items on an annual basis. The
    agency's budget structure reflects a Congressional focus on resource
    programs based on constituency interest in various goods, services,
    outputs and outcomes. The agency's performance planning structure is
    defined by 15-20 objectives which aggregate or split elements of the
    agency's budget structure. Each objective has a series of performance
    measures that are linked to the programmatic budget structure.
        Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
    structure were modified?
        Answer. Yes, we believe that is the case. A more integrated
    approach to the budget structure would allow for clearer linkages
    between the dollars and the agency's broader goals and objectives.
        Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
    believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
    to this committee than the present structure?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget justification represents the
    agency's approach to modifying the budget structure. Again, especially
    in the area of National Forest System, the programs we have proposed
    are more closely aligned with the broader ecosystem management and
    multiple use goals of the agency.
        Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
    program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
        Answer. The Forest Service will finalize no later than January 31,
    2001, a standardized set of activity/output measures that tier directly
    to performance goals in the fiscal year 2003 Annual Performance Plan.
    These activity/output measures will be an integral aspect of the
    agency's integrated program process, and will be used in budget
    formulation, will be the basis for presentation of the agency budget
    justification, tracking obligations in the accounting system, reporting
    accomplishment, and providing leadership information. With
    implementation of these measures the agency will be able to directly
    link financial and budget reporting with performance measures.
        Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
    systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
    linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
    government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
    perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
    accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
        Answer. The USDA Forest Service is operating under the Foundation
    Financial Information System (FFIS). FFIS is an integrated standard
    general ledger-compliant accounting system. The system uses a cost
    allocation method to allocate indirect costs by direct labor hours
    worked or by square footage to Forest Service programs.
        The Forest Service has charged the Financial Analysis staff of
    accountants and financial analysts, with the responsibility of
    developing financial performance measures that draw on the cost history
    residing in FFIS. These measures are being linked back to the Strategic
    Plan of the agency
        Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
    the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
    OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
    have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
    methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
    known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
    calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status
    of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting
    requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
        Answer. The Financial Analysis staff of the USDA Forest Service is
    in the process of developing requirements and planning for the
    implementation of an Activity Based Costing System (ABC). We are
    planning to define our requirements in fiscal year 2001 and begin
    introducing the ABC methodology to our regions in fiscal year 2002.
        Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
    the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
    in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
    and depreciation?
        Answer. When this system is fully implemented, we intend to report
    on the full and accurate costs for various activities in the Forest
    Service.
        Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
    the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
    of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
    activities?
        Answer. This should allow for a more precise relationship between
    the dollars spent on the program, the true costs of the activities
    conducted by the program, and the results of these activities.
        Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
    activity and result?
        Answer. We intend to be able to show a per-unit cost of each
    activity and result.
        Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
    particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
    activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
    costs fully allocated to goals.
        Answer. Both direct and indirect costs associated with performance
    goals are included in the costs of associated activities performed in
    support of that goal.
        Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
    measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
    the development of the agency's performance plan.
        Answer. The Forest Service did not implement any significant
    regulatory reform measures as part of its performance plan development.
        Question. Does your fiscal year 2001 performance plan--briefly or
    by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
    could influence goal achievement?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan and the 1997
    Strategic Plan specifically identify and describe external factors that
    affect program performance. External factors are also identified in the
    Strategic Plan, 2000 Revision.
        Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
    anticipate and plan for such influences?
        Answer. To the extent possible, resource and program managers are
    responsible for incorporating foreseeable external factors into the
    development of performance plans, annual targets, and budgets.
        Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
    estimates?
        Answer. External factors often have profound impacts on the Forest
    Service's resource estimates. These are identified in the fiscal year
    1999 Annual Program Performance Report.
        Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
    agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
        Answer. No. However, the development work for the 2000 Revision of
    the Forest Service Strategic Plan included the identification of
    ``cross-cutting functions'' being coordinated among 32 agencies.
        Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
    duplication?
        Answer. Appendix B of the Draft 2000 Revision to the Strategic Plan
    details the functions that are cross cutting and what agencies have
    responsibilities for the identified functions.
        Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
    potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
    and if so, how?
        Answer. Yes. As we identify external factors and develop means and
    strategies to achieve annual and long-term performance goals, we can
    identify and address any management challenges and duplication of or
    overlapping efforts.
        Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
    guide decision making?
        Answer. Top managers in the Forest Service have been directly
    involved in the development of the draft 2000 Revision of the strategic
    plan and will be similarly involved in finalizing the 2000 Revision.
    The management system mandated by the Results Act requires the Forest
    Service to be more systematic in its planning and more disciplined in
    its approach to building budgets to implement its plans. Efforts
    continue to put key components of the Results Act management system in
    place, such as the strategic plan and annual performance plans linked
    to the strategic plan. Decision making will increasingly be guided
    through this system as the system components are put in place and the
    relationships between and among those components are understood.
        The strategic plan is a keystone component of the management model
    mandated by the Results Act. As Chief Mike Dombeck stated in his
    testimony before the Resources Subcommittee, U.S. House of
    Representatives, ``(w)e will implement the objectives of the Government
    Performance and Results Act (Results Act) through our strategic plan in
    2000. The 2000 strategic plan will drive development of annual
    performance plans and budget proposals beginning in fiscal year 2002 .
    . .''
        In addition, all Forest Service program and unit plans (Forest
    Plans, agency budget proposals, etc) must be linked to the goals,
    objectives, and measures of the 2000 Revision. The proposed planning
    regulations explicitly require Forest Plan goals, objectives, and
    measures be linked to the national strategic plan. The strategic plan
    sets the context for Agency actions, providing purpose for those near-
    term actions and setting expectations for how such actions affect
    progress toward long-term outcomes.
        Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so in what
    ways?
        Answer. The Forest Service believes the Results Act provides a
    unifying framework to achieve accountability for mission specific
    results. The national-level strategic plan will be linked to field-
    level activities through annual performance plans. These provide a
    direct link between the Agency's long-term goals and what managers and
    other employees do on a day-to-day basis. As stated before, this
    process is beginning with fiscal year 2002, and will be completed by
    fiscal year 2006. We believe this linkage will strengthen the Agency's
    overall effectiveness.
        Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
    actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
    that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
    to allow for these kinds of uses?
        Answer. The Forest Service is using the GPRA process to undertake a
    rigorous review of how performance measures are defined and how data
    are collected, reported, and validated. The 1999 GPRA Annual
    Performance Report identified several weaknesses with current measures
    and reporting systems. Based on these findings, several measures are
    being modified or discontinued while others are being replaced with
    more appropriate measures. In addition, the Forest Service is exploring
    ways to improve the way data are collected from the field. The 2000
    Revision of the Strategic Plan will drive development of the fiscal
    year 2002 Annual Performance Plan and we anticipate revision of the
    annual performance measures will be needed to ensure appropriate
    linkages to long-term goals and objectives.
        Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
    estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
    accuracy of resource estimates?
        Answer. As we develop new performance measures, we will use the
    best information available to come up with estimates. In many cases,
    however, these estimates will represent the best guesses of
    capabilities, with performance estimates and targets improving as we
    gain more experience with the particular activities and outcomes we are
    attempting to measure. Furthermore, we also may change the methodology
    used to track existing measures as we implement more stringent data
    quality standards and requirements.
        Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
    administrative requirements?
        Answer. No.
        Question. Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of
    transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
    accountability commitments?
        Answer. No. Based on the budget structure we have proposed, we do
    not think that will be necessary.
        Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
    see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
    issued on September 30, 1997?
        Answer. Yes, the USDA Forest Service 1997 Strategic Plan has been
    recognized as being insufficient in complying with the results focus of
    the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act). The
    fiscal year 2000 performance plan attempted to revise some objectives
    and measures contained in the 1997 Strategic Plan, but it still focused
    too much on the outputs associated with the historic budgeting
    processes instead of the results and outcomes required by the Results
    Act.
        The recently completed draft 2000 Revision of the strategic plan
    largely overcomes deficiencies of the 1997 plan. The draft 2000
    Revision successfully focuses the goals, objectives, and associated
    measures on those vital few results and other outcomes critical to the
    mission of the agency. The 2000 Revision provides the context and
    purpose for near-term actions and the focus for long-term land health
    and public service outcomes. The revised plan shifts the focus of
    agency management away from ``inputs, outputs and process'' to
    ``outcomes'' on the landscape. This revised focus will begin to be
    reflected in a significant way beginning with the fiscal year 2002
    performance plan.

                                    RESEARCH

        Question. What level of funding has the Forest Service provided for
    silvicultural research in each of the last five years? Please provide
    this information for each research station.
        Answer:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal year
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              2001
                                                            1996      1997      1998      1999      2000      Pres.
                                                            conf.    enacted    appr.     appr.     appr.    budget
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PNW.................................................     2,135     2,204     2,508     2,611     2,965     3,392
    PSW.................................................     1,317     1,015     1,129     1,148     1,148     1,298
    RM..................................................       264       264     1,211     1,141     1,212     1,464
    NC..................................................     1,236     1,519     1,651     1,668     1,381     2,662
    NE..................................................     2,298     2,298     1,959     2,218     2,193     2,553
    SRS.................................................     4,511     5,062     5,062     4,168     3,618     5,785
    IITF................................................       251       251        26       543       492       568
    FPL.................................................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........       325
    WO..................................................       850       790     1,261     1,461     1,824     1,701
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------
          Total.........................................    12,862    13,403    15,042    14,958    14,833    19,748
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. If funding for this form of research has trended
    downwards please explain why?
        Answer. Between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2000, Forest
    Service R&D appropriations increased by about 14 percent. During that
    time, program areas considered of high priority were increased more
    than that amount, which required cuts in other areas. As shown in the
    table, silviculture research went from $12.9 million to 15.0 million,
    then down to 14.8 million during that time, with an overall
    appropriation increase of about 15 percent
        Question. What other activities have increased as a result?
        Answer. In spite of major increases in some areas, such as Forest
    Inventory and Analysis, and Monitoring Methods, the silviculture
    program area has not trended downward. When fiscal year 1996 is
    compared to current levels, there is an increase of about 15 percent,
    which returns silviculture to slightly above the level of fiscal year
    1995, just before major fiscal year 1996 Congressional cuts occurred.
        The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
    1998 mandated major enhancements in the FIA program. One of these was
    that the Forest Service needed to move to an annualized inventory of
    forest lands in all states. The FIA program provides the only
    continuous inventory that quantifies the status of forest ecosystems,
    including timber and non-timber information across all landownerships
    in the U.S. This information is very important to industry and state
    foresters, among others.
        Question. What is the cost to perform inventories on an annualized
    basis?
        Answer. The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform
    Act of 1998 mandated major enhancements in the FIA program. One of
    these was that the Forest Service needed to move to an annualized
    inventory of forest lands in all states. The FIA program provides the
    only continuous inventory that quantifies the status of forest
    ecosystems, including timber and non-timber information across all land
    ownerships in the U.S. This information is very important to industry
    and State foresters, among others.
        In order to carry out the implementation of annualized inventory in
    accordance with the FIA Strategic Plan submitted to and amended by
    Congress to provide measurements of 15 percent of all FIA plots in the
    East and 10 percent of all FIA plots in the West annually. In order to
    maintain the quality and consistency of the program the Plan indicated
    a 3-year gear up of the program between 2001 and 2003 with $8 million
    annual increases in budget. Current funding from all sources for FIA
    for fiscal year 2000 is $36.7 million and the President's budget
    provides no increase for fiscal year 2001.
        Budget requirements to fully implement the annualized FIA program:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year
                                     ---------------------------------------
                                       1999    2000    2001    2002    2003
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total needed FIA Budget.........    33.0    39.5    48.7    56.7    64.7
    Actual..........................  ......    36.7  ......  ......  ......
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Given the importance of the program, why hasn't research
    increased funding for it for fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 Current Services level requested an
    additional $4.0 million, for a total increase of $12.0 million for FIA.
    In comparison, the 2001 Department Allowance provided $2.0 million for
    the FIA program.
        Question. The Forest Service has entered into an Memorandum Of
    Understanding (MOU) with the National Association of State Foresters
    which states that if Congress does not provide certain levels of
    funding for this program as set out in the MOU, the agency will
    redirect other program funds to make up the difference. According to
    the MOU, the agency needs $48.7 million, yet according to your budget
    justification, the agency has only asked for about $40 million total.
    How can Congress provide the agency with sufficient money, if it
    doesn't bother to ask for it?
        Answer. We place the FIA program as one of our highest priorities.
    The 2001 President's budget includes $31,687,000 in Research and
    Development funds for the FIA program (plus $5 million in NFS funds),
    which is the same as the level appropriated in fiscal year 2000. The FS
    Research and Development fiscal year 2001 Agency Request level
    recommended an $8.0 million increase for the FIA program. In addition,
    the fiscal year 2001 Current Services level recommended an additional
    $4.0 million, for a total increase of $12.0 million for FIA. In
    comparison, the 2001 Department Allowance provided $2.0 million for the
    FIA program.
        Question. Isn't this MOU an admission that the agency's budget
    request is inadequate for the FIA program?
        Answer. The MOU signed on February 15, 2000 by Chief Dombeck and
    the National Association of State Foresters establishes a mutual
    understanding about the importance of the FIA program in delivering
    scientifically reliable information about the condition, status, and
    trends of the nation's forests in a timely manner. And, the fiscal year
    2001 Agency Request level recommended an $8.0 million increase for the
    FIA program.
        Question. From what other sources does the agency plan to redirect
    funds if sufficient money is not appropriated to meet the levels in the
    MOU?
        Answer. If sufficient appropriations to meet the need stated in the
    MOU are not approved, funding will have to be redirected from other
    priority programs within the Agency through reprogramming procedures.
        Question. Will the agency submit this ``redirection'' for a
    reprogramming?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. If money is redirected within research, from what program
    areas would it come?
        Answer. The top funding priority within Forest Rangeland Research
    is to conduct research in support of maintaining and protecting healthy
    forest ecosystems. This requires simultaneous investment in many
    important subject matter areas including forest inventory and analysis,
    watershed restoration, global change, threatened and endangered
    species, and invasive species. The FIA program is among these top
    funding priorities.
        Question. In previous years, the budget justification contained a
    display that indicated how much Research was spending on various areas
    like silviculture, wildlife habitat, plant science etc. The fiscal year
    2001 budget doesn't have this information. Why not?
        Answer. We continue to use our Research Budget Attainment and
    Information System (RBAIS) which allows us to track funding spent on
    various areas like silviculture, wildlife habitat, and plant science.
        Question. How will Congress know what the agency is spending on
    these areas?
        Answer. We track funding for various areas such as wildlife
    habitat, silviculture, and plant science through our Research Budget
    Attainment and Information System. In addition, we provide Congress
    specific information at the State and Research Work Unit levels in our
    Annual State Briefing Book.
        Question. Your two performance measures are inadequate to inform
    Congress what your accomplishing with appropriated dollars. The
    measures consist of the number of books and reports Research has
    generated, and percentage of forest land covered by the FIA and Forest
    Health Monitoring program. How do these tell stakeholders about the
    quality of the work the Research program is doing (as opposed to
    quantity) and whether this work is actually leading to accomplishments
    on the ground?
        Answer. The Forest Service is changing to a performance based
    budgeting system in order to link the Forest Service performance to the
    GPRA. In this new system, ojur performance measure will be: (1)
    Research products, tools and technologies transferred to users
    (number), and (2) Percent of Forest Land Covered. The Forest Service
    GPRA Strategic and Performance Plan uses a common set of goals or
    outcomes and to focus agencies priorities over a 5-year period. Like
    other natural research organizations within government, FS R&D is
    having extreme difficulty measuring what we do. In addition to the
    Budget Justification, we also produce State Briefing Books for Congress
    that list, by State, the kind of research our Research Work Units are
    involved in and scientific products they produce.
        Percent of Forest Land Covered is a measure of the extent to which
    the FIA program, which includes FHM detection monitoring plots, is
    fully implemented in terms of the program envisioned by the Strategic
    Plan and by the Agriculture Research, Extension, and Education Reform
    Act of 1998. As such, it is a measure of the quality, effectiveness,
    and efficiency of our ability to deliver the required program with the
    resources available. If we deliver is less than 100 percent of what we
    promise when the FIA program is funded at the level identified in the
    Strategic Plan, then program quality, effectiveness, and efficiency are
    below par.
        A full assessment of the FIA program, however, requires several
    indicators for inputs, outputs, and outcomes. Our Annual Business
    Report, as required by the Strategic Plan, identifies the following
    performance measures, which we believe collectively give a more
    complete and more detailed measure of the overall performance of the
    FIA program than is possible with any single measure:
    Inputs
        Percent of necessary federal base budget available (goal = 100
    percent)
    Outputs
        Percent of country covered by FIA in a given year (goal = 100
    percent)
        Percent of base grid sample plots measured per year (goal = 10
    percent west/15 percent east)
        Average interval (years) between state reports (goal = 5 years)
        Number of publications produced by type, peer reviewed/other (goal
    = 120/year)
        Published methodology and statistical reliability of information in
    resource reports (goal = 3-5 percent per million acres of forest area,
    5-8 percent per billion cubic feet of volume/biomass)
    Outcome
        Customer satisfaction (performance measure in development) (goal =
    100 percent)
        This report may be viewed at [www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/wo/
    Annual____Report____1999.pdf].
        Question. Is the agency working on better measures?
        Answer. Yes. We are in the process of reevaluating our performance
    measures so that we can address the quality as well as report on the
    quantity of what we produce.
        Question. When will these be available to the Committee?
        Answer. In the fall of fiscal year 2001.
        Question. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
    found that the Forest Service Research program did not interact with
    land managers enough when establishing research priorities. How are
    research priorities established?
        Answer. We prioritize research according to the nature and
    magnitude of current and anticipated problems and information required
    by managers for effective national resources management now and into
    the future. The scale of the problems and management needs differ
    between and among local, State, regional, national and even global
    levels.
        Each of the items mentioned in the question is high priority for a
    particular set of clients. The exact nature of the specific need, the
    sensitivity and resiliency of the affected ecosystems, the level of
    support from external groups, and the ongoing research programs at the
    other institutions are all factors that influence the decision. There
    is no single or discrete process by which decisions are made.
    Experience, sensitivity to customers, and professionalism, all play
    roles that are impossible to quantify.
        Question. Shouldn't land managers be integrally involved in
    establishing priorities since presumably they will be the ones who use
    the research?
        Answer. Land managers are an important category of research users.
    Whether they manage public lands or private lands, they are already
    involved in setting research priorities. National forest land managers
    already participate in the formal process of reviewing and rechartering
    of individual research work units. During those reviews, topics for
    future research studies are solicited and relative priorities among all
    the research clients are evaluated. From the standpoint of establishing
    research priorities at the regional level, Regional Foresters and
    Forest Supervisors participate in the development and review of Station
    strategic plans. These formal processes have been in place for over 20
    years.
        Question. What specific actions is the agency taking to address
    NAPA's criticisms?
        Answer. As Endnote 30 to the NAPA Report correctly indicates, the
    authorizing legislation for the Research & Development program clearly
    envisions a research organization that is to provide services to a
    broad array of customers, not just the National Forest System. To help
    provide more coordination within the Washington Office, a Staff
    Director for the R&D Deputy area has begun attending the daily NFS
    staff meeting and a Staff Director for the NFS Deputy area has begun
    attending the bi-weekly R&D staff meeting. The Associate Chief for
    Natural Resources has reviewed ongoing collaboration between individual
    Regional Foresters and Station Directors and directed the development
    of additional proposals for joint collaboration for consideration
    during the fiscal year 2002 budget development process. In some cases,
    NFS is proposing work to help R&D accomplish its research mission and
    in some cases R&D is proposing work to help NFS accomplish its mission.

                                 MISCELLANEOUS

        Question. What is the current status of the agency's efforts to
    complete the inventorying of its real property assets through the INFRA
    database system?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999 Forest Service completed the most
    thorough inventory in Forest Service history. All real property assets
    have been recorded in the Infra database, and their existence was
    physically verified within the last two years, except for the following
    asset types:
      --Roads--Level 1 and 2: These are Forest Service 19high clearance'
            and closed roads and constitute over 300,000 of Forest
            Service's 380,000 miles of road. We are requiring the field to
            accomplish a physical verification of 25 percent of these roads
            per year, in fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2003. Also,
            any changes found must be recorded in Infra.
      --Trails: We required the field to physically verify, and enter any
            changes found into Infra, 20 percent of trails in fiscal year
            1999, and are requiring the field to physically verify 20
            percent of trails in each subsequent year through fiscal year
            2003.
      --Range Fences: Forest Service physically verified, and entered into
            Infra, 33 percent of range fences in fiscal year 1999. Forest
            Service is requiring the field to physically verify the
            remaining 67 percent of range fences into Infra in fiscal year
            2000.
        While the above assets were not 100 percent physically verified, we
    believe that 100 percent of the assets are individually recorded in
    Infra.
        Also, Infra modules for the following physical assets categories
    are still under development:
      --Wildlife Habitat Improvements
      --Threatened, Endangered Species Improvements
      --Fish Habitat Improvements
      --Watershed Improvements
      --Timber Resource Improvements
      --Fire Control Improvements
      --Communication Sites
        The majority of the individual assets for these categories are
    valued at less than $5000 and would not be recorded in our Financial
    Report's capitalized values. While these assets are not yet in Infra,
    the field offices have manually controlled, collected and recorded the
    inventory data.
        We are requiring the forest supervisors to certify that the
    Physical Inventory was as required in Forest Service direction.
        Question. Will the INFRA database be capable of interfacing with
    the agency's new FFIS accounting software? Have any compatibility
    problems arisen? If so, what is the agency doing to resolve these
    problems?
        Answer. Two modules of INFRA already interface with FFIS: the
    INFRA-SUDS module that manages special use permits and the INFRA-Range
    module that manages grazing permits. Both of these interfaces provide
    billing information from INFRA to FFIS to create billing documents in
    FFIS. This records the amounts to be collected from permit holders in
    the accounting system. A third module of INFRA, Real Property, is
    currently being prepared for interfacing with FFIS. FFIS will provide
    INFRA with the costs of real property assets. INFRA will provide FFIS
    with depreciation expenses from capitalized real property assets. No
    compatibility issues exist with any of these interfaces. Files are
    simply formatted in a layout and structure that FFIS can use. Likewise,
    when providing real property costs to INFRA, FFIS will create and
    provide a file format that INFRA can use.
        Question. What is the status of the agency's efforts to resolve
    issues surrounding the application of the Service Contract Act (SCA) to
    Forest Service concessionaires?
        Answer. Over the past few years, the Forest Service, the U.S.
    Department of Labor, and the concession industry have discussed the
    applicability of the Service Contract Act (SCA) wage scales to
    government-owned campground concessions. Since October of 1999, these
    discussions have centered on whether the public service exemption (29
    CFR, 4.133 (b)) to the SCA applies to the Forest Service campground
    concession program. When the SCA public service exemption applies, wage
    rates of concessionaire employees are subject to the requirements of
    the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), rather than the more stringent
    requirements of the SCA.
        The applicability of the SCA public service exemption to Forest
    Service campground concessions depends on whether the concession
    predominantly provides a benefit to the public. The SCA public service
    exemption does not apply where the concession predominantly provides a
    benefit to the government.
        Since October, the Forest Service has been working on reworking
    both the bid prospectuses and the Special Use permits to insure as many
    concessionaire campgrounds as possible would come under the SCA public
    service exemption.
        Question. Has application of the SCA to concessionaires increased
    operating cost to the point where concessionaires have not re-bid on
    their contracts?
        Answer. The Forest Service is reworking the concessionaire Special
    Use permits so that the new permits will be appropriately included
    under the FLSA and not the SCA. A major component of the reworking is
    the requirement that the Forests would need to drop non-fee sites from
    the Special Use permits. Historically, many of these non-fee sites have
    been included in a concessionaires permit as a way for the Forests to
    reduce their cost to manage these individual sites. By removing the
    non-fee sites from the Special Use permit, the operational cost of
    maintaining these sites will again come back to the Forest Service to
    manage with appropriated funds.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns

        Question. In the fiscal year 1999 Interior Appropriations
    legislation, Congress provided the authority to enter into 28
    Stewardship Pilot Projects. In the fiscal year 2000 budget, I attempted
    to add another 9 projects for Region One of the Forest Service, but
    these projects were rejected by the administration. Why was that?
        Answer. The Administration is not categorically opposed to the idea
    of adding more pilots. The main reasons that the Administration opposed
    the nine additional projects in Region 1 in fiscal year 2000 were: (1)
    the belief that 28 pilots are adequate to test the new authorities
    granted by section 347; and (2) the belief that, if more pilots were to
    be added, the agency should be free to add them wherever it feels they
    would be most beneficial. A third factor that influenced the decision
    relates to funding. The agency was committed to implementing the
    original pilots without any supplemental funding. Were more pilots to
    be added it would have become much harder to implement all of the
    pilots, without adversely affecting program delivery in other areas,
    because of the lack of funding.
        One additional consideration is the impact on payments to states
    and counties. Under the terms of section 347, revenues derived from the
    stewardship pilots are not counted as ``monies received'' for purposes
    of determining 25 percent payments. While this provision appears to
    make sense given that these projects are pilots, and given that little
    revenue may actually be received because of the ability to trade goods
    for services or retain receipts, the exemption would unquestionably
    become more controversial as the number of pilots increases.
        Question. In this year's justification you mention in your goals
    for fiscal year 2000 that you aim to complete the 28 pilot projects,
    yet your budget does not mention the need for additional projects.
    Additionally, your fiscal year 2001 goals state that the Service will
    ``continue working on the original projects.'' Are you presuming
    failure in meeting your fiscal year 2000 goals or was this an oversight
    in preparing your justification?
        Answer. Before section 347 was enacted, the agency had already
    identified 22 pilot projects that it desired to implement--but many of
    these projects could not be implemented, as proposed, without
    additional authorities. Section 347 provided the needed authorities, so
    after it was enacted the agency brought some its original pilots under
    the scope of the legislation and selected additional pilots to reach
    the legal limit of 28--including 9 in Region 1. There has never been
    any expectation that these projects would be completed during fiscal
    year 2000. Several projects are still going through the NEPA process,
    and in all likelihood many will take as long as 3 to 5 years to
    complete. At present the agency is implementing 37 pilot projects. This
    total includes: 28 projects that are being implemented under section
    347; 8 projects that are doing something new and innovative, but
    totally within the scope of our existing authorities; and 1 project
    that has stand-alone authority to experiment with trading goods for
    services. The latter undertaking is the Granite Watershed Project on
    the Stanislaus NF in Region 5. This project is being implemented under
    the terms of the Granite Watershed Enhancement and Protection Act of
    1998. The agency's goal is to complete all of these projects as
    expeditiously as possible, but in all likelihood this process will take
    several years.
        Categorical Exclusion ruling: My office has been told repeatedly
    that I should expect the Forest Service to publish a change to the
    handbook that will reinstate the use of Categorical Exclusions for
    small timber sales.
        Question. When can I expect this announcement in the Federal
    Register?
        Answer. The Forest Service agrees with the need to quickly move
    forward with the small timber sales that do not pose significant
    environmental impacts. However, at this time we do not believe this
    will require revising our categorical exclusions. We believe that a
    simple, straightforward environmental analysis process, for projects of
    similar scope to those previously authorized as categorical exclusions,
    can be done efficiently without compromising timely implementation.
        Question. Will this publication include a public comment period?
        Answer. See response to previous question.
        Question. How long will this comment period be?
        Answer. See response to previous question.
        Question. How long should my rural communities expect to wait until
    the Service can actually being to use this management tool again?
        Answer. We will monitor the results of this approach over the next
    year and determine whether additional steps are needed, including the
    possible need for a revised categorical exclusion for small timber
    sales.
        NEPA Analysis.--Much has been made about the inability of the
    Forest Service to produce enough timber from areas that quite obviously
    need active vegetation management. Throughout my state, and the rest of
    Region One, it has been suggested by your agency employees that roving
    NEPA ID teams and more money for non-contentious NEPA analysis would
    help the Service provide an adequate timber supply while meeting forest
    health goals.
        Question. Does the fiscal year 2001 budget reflect this need and
    can you show me specific funding increases in Region One to address
    this problem?
        Answer. No additional funds have been allocated for this specific
    purpose. There should be adequate funding in the current budget
    allocation to the Region to achieve the objective of adequate NEPA
    analysis either with teams or being done by individual units.
        TMDLs.--Clearly the EPA's work on Total Maximum Daily Loads has an
    impact on forestry activity.
        Question. Should EPA forge ahead with TMDL rules impacting
    forestry, despite the concerns of Congress, what impact will this have
    on cooperative agreements the Forest Service has with private
    landowners?
        Answer. The EPA's proposed revisions to rules governing TMDLs and
    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits would
    affect the Forest Service's management of federal land. The Department
    of Agriculture and EPA have formed an interagency work group to address
    concerns that have been raised by the Forest Service and Natural
    Resources Conservation Service. That work group has been meeting
    regularly and progress is being made in resolving the concerns of the
    Department of Agriculture.
        The extent to which the proposed rules would cause an economic
    impact or increase in workload of the Forest Service is currently under
    review and difficult to estimate at this time. It is important to
    recognize the Forest Service provides technical assistance in the
    development and implementation of TMDLs in response to existing EPA
    regulation and State TMDL programs. These responsibilities exist
    regardless of whether the revised rules are adopted. State water
    quality agencies are given the lead in developing TMDLs. Cooperative
    forestry assistance to private landowners is provided through
    agreements between the Forest Service and State forestry agencies.
    State forestry agencies often work with the State water quality
    agencies to help develop TMDLs. The obligation of States to develop
    TMDLs, however, preceded the rules currently under consideration.
        Question. What impact could it have on forestry activities on
    federal land?
        Answer. See response to previous question.
        Question. Will this increase costs in any of the Forest Service's
    programs or require a shift of resources from other needs?
        Answer. The proposed rules do create new responsibilities, for
    example, a new requirement of public participation in the States'
    development of TMDLs. Such activities may increase our costs. Since
    many TMDLs are being developed on National Forest System lands, we
    expect the Forest Service will devote staff time to the public
    participation process. To the extent the new rules impose these kinds
    of additional incremental costs on the Forest Service, we want to
    identify and plan for those costs. Our interagency work group has
    discussed cost issues as well as the silvicultural aspects of the
    proposed rules.
        Question. Timber Projects.--What laws prevent the Forest Service
    from entering into long-term sustainable yield contracts with
    independent forestry companies? Why has the Forest Service abandoned
    this land management tool?
        Answer. NFMA requires us to advertise sales over $10,000 in value.
    The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act recognized two types of sustained
    yield units. One type required companies to provide private lands to be
    included with National Forests in a sustained yield unit. For example,
    the Shelton Unit on the Olympic NF provides the Simpson company an
    opportunity to obtain National Forest timber while waiting for its
    private land to grow into merchantable size. The other type was to
    provide mills in local communities with preference over other timber
    purchasers for national forest timber in the sustained yield unit. No
    additional sustained-yield units are contemplated, because this
    approach discourages modernization of mills, and limits competition.
        Special Use Fees.--The Forest Service, despite comments in support
    of recreational economies, continues to increase fees to Outfitters,
    ski areas, and virtually all other recreational uses of federal lands.
        Question. Considering these industries must operate in the
    notorious ``service'' industry and generally provide lower incomes than
    natural resource based jobs, why does the Forest Service continue
    increasing these costs.
        Answer. There are over 74,000 special use permits, spread over 140
    different types of uses for which there is only one fee charged by the
    Forest Service. This fee is the land rental fee charged for the rights
    and privilege of operating on National Forest System lands. By law and
    regulation the amount of the fee must be based on the fair market value
    of the rights and privileges given. Fair market value, by regulation is
    based on appraisals or other sound business management principles
        Since 1984 the Forest Service or Congress, in order to obtain Fair
    Market Value has adjusted the following fee schedules. They are:
    Outfitter/Guide, 1984 (with an update in 1995); Lineal Rights of Ways,
    1985, annual index to inflation; Recreation Residence, 1988, annual
    index to inflation (updated schedule currently undergoing congressional
    oversight); Communication Sites, 1990, annual index to inflation; and
    ski areas (congressional action), 1996, annual index to inflation. The
    remaining use types have been under the same fee schedule. Their fees
    have not changed unless the permit is subject to adjustments on a
    previously determined schedule.
        Question. Are they all congressionally mandated?
        Answer. See response to previous question.
        Question. Why then when we attempt to decrease these fees, cabin
    fees for example, does the Forest Service object?
        Answer. See response to previous question.
        Question. I would also like a full breakdown of all fees charged on
    federal lands within Region One. For example, what fees must an
    outfitter operating on federal land pay each year?
        Answer. The fees paid for an Outfitter/guide permit is either 3
    percent of gross revenue or average client-day charge to determine
    their fee. Additional charges are levied for grazing of livestock or
    assigned campsites.
        The breakdown for payments due to Region One in fiscal year 1999 is
    shown below:

            Type of use--code and name                          Payments due
    111--Boat Dock And Wharf................................         $323.00
    112--Club...............................................          255.00
    113--Organization Camp..................................       95,452.00
    114--Shelter............................................          459.00
    115--Private Camp.......................................          354.00
    121--Isolated Cabin.....................................        5,950.00
    123--Recreation Residence...............................      132,913.00
    133--Resort.............................................        6,012.50
    134--Recreation Lodging, Govt-Owned Bldg................       17,445.00
    141--Campground And Picnic..............................       18,577.10
    146--Target Range.......................................          204.00
    149--Recreation Event...................................        9,125.35
    152--Marina.............................................        1,611.00
    153--Outfitter And Guide................................      557,524.52
    157--Store, Shop, Office................................           51.00
    158--Vendor, Peddler....................................           51.00
    161--Winter Recreation Resort...........................       28,678.33
    162--Ski Lift, Tow......................................       14,767.79
    163--Ski Slope, Trail...................................          356.81
    164--Ski Activity.......................................          102.00
    165--Snow Play..........................................        1,542.27
    211--Cultivation........................................        6,679.40
    212--Nursery............................................           51.00
    214--Apiary.............................................          760.00
    215--Livestock Area.....................................       11,413.21
    221--Barn, Shed.........................................          306.00
    222--Fence..............................................          153.00
    223--Agriculture Residence..............................          231.00
    231--Building...........................................           55.00
    232--Corral, Pen And Livestock Area.....................        2,002.00
    241--Convenience Enclosure..............................        1,643.80
    311--Group Event........................................           51.00
    332--Monument...........................................           51.00
    333--Sign...............................................          561.00
    342--Liquid Waste Disposal Area.........................          449.00
    343--Sewage Transmission Line...........................          102.00
    351--Residence, Privately-Owned Building................        3,518.00
    361--School.............................................           20.00
    362--Service Building...................................        7,674.37
    367--Visitor Center, Museum.............................        5,315.00
    373--Other Improvement..................................          255.00
    411--Site Survey And Testing............................           51.00
    421--Experimental And Demonstration.....................        1,795.00
    422--Research Study.....................................          306.00
    432--Education Center...................................          153.00
    442--Nondisturbing Use..................................        1,107.00
    443--Disturbing Use, 1979 Act...........................           51.00
    511--Construction Camp And Residence....................          809.00
    521--Warehouse And Storage Yard.........................        1,704.00
    522--Stockpile Site.....................................          231.00
    532--Truck And Equipment Depot..........................           51.00
    551--Commercial Still Photography.......................       10,388.88
    552--Motion Picture And TV Location.....................        9,000.00
    561--Geological And Geophysical Explor..................        4,550.00
    562--Mineral Material Sale..............................       18,128.75
    571--Occupancy Permit, Reserved Mineral Right...........           50.00
    594--Yarding Corridor...................................          102.00
    612--Hydroelectric Project, FERC Exempted...............           51.00
    631--Oil And Gas Pipeline...............................       30,532.93
    632--Oil And Gas Pipeline Related Facility..............        8,384.96
    642--Other Utility Improvement, REA Financed............           51.00
    643--Powerline..........................................       36,378.49
    711--Airport, Heliport..................................           51.00
    731--Railroads Right-Of-Way.............................           51.00
    751--Forest Road & Trail Act Easement...................          332.00
    752--Federal Land Policy & Mgmt Act Permit..............        2,855.00
    753--Federal Land Policy & Mgmt Act Permit..............       28,728.13
    801--Amateur Radio......................................        1,436.73
    802--Personal/Private Receive Only......................          125.29
    803--Microwave-Common Carrier...........................       17,213.40
    804--Microwave-Industrial...............................       22,494.13
    805--Local Exchange Network.............................        1,711.83
    806--Private Mobile Radio Service.......................        7,647.67
    807--Passive Reflector..................................        2,727.72
    808--Broadcast Trans/Low Power TV & Fm..................          578.12
    809--Cable Television...................................        2,614.86
    810--Cellular...........................................       18,696.72
    815--Commercial Mobile Radio Service....................       18,724.38
    816--Am And Fm Radio Broadcast..........................        7,654.47
    817--Television Broadcast...............................       12,387.78
    818--Facility Manager...................................        3,211.67
    821--Telephone And Telegraph Line.......................       20,523.87
    831--Other Comm. Improvement, Not REA...................          102.00
    911--Irrigation Water Ditch.............................        2,428.14
    912--Irrigation Water Trans Pipeline>=12''D.............          899.00
    913--Irrigation Water Trans <12''D......................        2,898.00
    914--Water Trans Pipeline >=12''D.......................          204.00
    915--Water Trans Pipeline < 12''D.......................       14,399.00
    921--Debris And Situation Impoundment...................           51.00
    922--Dam, Reservoir.....................................       10,697.05
    923--Water Diversion, Weir..............................          459.00
    931--Well, Spring Or Windmill...........................          329.75
    932--Stock Water........................................          166.50
    941--Stream Gauging Station.............................           51.00
    942--Water Quality Monitoring Station...................          306.00
    951--Water Treatment Plant..............................          352.00
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Grand Total.......................................    1,260,029.67

        Fiscal year 2000 Forest Level Appropriations.--Following an overall
    increase in the fiscal year 2000 budget, my local forest supervisors
    have responded to some of my questions regarding their funding levels
    in a very disheartening way. Despite an overall increase, the amount of
    money distributed to the forest level is actually decreasing this year.
        Question. Can you provide me with a breakdown of the budget
    distribution to each of Region One's forests over the last three years,
    adjusted for inflation?
        Answer. The following displays the requested information for fiscal
    years 1997, 1998 and 1999. The Regional Offices were provided final
    allocations for fiscal year 2000 in the March 1 Planning and Budgeting
    Advice (PB&A), and allocations at the forest level are in the process
    of being finalized. Fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 were adjusted
    to fiscal year 1999 dollars.

                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal year
                     Forest                 --------------------------------
                                                1997       1998       1999
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beaverhead/Deerlodge...................     15,527     14,543     13,950
    Bitterroot.............................      8,727      9,332      9,038
    Idaho Panhandle........................     29,539     31,697     30,126
    Clearwater.............................     17,128     18,071     16,123
    Custer.................................      9,331      9,045      8,828
    Flathead...............................     17,023     15,381     14,662
    Gallatin...............................     10,249      9,954      9,832
    Helena.................................      7,126      7,878      8,047
    Kootenai...............................     28,847     24,701     23,877
    Lewis & Clark..........................      6,988      8,821      8,066
    Lolo...................................     18,808     18,105     16,945
    Nez Perce..............................     16,776     17,668     15,738
    AFD....................................      5,456      6,520      6,393
                                            --------------------------------
          Total............................    191,525    191,716    181,625
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Why is it that we gave an increase of funding to the FS
    of $40 million this year, yet $20 million less actually ended up at the
    forest level. Where did the money go?
        Answer. Allocations to the Regions (provided in the March 1, 2000
    PB&A) increased by $34 million from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year
    2000. The forest level fiscal year 2000 allocation from the Regional
    Offices are now being finalized. Preliminary targets for the fiscal
    year 2000 budget were provided to Regional Offices October 1, 1999.
    Using a preliminary target may account for the apparent decrease at the
    forest level.
        Question. Additionally, how will this change under the new budget
    envisioned by the Forest Service?
        Answer. Other than the savings attributable to improved efficiency,
    the total funding levels available to any unit or level of the
    organization will not change as a result of the new budget structure.
    The proposed structure will simply realign funds into a new, smaller
    set of accounts within the National Forest System appropriation. This
    structure will facilitate improved financial and performance
    accountability by simplifying the agency's accounting structure,
    providing a better linkage to the integrated goals, objectives and
    performance measures of the agency, and improving on-the-ground
    management. The agency has also taken the first step towards
    performance-based budgeting by constructing its fiscal year 2001 Budget
    Justification around a series of performance measures within this new
    budget structure. Our intent is to focus attention on what the Congress
    and the American public can expect from the agency in terms of
    performance if proposed funding is approved.
        Question. Will the shift of administrative costs to the forest
    result in a net decrease of dollars available for actual work at the
    forest level?
        Answer. As part of its fiscal year 2001 budget structure reform,
    the agency is proposing to eliminate the General Administration line
    item. By definition, this line item funds some of the indirect costs
    associated with managing the agency. These funds are distributed among
    the appropriate accounts within the proposed budget structure. All
    indirect costs, including those previously funded by this account, will
    continue to be paid for out of the appropriate remaining accounts. To
    ensure that proper accounting for these costs occur, the agency has
    implemented the cost definitions and methodology that meet standards
    established by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB).
    This proposal reflects an adjustment that will provide more financial
    accountability and eliminate an unneeded budget line item. This will
    not result in a decrease of funds available for actual work at the
    forest level.
        Question. Seasonal employees are responsible for doing much of the
    work on the national forests such as maintenance, campgrounds, trail
    work and fire suppression. Budgets in fiscal year 2000 are down 50
    percent on some forests for funding of seasonal positions. Does the
    fiscal year 2001 budget rectify this problem?
        Answer. The Forest Service hired 16,842 temporary and 556 term
    employees during fiscal year 1999. Compared to fiscal year 1998, these
    hires reflect an increase of 5 percent (16,079 temporary employees) and
    8 percent (514 term employees) respectively. The Agency expects
    equivalent temporary and term employees to be hired in fiscal year
    2000. Nothing in the Forest Service budget submission would preclude
    similar hiring levels in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Currently the Region 1 office and the Supervisors'
    offices have not received the budget for fiscal year 2000. They are
    still running under an interim budget and do not know what positions
    they can or cannot fill, what projects can be funded, etc. How long
    must our land managers wait while the national Forest Service plays
    political games with a budget appropriated over 4 months ago?
        Answer. The Regional Offices and the Supervisors' offices were
    provided preliminary targets and estimated funding for their BY 2000
    budget on October 1, 1999. Final allocations were provided to the
    Regional Offices in the March 1, 2000 Planning and Budgeting Advice.
    Public Law 106-113 (dated November 29, 1999) requiring a rescission of
    0.38 percent of discretionary budget authority complicated
    Administration decision making and played a significant role in delay
    of final allocations. Final determination of the 0.38 percent reduction
    was not accomplished until December 30, 1999.
        Question. I have been told there have been 300 new positions
    created in Washington DC just to take care of the budget and keep the
    finance house in order. Is this correct? If not, how many positions
    have been created over the last two years within the Forest Service at
    the national headquarters level?
        Answer. The CFO intends to add a total of 70 new positions in the
    Washington Office to address financial reform and program
    accountability issues. We are not aware of the figure of 300 new
    positions mentioned in your question. The 70 positions are in the
    process of being filled. The recruitment and staffing of these
    positions has been ongoing over the past 18 months. This increase of 70
    positions in the CFO Deputy Area is part of a total increase of
    approximately 150 positions in the Washington Office. It is important
    to note that the Forest Service has one of the lowest levels of
    headquarters staffing in government. Headquarters staffing comprises 3
    percent of the total workforce, compared to 33 percent for some other
    agencies.
        Question. How is it that we have all these new folks in Washington
    DC to get the finances in order but the still haven't sent an official
    budget out to the states?
        Answer. A program budget was sent to the field on March 3. This was
    a final budget. Field units had a tentative budget by the end of
    September. This was accomplished in spite of the fact that Congress did
    not enact the Appropriations Act until November 18 and the required
    across-the-board reductions were not finalized until December 30.
        Question. You cite in your budget ``increased time dedicated to
    national initiatives by Forest Service personnel.'' Overhead costs
    increase significantly, workload increases from national initiatives,
    information collection, ESA consultations, etc. every year but money
    for overhead is not given to the on the ground folks to complete the
    analysis. In your reprogramming requests coming before the
    Appropriations Chairmen this year, is any of this money going to be
    sent to the region's to replenish money spent on political initiatives?
        Answer. The overall majority of funding (appropriated funds) is
    allocated to the field. In fiscal year 2000 4.8 percent of available
    funding is allocated to cover headquarters costs. An additional 13.5
    percent of the total available funds are distributed as ``national
    priorities.'' The vast majority of this funding is provided to field
    units. The remaining 81.7 percent is directly allocated to the field.
        Question. Finally, the interagency smokejumper base at West
    Yellowstone is an important protective entity for wildland fire, urban
    interface and protection of our natural resources in Yellowstone
    National Park and the Greater Yellowstone area. What are the funding
    levels for this facility in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The Interagency Smokejumper Base at West Yellowstone,
    Montana is part of the National Shared Resources (NSR) program, which
    protects and provides initial attack for wildland fire, urban interface
    and protection of our national resources across public and other lands.
        In fiscal year 1999 the West Yellowstone Smokejumper Base
    (including the air tanker base) received a budget of $439,000; in
    fiscal year 2000 the Base is scheduled to receive about $480,000. A
    final amount will be provided in the Northern Region's final program
    budget advice that is scheduled for release April 5, 2000. (checking on
    whether or not this happened already) This budget level funds 100
    percent of MEL (most efficient level).
        In the fiscal year 2001 President's Budget the planned funding for
    the West Yellowstone Smokejumper Base (including the air tanker base)
    will be at the fiscal year 2000 level of $480,000.
        Question. When can we expect the facility to finally receive the
    money included in the fiscal year 2000 budget as passed last fall?
        Answer. See response to previous question.
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

        For quite some time, I have been concerned about the potential
    impact of the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to change the management
    of the grasslands on Western North Dakota. I've heard from more than
    20,000 North Dakotans about this issue and I've tried to work with you,
    Chief Dombeck, and others to ensure that public comments are heard and
    duly considered before any new management plan is implemented. However,
    I have grown deeply concerned about the lack of consensus that has been
    created around this plan. If anything, this new plan has driven a huge
    wedge between ranchers and environmental groups on the grasslands.
    Based on this and past experience in the process, I am concerned that a
    simple review of the comments will not produce measurable results or
    build acceptance of the plan.
        Question. What is the Forest Service doing to create a more
    cooperative environment in which win-win solutions can be reached for
    both sides currently debating the plan?
        Answer. First, let me assure you that our agency takes very
    seriously, all our proposals to make changes in management direction of
    our forest and grassland units of National Forest Systems lands. We are
    committed to expand and improve upon our collaborative efforts to more
    fully engage others in our planning processes--early on and all along
    the way. This means taking on the acknowledged challenge of listening
    to, more fully engaging, and working through differences with those who
    share our positions and those who do not. The process is not perfected,
    but that is the goal toward which we strive and will hold ourselves
    accountable. In the case of the North Dakota effort, the review of
    comments is anything but simple; it is extensive and thorough. Plans
    and plan revisions are always controversial. Considerable effort has
    been made in this current effort to achieve a more cooperative
    environment for win-win solutions.
        Please bear in mind that a Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP)
    is a programmatic decision document that allows the flexibility to
    achieve the desired direction at the local level through engaging local
    and regional groups such as the North Dakota Consensus Group and others
    in making site-specific decisions. The Forest Service anticipated the
    Dakota Prairie Grasslands controversy and attempted to bring interest
    groups together to find solutions at a time when it would have been
    effective in the planning process. One key interest was the livestock
    groups. Over three years ago it was proposed that the Forest Service
    and North Dakota Grazing Associations join the Bureau of Land
    Management Resource Advisory Council (RAC) to address key issues that
    we knew would be controversial. The North Dakota Grazing Associations
    rejected this offer. Without this key interest group, the Forest
    Service elected not to formally join the RAC, but instead maintains an
    hoc role. Again in pursuit of a win-win solution, over two years ago
    the agency asked many of the grazing associations to sponsor
    collaborative groups that included all interests to develop an
    alternative for our draft plan. Only the Little Missouri Grazing
    Association accepted this offer.
        However, as the process proceeds between the Draft and Final
    Environmental Impact Statement, we are committed to continuing our
    efforts to involve all partners in working to achieve common ground
    solutions to the issues surrounding the management direction for the
    North Dakota grasslands.
        Question. The Forest Service recently canceled the permits of the
    McKenzie and Medora Grazing Associations. Why didn't the Forest Service
    enter into mediation of the disagreements surrounding this cancellation
    when that option was clearly available to them and was obviously the
    intent of Congress according to the law?
        Answer. For many years, the Forest Service has been a party to
    grazing agreements with the McKenzie County Grazing Association and the
    Medora Grazing Association. Under these agreements, the Forest Service
    authorizes a certain amount of grazing on National Forest System lands
    in western North Dakota and delegate's authority to the associations
    for the administration of livestock grazing on these lands. The Forest
    Service is responsible for ensuring that the associations'
    administration of livestock grazing is carried out in conformance with
    federal law, regulation, and the terms and conditions of the grazing
    agreement. The most recent agreements with the associations were
    executed in 1999 for a ten-year term. However, each agreement contains
    an ``escape'' or ``opt-out'' clause, which enables either party to
    terminate the agreement six months after providing written notice to
    the other party.
        For more than a year, the Forest Service has attempted to obtain
    copies of certain classes of grazing administration documents held by
    the associations. The documents sought by the Forest Service contain
    specific information necessary to determine whether an individual is
    eligible and qualified to graze livestock on National Forest System
    lands and whether grazing is being conducted in compliance with the
    terms and conditions of the agreements. This is information that the
    Forest Service routinely maintains in its records when the agency
    directly administers the grazing permit. The associations have refused
    to provide the Forest Service with these documents.
        On February 8, 2000, the Forest Service ``terminated'' the grazing
    agreements with the associations in accordance with the escape clause
    of the agreements. It is important to note that the Forest Service did
    not ``cancel'' the grazing agreements under Forest Service regulations
    at 36 CFR 222. In announcing its decision, the Forest Service explained
    that upon the effective date of the termination, the agency would issue
    permits directly to the affected permittees in order to prevent any
    unnecessary disruption to their ongoing business operations.
        The Forest Service did not initially agree to enter into mediation
    with the associations simply because such a course of action was not
    available to the agency under its regulations at 36 CFR 251, Subpart C.
    These regulations, which were promulgated last year pursuant to the
    provisions of Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
    Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, limit mediation to specific
    types of disputes which result in a decision to suspend or cancel a
    grazing permit. Since the decision in this case was to terminate a
    grazing agreement, not to cancel a grazing permit, mediation under the
    Forest Service regulations was not an option.
        However, we are pleased to report that the Forest Service has
    recently agreed to engage in court-sponsored mediation with the
    associations in an attempt to resolve this dispute that resulted in the
    initiation of litigation by the associations on February 23, 2000.
    While hopeful that the court-sponsored mediation will be successful,
    the Forest Service has emphasized that any resolution must include the
    right of the agency to free and unfettered access to grazing
    administration documents held by the grazing associations (including
    obtaining copies of same) which are necessary to determine whether the
    associations' administration of grazing on National Forest System lands
    is being conducted in conformance with federal law, regulation, and the
    terms and conditions of the grazing agreement.
        Question. Recently, mountain biking the ``Teddy Roosevelt Connect''
    in North Dakota was ranked 24th of 100 of the National Geographic's
    Adventure 100 Trips. This is a trail that is owned and operated by the
    Forest Service and the ranking is a wonderful example of ecologically
    responsible development that has taken place. Even with this attention,
    North Dakota's grasslands remain one of the least visited locations in
    the U.S. What is the Forest Service doing to ensure that recreational
    activities on the grasslands continue to be developed?
        Answer. In the National Geographic article, the ``Maah Daah Hey
    Trail'' was mistakenly called the ``Teddy Roosevelt Connect.'' As you
    are probably aware, the Forest Service provided much of the impetus for
    its development. This 97 mile long trail was completed in 1998, and has
    already ignited a surge of tourism in western North Dakota. The Forest
    Service is also working with state agencies and other federal agencies
    to continue to improve the trail and market its virtues. The agency and
    the North Dakota Tourism Department just received confirmation from a
    television production company from Calgary, Alberta to film a mountain
    biking show on the Maah Daah Hey Trail on the Little Missouri National
    Grassland. It will be aired later this summer on the Outdoor Life
    Channel, which reaches 25 million households in the U.S. and 30 million
    in Canada. In addition, six overnight campsites are proposed for the
    Maah Daah Hey Trail and construction is planned to begin in fiscal year
    2000. Loop trails and interpretive facilities are also planned for this
    year. The CCC Campground underwent a substantial upgrade and expansion
    in 1998/1999. And the Buffalo Gap Campground is scheduled for
    renovation and further development in fiscal year 2001.
        On April 20th, the Forest Service hosted a Recreation Summit
    Workshop in Bismarck, North Dakota. Various federal, state and private
    recreational interests were represented at this workshop. Issues
    included tourist advertising, business opportunities, access routes,
    historical tourism and interpretation.
        Last summer, the Forest Service and the North Dakota Tourism
    Department initiated a major effort aimed at enhancing and promoting
    trail and birding opportunities on the Grasslands in North Dakota. Ten
    state and federal agencies have joined the Forest Service in this
    effort. Products which will come out of this include: a Birding North
    Dakota state map, an integrated web site highlighting the trail and
    birding opportunities and birding festivals.
        To attract visitors to North Dakota, the Forest Service has
    proposed issuing special-use permits for horseback riding, mountain
    biking and interpretive tours on the Little Missouri National
    Grassland. This will provide outstanding opportunities for tourism
    related businesses in western North Dakota. The Forest Service is
    currently receiving public comment regarding the issuance of these
    public permits.
        The Forest Service has recently funded a multi-partnership project
    to interpret and showcase the trail taken by Custer and the 7th Cavalry
    on their way to the Little Bighorn, as well as by General Sulley and
    the Indian ``Battle of the Badlands.'' For the Lewis and Clark
    Bicentennial, the Forest Service has funded the planning portion of a
    joint project for an interpretive trail in the Tobacco Gardens Area.
    Visitors will be able to experience the grasslands in a manner similar
    to when the Corps of Discovery traveled down the Missouri River in the
    early 1800s. A joint Forest Service/Corps of Engineers campsite and
    boat launch is also being contemplated for the Lake Sacajawea/Missouri
    River.
        Question. The Forest Service has of 230 million acres of lands to
    supervise and manage. One of the mandates of current law, as
    interpreted by the courts and the agency itself, is the practice of
    developing National Environmental Policy Act documentation for every
    permit issuance, renewal, and transfer related to grazing. While at
    times this is a proper and efficient use of Forest Service resources,
    in a substantial number of instances this is simply a waste of time and
    resources. When the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Administrative Unit was
    established, I received assurances that this process would be
    streamlined. What proposals has the Forest Service developed since that
    time, either administratively, or in the form of recommended
    legislative changes, to help alleviate this burden?
        Answer. Forest Service does not interpret current law to require
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation for every permit
    issuance. Rather current law merely requires that site specific impacts
    of federal action be considered before the action is taken. In the
    context of grazing permits, the Forest Service will, on occasion,
    address site specific impacts when looking at decisions involving
    individual permits. More common, however, is the practice where the
    agency may conduct its site specific analysis during the development of
    an allotment management plan (or plans) which may encompass many
    permits. Especially where resource conditions in an allotment (or on
    multiple allotments) are similar, this provides for an efficient use of
    agency resources in satisfying its NEPA obligations.
        Additionally, with the passage of the Rescission Act of 1995
    (Public Law 104-19, Section 504), permits may be issued with the same
    terms and conditions pending completion of NEPA review and
    documentation. This law also provided for development of a schedule on
    each National Forest to complete NEPA review and documentation where
    needed.
        A schedule for accomplishing the necessary NEPA analysis and
    decisions was established for all allotments within the Dakota Prairie
    Grasslands Administrative Unit pursuant to Section 504. The schedule
    was developed based on the traditional perspective of focusing NEPA
    analysis and decision on individual allotments. The Dakota Prairie
    Grasslands is currently gathering and analyzing baseline information
    that will allow the NEPA process to be completed on groupings of
    allotments in a much more efficient manner. This strategy will minimize
    time requirements and maximize the use of resources.
                                     ______

                Question Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings

        I want to thank Mr. Lyons and Chief Dombeck for coming and
    explaining their budget request to this Subcommittee. As you know, the
    U.S. Forest Service has been very instrumental in South Carolina's
    attempt to acquire and preserve land in my state. In reviewing the U.S.
    Forest Service's fiscal year 2001 budget request, I am pleased to see
    that the Forest Service has included three projects in South Carolina
    under their Land Acquisitions program. These land acquisitions are
    crucial to our conservation efforts and are for the benefit of, not
    only South Carolina, but the entire nation.
        The Tibwin Area, listed as the Forest Service's number three
    priority, spans a region from the Charleston-Berkeley County line to
    the Intracoastal Waterway. This area, along with the Cape Romain
    National Wildlife Refuge and the Santee Coastal Reserve, support
    enormous biological diversity. This diversity includes: habitat for 5
    federally listed animals, 2 federally listed plants, more than 30
    natural plant communities and critical habitat for neotropical
    migratory songbirds, waterfowl and shorebirds. It is my understanding
    that negotiations with property owners in this area are producing good
    results and that money appropriated will immediately be turned around
    for land purchases.
        I also want to thank the Forest Service for including the Chattooga
    headwaters and the Broad River Corridor in their Land Acquisition
    budget request. These are extremely vital projects for South Carolina
    as well.
        I do have a couple of questions though. Last year, as a part of the
    fiscal year 2000 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act, an additional $5 million was appropriated for the
    Forest Legacy Program. On February 1, 2000, the USDA sent a list to
    this Subcommittee identifying three projects for these funds. These
    projects included the Edge Phase I located in Washington, the Shooting
    Tree located in South Carolina and an undetermined project in Maine.
    Representatives Dicks and Regula sent a letter back to the USDA on
    February 16, 2000, saying that they could not evaluate the USDA request
    until the project in Maine were identified.
        Question. What is the status of this request?
        Answer. We expect the State of Maine will provide details regarding
    the $3 million proposed for projects in the very near future. Secretary
    Glickman will forward that information to the Appropriations Committees
    as soon as possible.
        Question. Is there anyway to divide these projects to allow the
    Edge Phase I and Shooting Tree projects to move forward while decisions
    on the Maine project are settled?
        Answer. The Edge Phase I and Shooting Tree projects could be
    approved separately from the Maine to-be-determined projects if the
    Committee so chooses. The Forest Service would have no objections to
    that approach.
        Question. Also, it is my understanding that the USFS does not allow
    funds appropriated for land acquisition to be used for direct costs
    such as closings and surveys. Why is that?
        Answer. With respect to the Forest Legacy Program, the Forest
    Service applies funds appropriated to the Forest Legacy Program
    Expanded Budget Line Item for all Forest Legacy program implementation
    purposes. The agency goal is to maximize the amount available for
    payments to landowners for projects and to minimize administrative
    expenses. Forest Legacy funds are available for direct costs related to
    closings and surveys. Specific expenditures are described in the grant
    agreement between the Forest Service and the State lead agency for
    Forest Legacy.
        Question. Is there a specific rule that precludes the USFS from
    allowing these funds to be used for direct costs?
        Answer. The Forest Legacy authority and program implementation
    guidelines do not prohibit payment of direct costs with Forest Legacy
    Program appropriated funds.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

        I want to commend your support in this year's budget for the Forest
    Legacy program--a program where my own state of Vermont has conserved
    over 35,000 acres and created valuable partnerships between local,
    state, and federal agencies. But, as you well know, land conservation
    is only one part of the picture to maintaining sustainable, working
    forested communities. Economic assistance to communities is an
    essential component to maintaining the vitality of rural areas. That is
    why I am concerned that the budget does not include a comparable level
    of support for economic development programs such as the Economic
    Action Programs and the Forest Stewardship Program. In fact, the
    Administration request for these programs is less than last year's
    level.
        That to me is not a balanced effort to preserve the working
    sustainable landscapes in rural America. I want to alert the Chairman,
    Ranking Member and you Chief Dombeck that I have been working with
    Senators Lugar, Murray and Bond on a letter that will have over forty
    signatures in support of increasing these economic development
    programs.
        Question. Chief, do you agree that this committee should continue
    to strongly support these economic development programs to assist
    communities and preserve their economic vitality?
        Answer. Yes, I agree that the committee should continue to strongly
    support the Forest Service Economic Action Programs. While the
    Administration request for the Economic Action Program is lower than
    the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, it does not include the $6.6
    million of Congressional earmarks that were specified in the fiscal
    year 2000 enacted level. Thus, the amount of funds available for
    program delivery is comparable to last year's level.
        Question. As you know, I have been a long-time supporter of
    conservation and the Forest Service. I am also eager to see that the
    land that is managed and maintained for its thousands of public
    visitors. This costs operational dollars. I have heard repeatedly that
    Forest Service staff in Vermont is stretched to its limits, trying year
    after year to keep some of this country's most beautiful lands cared
    for and preserved. It is my understanding that the criteria used to
    allocate each year's Forest Service operational budget tends to put the
    Northeast at a disadvantage. This may be because our lands have minimal
    on-site ``capital''--such as on-site buildings and facilities.
    Ironically, it is this pristine, minimally-developed nature of
    Northeastern lands that has made them so popular for the 70 million
    people who live within half a day's drive and who flock to the
    Northeast for hiking, fishing, mountain biking, skiing, and other
    recreational pursuits year-round.
        I would like to work with the Forest Service to ensure that
    operational budgets in the Northeast reflect the needs of Forest
    Service personnel in the region. To this end, would you please outline
    the criteria that is used to allocate operational budgets to the Forest
    Service regions?
        Answer. We have established a field-based team to develop a revised
    funding allocation and decision feedback process that is based upon
    national priorities, program analysis and the agency's strategic plan.
    It is our intention to pilot this new process for developing agency-
    wide funding requirements and allocating budget obligation authority in
    fiscal year 2001. Based upon the outcome of the pilot, agency-wide
    implementation of this new process will occur in the following fiscal
    year. This information will be provided as soon as it is finalized.
        Question. Also, would you agree to re-evaluate current operational
    budget allocation formula to better serve Northeastern forest lands?
        Answer. As discussed above, it is our intention to re-evaluate
    budget allocation criteria across all regions of the Forest Service.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid

        Executive Order 13057, signed by the President on July 26, 1997,
    was issued to ensure that Federal agency actions protect the
    extraordinary natural, recreational, and ecological resources in the
    Lake Tahoe Region. The States of California and Nevada, local
    governments and the private sector at Lake Tahoe have already committed
    millions of dollars toward their share of project funding under the
    Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) as adopted by the bi-
    state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The Lake Tahoe Presidential Forum
    set forth deliverables that included federal commitments to this effort
    of approximately $36 million dollars annually. The Forest Service share
    of this commitment should be roughly $30 million. The fiscal year 2001
    Budget justification seems to overlook specific funding for these Lake
    Tahoe projects beyond administrative operations for the Forest.
        Question. Are you allocating funds for these projects within your
    proposed budget for fiscal year 2001? If not, why not?
        The Agency budget presentation does not reflect funding below the
    regional levels. However within the Agency there has been an emphasis
    placed on increasing funding for work in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The
    fiscal year 2001 budget request included $6 million for increasing
    efforts at Lake Tahoe. We will consider including a special exhibit
    with the budget presentation for fiscal year 2002.
        Funding estimates for these projects in the fiscal year 2001 budget
    included:

    Watershed assessment..........................................  $190,000
    Watershed restoration.........................................   420,000
    Road improvements and decommissioning......................... 1,240,000
    Land acquisition and acquisition management................... 2,450,000
    Prescribed fire and mechanical treatments..................... 1,650,000
    Recreation and transportation.................................    65,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total................................................... 6,015,000

        Question. If so, why weren't these items set forth as specific
    funding initiatives as presented and suggested by the Lake Tahoe
    Transportation and Water Quality Coalition?
        The recommendations by the Lake Tahoe Transportation and Water
    Quality Coalition have not been incorporated into budget presentations
    as specific funding initiatives. In part, this is because, with few
    exceptions, the Agency budget presentation does not reflect funding
    below the regional levels. Oftentimes interest groups and coalitions
    such as this do not present their recommendations to the agencies in
    the budget formulation stage so that they can even be included in
    exhibits. Through capability statements and other means we do respond
    to these requests from the Appropriations Committees thus providing the
    Congress with the information to make appropriation decisions.
        Forest Service is currently reviewing alternatives for the repair
    and/or construction of 1.5 miles of the South Canyon Forest Service
    road. Simultaneously, Elko County and Forest Service are involved in
    litigation that includes, but is not limited to, the ownership of the
    road. Forest Service also appears to be working cooperatively with the
    US FWS, Nevada State Fish and Game, Elko County officials, and the
    public for road design and location alternatives.
        Question. Is the current status of litigation impacting or delaying
    the final decision for the road repair?
        Answer. The Regional Forester is currently negotiating with Elko
    County to resolve the litigation in a timely manner. In order to comply
    with the confidentiality agreement with Elko County, the Regional
    Forester cannot comment further at this time.
        Question. Please provide a brief, concise statement on the status
    of the negotiations and provide a comprehensive list of road design
    alternatives for South Canyon Road including associated costs.
        Answer. The Regional Forester is currently negotiating with Elko
    County to resolve the litigation in a timely manner. In order to comply
    with the confidentiality agreement with Elko County, the Regional
    Forester cannot comment further at this time.
        According to your testimony, the draft EIS for the Forest Service
    Roadless Initiative is to be completed this spring. A complete roadless
    area inventory should be included as an assessment of the current
    management situation. As you know, the Humboldt-Toyabe National Forest,
    including the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, is of particular
    interest to me. Unfortunately, the digital maps for Nevada posted on
    the Forest Service WEB page, do not include current data for those
    areas that have not been inventoried. In light of this situation:
        Question. When can we expect the data from current inventory
    activities of roadless areas to be available for public review?
        Answer. The draft environmental impact statement and proposed
    roadless rule will be available for public review in the spring of
    2001.
        Question. When will the roadless inventories from older forest
    plans and RARE II be verified and updated?
        Answer. The Forest Service began identifying roadless areas through
    RARE I in 1972. In 1979, the agency completed RARE II, a more extensive
    national inventory of roadless areas. RARE II built on the data in RARE
    I, and in most cases forest plans and other assessments were built on
    RARE II. In the limited circumstances where a forest plan or other
    assessment did not have a more recent inventory of roadless areas, the
    Forest Service used the RARE II inventory
        Question. Will a separate existing road inventory project be
    required to establish an accurate, complete, and up-to-date road
    inventory prior to completion of the proposed Roadless Area analysis
    and Record of Decision?
        Answer. The national forests and grasslands are currently
    conducting inventories and condition surveys; however, it is the Roads
    Policy that addresses requirements for road inventories, including the
    requirement to inventory existing classified, unclassified, and
    temporary roads. Some historic roads may be included if they are
    currently open for use and are classified.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Byrd. So the subcommittee will stand in recess untill 9:30
    a.m., Tuesday, April 4, when we will receive testimony on the fiscal
    year 2001 budget requests for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
    Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. Hon. Kevin Gover,
    Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior; Hon
    Thomas Thompson, Principle Deputy, Special Trustee for American
    Indians.
        [Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., Wednesday, March 22, the subcommittee
    was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, April 4.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2000

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:34 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gorton, Burns, Campbell, and Dorgan.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                         Office of the Special Trustee

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

                            Bureau of Indian Affairs

    STATEMENT OF KEVIN GOVER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            JOE CHRISTIE, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION
                PROGRAMS
            HILDA A. MANUEL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INDIAN AFFAIRS
            DAVID A. GILBERT, BUDGET OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TRUSTEE
            PAMELA K. HAZE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET, OFFICE OF
                THE SECRETARY

                   Opening statement of Senator Slade Gorton

        Senator Gorton. Good morning. This is the Subcommittee on
    Interior's third hearing with respect to the fiscal year 2001
    budget for agencies funded through the subcommittee. And today,
    of course, we are going to hear testimony from the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee for
    American Indians.
        At the outset, I want, once again, to welcome you, Mr.
    Gover. It is a real pleasure to see you. And it has been both a
    pleasure and productive to have worked with you over the course
    of the last several years. You are both highly professional and
    extremely candid.
        At the same time, I want to welcome Principal Deputy
    Trustee for American Indians, Mr. Thompson, who has been acting
    as Acting Special Trustee. Thanks for your willingness to take
    on that very difficult challenge that has a great deal of
    stress and I am sure takes a tremendous amount of your time.
    Your work in that connection is very much appreciated.
        I think we will start with you, Mr. Thompson. And after we
    direct questions to both you and to Mr. Gover on the special
    trustee's budget, we will then move on to the BIA budget
    itself. The budget request for BIA is about $2.2 billion, which
    is more than a $300 million increase over the year 2000.
        This is a very substantial increase and is distributed
    primarily to trust fund management, law enforcement, education
    operations, backlog maintenance and school construction. The
    largest of those increases is for school construction, a field
    which is in dire need.
        The administration is looking for more than $300 million
    for the construction of the schools, more than double that for
    the year 2000. I am pleased to see that education, construction
    and school repair emerged as high priorities for the
    administration. My colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici,
    has been persistent on this subject for as long as I have
    chaired this subcommittee. And obviously, his efforts have been
    rewarded in this budget request.
        Because the Senate is beginning debate on the budget
    resolution, I doubt that we will see Senator Domenici here this
    morning, but I know he has a very high degree of interest in
    the subject.
        The Office of Special Trustee, about $95 million is
    requested, about the same amount for the fiscal year 2000,
    $12.5 million for Indian land consolidation and an effort to
    address the ever-expanding problem of fractional interest in
    Indian lands. A land consolidation request is $7.5 million more
    than the 2000.
        Next, about $82.6 million is requested for the Office of
    Special Trustee to operate the various trust programs for
    Indians. This request is a bit of a decrease under the fiscal
    year 2000 funding.
        Last year, Secretary of the Interior Babbitt was forthright
    in identifying the Office of Special Trustee as his number one
    priority for appropriations. This subcommittee responded by
    providing the full amount of his request, which was a large
    increase over the previous year. We will have an opportunity to
    hear from Secretary Babbitt tomorrow, but I suspect that trust
    management reform will remain a high priority.
        I expect the subcommittee will continue to be responsive to
    this pressing need, but that will depend in large part on what
    you tell us here today. We are most interested to hear about
    your progress.
        I have made a concerted effort to increase funding for
    American Indians and Alaska Natives throughout my term as
    chairman of this subcommittee, and I will continue to do so. It
    is imperative that we ensure adequate education and safe
    communities for all Americans.
        In addition, it is certainly important that this country
    live up to its trust responsibilities in a respectable and
    professional manner.
        As we proceed with this year's appropriations process, it
    will be increasingly necessary for us to work together in order
    to target the most crucial areas and to focus on the top
    priorities. It is highly doubtful that the total allocation to
    this subcommittee will be equal to what the President has
    requested.
        And Mr. Gover is well aware of our work in each of these
    years in attempting to work within what we have and to direct
    our funding at the most emergent needs.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        And I think that the Office of Special Trustee will do the
    same thing, if you give us the proper insight into your
    opportunities.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Slade Gorton

        Good morning. This is the Subcommittee on Interior's third hearing
    regarding the fiscal year 2001 budget requests for agencies funded by
    the subcommittee. Today we will receive testimony from the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee for American
    Indians.
        At the outset, the subcommittee welcomes the Assistant Secretary
    for Indian Affairs, Mr. Gover. It's been a pleasure working with you
    over the past several years. I have appreciated your high level of
    professionalism and your candor. Also, on behalf of the subcommittee, I
    welcome the Principal Deputy Trustee for American Indians, Mr.
    Thompson, who has been serving as Acting Special Trustee. Thank you for
    your willingness to serve as Acting Special Trustee--a stressful
    position that has demanded much time and energy. Your hard work has
    been appreciated.
        The subcommittee will first have Mr. Thompson present the budget on
    behalf of the Office of the Special Trustee. After questions are
    directed to both Mr. Gover and Mr. Thompson regarding the Office of the
    Special Trustee's budget and the trust management improvement project,
    we will then move on to the Bureau of Indian Affairs' budget.
        In total, the budget request for BIA is approximately $2.2 billion
    which is a $331.9 million increase over fiscal year 2000. This is a
    rather large increase over fiscal year 2000--almost 18 percent--and is
    distributed primarily to trust fund management, law enforcement,
    education operations, backlog maintenance, and school construction. The
    largest increase requested within BIA's fiscal year 2001 budget is for
    school construction, an area which is in dire need of funding. The
    administration seeks $300.5 million for construction of schools, an
    amount that is approximately $167 million over the fiscal year 2000. I
    am pleased to see that education construction and school repair have
    emerged as high priorities for the administration. My colleague from
    New Mexico--Senator Domenici--has been particularly persistent on this
    issue for as long as I have chaired this subcommittee, and I am pleased
    to see that his efforts have been rewarded in this budget request. We
    will do our best to be responsive within the constraints that are
    placed upon us.
        For the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
    approximately $95 million is requested for fiscal year 2001. This is at
    about the same level as the amount enacted for fiscal year 2000 for the
    Office of Special Trustee accounts. This request is broken down as
    follows: Approximately $12.5 million for the Indian Land Consolidation
    in an effort to address the ever expanding problem of fractional
    interests in Indian lands. The land consolidation request is $7.5
    million more than the enacted fiscal year 2000 amount. Second,
    approximately $82.6 million is requested for the Office of Special
    Trustee to operate the various trust programs for Indians. This request
    for the Special Trustee is about a $7.4 million decrease below the
    fiscal year 2000 funding.
        Last year, Secretary Babbitt was forthright in identifying the
    Office of Special Trustee as his number one priority for
    appropriations. This Committee responded by providing the full amount
    of the request, which was a large increase over the previous year. We
    will have an opportunity to hear from the Secretary tomorrow, but I
    suspect that trust management reform will remain a top priority. I
    expect this Committee will continue to be responsive to this pressing
    need, but that will depend in large part on what you tell us here
    today. We are most interested to hear of what progress you are making.
        I have made a concerted effort to increase funding for the American
    Indians and Alaska Natives throughout my term as chairman of this
    subcommittee and will continue to do so. It is, of course, imperative
    that we ensure adequate education and safe communities for all
    Americans. In addition, it is certainly important that this country
    live up to its trust responsibilities to the American Indians and the
    Alaska Natives in a respectable and professional manner.
        As we proceed with this year's appropriations process, it will
    become increasingly necessary for us to work together in order to
    target the most crucial areas and to focus on the top priorities. I
    encourage both the Bureau and the Office of Special Trustee to offer
    insight throughout this process to ensure that we find ways to
    effectively and efficiently provide funding for the most critical
    areas.
        I thank you for your participation in this hearing today, and, I
    look forward to working with both of you throughout this appropriations
    cycle.

        Senator Gorton. Senator Byrd is not here this morning.
        Senator Campbell, do you have an opening statement?
        Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I have no opening
    statement. I will just ask some questions.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. I have no statement. I am looking forward to
    the witnesses.
        Senator Gorton. Well, that is very kind for you to sit here
    and listen to speeches without making a statement at all.

                    Summary Statement of Thomas M. Thompson

        And so with that, and under those circumstances, Mr.
    Thompson, we would like to hear from you.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to present the
    President's fiscal year 2001 budget for the Office of the
    Special Trustee.
        The sum of money we request, as the chairman pointed out,
    is about $95 million. Substantial amounts of this money are, of
    course, shared with the BIA and other line agencies in
    Interior. All the money is directed towards trust reform.
        The major differences in the budget are about a $7.4
    million reduction in OST's operations. These are nonrecurring
    or funds that have been shifted to BIA and are offset by about
    a $7.5 million increase for Indian Land Consolidation,
    basically a push in the budget. It reflects the fact that OST
    has concluded some of the work that we had promised you last
    year. I will talk about that briefly in a moment here.
        I would say also that in addition, the Office of the
    Special Trustee supports the critically needed request in BIA's
    budget, trust operations budget, for about $35 million, which
    are needed for additional staff and to institutionalize and
    maintain the trust improvements we have accomplished to date.
    This is basically a restoration or a reflection of the
    reductions suffered by BIA in past years in the field for these
    operations.
        Again, these requests reflect the continued emphasis the
    administration and the Secretary place on Indian trust reform.
    Let me highlight some of the accomplishments of the past year.
        In line with the commitment I made to you last year, OST
    has completed its installation of the new Trust Funds
    Accounting System. It is a modern, off-the-shelf, commercial
    accounting system used by about 60 percent of the banks that
    manage trust funds across the country.
        The system covers all trust accounts, both tribal and IIM,
    and also all the trust investment money. We have something on
    the order of about 270,000 accounts on that system now. All of
    them are transferred off the old legacy, the old system, now.
    That was step one in our effort to improve trust.
        In addition, as a complement to this, BIA has piloted its
    TAAMS system. This is the land management system that replaced
    two antiquated systems in BIA. They expect to begin deployment
    of this system this summer. And we will roll that out over the
    next year, year-and-a-half time frame. The two systems together
    will give us the foundation for trust reform into the future.
        In addition to this work, we have also had to do
    significant trust data cleanup both in OST and BIA. We have
    done substantial amounts of that work, and that work will
    continue. In the case of OST, we brought the records into a
    centralized location and set up file jackets for each
    individual account holder. We have a paper file now behind each
    of the account holders.
        We did note a significant shortage of paperwork. We are
    looking for that paperwork now. In BIA's case, they are using a
    contractor to go out to their field operations at about 9 of
    their 12 regional locations now doing data cleanup in
    preparation for the TAAMS implementation.
        We also this year initiated a major effort to improve
    records management across the Interior Department, establishing
    a specialized staff that supports both Mr. Gover and myself on
    records management in Albuquerque.
        It is being shepherded, I would say, closely by the court,
    who has an intense interest in our management of records. We do
    not have everything fixed yet, but we have a plan. And we have
    the staff to make that work over the next three years.
        In addition, BIA is well on its way to eliminating the
    appraisal backlog that we had discovered during the course of
    this cleanup and bringing that work on line.
        I guess lastly I would mention that the Department just in
    the last month published a revised High-Level Implementation
    Plan, which is our road map to the reform effort. In this
    effort, we have reviewed the work we have done.
        We have learned from the work in the past. We have improved
    upon this plan, making it more robust and increasing the number
    of milestones, critical milestones, that must be accomplished,
    laying them out in specific detail so they can be tracked both
    in staff, budget and accomplishment-wise.
        I would have to tell you that while much work has been
    done, there is still much work that remains to be done. One of
    the things that hit us this last year would be the amount of
    effort that the people involved in trust reform have had to
    spend with regard to the Cobell litigation.
        I can tell you myself personally, in the last three months
    probably 95 percent of my time has been involved with
    litigation activities, not directly on trust reform. That is a
    rough estimate, obviously.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        And one final note, as you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the
    President has nominated Mr. Thomas Slonaker as Special Trustee.
    The Senate confirmation hearing was held March 22. I
    particularly hope the Senate will move promptly to confirm him,
    so he can join us in this trust reform effort.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to answer any
    questions. And I will turn it over to Kevin to discuss some of
    the budget for BIA operations activities.
        [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 2001
    budget request for the Office of the Special Trustee for American
    Indians (OST). The total fiscal year 2001 request for the OST accounts
    is $95 million, about the same level as fiscal year 2000 enacted. This
    request includes an increase of $7.5 million for Indian Land
    Consolidation that is offset by a $7.4 million reduction in OST
    operations that are non-recurring or shifted to the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA). The combined OST and BIA budget requests reflect the
    continued emphasis the Administration and the Secretary place on
    implementation of Indian Trust Asset Reform efforts and the resources
    needed to sustain the operational and organizational improvements
    initiated in previous years. Improvements in systems, operations and
    policies are critically needed to ensure the Federal Government meets
    its fiduciary obligations to Indian tribes and individual American
    Indians. New systems linking the management of underlying trust assets
    and the financial accounts are expected to begin operations in late
    2000 to ensure that collections and payments are accurate.
        The BIA requests a $35.1 million increase for trust management
    functions, including real estate services, probate, cadastral surveys,
    and land titles and records programs. These increases are absolutely
    crucial to ensure that the trust management improvements we are
    implementing are institutionalized and maintained in the long term.
        Eliminating Indian trust management deficiencies continues to be
    the highest management priority for the Department. Secretary Babbitt
    has testified repeatedly to our commitment to resolve the decades-old
    trust fund management issues. This Committee provided significant help
    in solving this problem by fully funding our fiscal year 2000 budget
    request. As a result, the Department has been able to make progress in
    implementing much-needed reform efforts.

                    INDIAN TRUST MANAGEMENT REFORM PROGRESS

        In line with the commitment we made to you last year, conversion of
    individual Indian accounts to the new Trust Fund Accounting System
    (TFAS) will be completed by May. Implementation of TFAS, suitable for
    both Tribal and IIM accounts, will be operational nationwide in all BIA
    and OST Regional locations by that date. The BIA has piloted the Trust
    Asset and Accounting Management System in one location and expects to
    begin deploying the land title functions of the system to other
    locations late this spring. Some additional accomplishments include:
      --Publishing a revision to the High Level Implementation Plan (HLIP),
            which outlines progress made toward completing improvements in
            trust management and lays out additional steps that must be
            taken to reach the goals and objectives that we have
            established. Significant headway has been made in establishing
            new trust management and financial systems that will handle the
            hundreds of thousands of records that are the foundation of a
            reliable trust management program.
      --Significant data clean up activities have been completed in OST.
            Similar efforts are underway in BIA. Both OST and BIA will
            continue data clean-up in support of the new systems.
      --BIA is well on the way to eliminating appraisal backlogs this year.
      --Probate backlogs will be addressed through probate re-invention
            efforts and additional staffing in both the BIA and the Office
            of Hearings and Appeals (OHA).
      --Additional Records Management staff has been hired, records
            management training is ongoing, and assessments of BIA records
            storage locations will begin this year.
      --Additional staff is being hired to address internal control issues
            and manage the overall training programs.
      --Joint efforts are also underway to address policies and procedures.
        It should be noted that Department-wide, staff who are responsible
    for these accomplishments continue to be heavily involved in providing
    support to the Cobell v Babbitt litigation, while also carrying on
    their day-to-day responsibilities. Many of the initiatives are
    supported or accomplished by contractors. We estimate that
    approximately 65 percent of the funds provided for trust management
    improvements will be obligated through contracts.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        The 2001 budget includes a comprehensive proposal to continue
    ongoing trust management improvements, institute permanent and lasting
    changes in trust management functions in BIA, and resolve land
    ownership fractionation, which is one of the root causes of trust
    management problems.
        For Program Operations, Support and Improvements, $80.4 million is
    requested, which includes $58.4 million needed for continued
    implementation of the trust management improvement activities of OST,
    BIA, and OHA. These funds will be used to operate the trust fund and
    trust asset and accounting management systems, address account data
    problems, and further reduce backlogs in trust asset processing
    functions. The Department has installed and is operating a Trust Funds
    Accounting System (TFAS), suitable for both Tribal and IIM accounts.
    The Department also is piloting and will begin installation of a
    standardized, commercial off-the-shelf land management system
    technology, referred to as Trust Asset and Accounting Management System
    (TAAMS), which will replace the aging BIA trust asset management
    systems and land title and records and minerals royalty systems.
        Another $19.6 million is required to support day-to-day financial
    trust activities at the Office of Trust Funds Management, including the
    field staff and support services. Included in the request is an
    additional $726,000 for increased staffing and support costs to sustain
    improvements in various trust operations activities within OST,
    $580,000 for Office-wide fixed costs such as pay raises and increased
    space costs paid to the General Services Administration, and $423,000
    for increases in other administrative support contract costs.
        A total of $2.5 million is requested to fund the Office of Trust
    Litigation Support, a net decrease of $2.7 million from fiscal year
    2000 due to a decrease in requirements for funding tribal settlement
    support activities and ongoing litigations efforts.

                              EXECUTIVE DIRECTION

        For Executive Direction, $2.2 million is requested, an increase of
    $496,000 above fiscal year 2000. The immediate Office of the Special
    Trustee will need additional staff to oversee and coordinate trust
    improvements Department-wide as the pace and scope of improvements
    accelerate. This request 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.

                               LAND CONSOLIDATION

        Our fiscal year 2001 budget requests $12.5 million for the Indian
    Land Consolidation Program, an increase of $7.5 million above the
    fiscal year 2000 enacted level. We need to expand the pilot land
    acquisition program to consolidate fractional interests and support the
    reopening and acquisition of ``Youpee'' interests in allotted Indian
    lands. In 1999, BIA implemented a pilot program on three reservations
    in Wisconsin and by the end of 2000 will have acquired over 36,000
    fractional interests in allotted Indian lands. The 2001 request will
    allow us to acquire up to 40,000 additional fractional interests.
    Resolving land ownership fractionation is key to trust reform efforts.
    We are pleased that the Committee on Indian Affairs has approved S.
    1586, which will provide permanent authority for the Indian Land
    Consolidation Program. We hope the Senate will approve this bill soon.
        One final note Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the President has
    nominated Mr. Thomas N. Slonaker to serve as Special Trustee for
    American Indians. The Committee on Indian Affairs held the confirmation
    hearing on his nomination on Wednesday, March 22, 2000 . We hope the
    Senate will confirm Mr. Slonaker quickly, so he can join the
    Departmental effort to address Indian trust management reform.
        This concludes my opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be
    pleased to answer questions of the Subcommittee.

                             TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING

        Senator Gorton. We have set this up so that we would ask
    questions of your office first and then go to the general BIA.
        And do either of my colleagues have questions for the
    Deputy? I have several, but I defer to you.
        Senator Campbell.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Thompson, you mentioned, I think you said, 270,000
    accounts you have set up.
        Mr. Thompson. That is right. There are 270,000 accounts
    that are on the new trust funding accounting system, both
    tribal and----
        Senator Campbell. When you say set up those accounts, what
    does that entail? Do you have names, addresses, activities,
    actual money that has not been--or has occurred but has not
    been given to the tribes or----
        Mr. Thompson. Let me see if I can break it down a little
    bit for you. You are right. We do have a significant number of
    accounts where we have a name and we have a sum of money, but
    we do not have a current address on the individual. We have--
    part of our data cleanup work is to go out and search for
    those.
        For example, we can go to Indian gatherings, to Indian
    meetings, to meetings of tribes, to pow-wows with a team from
    the OST office with the database on a computer and ask people
    to come and identify, self-identify. That has some success for
    us.
        The other thing that we are doing that is generating more
    success is working with information bureaus, a credit bureau,
    where we supply a name and a social security number. They are
    able to match and provide a current address on many of these
    individuals.
        Our success rate is on the order of 70 to 75 percent. So we
    are working towards locating those people who we do not have a
    current address on.

                               60 MINUTES SPECIAL

        Senator Campbell. OK. Did you see that 60 Minutes special
    that was on Sunday night about the trust fund mismanagement?
        Mr. Thompson. Yes, I did, Senator Campbell.
        Senator Campbell. I just happened to see it this morning.
    And I found it very interesting, but not anything particularly
    new on it.

                             NATIONAL ARCHIVES FIRE

        You talked about some of the methods that you are doing
    some of the research. I understand in March there was a fire at
    the National Archives, which reportedly destroyed some of the
    Indian trust documents.
        Mr. Thompson. Our information--actually, our information is
    that there was water damage to some of the boxes. I think this
    involved some 1,900 boxes of records that were being staged to
    be shipped to Albuquerque for processing and cleanup in
    response to the court's request. There was a fire in the local
    warehouse. Water damaged some of the boxes.
        But the review in the final report was that there was no
    damage that was not recoverable. While records got wet, we were
    able to dry and clean them.

                                     TAAMS

        Senator Campbell. Well, that is good. The GAO has told us
    that there are functions of TAAMS, the lease function and the
    title function, that they are being split and that only the
    title function will be implemented as part of TAAMS. Would you
    comment on that?
        Mr. Thompson. I would be happy to. I would point out that
    when we first made the plans for the work to improve the
    systems in BIA, I had recommended and conceived that we would
    do two systems, one a title function, one a land management
    function. The decision was made by the BIA, and the Department
    to combine that effort.
        In the development stages, that is exactly what they did.
    And it turns out to have been a pretty successful effort. What
    we have now is a title module within the TAAMS system that is
    ready to go. It involves about nine sites across BIA to deal
    with land title.
        The people are being trained. They are anxious to get their
    hands on the system, if you will. It is an easily severable
    action. And I support the move to run the title piece out first
    while we finish the work on the rest of the system and bring
    our two systems together.
        Senator Campbell. Well, I am glad you have employees
    looking forward to getting their hands on the system, because I
    know there are a lot of Indians out there that are looking
    forward to getting their hands on their money.
        Mr. Thompson. We share that.
        Senator Campbell. So I wish you luck and hope you have some
    speedy success in straightening out that mess.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                        CROW RESERVATION LEASE PAYMENTS

        Senator Gorton. Senator Burns, do you have any questions.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a
    couple of questions.
        I know you have had all kinds of trouble with your
    computers and things like this. And I was going to suggest to
    you, for $47, buy a Quicken program and maybe start working on
    that.
        I have a specific question with regard to the Crow
    reservation. It has been required by BIA now that payments to
    leaseholders be made through the BIA rather than to the
    specific tribal members that hold those allotments. And in
    light of the situation, it is causing quite a lot of problems
    down there with both the tribal and non-tribal members who
    lease those from the lessee.
        Could you comment on that, where this issue stands, and why
    that has to be? This is a change in policy that has happened
    just this year.
        Mr. Thompson. May I confer with Mr. Gover just----
        Senator Burns. That will be fine.
        Mr. Gover. If I might, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Burns, we have not yet made that change. We are
    considering making such a change and have begun to consult with
    the tribes. The issue applies not just to Crow but at a number
    of reservations where we have historically allowed what we call
    direct pay from the lessee to the Indian lessor.
        The problem with it is that the Trust Reform Act requires
    us to do an accounting of the income, the proceeds, from the
    land that these Indian people own. And we are struggling with
    how we can do an accounting when we never see that money. We do
    not know for a fact that the lease payments are being made.
        We are not anxious, frankly, to make the change, because
    the people on reservations have come to rely on that direct
    pay, both the Indian owners and the lessees. Nevertheless--and
    this is an issue that came up in the Cobell litigation--we are
    analyzing whether we must require them to make the payments to
    the BIA and allow us to forward them to OTFM, to pass it on to
    the Indian owners.
        So it is a dilemma and one that we have not resolved yet,
    that we are struggling with.
        Senator Burns. Do we need to change some legislation?
        Mr. Gover. Certainly if the Congress made clear that direct
    pay is authorized, then we would abide by that and allow the
    tribes the option. It is the old dilemma. The tribes want, and
    should have, more control of their property, less involvement
    by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. At the same time, the Congress
    has not yet released us from our responsibilities for the
    management of these assets.
        And so to the extent control is taken from the Bureau,
    there must be a corresponding adjustment in our responsibility
    for the resource.
        Senator Burns. Thank you very much. This situation has come
    up down there. And I thank you for your explanation. And maybe
    we should take a look at that, Mr. Chairman, because I guess it
    is not only just in the case of the Crow, but there are other
    situations, too.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                               COBELL LITIGATION

        Senator Gorton. I think I would like to follow up on--you
    made a reference, Mr. Gover, to the Cobell decision or
    litigation. Would both of you explain how it affects your
    priorities, your choices, the transfer of some responsibilities
    at Albuquerque, and when you expect them to be concluded, or
    whether there is legislation or anything on an appropriations
    bill that could help you resolve that issue? Just give us
    generally an explanation of how it has affected you.
        Mr. Gover. It has delayed matters, hopefully not by very
    much, but hopefully by weeks instead of months. But the fact
    that the judge chose to prevent us, I think out of an abundance
    of caution, from completing the transfer that we had underway
    and, more importantly, requiring us to take contractors out of
    the effort in order to protect the trust data, really has
    slowed us down. In the end, I do not think it will slow us down
    by much.
        The committee has already been very helpful to us in the
    appropriations bill last year by acknowledging what the NAPA
    report said and by providing funds, one of the purposes of
    which was to accomplish this transfer of function from
    Albuquerque to the District of Columbia
        So we continue to appear before the court. We are very
    hopeful that the judge will lift the injunction so that we can
    complete the transfer of the data. The people have already
    moved. The people who were going to move from Albuquerque to
    Reston have already made the move. But our systems and our data
    remain in Albuquerque. And so obviously, we are not through
    yet.
        Senator Gorton. Do you have any comment, Mr. Thompson?
        Mr. Thompson. Just a brief one. As Kevin said, it has been
    a matter of delay of weeks. We had a close call as we tried to
    get ready to do the conversion of the last three regions to the
    new trust fund accounting system. That is scheduled--it was set
    for the 31st of March.
        In early March, the temporary restraining order was
    extended to apply to us. And so we had to tell our contractors
    to back away. And it was touch and go as we got ready.
        But by working through the weekends and some extra hours,
    the Albuquerque staff was able to make the conversion. It just
    puts a lot of pressure on people. There is a lot of paper
    involved in litigation and finding----
        Senator Gorton. OK. If this continues and begins to
    significantly impact what you are doing, I hope you will keep
    in contact both with Senator Campbell and with me to see
    whether there is some of that red tape that we could help you
    cut, if we are still at it by the time we get to this
    appropriations bill.

                               CREDIT CARD MISUSE

        Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, I have one other question here
    that was just brought to my attention.
        How widespread is this misuse of these credit cards for BIA
    employees? We know there have been 13 people in the Montana/
    Wyoming region that have been disciplined, and one of them is
    under Federal indictment for misusing a credit card. How
    widespread is this?
        Mr. Gover. I am not familiar with a lot of misuse of the
    credit card. What we are having trouble with is making sure
    people pay their bills on time. And we have just instituted a
    system by which, if payments are not timely, we will begin
    taking the money out of their paychecks.
        And I cannot imagine exactly what leads someone to think it
    is okay not to pay their credit card bill, because they are
    being reimbursed by the Government for the appropriate uses of
    the card. But it seems to be a Department-wide problem and one
    that management is being very aggressive about remedying.
        Senator Burns. Well, these cards, are they held by the
    individual, as an individual account, rather than by the BIA?
        Mr. Gover. Yes, that is right. It is a little complicated.
    Each of us is issued a credit card. I have one in my pocket
    right now. We are supposed to use it only for Government
    purchases, most often for travel. But there are other purchases
    that are authorized. And we are encouraged to use the card
    because it produces a prompter payment to the vendors from whom
    we are purchasing office supplies, for example.
        One of the problems is that we never--the way the system
    works, certain aspects of the travel, airline fares and rental
    cards, are paid directly by the Department. And so that has
    created a problem in how we are processing the reimbursements
    and how people are paying on their cards. But there is a
    problem, and it is one that we will not tolerate from the
    employees.
        Senator Burns. Is there a credit check prior to the
    issuance of that card?
        Mr. Gover. Senator Burns, I do not know whether there is or
    not.
        Mr. Thompson. Senator Burns, I believe the individual card
    company does do a routine check. But if there is nothing in the
    file, then they will automatically or routinely issue it. And I
    would have to say OST discovered a similar problem to what
    Kevin mentioned.
        And when I found that out, I called for a very strict
    accounting. And we did take action on people who were not
    paying their bills. And it did result in disciplinary actions
    and some removals.
        Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, that is--I think it is a
    situation----
        Senator Campbell. Do you have a way of recovering that
    money, if it was an unauthorized expenditure?
        Mr. Thompson. The first attempt we made was to garnish
    wages, retirement funds and things. We lacked that authority,
    we were told. We have had instances where people actually quit
    the position.
        Senator Campbell. Once they leave the Government, we cannot
    garnish their wages. While they remain with the Government, we
    can.
        Mr. Thompson. We actually cannot, is my understanding. We
    may not. We tried to do that.
        Senator Campbell. You cannot?
        Mr. Thompson. We changed the policy yesterday in order to
    be able to do that.
        Senator Campbell. That is not garnishing wages.
        Mr. Thompson. That is right.
        Senator Campbell. But if you leave the Government, you are
    out of luck, we are out of luck.
        Mr. Thompson. If they leave the Government, our option is
    to sue them to get it back.
        Senator Campbell. Have you done that? Have you initiated
    any lawsuits to do that?
        Mr. Thompson. Right. And we will also deduct it from their
    final paycheck. But remember, with these cards what they end up
    owing follows them out of the Government. They still owe that
    credit card company money. And the credit card company will
    pursue them.
        Mr. Gover. It is a personal debt, but it----
        Senator Burns. Does the credit card have any--let me ask
    another question now. That would be pretty tough to collect, if
    the credit card companies are put in the same position as any
    other financial institution off reservation.
        Mr. Gover. Well, Senator, you can collect that sort of
    debt. A debt incurred off of a reservation is subject to State
    court jurisdiction. And these debts in general are incurred off
    the reservations.
        Senator Burns. OK. But if they stay on reservation----
        Mr. Gover. Well, I suppose someone could stay on the
    reservation indefinitely, but that is really not a viable
    option. We all have to leave at some point.
        Senator Burns. All right. Well, I just wonder how
    widespread this is, because it is concerning. By the way, this
    story just came across the wires this morning.
        Mr. Gover. I was not aware of that. We have been aware of
    the problem, and we are----
        Senator Burns. It was just released this morning. And 13
    people in 1 region were in trouble. I just do not know how
    widespread this would be. But I think it warrants your
    attention.
        Mr. Gover. It has our attention. We discovered the problem,
    and we are very aggressively pursuing the employees who have
    not paid what they owe.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Dorgan had a question on this.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I was not aware of this. And
    I appreciate the actions you are taking. But it seems to me
    like it is not a good policy to issue a credit card.
        It sounds to me like this was a credit card sanction by the
    Government, that an employee can use for official purposes,
    such as airline ticket, hotel bill, car rental agency, and then
    also apply personal charges to that card. Is that right?
        Mr. Gover. That is not authorized.
        Senator Dorgan. It is not authorized. So----
        Mr. Gover. We may not use it for personal purposes.
        Senator Dorgan. I see. And so the discipline that you are
    taking against folks is not for charges that were personal. It
    was in the form of cash advances. Is that right? Tell me----
        Mr. Gover. It would be a combination of things, failure to
    pay promptly, cash----
        Senator Dorgan. But pay what promptly? My understanding is
    that if that employee charges the airline ticket, you pay the
    credit card directly from your agency.
        Mr. Gover. That is correct.
        Senator Dorgan. So what is left on the credit card?
        Mr. Gover. You will have per diem charges and personal
    charges, restaurant----
        Senator Dorgan. Personal charges.
        Mr. Gover. Excuse me. Restaurant charges, not personal for
    clothing, things like that, but items in the line of official
    business.
        The way they come to light, though, is that we will note
    that somebody is not paying on time, that we are getting
    monthly reports in each bureau of anyone who is delinquent in
    paying them. And then it is considered our responsibility to
    follow up.
        And what we are discovering is that from time to time there
    will be personal charges on these cards, and that can lead to
    discipline.
        Senator Dorgan. It sounds to me like not a good policy to
    have a card out there in the hands of folks who are using it
    for an airline ticket on the one hand, but then dinner
    somewhere on the other hand. And you reimburse directly for the
    airline ticket, not for the dinner.
        And then you have a circumstance where you have a debt owed
    on a credit card that was effectively authorized to be issued
    by the Federal Government to an employee. That is a messy
    policy, I think.
        Mr. Gover. It is good intentions gone awry, Senator. We try
    to give the employees the capability to ensure prompt payment.
    In the Government, for example, if I went and purchased a box
    of paper with my card, it would be quickly reimbursed. The
    vendor is paid.
        The problem is at the back end in making sure, one, it was
    a legitimate charge and, two, that the individual employee is
    reimbursed and promptly pays the credit card.
        Senator Dorgan. A fair point. I think you should review,
    however, the credit card program itself and evaluate is this a
    program that really makes sense.
        And second, I hope you would provide for the committee your
    list with specifics of the enforcement actions you have taken,
    how many, where, when, how and so on. I think that would be
    helpful to us.
        Mr. Gover. I would be happy to.
        Senator Campbell. May I add to that, Mr. Chairman, in that
    report to the committee I would like to know how many people
    have cards over there, if you would add that, too.

                               FUNDING PRIORITIES

        Senator Gorton. Mr. Thompson, before we finish up with you,
    do you recognize, as I said to Mr. Gover in my opening remarks,
    it is highly questionable that we will have enough money to
    appropriate everything that the President has asked, which is
    going to require you and your successor, I guess, to help us
    with priorities.
        I have a related question to that. How close are your
    priorities to those of your constituents of a wide number of
    unique Indian tribes, each of which may have its own set of
    priorities? How closely allied are you in the direction that
    you wish to go and the order in which you wish to accomplish
    your goals?
        Mr. Thompson. I think we are pretty comfortable at this
    point. We have in the Office of Special Trustee an advisory
    committee to the Special Trustee. It is a group of nine,
    including five tribal leaders.
        Today that group includes the chairman of NCAI, the major
    litigant in the Cobell litigation, Eloise Cobell, and the
    chairman of the Intertribal Monitoring Association, which is
    the main tribal group of about 40 tribes, who have stayed with
    this issue over the last 10 years. And we are in practically
    daily contact with them. Kevin and I have both met with them
    frequently the last few months.
        So we are hearing from them. They are telling us what they
    want. And I think we are probably closer today than we have
    been in years in terms of where we are headed.
        Senator Gorton. Last year both the Bureau and the Secretary
    made it very clear that the highest priority was adequate
    funding for trust reform efforts. In light of the change in the
    President's budget this year, does it remain the highest
    priority?
        Mr. Thompson. Every indication I have is it is the highest
    priority. It certainly is for me and I suspect for my new boss
    coming in. I think I will let Kevin answer for his side.
        Mr. Gover. And for the Bureau of Indian Affairs as well.
        Senator Gorton. OK. Senator Dorgan, you did come in later.
    What we are attempting to do is finish any questions for the
    Special Trustee. His statement has already been made. We have
    not had the opening statement by Mr. Gover yet. When we finish
    with the Special Trustee, we are going to Mr. Gover.
        Do you have any more questions for the Trustee?
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I do not. And I have another
    committee hearing. I wonder if I could just take 1 minute
    before we recognize Mr. Gover.
        Senator Gorton. You certainly can. Yes. Go ahead. This is
    an appropriate time for it.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me thank
    you again for holding the hearing. This is very important, as I
    have indicated to Mr. Gover previously, that we deal with here
    in Congress and in the administration with what I think is a
    bona fide emergency in health care, housing and education on
    America's Indian reservations.
        I am not going to go through chapter and verse again of all
    the numbers and talk about the schools and the health care
    facilities and the housing circumstances, but I have done it on
    the floor of the Senate many times. I could do it here easily
    and talk about Sarah Swift Hawk freezing to death in a home
    that did not have windows at 45 below zero or so on the Pine
    Ridge Reservation, and the little kids that are walking through
    school doors on Indian reservations that are not getting a good
    education because their schools are in dramatic disrepair.
        And there are only two school systems, Mr. Chairman, that
    we run in the Federal Government. One is our military bases.
    That is our responsibility. Those are our schools. We run them.
    And the second is the BIA school systems for young Indian
    children.
        And I am telling you, you go into many of these schools,
    the Ojibwa school in North Dakota, right now, go into that
    school right now, and you will come away thinking you are
    embarrassed to have children go through those classroom doors.
    That school needs renovation and new investment. And we need to
    do it. It is our responsibility. It is unfair to those kids not
    to do that.
        Now, I have taken more than a minute, but I would say the
    President's budget takes a step in that direction. We
    appreciate that. But we need to take great leaps as a Congress
    and as an administration to recognize our responsibility in the
    crisis in these three areas: health care, education and
    housing. And they are in deep crisis.
        I will be speaking more about these with Assistant
    Secretary Gover and others and also speaking on the floor and
    talking to you, of course, Mr. Chairman, and also talking to
    the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Campbell.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        That is enough for now. And I would like to put my entire
    statement in the record. And thank you.
        Senator Gorton. Without objection.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan

        Mr. Chairman, as we stand at the brink of the 21st century, there
    are both tremendous challenges and tremendous opportunities facing
    Indian country. As you know all too well, Indian country is generally
    not benefitting from the robust economy that is helping most Americans.
    However, in 1999, we took a number of important steps to drive this
    point home, and hopefully reverse that trend. In May of last year,
    tribal leaders met at my request with President Clinton and a number of
    high-ranking Clinton Administration officials to discuss the desperate
    housing, education, and health care needs still facing Native
    Americans. In July, President Clinton became the first sitting
    president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to visit an Indian
    reservation, when he traveled to the Pine Ridge Reservation in South
    Dakota to see firsthand the great unmet needs that exist in Indian
    country. The President recognized the need for more assistance for
    Native Americans in his annual State of the Union address.
        The President's 2001 Budget is a positive step forward. President
    Clinton's budget request for fiscal year 2001 takes a positive step
    forward in addressing the needs in Indian country that he has seen and
    heard about firsthand. I am particularly pleased about that the
    President recommends $300 million for BIA school replacement and
    repair, $1.3 billion in new funding for an emergency school renovation
    loan and grant program for public schools with little or no capacity to
    bond, a $200 million increase in the Indian Health Service budget and a
    $103 million increase in the joint Department of Justice-BIA law
    enforcement initiative.
        But in terms of the need in Indian country, the President's budget
    request still represents only a ``drop in the bucket'' relative to the
    actual housing, health care, and education needs.
        With respect to housing needs, we shouldn't allow another tragedy
    like that of Sarah Swift Hawk, who died last year on a reservation in
    South Dakota because she was living in substandard housing, sleeping on
    the only cot, without any heat and temperatures 45 degrees below zero,
    and only a thin blanket to warm her. In Indian country, 50,000 new
    homes need to be built, 16,000 homes need to be replaced, and another
    40,000 homes need to be renovated in order to meet the housing needs of
    American Indians living on reservations. 40 percent of the homes in
    Indian country are considered substandard. Homes in Indian country are
    7 times more likely to be without clean water than homes generally in
    the United States.
        Indian health is in a similarly dismal situation. Native Americans
    are still 5.3 times more likely to die of tuberculosis, 4.4 times more
    likely to die of chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, 3.3 times more
    likely to die of diabetes, 3 times more likely to die in an accident,
    and nearly twice as likely to commit suicide. The IHS ``hospital'' in
    Fort Yates, ND, is in desperate need of replacement. The Emergency Room
    is literally just that--a room in the middle of the outpatient clinic
    area. When an emergency does occur, the clinic has to stop seeing the
    routine patients in order to have room to take care of the emergency.
    There are no operating rooms (so therefore no baby deliveries), no
    physical therapists, not enough examining rooms, one dentist serving
    4,000 people, and patient bathing facilities that aren't handicapped
    accessible. The average age of IHS facilities is 32 years.
        Sadly, Indian education is also in terrible condition. Schools
    serving Indian children--whether they are BIA-funded schools or public
    schools--have facilities that are among the poorest in the nation. The
    General Accounting Office reported in 1998 that 62 percent of BIA
    schools need extensive repair or replacement and are generally in
    poorer physical condition than even inner-city schools. Not
    surprisingly, the deficiency in facilities carries over into
    deficiencies in student performance. The annual drop-out rate for
    students attending BIA schools is nearly three times the national
    average, and more than half of all BIA students are not proficient in
    math or language arts. The simple fact is that children cannot learn
    when they are worrying about PCBs, rather than their ABCs. The BIA
    school system is one of only two federally-operated school systems. I
    recently asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a study
    comparing the physical facilities and academic quality of BIA and DOD
    schools. Chairman Gorton, Ranking Member Byrd, Indian Affairs Committee
    Chairman Campbell, and Vice Chairman Inouye joined me in making this
    request.
        Even with the funding increases requested by the President, there
    would continue to be great needs in Indian country. A nearly $700
    million backlog in the repair of BIA schools would remain, meaning that
    thousands of Indian children every day continue to attend classes in an
    environment not conducive to learning. Tribal governments estimate that
    an IHS budget of $15.1 billion--or more than 5 times greater than the
    President's budget request for 2001--is required to meet the health
    care needs of Native Americans and Alaska Natives. In addition, $435
    million in funding is necessary to repair or replace existing
    dilapidated homes in Indian country, and another $985 million is needed
    to address the housing shortage. Even though the President's budget
    recommends a $46 million increase, there is still only a total of $682
    million for both of these purposes.
        I want to conclude by simply stating that funding for Indian
    programs has not kept pace with overall growth in the budget, even
    though Native Americans are among the most vulnerable populations. The
    people in Indian country have the highest poverty rate in America--31
    percent. The unemployment rate on North Dakota's reservations averages
    about 55 percent, compared to a national unemployment rate of about 4
    percent. Over the last decade, funding for Indian education, health,
    and housing programs has grown only slightly, or even declined, when
    inflation is taken into account.
        We simply must reverse these trends in underfunding of Indian
    programs, and the President's budget request for fiscal year 2001 is a
    good place to start. In an 1815 speech, chiefs and warriors of the
    Ottowan and Chippewa tribes spoke eloquently of broken promises made to
    tribal governments: ``The promise you made to our forefathers was that
    we should never be in want of anything, that you had plenty and that we
    should always be supplied of our wants. . . . Your children want to
    refresh your memory. They think you have forgotten the promises made to
    them.'' I will be working on this Subcommittee to turn these good words
    into promises made good.

                     Summary Statement of Hon. Kevin Gover

        Senator Gorton. Mr. Gover, we will now hear from you.
        Mr. Gover. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. And we will have--if there are other
    questions, we will submit them to you in writing, Mr. Thompson.
        Mr. Thompson. Would you like me to retire?
        Senator Gorton. That is OK.
        Mr. Gover. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me especially
    thank the committee and the Chair for your assistance in the
    fiscal year 2000 appropriations.
        We know very well that at the end of the Congress this
    committee and the Chair was very helpful to us in meeting some
    of the urgent priorities that we described last year.
        And I should point out that this is quite likely my last
    appearance before this committee and just want to acknowledge
    the work of the Chair and that these agencies, these bureaus
    that we work with, are very complex entities. And in order to
    make progress in them, it requires a lot of people to agree,
    most importantly, the people who work in the bureau, but also
    the appropriating and authorizing committees.
        And to the extent we make progress in the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, that is at least as much to the credit of this
    committee and our authorizing committee as it is to those of us
    who work in the agency.
        The second preliminary matter I would like to note is, I
    have with me Mr. Joe Christie, who is the Acting Director of
    the Office of Indian Education Programs, and Deputy
    Commissioner Hilda Manuel. As it happens, Mr. Chairman, this
    will also be their last appearance before this committee in
    their current capacities.
        Mr. Christie has been acting for, I guess, over a year now
    as the Director of the Office of Indian Education Programs and
    has been very aggressive in pursuing reforms and in that branch
    of our organization, requiring accountability both from the BIA
    schools, the schools that we still operate, as well as the
    grant and contract schools, which tribal school boards operate.
    And we are very grateful for his work.
        He will soon be replaced by a permanent Director of the
    Office of Indian Education Programs. And I just want to
    acknowledge his efforts publicly and for the committee.
        And second, Deputy Commissioner Hilda Manuel will be
    leaving Government service at the end of this week. She has
    chosen to pursue opportunities in the private sector. We are
    very, very grateful for Hilda's work over the last five years.
    These have been very difficult times, very challenging times,
    in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, a time when we have gone
    through great changes in trying to at long last get this agency
    doing the things that it is supposed to do as well as possible.
        And none of this progress would have been possible without
    Deputy Commissioner Manuel. And I know we will miss her very
    much. And again, we thank her for her service.
        Mr. Chairman, to respond to your earlier question, trust
    services has to be our top responsibility and our top priority.
    The Bureau is a victim over the years of shifting priorities.
    One year we will focus on one issue. Before we quite finish
    that job, we will turn to another critical situation. And many
    of our programs are in a critical state at this moment.
        And yet, if we do not finish the work that we have begun on
    the trust responsibility and our trust services, it will just
    reoccur in a very short time and expose the government to even
    more liability than it currently faces.
        So in addition to the reform resources that we need in the
    Office of the Special Trustee, we also need just a basic
    expansion in the BIA's capabilities at the reservation level to
    provide these services. What we are finding, as we go forward
    and do the data cleanups and try to install TAAMS and carry out
    the various other programs, probate and appraisals, et cetera,
    is that even if we throw a large amount of money at the problem
    right now and clean up the backlogs, those backlogs absolutely
    will recur in a few years, if we do not expand our basic
    capabilities at the reservation level.
        Now, again, we are confronted with a dilemma in policy
    Congress has made and the administration has supported. The
    trust service programs on the reservations have fallen into
    disrepair in no small part because of the priority setting that
    we have engaged in with the tribes. And the tribes view this
    correctly as our responsibility.
        And when they are allocating resources, they are basically
    saying trust is your problem, you take care of it, we have
    other problems to deal with, and we are going to take care of
    them in our priority setting.
        And what routinely happens is, we see a migration of
    resources from some of the basic programs that the United
    States has, such as trust, law enforcement, and into the other
    social service programs to meet dire problems that the tribes
    themselves are confronting. And so that, as much as anything,
    is the reason that we are so shorthanded at the reservation
    level in these trust programs.
        And so we are asking the committee and the Congress this
    year for an additional $35 million to go into our basic realty
    functions, our basic probate functions, and our appraisal
    functions, simply in order to meet the ongoing demand that we
    anticipate over the next few years in our day-to-day service
    programs on the reservations.
        The second matter where we focused, as the Chair noted, is
    in school construction. And I will not again recite the
    terrible conditions that exist in our BIA schools, except to
    thank the committee, thank Senator Campbell and Senator
    Domenici especially, for bringing this issue forward and
    basically continuing to push the administration until finally
    we respond with a budget that I think begins to deal with this
    issue.
        If we were to receive the funding that we have asked for
    this year, it would basically double the number of schools we
    can build in a given year. Each of those schools that are on
    the existing list are in abysmal condition. There can be no
    question in anybody's mind that they must be replaced.
    Unfortunately, there are probably another 55 to 60 schools that
    are either in the same condition or very soon will be.
        Our facilities tend to be over 30 years old. The average
    life, the planned life, of any school facility is about 30
    years. We have schools--45 percent of our schools are over 30
    years old, some as much as literally 100 years old. And they
    just have to be replaced.
        And so for that reason, the President has come forward with
    a very aggressive budget, both for new construction and for
    major renovations that have to be carried out in order just to
    meet the basic safety requirements to make sure, or try to make
    sure, that the children are not injured in our schools.
        The third item we wish to especially bring to the
    committee's attention is law enforcement. We have made great
    progress in the last 2 years in expanding our law enforcement
    program. This is year 3 of the President's 4-year plan to
    expand law enforcement services on the reservation. This, too,
    is a primary responsibility of the United States in Indian
    country, to provide adequate law enforcement services.
        And this year we have asked for an additional $18.8
    million. That would result in a 100-percent increase over the
    last 3 years to our law enforcement budget, and that is exactly
    in the order that is necessary to provide even adequate
    coverage on the reservations.
        Unfortunately in the past year, again, two of our officers
    were killed, one violently. And in both cases, we had no
    backup. They were alone. They were in a very remote part of
    their community. And we were unable to render the assistance
    that might have saved their lives.
        The fourth item and the final item I would like to
    especially mention to the committee is the implementation of
    the National Academy of Public Administration report. We have
    made good progress so far. We have transferred both our
    Division of Accounting Management and the Office of Information
    Resources Management from Albuquerque to the District of
    Columbia area. That transfer has now been made of the
    personnel. They are here and they are on duty.
        In addition, we have just now received from the Secretary
    permission to go forward with the reorganization of my office.
    One of the things that NAPA pointed out was that, frankly, I
    had resisted in the first 2 years of this administration was
    the notion that what we essentially have in BIA is two separate
    agencies. We have the education side and we have the Office of
    Indian Program's side.
        The only logical supervision and oversight of those two
    operations is in the Office of the Assistant Secretary. And it
    only makes sense to provide the resources, the authority and
    the responsibility to each line organization separately
    overseen from the Office of the Assistant Secretary. And for
    that reason, NAPA recommended, and we are pursuing,
    establishment of an Office of Policy, Management and Budget in
    the Assistant Secretary's Office to provide four major
    functions. One, to oversee all of our financial undertakings.
    We would appoint a Chief Financial Officer, and that person
    would be responsible for overseeing the financial activities of
    the two line organizations.
        Second, we would appoint a Chief Information Officer. The
    Bureau does not make adequate use of technology. We have no
    integrated plan for how to use technology in our operations.
    And it simply has to cease. That is where we can realize some
    savings, if we can begin to use technology appropriately.
        We literally have people in the field who are still
    operating on old systems that require the use of control keys,
    as opposed to the point and click with the mouse, that are not
    operating in a windows environment. That is how old our
    technology systems are.
        The third function would be a human resources function. We
    currently have no plan, no program, for moving people forward
    on a career path. We have no way of identifying talent in the
    organization, except by happenstance, and no plan for
    developing the kind of skills that are going to be necessary in
    a 21st century workforce. And the human resources office would
    deal with that.
        And then finally, near and dear to my heart, we would have
    a policy and planning operation. The committee and the Congress
    regularly ask us for information, asking us to analyze the
    effect of our programs, analyze the effect of various policies
    that have been enacted and implemented. And we are unable to do
    so. We have no staff that does that.
        Instead we have to fall back on our program directors, take
    them off their business of running their programs, and get them
    to basically take on the additional duty of policy analysis.
        And I think if we had a staff that was dedicated to the
    kind of policy analysis that the committee regularly asks us
    for, we would do a much better job of providing the kinds of
    information that the Congress needs to prioritize our budget,
    to oversee our activities, and to grant us, both grant and take
    away, such authorities as seem appropriate.
        So, Mr. Chairman, we realize that this is a very aggressive
    request. We are grateful to the administration that they have
    come to share our view of the needs that exist in Indian
    country. I would just emphasize that the watchword on the
    proposals we make is really responsibility and accountability.
        We are not looking for additional funds in areas as to
    which there is controversy about the additional need. We are
    focusing on the Bureau's primary responsibilities, which are
    education, law enforcement and trust services, and asking only
    for major additional funds in those areas.
        The chairman asked a little earlier whether this coincides
    with the tribal priorities, certainly the tribes wish to see
    the trust system reformed. But I do think from our review of
    the budget submissions that the tribes present us annually in
    the development of our budget, that they would not necessarily
    share these particular priorities. That is to be expected.
        They have a different view of the world living in those
    local communities and have to deal much more directly with the
    urgency of the situation than do we.
        Nevertheless, I do think that over the years the primary
    responsibilities of the United States have tended to be
    overlooked in favor of some of these urgent social needs that
    exist on the reservation. And it has become more and more clear
    to me that if the Bureau cannot carry out its primary
    responsibilities, then its overall mission necessarily fails.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        And each additional dollar does less good than it could, if
    we did the basic things correctly, and then came back to the
    Congress and said, now that we have our agency functioning in
    an appropriate way in our basic responsibilities, we would like
    to talk to you about taking on some additional
    responsibilities.
        So, Mr. Chairman, that is my testimony. I thank you for
    your time.
        [The statement follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of Kevin Gover

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am
    Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department
    of the Interior. It is my pleasure to be here today to present the
    President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA).
        The President's budget for fiscal year 2001 is a component of the
    overall Administration initiative to infuse an additional $1.2 billion
    into Indian Country to respond to the overwhelming needs of the First
    Americans. The Administration's Native American Initiative will provide
    $9.4 billion to strengthen Indian communities through improved health,
    education, housing, economic development, and other programs in more
    than 45 Federal entities.
        To respond to these needs, the BIA is proposing a substantial
    increase that, if passed, will allow us to replace six crumbling
    schools on reservations, provide programs to help reservation residents
    stay safe and strong, and find ways to use the resources of the Federal
    Government to create jobs and opportunities on the reservations.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET OVERVIEW

        The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the BIA is $2.2 billion in
    current appropriations, an increase of $332 million above the fiscal
    year 2000 enacted level. The budget emphasizes the need to strengthen
    our schools through quality education within structurally sound and
    adequately equipped and maintained school facilities, protect our
    communities through increased law enforcement personnel on
    reservations, and continue trust reform improvements.

                                   EDUCATION

        On January 31, 2000, the BIA released the Education Facilities
    Replacement Construction Priority List, which replaces the 1993
    Priority List. The new list is comprised of three schools from the old
    List, which have yet to receive funds for construction, and 10 new
    schools. The first six schools from the List are included within the
    BIA's $300.5 million request for Education Construction, the largest
    amount ever requested for this category. The request is $167.3 million
    over the 2000 funding level, an increase of 126 percent.
        While most educational facilities are built to function for 30
    years, over 45 percent of these buildings range from 30 years old to
    100 years old. The budget request provides for increased construction,
    equipment and rehabilitation of school facilities for more than 50,000
    Indian students who attend the BIA's 185 schools. Schools may be
    operated directly by the BIA or by Tribal organizations under the
    Public Law 100-297 grants.
        Research has demonstrated that placing instructional and
    residential programs in facilities that do not meet health and safety
    codes distract from the educational program. The cost estimate of the
    BIA's backlog work needed to abate critical deferred maintenance
    deficiencies in education facilities currently exceeds $800 million. To
    respond to these needs, the BIA's request includes an increase of
    $103.4 million over the 2000 enacted level to address critical health
    and safety concerns at existing education facilities. This request will
    fund both maintenance and improvement and repair projects which will
    reduce the deferred maintenance backlog while improving the physical
    environment for learning.
        To attain a good education, the Indian leaders of tomorrow have to
    have the ability to get to school. Many Indian Country roads are badly
    in need of repair and in a state of deterioration. The budget request
    includes an increase of $5.3 million for Road Maintenance. This
    increase will help with student transportation as well as improve
    access for emergency vehicles.
        The 185 schools funded by the BIA comprise one of only two school
    systems managed by the Federal Government; the other school system is
    managed by the Department of Defense. BIA schools are located in remote
    locations across the nation in buildings which are deteriorating around
    students. For the classroom, the BIA is seeking an additional $39.7
    million for School Operations, $2.9 million for Tribally Controlled
    Community Colleges, and $2.2 million for Scholarships.
        The BIA is focusing on providing programs which make a difference
    in a student's life. An increase of $6.8 million is requested to double
    the number of FACE (Family and Child Education) programs from 22 to 44
    sites. This invaluable program benefits both students and their
    families. The FACE program is a family literacy program that serves
    families and their children from birth through grade 3 and is
    culturally relevant for the communities it serves. The evaluation of
    the program demonstrates that students who participate in FACE score
    significantly higher on standardized tests of reading and mathematics
    than children who do not participate in the program. Over 350 adults
    have gained their GED or high school diploma and over 1,000 adults have
    gained employment as a result of their participation. Parents indicate
    that participation in FACE has helped them to become more involved in
    their child's education, a strong indicator for a child's success in
    school.
        The BIA is also seeking an additional $8.2 million to implement the
    Therapeutic Residential Model (TRM) at 6 pilot sites. The TRM is a
    program to address the multitude of individualized services for high
    risk students attending BIA-funded boarding schools. Over 10,000
    students attend BIA boarding schools. They are the highest risk
    students due to economic conditions and home environments. The BIA is
    not adequately staffed to meet their needs. The request will allow the
    BIA to establish the 6 pilot programs which will result in positive
    changes in attitudes, behavior and academic performance of Indian youth
    attending BIA-funded boarding schools.
        The request also includes $3.0 million for the School Statistics
    Initiative. This program will allow the Bureau to gather important data
    on its schools in order to improve the quality of education. Also, it
    will make it possible for the Bureau to report to the Congress on such
    important indicators as student achievement, retention rates, transfers
    between schools, and student drop out rates. Finally, it will make it
    possible to automate the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP)
    which will ensure schools quicker access to their funds and greater
    accountability of student funding data.

                                LAW ENFORCEMENT

        The fiscal year 2001 budget request seeks an increase of $18.9
    million for law enforcement in Indian Country. Crime, specifically
    violent crime involving young people, continues to rise significantly
    in Indian Country. The funding increases for law enforcement over the
    past two fiscal years for the Presidential Initiative on Law
    Enforcement in Indian Country have begun to address the tremendous
    Indian Country crime problem.
        There has been a positive effect over the past two years with the
    increased law enforcement funding the Congress has provided for the
    Initiative. Community and proactive policing has been instituted and
    officers now have modern weapons and state of the art bullet proof
    vests. Many old police vehicles with over 100,000 miles have been
    replaced and the Indian Police Academy training capability has doubled.
    There has definitely been progress. To continue these steps forward,
    the BIA's requested increase of $18.9 million will be used to assist
    Tribes in retaining COPS-funded police officers, staff detention
    facilities, provide 24-hour radio dispatch service, and improve two-
    way radio communications through conversion to narrow band technology.
        As BIA's partner in the Initiative, DOJ has provided grants funds
    to Tribes for the construction of critically needed detention
    facilities. Realizing that DOJ has no mechanism to staff these
    facilities, the BIA has agreed to request staffing dollars for these
    new jails. The need for detention space has increased dramatically with
    the additional police officers on the streets which naturally means
    more incarcerations. This in turn necessitates more detention
    personnel.

                               TRUST IMPROVEMENTS

        A total increase of $35.1 million is requested for trust management
    improvement reforms in the BIA. Efforts underway are a continuation of
    the joint effort between the BIA and the Office of Special Trustee
    (OST) on implementation of the Secretary's High Level Implementation
    Plan (HLIP) for the Trust Management Improvement Project (TMIP). In
    fiscal year 2001, the BIA will continue to work with the OST and the
    Department to improve the administration and management of its trust
    responsibilities. Funding for the BIA's HLIP sub projects is requested
    under OST. The HLIP is centered on 11 major sub projects that will
    update trust systems, policies, practices, and procedures and make one-
    time investments to reduce backlogs. As part of the overall effort to
    remedy the fundamental cause to Indian trust management, an increase of
    $7.5 million is requested under OST to expand the Indian Land
    Consolidation program.
        To ensure trust management reforms are sustained, the BIA's
    requested increase includes program funding increases for several trust
    programs. These additional resources are critical to ensuring that
    accumulated trust management problems being corrected under HLIP do not
    reoccur. The BIA's budget request includes a $12 million increase for
    on-going real estate services to improve real property management
    services and ensure timely processing of transactions (i.e., sales,
    acquisitions, rights of way). To assist in protecting trust resources,
    an increase of $5.3 million is proposed to perform cadastral surveys.
    Additional increases include: $2.2 million increase for real estate
    appraisals to ensure compliance with appraisal standards and timely
    completion of appraisals; a $3.0 million increase for Probate to
    provide sufficient staff for probate functions; and an increase of $4.8
    million for the Land Titles and Records Office to ensure land records
    are kept current. For general trust services, a $4.0 million program
    increase is requested to provide technical support to Tribes and ensure
    compliance with complex environmental and cultural resource
    requirements. An increase of $2.0 million is also requested to expedite
    the processing of Alaska allotments.

                              OTHER TRIBAL SUPPORT

        The request also includes an increase of $3.5 million for Contract
    Support to bring the total funding level to $128.7 million. This
    increase will allow the BIA to meet approximately 88 percent of the
    reported need. The BIA is also seeking to replenish the Indian Self
    Determination Fund ($5.0 million) for new and expanded contracts or
    compacts.
        As part of the Administration's New Market initiative, the BIA is
    seeking $2.0 million for Technical Assistance Grants to provide in-
    depth technical assistance to Tribes and individual Indians to
    establish, acquire, or expand for-profit businesses on or near
    Federally recognized Indian reservations. This assistance would include
    market feasibility studies, development of business plans, best use
    yield studies and management contracts. Tribes and Indian entrepreneurs
    will be provided technical assistance at an average cost of $15,000
    each. Implementing this program will allow the BIA to assist 113 Indian
    businesses succeed in Indian communities.
        As part of a multi-agency, cross-cutting effort to implement a
    recent court-ordered Federal subsistence fishery program to bring
    Alaska into compliance with the Alaska National Interest Lands
    Conservation Act, the BIA is requesting $500,000 for Alaska
    Subsistence. In response to a recent Ninth Circuit Court ruling, the
    Federal Government must now assume management responsibility for
    subsistence fisheries in all navigable waters on and adjacent to
    Federal conservation units in Alaska. The BIA's role will focus on
    ensuring that input from Native entities is received and considered by
    the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, and Bureau of Land Management in establishing fishing seasons
    and regulations covering approximately 102,000 miles of rivers and
    streams and about half of Alaska's inland waters. Support would be
    provided to the Bureau's Alaska Region and to the State of Alaska.
    Input from Tribal governments would occur through a bottom-up process
    and network.

                                      NAPA

        To continue the implementation of the recommendations of the
    National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), the BIA requests an
    additional $4 million in fiscal year 2001 to bring the total available
    funds for NAPA implementation to $9.2 million. The $5.2 million
    appropriation provided by the Congress for fiscal year 2000 is being
    used by the BIA to meet initial implementation expenses, including the
    relocation of the Division of Accounting Management and the Office of
    Information Resource Management to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan
    area. While this transfer is not complete, the BIA estimates the
    relocation costs may total $3.8 million for the one-time expenses of
    moving personnel household and office files from Albuquerque, N.M., and
    establishing new office operations in the Washington area. Last month,
    Plaintiffs in the Cobell v. Babbitt litigation brought, and the
    District Court entered, a temporary restraining order (TRO) to bar
    contractor access to confidential individual Indian trust data related
    to the relocation of the Office of Information Resource Management
    (OIRM). As a result of the TRO, the workplan to relocate OIRM has been
    interrupted and operations of OIRM systems have been curtailed until
    the BIA is allowed to permit contractors access to the data.
        In addition to transferring functions, it is my priority to use the
    remaining fiscal year 2000 funds to establish the recommended Policy,
    Management, and Budget (PMB) Office, and fill the key positions of the
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for PMB, the Chief Financial Officer, the
    Chief Information Officer, the Director of Policy and Planning, and the
    Chief, Human Resources. Once these positions have been filled, these
    senior managers will begin planning and developing internal procedures
    and long-term plans for their respective areas.
        The President's fiscal year 2001 budget requests of $9.2 million to
    fully staff the PMB offices and begin funding improved field operations
    since the one-time relocation costs will be met in fiscal year 2000. We
    are estimating that when the workload analysis is completed that this
    level of funding will be sufficient to fully fund the centralized
    portion of education operations administrative support, partially fund
    the education administration in field offices, and allow full funding
    of administrative support to the law enforcement field organization.
    Funding will also be used to begin placing additional finance, property
    and procurement specialists through the field structure of the non-
    education offices at the Regional and Agency levels.
        While actions on the NAPA recommendations will improve BIA's
    administrative management, I believe that the process of implementation
    should not be done hastily. I want the senior managers who will be
    responsible for the final implementation of the NAPA recommendations to
    be fully involved in all decisions on staffing levels and selection of
    personnel. However, NAPA staff will continue to evaluate workforce
    needs in terms of the number and kind of positions that will make BIA
    most efficient while I search for key staff.
        We will continue to keep the Committee apprised of the NAPA
    implementation efforts and to implement the changes.

                                   CONCLUSION

        This concludes my remarks about the BIA budget request for fiscal
    year 2001. I am attaching to my testimony a portion of the Overview
    from the BIA's budget justification which provides a more complete
    breakdown of budget categories. I will be happy to answer any
    questions.

                                   Attachment

                          TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATIONS

        Tribal Priority Allocations (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. Because of Congressional funding levels in 1996
    and 1997, Tribal governments are falling increasingly behind in their
    ability to maintain services to Indian communities and families. Tribes
    depend on TPA funds for basic necessities and services such as child
    welfare, scholarships, Tribal courts, natural resource management, and
    other programs critical to improving the quality of life and the
    economic potential of the reservations. The Congress has given the
    Tribes the flexibility to prioritize the limited funds among TPA
    programs according to their unique needs and circumstances. TPA
    supports the goals of Indian self-determination by providing Tribes
    with the choice of programs provided as well as the means of delivery,
    either by the Tribe or the Bureau.
        Beginning with fiscal year 1998, TPA comprises nearly half of the
    Bureau's operating budget. For fiscal year 2001, the TPA activity is
    funded at $761.2 million, an increase of $60.5 million over the fiscal
    year 2000 Enacted level, which will help Tribes address some of the
    unmet needs in these basic programs.
        This budget submission includes $5 million for the Indian Self
    Determination Fund to replenish funds for new and expanded programs
    contracted under the authority of Public Law 93-638, as amended. The
    moratorium imposed by the Congress for fiscal year 1999 on any new or
    expanded contracts, compacts or grants under the 638 authority stalled
    the ability of the Bureau to fulfill its mission of promoting self-
    determination on behalf of Tribes. Increased Tribal contracting/
    compacting activity in fiscal year 2000 (due to the lifting of the
    moratorium) is expected to continue throughout fiscal year 2001.
        An increase of $3.5 million is requested for Contract Support over
    the 2000 Enacted level for on- going self-determination agreements. It
    is estimated that 88 percent of need will be met in fiscal year 2001 at
    this level of funding. The Bureau covered 88 percent of need in fiscal
    year 1999 and expects to cover 90 percent of need in fiscal year 2000.
        An increase of $1.5 million is requested for Tribal Courts, a
    necessary component to ensuring the success of the Presidential
    Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian Country. In fiscal year 2000,
    the Congress provided a $20.0 million increase to address the woefully
    inadequate law enforcement resources in Indian Country. With this
    second year investment in the multi-year Initiative, it continues to
    open the door to halting the escalating crime rates in Indian Country.
    While Bureau and Tribal law enforcement personnel take the criminals
    off the street, it is also important to handle the increased demand for
    judicial services to keep the criminals off the street. Funding for
    Tribal Courts goes hand in hand with ensuring that Indian Country law
    enforcement efforts are strengthened by adequate court systems. Funds
    will also be used to implement provisions of Public Law 103-176, the
    Indian Tribal Justice Act.
        An increase of $1.0 million is requested for Adult Care Facility
    Rehabilitation to bring four Bureau- funded 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. The initial investment of $1 million will result in a
    potential savings to the Bureau which can be utilized for other high
    priority needs. An increase of $16.1 million is requested for the
    Housing Improvement Program (HIP) to serve low- income eligible Indian
    families or individuals. The Bureau has revised the HIP methodology to
    concentrate on serving those most in need, regardless of the category
    of HIP services they may require. This will allow the Bureau to serve
    an estimated 437 additional families for a total of about 985 families
    served.
        An increase of $2.2 million is requested for Scholarships to
    increase Tribes' ability to provide assistance to their Indian youth
    seeking to improve their futures through increased education. Along
    these lines, the Bureau is requesting an increase of $5.1 million for
    the Road Maintenance program. Part of the challenges to obtaining an
    education in Indian Country is the basic ability for students to be
    able to get to school as many reservation roads are a monumental
    challenge due to rough surfaces and at times impassable roads caused by
    insufficient funding. The Road Maintenance program is the only Bureau
    program which preserves the Bureau's system of roads and bridges that
    provide access to reservation lands, not only to schools, but to jobs
    and health care facilities. While the Department of Transportation's
    Highway Trust Fund provides funds for road construction, it does not
    provide funds for road maintenance.
        To support the Trust Fund Improvement Project, the Bureau's TPA
    request includes a total of $13.8 million in Trust Services funding for
    fiscal year 2001 as follows: Trust Services, General ($1.6 million);
    Real Estate Services ($7.0 million); Real Estate Appraisals ($2.2
    million); and, Probate ($3.0 million).
        In fiscal year 2001, the Bureau will continue to operate as a
    highly streamlined and decentralized agency with maximum resources
    going to Tribal programs. The Bureau anticipates that more than half of
    the fiscal year 2001 operating budget will be spent directly by Tribes
    that elect to operate various Bureau programs under self-determination
    contracts, grants, or self-governance compacts.
        Since the founding of the Nation, the Congress has funded specific
    Indian education programs in response to treaty requirements and
    Federal statutes. Current Indian Education programs are governed by a
    number of laws including the Snyder Act, the Johnson O'Malley Act, the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Tribally Controlled
    Community Colleges Act, the Tribally Controlled Schools Act, the
    Education Amendments of 1978, Goals 2000 and the Improving America
    Schools Act. Collectively, these laws are aimed at ensuring quality
    education for Indian youth and improving the long-term employment and
    economic opportunity on reservations.

                            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. In support of this Presidential priority, the Bureau's
    fiscal year 2001 budget request includes a significant investment in
    Indian education. The request for School Operations, which will fund
    185 schools and dormitories serving more than 50,000 elementary and
    secondary students in 23 States, is $506.6 million, an increase of
    $39.7 million over the fiscal year 2000 Enacted level. The increase
    will ensure that schools can deliver quality education and provide safe
    and adequate transportation for an estimated increase in enrollment.
    Included in the increase is $6.8 million to expand the number of sites
    for the Early Childhood Development FACE program and $8.2 million for
    implementation of the Therapeutic Residential Model pilot program at
    selected Bureau dormitories. Increases are also proposed in facilities
    operations 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 25 Tribally controlled
    community colleges by $2.9 million over fiscal year 2000. The colleges
    have been successful in providing Indian youth with college degrees and
    futures of professional employment. They also promote entrepreneurship
    on reservations.
        An increase of $500,000 is also requested for Alaska Subsistence
    activities to meet the Secretary's responsibilities in implementing a
    recent court-ordered Federal subsistence fishery program in the State
    of Alaska. This is a multi-agency, cross-cutting activity to establish
    fishing seasons and regulations covering approximately 102,000 miles of
    rivers and streams and about half of Alaska's inland waters.

                             NON-RECURRING PROGRAMS

        To meet the Bureau's long-term goal of improving the quality of
    life in Tribal communities, $2.0 million is requested to establish
    Technical Assistance Grants to provide technical assistance to Tribes
    and individual Indians to establish, acquire or expand for-profit
    businesses on or near reservations. Investment today in helping Tribal
    communities to become more resourceful will facilitate and strengthen
    Tribal self determination. Additionally, an increase of $5.3 million is
    requested for Real Estate Services to strengthen the Bureau's trust
    management functions.

                           CENTRAL OFFICE OPERATIONS

        An increase of $500,000 is requested for the Trust Services line
    item to strengthen the Bureau's trust management programs at the
    Headquarters level. To continue implementation of the recommendations
    of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), an increase of
    $4.0 million is requested in fiscal year 2001 to continue
    implementation of the recommendations at the Central Office level and
    to begin to provide resources to Field sites.
                           regional office operations
        An increase of $13.7 million is proposed for trust management
    improvement efforts at the Regional level: Trust Services, General
    ($1,900,000); Real Estate Services ($5,000,000); Land Titles and
    Records Offices ($4,800,000); and Land Records Improvement
    ($2,000,000).
                      special programs and pooled overhead
        To continue the momentum forward for the Presidential Initiative to
    Improve Law Enforcement in Indian Country, a program increase of $16.0
    million is requested for the third year of this multi-year initiative.
    The rate of violent crime victimization of American Indians is higher
    than that of other U.S. racial or ethnic subgroups and more than twice
    the national average. Continued infusion of monies is necessary to
    improve the quality of life on Indian reservations. A program increase
    of $115,000 is requested for the Indian Police Academy to expand its
    training courses to respond to the influx of new trainees hired under
    the Initiative. To offset the Congressionally-mandated earmark of funds
    for enforcement activities, an increase of $100,000 is requested for
    the Indian Arts and Crafts Board. To strengthen the efforts of the
    Crownpoint Institute of Technology, an increase of $1.3 million is
    requested in fiscal year 2001. To improve the reporting capabilities
    and improve overall educational abilities, the Bureau is requesting an
    increase of $3.0 million for the School Statistics Initiative. An
    additional $500,000 is requested for the American Indian component of
    the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, a partnership effort with the
    Department of Education. To respond to priority needs of Tribes on a
    nationwide basis, the Bureau is proposing to eliminate funding for the
    National Ironworkers Training Program.
                                  construction
        The Bureau's request for the Construction appropriation is $365.9
    million, of which $300.5 million, or 82 percent, is dedicated to
    education construction. This is the largest request for education
    construction, with an additional $167.3 million, or 126 percent, over
    the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Bureau will continue the
    emphasis on Tribal contracting for projects, providing support from the
    Bureau's Office of Facilities Management and Construction until the
    Tribes and Agencies are fully trained to take over the construction
    contracting challenge.
        The Replacement School Construction program funds replacement of
    older, unsafe, and dilapidated schools on reservations. More than
    50,000 Indian students attend 185 Bureau-owned or -funded schools in
    eligible Indian communities. School replacement priorities are based on
    a new priority list of 13 schools, which is comprised of the last 3
    uncompleted schools from the old priority list published in 1993 and 10
    new schools. In 2001, a total of $126.149 million is requested for
    Advanced Planning and Design ($5,000,000) and to complete construction
    of the first 6 schools--several that serve multiple Tribes, on the new
    priority list:
    Tuba City Boarding School, Arizona
    Second Mesa Day School, Arizona
    Zia Day School, New Mexico
    Baca Community School, New Mexico
    Lummi Tribal School, Washington
    Wingate Elementary School, New Mexico
        These six schools have structural and code deficiencies that
    threaten student safety and are not equipped with modern educational
    tools. Up to $30 million of the replacement school construction funding
    may be used for Tribal participation in the President's fiscal year
    2001 School Construction Modernization Initiative. These funds may be
    used by Tribes or Tribal consortia to ensure the repayment of principal
    on school modernization or other taxable bonds. Tribes that issue bonds
    to lenders could claim a tax credit for the life of the bond in lieu of
    interest. Any of the six schools slated for replacement in 2001 could
    exercise this option.
        The education facilities improvement and repair program is funded
    at $174.3 million, an increase of $104.0 million over 2000 enacted, to
    address critical health and safety concerns at existing education-
    related facilities. This request will fund maintenance and major and
    minor repair projects to reduce the significant backlog of needed
    repairs.
        For the second year, the budget requests no new funding for Public
    Safety and Justice construction within the Bureau request. New
    detention centers on reservations will receive funds from the
    Department of Justice's appropriation as part of the President's
    Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian Country.
     indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to
                                    indians
        This program provides payments to meet Federal requirements for
    legislated settlements. The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes
    $34.026 million for payments for settlements resolving long standing
    Tribal claims to water and lands. Of this amount, $8 million is
    proposed for the Rocky Boy's Indian Water Rights Settlement for compact
    administration, economic development, and future water supply
    activities. The majority of the remaining funds are proposed for the
    Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement, $24.9 million, to maintain the
    payment schedule as required by law.

                           Indian land consolidation

        Senator Gorton. Well, I am going to defer very shortly to
    my two colleagues. But I do want you to discuss the subject
    that was not in these top ones. One of the big increases in
    your budget this year is for land consolidation, fractionated
    ownership.
        Tell me why that increase is so large, what you are going
    to do with that, what the goal is, how long you think it will
    take you to get there, and are we curing it in a way so that it
    will not recur.
        Mr. Gover. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As you know, the
    fractionation pilot that we have been conducting is to purchase
    a small fractionated interest in land from individual Indian
    owners and, in essence, transfer that to tribal ownership
    subject to a lien for the repayment of the purchase price that
    the United States has incurred.
        We have targeted the small interests and the interests that
    are most likely to result in our actually closing one of the
    small IIM accounts. So when an account holder comes in, they
    may say, we have--I have seven different interests in seven
    different parcels of land. And we purchase all of them for an
    average price of about $250 per interest. That then allows us
    to close that account.
        Now, what that does in the long run, it saves us a great
    deal of money. For one thing, we do not have to maintain an
    account. That is costing us about $35 a year. Number two, we
    have no more responsibilities for serving that individual
    should he want to lease that parcel of land. We are relieved of
    the responsibilities associated with that.
        And then finally, and probably most importantly, we do not
    have to probate that estate. Right now when the United States
    probates an estate, it is taking a minimum of 18 months to do
    so, more often going up to 3 years and even longer, at enormous
    expense involving both BIA staff work at several points in the
    process and later on----
        Senator Gorton. Wait a minute. This property then will not
    go back into any form of private ownership causing this problem
    to recur at another generation or two, is that correct?
        Mr. Gover. That is correct. It is to the benefit of the
    tribe. And I suppose that at some point, once the land is
    clear, the tribes can sell it. But we do not anticipate that
    happening. And we are not looking to expand the amount of
    individual ownership of trust land. We are looking to reduce
    it. And we believe the government will experience a reduction
    in cost over the medium term rather than the long term.
        The reason for the expansion is that the pilot has been
    such an enormous success. We were a little concerned that we
    would have difficulty finding willing sellers. But that has not
    been the case. We are finding many, many willing sellers. We
    have been able to spend the first year of money already, and we
    are well into the second.
        The question we are unable to answer at this point,
    although I would be happy to provide some more information, is
    how long is this going to take overall. I do not know the
    answer to that. We have run the pilot on three reservations in
    Wisconsin. We are having enormously good results.
        [The information follows:]
                        Indian Land Consolidation Pilot
        In fiscal year 1999, the BIA established a pilot program to
    implement a land acquisition program to acquire and consolidate
    fractionated ownership interests of trust and restricted lands.
    Fractionated ownership of allotted Indian lands increases the Federal
    Government's costs to administer and manage the trust and restricted
    lands and reduces the lands' economic value for the Indian owners due
    to the inefficiencies caused by multiple ownership.
        During the six months preceding the end of fiscal year 1999, the
    BIA had acquired approximately 8,000 undivided fractionated interests,
    comprising approximately 4,000 acres. Through January 31, 2000, 20,215
    undivided interests were acquired, comprised of 11,234 acres at a cost
    of $4.7 million. This acquisition eliminated 521 future probates and
    226 current Individual Indian Monies (IIM) accounts. In addition, there
    are 53 pending applications, with an average number of 20 interests per
    pending application. The BIA expects to acquire about 19,000 additional
    fractional interests by the end of 2000.
        At the acquisition rate of 20,000 interests per year, the Bureau
    estimates that at the fiscal year 2000 funding level of $5 million, it
    would take approximately 100 years to eliminate the fractional
    ownership, provided all of the interests owners are willing to sell.
    Yet with the funding level requested in fiscal year 2001 of $12.5
    million, the estimated time would be reduced by more than half.

        Mr. Gover. As we expand the program to include some of the
    larger reservations in, for example, North and South Dakota, we
    expect that the fractionation problem is so severe that it is
    going to require expanded resources in order to really make a
    dent on any given reservation.
        We should add that, when we consolidate ownership in these
    interests, that makes the land viable for productive use again.
    Right now we have to get the consent of all the interest
    holders to lease a piece of allotted land. We have a particular
    parcel in the State of Wisconsin that has 2,000 owners, 2,000
    different individuals. Some of the interests are less than one-
    three-millionth of an interest in the parcel.
        Senator Gorton. You are going to have to purchase all 2,000
    of those interests for the consolidation.
        Mr. Gover. That is correct.
        Senator Gorton. What happens if 1,990 agree and the other
    10 do not?
        Mr. Gover. Well, that is where Senator Campbell's bill
    comes in. Senator Campbell has been working with the Department
    to produce the amendments to the Indian Land Consolidation Act.
    And essentially, that gives us some new options in closing out
    the private ownership of these lands.
        Senator Gorton. Well, presumably all of the money we are
    appropriating now eventually will come back from the tribes,
    again who----
        Mr. Gover. I would not say presumably. I would say
    theoretically. We do not, frankly, anticipate that all that
    money will come back, because what we are discovering, for
    example, in Wisconsin is that these lands are not being policed
    and, therefore, not producing income that would repay the fund.
        More likely, they are going to be left in a natural state.
    But at least they are being, some of it, at least they are
    being--we are not spending a lot of money servicing the----
        Senator Gorton. The obligation to pay on the part of the
    tribe is dependent on the particular land producing income.
        Mr. Gover. Yes, that is correct. That is correct.
        Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, if I could interject this,
    the Assistant Secretary is living proof of what was wrong with
    it before.
        What was the income you got from your per cap of
    fractionated land, like 26 cents for the year or something like
    that?
        Mr. Gover. I have owned it for 5 years, and it has
    generated seven cents in that time.
        Senator Campbell. Seven cents. But the amount of money that
    it takes to document and do all the paperwork to get him that
    seven cents ran into the thousands.
        Senator Burns. I had a pasture like that once.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you for that explanation. And I will
    have more questions. I will refer to my two colleagues.
        Senator Campbell.

                                 Indian Affairs

        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for your
    information, we are going to be marking up confirming the
    Special Trustee tomorrow in Indian Affairs. And we did postpone
    that for a few days because some of the tribes told us that
    they wanted a little more time to think about it, a little more
    time to review it. They have sent us a letter of total support.
    So we will be putting that through tomorrow.
        You probably know, Mr. Assistant Secretary, that probably
    half of the people on this committee also sit on Indian
    Affairs. And we would not be on these committees, if we did not
    have a high interest in trying to help Indian people. I think I
    can state that for literally everybody.
        And even though the chairman has taken his share of the
    heat, by the way, from the Indian community, I have to state
    for the record that when you talk about the things that you
    have made a very compelling case for this morning, school
    facilities, health care, contract support costs, law
    enforcement, things of that nature, he has been very, very
    helpful. Although we may disagree on some things in Indian
    country, he has been right there to help provide that money.
        Mr. Gover. I know the----

                                Employee Awards

        Senator Campbell. As you know, we have not passed our
    budget resolution. So we do not know, as the chairman said, if
    we are going to be over our caps or not. But I am convinced
    that the President's budget is certainly going to help us.
        But I want to talk a little bit and ask you a couple
    questions about this, that compelling case you made about
    school facilities and health care. And you will not get a
    disagreement from any of us. We know that we have to do more,
    all those areas.
        We know that there are Indian children going without proper
    nutrition, without proper education, without proper health care
    facilities. We know that. Everybody on this committee knows it.
    And we want to do our best.
        You mentioned about your primary responsibility. I recently
    wrote to you--and you did answer, and I appreciate you doing
    that--about something that I understood were called gold star
    awards given to, as I understand, about 2,000 employees over a
    period of time, totaling about $2.6 million. I suppose they
    were supposed to be given for exemplary service.
        But I have tracked a few of the people who got those awards
    and found that the only reason they even have their jobs is
    because they are civil service employees. They would have been
    fired from any company for mismanagement or poor performance.
    It rather surprised me, in fact, when I saw some of the people
    who were getting those gold star awards.
        Well, I am not a--math was never my long suit. But when I
    divide $2.6 million into a beginning teacher's salary, we could
    hire 100 teachers out there for the amount of money we have
    given through the Bureau for these so-called gold star awards.
        I want you to expand a little bit, tell this committee what
    the reason was for that. And if you have found that somewhere
    along the line, in giving all that money in awards, some I
    understand in $10,000 and $20,000 increments, the justification
    for it, and why we should not make that money available more to
    schools and health services and things that Indian people
    really need.
        Mr. Gover. Senator Campbell, one of the things that we face
    all the time is trying to retain our employees. A good many of
    them receive offers regularly from the private sector or from
    other Federal departments to come to work for them. And one of
    the methods that we have for employee retention is to try to
    reward exemplary service. And you are right, these Star Awards
    are intended to reward good service.
        Now, obviously, I do not sign off on every single Star
    Award that is presented throughout the agency. There are 2,000
    of them, many of them done out in the field. I have signed off
    on several myself, and I especially sign off on awards for
    senior management. And what we are finding is that in order to
    really make these employees realize the degree to which they
    are appreciated by management, we do have to give these awards.
        Now, we have established within the Department some
    particular awards for the Senior Executive Service employees,
    many of whom, as I say, are pursued all the time by the private
    sector. In fact, we just lost a Deputy Commissioner to the
    private sector. And I cannot begin to compete with some of
    those offers. But where I can, I want to do that.
        We evaluate the employees. We make an agreement with them
    at the beginning of the year. If they meet the agreement that
    we have negotiated, then they become eligible for awards. Even
    at that point, less than half of them, who have complied with
    their agreement, actually receive awards.
        The awards that are over $10,000 are special Department-
    wide awards to acknowledge particularly distinguished service.
    And there is an even higher level, a Presidential Rank Award,
    that BIA employees, including Hilda Manuel, have won in the
    past few years.
        And so we find that it is important to morale. We find it
    is important to employee retention. And most of all, we want to
    express in a very tangible way the appreciation that we have.
        Now $2.5 million is a lot of money, and we certainly
    understand that. On the other hand, it represents only a small
    fraction of our entire appropriation. And I do not believe that
    it is out of line. In fact, I think we are probably a little
    less generous than most of the other bureaus in the Department.
        Senator Campbell. And you have checked with other bureaus
    to see if these awards are in line with what they are giving
    and if they give them at all.
        Mr. Gover. Yes. I discuss with the Assistant Secretary for
    Policy, Management and Budget just as a check, to make sure
    that we were not being excessive, and found that in fact we are
    not. In fact, as I say, we are probably less generous than some
    of the other bureaus.
        Senator Campbell. Well, I know we are not totally blind to
    the fact that we have a large organization, a lot of people, as
    you do in your department and as we do here. In the Capitol you
    get some really terrific employees, and they are kind of up for
    grabs.
        And I know that private industry just relishes the chance
    to steal away from us. So I understand that. We lose some very
    good employees, too.
        Mr. Gover. Yes.

                                Trust Principles

        Senator Campbell. I am surprised to see that Hilda is
    leaving. And I know that, as you do, she has done years and
    years of exemplary service. And I certainly wish her well. I
    hope she is going on to a productive, bright, wonderful future.
    I am sure she is. And I hope she is not just leaving because
    she is over the top of her pain threshold, as we all get to
    sooner or later, too. But we do wish you well.
        Let me ask you one more point, Mr. Assistant Secretary. The
    Department is preparing to issue a draft trust principles, as I
    understand it. The National Congress of American Indians and
    some tribes have written to us on the Indian Affairs Committee
    urging you to postpone the issuance of those principles. What
    are your plans on issuing that order implementing the
    principles?
        Mr. Gover. Senator Campbell, the trust principles are
    something that we have had a lot of debate on in the
    Department. I was not certain, frankly, that it was a good idea
    because I think it is very difficult to draft broad principles
    that are substantive enough to really add to the conversation.
        But I was finally persuaded by this logic: that we are
    asking each bureau within the Department that has
    responsibility to the tribes to examine their operation and
    their regulations to be sure that they are meeting our
    responsibilities to the Indian accountholders.
        In order to do that, they have to have some kind of
    guidance. We do not want to measure it against some abstract
    notion of the trust, but instead try to give them some
    specifics and say: Do your regulations meet this standard? Are
    they designed to accomplish this undertaking? And that is the
    point of the trust policies. The broad trust principles is what
    they are popularly known as.
        Our intention is to do two things with them. First, to
    enter them as a Secretarial Order to all of the agencies in the
    Department to say: You are to go through your programs and to
    measure your operation against these standards.
        And by the way, I should add one other thing, to recite the
    trust format and what we have been told to do by the Congress.
        The second thing that we intend to do with them, because
    the Secretarial Order expires in a year, is to enter them into
    the Departmental Manual where they will reside until a future
    administration changes them. We disagree, frankly, with the
    tribes and with NCAI.
        And although we will continue working with them--and I met
    just yesterday with representatives from NCAI about this
    matter, we agreed that we will continue discussing it. And we
    actually made some progress on some of the issues that they
    wanted to see changed.
        But I think in general the trust principles that we have
    drafted represent a major step forward. The Department--I mean,
    it is shocking, frankly, that the Department has never before
    tried to describe with any precision the standard of
    performance that is expected from us in conducting the trust
    relationship.
        And now we have tried to do so. And I think predictably we
    are running into some opposition, because everyone's notion of
    the trust responsibility is a little bit different.
        But I would not support them and would not participate if I
    did not think that it were moving the ball forward.
        Senator Campbell. OK. Well, thank you for that. I suspect
    you know how I feel about including the tribes in any of the
    dialogue or any decision making with the departments. So I know
    I can speak for Senator Inouye in that respect, too, from our
    committee's standpoint. So I would hope that you have a very
    open and fair discussion with the tribes before you proceed
    with those principles.
        Mr. Gover. And in fact, Senator, in December we did a
    number of field meetings with the tribes to discuss this very
    issue. And the draft has changed very significantly as a result
    of those. And as I say, we will continue working with the NCAI
    work group to try to close the distance between us and them.
        And in the end, of course, we may not reach final
    agreement, but I think we will in every conversation improve
    the product.
        Senator Campbell. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit
    any further questions in writing.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming this
    morning. And I find it rather sad that you think this will be
    the last time you will appear before this committee. I
    personally think you have done a great job.
        Mr. Gover. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Burns. You have been very candid with us, and you
    have faced some unusual challenges beyond anybody's imagination
    almost. And you have done that in working with us. I really
    appreciate that very much. And I wish you much success, and
    Hilda, too, as far as moving on.
        In fact, you would hate to have people work in your
    department that did not have the ability to move on and improve
    themselves. That is kind of the way I look at it.
        Mr. Gover. That is right.

                                   Education

        Senator Burns. People pass through our offices and our
    staff do that as well. If there has been one failure in our
    education system throughout this country, and we always say we
    have the best, its that we are dealing with issuing visas in
    order to allow people from other countries to come in this
    nation and work because they have the talents and the expertise
    to deal in the high tech world. And yet our education system is
    reluctant to change for the new tools of the future.
        Then they say we are making great progress in our education
    system. I think we have the same problem as far as our schools
    that are on and off our reservations. I do not think there is
    any difference.
        But I know you keep looking to find the people that can
    work in your department, taking people who have come up through
    your organization, or start at the reservation level.
        I would refer you to Joe McDonald, who runs the Salish
    Kootenai Tribal College in Montana. I do not think there is a
    better educator in America than Joe. And we fight very, very
    hard, because he wants to give those young people the skills to
    use the tools of the future.
        So I think that what we have to do in our education system
    is look at those programs and change them to help teachers and
    tribal colleges and the schools train people to utilize these
    new tools. These are some of the things that you will need in
    order for them to be of a service to you.
        I have no questions with that. I will just say that working
    with the educators on reservations, as we do very closely with
    our 2-year colleges in Montana, we continue to have to fight
    for more money for them, because it seems like it never comes
    out of the President's budget with enough money.
        The role of those 2-year colleges on the reservations, to
    make that transition into higher education from a reservation
    setting and an educational setting and going on to other
    institutions, wherever they want to go to school in America, is
    one of the great transition steps that these young people will
    take. Tribal colleges play a huge role on just equipping those
    folks for the future.
        I find it sad that we will not continue working with you. I
    think we will later on down the line, because I would hate for
    this government to lose your talents. I appreciate your service
    to this organization the cooperation we see between the
    committee and your office. So we wish you well.
        Mr. Gover. That is very kind, Senator, and I appreciate all
    the help I have gotten from the committee. You are absolutely
    right. These institutions, the tribal colleges, are playing a
    critical role on a reservation and really begin to create some
    hopefulness where none has existed before, that there is an
    opportunity to improve yourself and rise out of these
    circumstances.
        We never support colleges to the extent that we would like.
    The request we made this year is consistent with the increases
    that the committee and the Congress have granted us over the
    years. And we are very grateful if you would do so again.
        In addition, the President has proposed that funds be added
    to the Department of Education budget to assist these
    institutions. And really, the part of the theory of the
    President's overall initiative is to get more agencies involved
    in meeting these responsibilities to the tribal communities.
    And so even though the primary responsibility, the anchor
    responsibility, will always be with the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, that does not relieve the other departments of their
    obligations to the Indian community. And so we are very hopeful
    that we will see more assistance from some of the other
    agencies than we have seen in the past.
        Thank you.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                          Housing Improvement Program

        Senator Gorton. Mr. Gover, a parochial question, I note
    that my own Northwest region is going to be subjected to a huge
    reduction in housing and improvement program funds this year.
        I take it you have been developing and implementing a new
    formula for that distribution. What is the new formula? What is
    the philosophy behind it? And why did we get such a heck of a
    whack in the Northwest?
        Mr. Gover. What we have done, Mr. Chairman, with the
    Housing Improvement Program is to convert from a system where
    we allocated funds based on the housing inventories that were
    prepared by the tribes. In other words, we had been
    inventorying the housing needs for the entire reservation,
    which did not discriminate between those who were eligible for
    the HIP program and those who were not.
        So much of the housing inventories may well have reflected
    homes or families that are not eligible for assistance from our
    program. And what we have done is convert to a system where we
    are looking to allocate funds on the basis of the number of
    eligible applicants reservation by reservation, so that we are
    targeting funds in the direction of the greatest need in the
    communities.
        Now, I do not know exactly why the Northwest seems to be
    hit particularly hard. I guess--well, I should provide some
    information. We are not finished with our analysis.
        [The information follows:]
     Housing Improvement Program Funding Distribution Effect on Northwest
                                     Tribes
        In fiscal year 2000, the BIA is implementing a new methodology for
    the distribution of Housing Improvement Program (HIP) funds. Prior to
    fiscal year 2000, HIP funding was distributed to BIA's Regional Offices
    according to total housing inventories, regardless of the need of
    individuals. Consistent with notices to Tribes in 1999 and 2000, the
    fiscal year 2000 HIP funding is being distributed according to eligible
    applicants. This new methodology is based on information from Tribes on
    applicants who are actually eligible for HIP funding. This data on
    eligible applicants is being used as the basis for distributing funds
    to those with the greatest need for housing assistance.
        As of April 2000, the BIA had distributed 80 percent of the fiscal
    year 2000 HIP program funding. Using eligible applicant data provided
    by Tribes and the Regions, funds were distributed to Tribes based on a
    priority ranking of applicants and estimated project costs. The funding
    distributed to Tribes in the Northwest Region reflects that Region's
    program needs as compared to those reported for all HIP eligible
    applicants on a national level. The effect of this new methodology on
    the Northwest Region will not be clear until the remaining fiscal year
    2000 funding is distributed. The BIA provided its Regional Offices and
    Tribes with additional time to gather current information on HIP-
    eligible applicants to encourage a fair distribution process. However,
    distribution of the remaining 20 percent of fiscal year 2000 HIP
    program funding is anticipated shortly.

        Mr. Gover. But what I suspect is that when we put out the
    word that we were looking at converting to this--and in fact,
    this has been under discussion for five years, converting to an
    eligible applicant system, as opposed to the housing
    inventories--the Northwest tribes were a day late and a dollar
    short with bringing in the information that would have
    increased their allocation.
        I do not think there is any absence of need in the
    Northwest. And it was for that reason that we have delayed
    complete implementation in order to give the tribes another
    opportunity to submit additional evidence. The Deputy
    Commissioner noted that there was a large migration of funds
    from certain areas, mostly to Alaska.
        The Northwest was one, the Navajo area was another. And we
    were not comfortable with seeing that kind of large migration
    of funds from one area to another. So we wanted to give the
    tribes an additional opportunity to submit information.
        So we probably could have done a better job in the
    implementation of the policy, but the policy is the correct one
    because it is directed at identifying the reservations with the
    greatest need, as defined by the number of eligible applicants
    for HIP funds.
        Senator Gorton. When can I expect you to adopt the same
    philosophy with respect to tribal priority allocations?
        Mr. Gover. I do not believe that is going to happen on my
    watch, Mr. Chairman. You know, one of the problems is--and you
    cannot--HIP is one of the programs where it is a little more
    neat. And we are ready, for example, to allocate General
    Assistance funds on the basis of eligible applicants and on the
    basis of need.
        But when you look at programs like trust services, like law
    enforcement, there are less clear measures of what the need is,
    compounded by the fact--and we will be discussing this tomorrow
    in Senator Campbell's committee--compounded by the fact that we
    have no identified objectives for a number of the programs that
    we operate.
        And in the absence of really reliable and objective program
    measurements, it is very difficult to say at what point one
    tribe is getting too much. It is----
        Senator Gorton. Is there any effort on your part to make
    such a determination?
        Mr. Gover. We are working with the tribes right now, again,
    working with the workgroup from the National Congress of
    American Indians, to try to identify those kinds of program
    parameters and reporting requirements so that when you give our
    agency money to carry out a specific program, we have defined
    an objective.
        We can define for you what we expect to see as a result of
    that money and then how we are going to get the reporting from
    the tribes to show that in fact the programmatic objective was
    accomplished. That work will not be completed on my watch. But
    I do think that we can begin moving the ball forward program by
    program.
        Just to give you a notion, though, of the complexity, we
    undertook a similar thing in, I believe it was, 1994 with
    regard to a single program, the Indian Child Welfare Act. A
    couple of years and several hundred pages later, there was
    still not consensus on just how those programmatic funds ought
    to be allocated.
        And that indicates that, one, the difficulty of defining
    the program objectives and, two, the complexity of involving
    all of the tribal governments in a discussion of that type.
    Because no matter what we do in identifying objectives,
    somebody is going to get more and somebody is going to get
    less.
        And those who get more are for it, and those who get less
    are against it. And that will be true in each of our program
    areas.
        Senator Campbell. That is the way it works among our
    subcommittees.

                              School Construction

        Senator Gorton. Let us go on to school construction. If you
    got the entire $300 million, do I understand that would build
    six schools?
        Mr. Gover. The entire request would build six schools and
    fund FI&R, facilities improvement and repair, the big repairs
    that need to be carried out in the school system.
        Senator Gorton. How much of the money would go to the
    latter and how much to the former?
        Mr. Gover. Do you know, Joe?
        Mr. Christie. It is $103 million, I think, on the
    construction side. Well, $103 million is an increase in FI&R.
        Mr. Gover. And what we did, Mr. Chairman, was to--the
    reason it looks like such a large increase is we combined FI&R
    with maintenance funding this year for the first time in the
    budget. And so it is not actually an increase of 126 percent,
    although it is an increase of about 100 percent over last year.
        Senator Gorton. What are the six schools that would be
    funded by this?
        Mr. Gover. I can provide that for the record. It is the
    last three schools on the old priority list and the first three
    on the new one that we issued on January 31. My recollection is
    that three of the schools are on the Navajo Nation Reservation.
        OK. The last three on the old list are Tuba City Boarding
    School, Second Mesa Day School and Zia Day School. The three
    new schools would be the Baca Thoreau--that is a Navajo
    school--Consolidated Community School, the Lummi Tribal School
    and the Wingate Elementary School.
        So it would be three Navajo schools, one Hopi school, Zia
    Pueblo and the Lummi Tribe.
        Senator Gorton. How many schools in the system rather
    desperately need total new construction? In other words, what
    part of that inventory of the six schools make up----
        Mr. Gover. It is about 10 percent. We think there are about
    60 schools that desperately need to be replaced.
        Senator Gorton. So we have to have roughly this level of
    construction money for 10 years running.
        Mr. Gover. I believe that is correct, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Now, some of these schools you actually
    subcontract the building to the tribes and some are done
    directly?
        Mr. Gover. That is right. Most are actually contracted to
    either the tribe or the school board that operates the school.
    And they then----
        Senator Gorton. Are all of the six that we are talking
    about, for next year?
        Mr. Gover. I do not believe we know yet. We are getting
    indications that a couple of the schools are going to want us
    to do it.
        Is that right, Joe?
        Mr. Christie. That is correct.
        Senator Gorton. Is there any provision in any of the tribes
    with respect to any of the school construction for a tribal
    cost share?
        Mr. Gover. None of the six schools I just mentioned have
    offered to cost share. A number of tribes and school boards did
    offer cost sharing to various degrees. I believe that none of
    either the three from the old list or the ten from the new list
    really are talking about a substantial cost sharing approach.
    We did have some others, where they did propose quite
    substantial cost sharing.
        Senator Gorton. Is it at all tempting to the bureau to
    accelerate the construction of those schools? Where there is a
    cost share, you would obviously get more done if there was a
    substantial contribution.
        Mr. Gover. I can answer that this way, Mr. Chairman. It is
    tempting, except that for some tribes, what they were offering
    was not, frankly, much of a sacrifice, given their other
    sources of revenue. And I was unimpressed by the degree to
    which they were going to offer to participate.
        Other tribes, though, who really are not well off in terms
    of resources, did come forward and offer--you know,
    demonstrated a real commitment to improving conditions in which
    their kids go to school. And I would have much more sympathy in
    those cases. But there were few, frankly. There were very few.
        Senator Gorton. A few years ago, I remember a devastating
    criticism or critique of the schools here in the District of
    Columbia to the effect that the school authorities could not
    come within 10,000 of a student census, knowing how many
    students they were serving. You provide aid to schools on the
    basis of school attendance or school census. Are you convinced
    of their accuracy?
        Mr. Gover. I am now. And let me allow Mr. Christie to
    describe some of the steps we have taken to improve our school
    count efforts.
        Mr. Christie. What we have done to improve our ISEP count
    is to go to a 100-percent audit of one-third of our schools and
    a 10-percent audit of all the rest, so that over a 3-year cycle
    we will have a 100-percent audit of every school.
        We have also instituted administrative reviews to go out
    and take a look at how our schools are operating on the
    educational program, facilities program, the administrative
    issues, personnel, et cetera. We have undertaken that this year
    and completed 8 of those reviews to include both the education
    line office and the school itself.
        And then we are using that data to turn around and to
    institute a principal and ELO academy that we will start----
        Senator Gorton. ELO?
        Mr. Christie. Education line official. So that we can then
    train them in the specific--strengthen their skills in this
    area.
        We have also in the last year--there are only two ways to
    increase funds for the per student basis. That is either to
    come to you and ask for additional dollars or else to go into
    the school systems themselves and take a look at where we are
    inappropriately funding.
        For instance, over the last year we have weeded out
    counting of over 500 public school kids that were getting ISEP
    funding versus being actually eligible to receive that. So by
    going back and doing these reviews, making sure that the
    students that are being counted are the students that should be
    counted, that allows us then to move those funds back in to
    fund our students on an equitable basis.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.
        Mr. Gover, in your initial listing of the three priorities,
    the third of those was law enforcement. You are asking for
    another increase this year. I note the increase is not as great
    as the increase that you asked for last year. Does that mean
    that we are getting relatively close to an appropriate level of
    support, to a time when that funding will be relatively level?
        Mr. Gover. I think, Mr. Chairman, the figure of $18.8
    million is a testimony to the rigidity of the Office of
    Management and Budget when you hit a number. And so the answer
    is that we are making progress.
        I would have liked to have seen more in the law enforcement
    account, but I will live with what we have requested. It does
    not indicate that we are yet at a level of service that
    provides Indian communities with the same law enforcement
    coverage that similar communities outside of Indian country
    receive.
        We have a ways to go yet. But I do not want to understate
    the importance of the funding that we have received so far. It
    has helped a great deal.
        Ironically, one of the things that happens when you improve
    law enforcement is the crime rate goes up, because you are
    arresting more criminals, more crimes are being reported, more
    crimes are being acted on.
        And so in fact we are still experiencing a rising crime
    rate in terms of the statistics, but I do not have any doubt we
    are also seeing better police coverage in the communities and
    that that will ultimately have its effect.
        Senator Gorton. That is always a paradox wherever we deal
    with law enforcement. I think you are entirely correct. We can
    fool ourselves that if law enforcement is so poor that crimes
    do not even get reported----
        Mr. Gover. Right.
        Senator Gorton [continuing]. As to actual conditions. At
    least at a time when law enforcement is improving, at first one
    would expect a higher reported crime rate. One hopes that you
    get to a point where it goes down in reality rather than just
    on a printed page at some point or another.
        I want to go back to Tribal Priority Allocations for one
    question. Your authority under Section 127, has it been used?
    Do you advocate any change in that provision for the next year?
        Mr. Gover. We have not employed that authority. What I have
    said to the tribes is that if any of you feel that you are
    being short-changed in some way or another, you may make
    application for a reallocation, at which point we would
    investigate and try to determine whether in any given
    circumstance there is a misallocation of the resource. No one
    has taken me up on that offer. And, Mr. Chairman, I did not
    expect that any of them would.
        Senator Gorton. Why not?
        Mr. Gover. The tribes feel very strongly that if we start
    down this road of allocating on the basis of need, that that
    will ultimately result in a reduction of either the Federal
    responsibility or the resources that are devoted to the Federal
    responsibility.
        I appreciate that concern. I, to some degree, agree with
    it, sort of as a political cite, that is the nature of the
    political system.
        On the other hand, given the kind of needs that exist in
    some of these communities, I would find it very difficult to
    justify, for example, some of the increases we have asked for
    this year, going into certain of the communities that have
    achieved genuine economic self-sufficiency. And in fact, it
    would be our plan not to devote any of these new resources to
    those communities.
        Senator Gorton. I have a number of other questions. But I
    will submit them to you in writing.
        Senator Campbell, do you have any more questions?
        Senator Campbell. I will just make a few observations.
    There is no doubt in my mind that--I understand the concern of
    the tribes. And I appreciate that, too. But it is hard to
    justify resources going under TPA to tribes in which some of
    the members are getting half a million dollars a year each per
    cap. That is a tough thing to sell, as you probably know.
        Let me just ask a couple questions, since you were dealing
    with education. Senator Roberts and Senator Brownback are not
    members of the committee, but both of them on several occasions
    have approached me about the deplorable conditions of some of
    the buildings at Haskell. What would you like me to tell them,
    if they have not talked to you personally yet?
        Mr. Gover. I am afraid I do not have any good news on that
    front, Mr. Chairman. We have recently constructed a new dorm at
    Haskell. And this again is sort of the old story. Now this year
    we did ask for some funding for a science building at the
    Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute. But it is the first
    time in quite a while that we have asked for funds for either
    of the BIA's community colleges, or actually Haskell is now a
    university.
        And we are reluctant to come to the committee and say, we
    need more money for our school, when we know that the schools
    out on the reservations are in extreme need.
        Senator Campbell. That is one of the problems at Haskell,
    it does not have a constituency, you might say, that comes here
    and lobbies for the money, as the tribes do. And so I
    understand it is difficult.
        Mr. Gover. That is right.
        Senator Campbell. Well, I will pass that on to you. Two
    years ago or so, there was a proposal about having tribes
    voluntarily co-finance schools. The chairman has alluded to
    that. I guess it was supposed to be done through some bonding
    initiative, something of that nature.
        But has that proposal been pretty much scrapped? You did
    say something that some tribes have not come forward with any
    interest to finance a school.
        Mr. Gover. It took two forms, Senator. The first was that
    we invited the tribes, as we conducted this new round of
    applications for school construction, we invited the tribes to
    submit revenue or cost sharing proposals on a voluntary basis.
    We did not indicate that they would rise to the top of the list
    or anything like that.
        We did indicate that we would share that information with
    the Congress, so the Congress would know and, if the Congress
    chose, take advantage of those cost sharing proposals.
        The other form was this bonding initiative, which would
    have applied not just to BIA schools but to schools nationwide.
    What it really is intended to do is reduce the cost of
    financing new construction.
        Now, that has not gained much acceptance in Indian country
    for a very obvious reason. The tribes are saying, why should we
    take on long-term debt----
        Senator Campbell. They are afraid we will renege on our
    part of the responsibility, if they take on that burden.
        Mr. Gover. Well, that is right. And they very legitimately
    ask the question: Why should we, the tribes, take on long-term
    debt to finance what is, in essence, a Federal facility? And
    that is a fair question to ask.
        I do think there are answers, Mr. Chairman. One of the
    things we can do, and one of the things that we have proposed,
    where the committee might allow us to do it, is to use some of
    the funds for fiscal year 2001 to support the issuance of bonds
    by tribes for their schools.
        Remember that the interest payments on these bonds would
    come in the form of tax incentives, basically, to the bond
    holders. And that requires the involvement of the finance
    committee, and that is beyond our authority.
        But then second, the principal payments would be paid by
    taking some of the appropriated funds for fiscal year 2001 and
    in essence creating a sinking fund. Take that fund, set it
    aside, allow it to grow through investment, so that when the
    bonds reach maturity, you could pay off the principal as well.
    And so $30 million, I think we did some calculations once, a
    $30 million fund might support as much as $100 million--did I
    say thousands or millions? A $30 million fund would support $90
    million to $100 million in new construction and would pay that
    off in 15 years.
        So that is the idea. It is a way to try to stretch these
    dollars, because we all know there just are not enough.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no
    further questions.
        Senator Gorton. If it were not for the vagaries of changes
    of administration, would you have made the announcement that
    you made at the beginning, that this is your last appearance
    here? Do you think you have done everything you could do in
    running the Bureau of Indian Affairs?
        Mr. Gover. I do not think I have done everything I could
    do. And I do not believe anyone will ever leave any of our jobs
    thinking they have done all they could do. So the answer to
    that is no.
        I do think there comes a point where the leadership in any
    agency, but perhaps especially this one, just sort of runs out
    of rope, not so much on a personal basis, but when we begin to
    make some of the difficult decisions that have to be made, you
    develop a list of people who disagree with you very strongly
    about certain of those decisions. And that is just what
    happens.
        The second thing is that I think there is a great advantage
    to fresh leadership on a regular basis and that it is important
    that the ideas that we have pursued be reevaluated by new
    leaders to determine whether they think we had this right or
    whether the bureau ought to take off in a different direction.
        So I am very comfortable in saying that the bureau will be
    a better agency after I leave than it was when I arrived. And I
    should add, Mr. Chairman, that my intention holds, regardless
    of the outcome of the election.
        That is how strongly I feel that the leadership needs to
    rotate regularly in this agency. I do not anticipate, frankly,
    having the option of remaining assistant secretary after next
    January. I am sure the new president will have someone in mind.
        Senator Gorton. Well, this chairman does not feel you have
    run out of string, Mr. Gover. He feels that you have done an
    outstanding job. And I think that this is the only time in my
    career in the United States Senate that I have been able or
    willing to say that about an assistant secretary in your
    position. I thank you very much.
        Obviously, we have had a number of disagreements, but I
    think you are a decisive leader with a great concern for the
    people you serve and a real understanding of the issues that
    surround your position and your duties. And I thank you very
    much.
        Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, if I could add my voice to
    yours.

                         Additional committee questions

        I want to also say I have seen the work of other assistant
    secretaries, and I am convinced you have done literally
    everything you could. But on the other hand, if you did
    everything you would have wanted to do, I would fear for your
    safety in places--in Indian country included.
        Mr. Gover. I fear for it now.
        [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 Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of
                                Special Trustee

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton

        Question. As everyone is aware, we will more than likely be facing
    an appropriations cycle with rather tight resources. It is an
    unfortunate reality that not everything in the administration's request
    will be fully funded. As such, it is important for us all to be as
    frank as possible with each other early on in this process. Please
    briefly list what your highest priorities are for fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. As conveyed during the Senate appropriations hearing on the
    fiscal year 2001 Bureau of Indian Affairs (Bureau) and the Office of
    Special Trustee (OST) budget requests, the highest priority for the
    Bureau and the OST is trust reform. This includes funding for the
    clearing of appraisal backlogs, clearing backlogs of probate
    proceedings to determine landowners, and base funding for Tribal and
    agency field realty programs. The Bureau also places priority on new
    school construction, law enforcement, school operations, and pay/
    uncontrollable cost funding to maintain current service levels.

               OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE FISCAL YEAR 2001 REQUEST

        The request for Office of Special Trust account is about $7.4
    million decrease below the fiscal year 2000 funding. The federal
    government has been severely criticized, especially in recent years,
    about its ability to properly adhere to its trust responsibilities owed
    to the American Indians.
        Question. Are you confident that the Office of Special Trustee will
    be able to adequately carry out its pressing trust responsibilities in
    fiscal year 2001 in light of the administration's request for a
    decrease in funding?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget reduction primarily reflects an
    adjustment for one-time computer systems acquisition costs planned in
    fiscal year 2000. At the time the budget was submitted, the level
    requested in fiscal year 2001 for the OST was sufficient to carry out
    the responsibilities anticipated for fiscal year 2001, based on the
    trust reform and Cobell litigation demands.
        However, since the development of the fiscal year 2001 request,
    additional responsibilities were added to correct four breaches of
    trust identified in the December 21, 1999, court order in the Cobell
    litigation. The Court order focused upon the Department's compliance
    with statutory trust duties embodied in the American Indian Trust Fund
    Management Reform Act of 1994 (Act). Specifically, the Court order
    requires the Department to promptly establish written policies and
    procedures to render an accurate accounting of the Individual Indian
    Monies (IIM) trust in the following four areas: (1) collecting from
    outside sources missing information; (2) retention of IIM-related trust
    documents; (3) computer and business systems architecture; and, (4)
    staffing of trust management functions.
        As a result of the completion of the revised High Level
    Implementation Plan and additional Court requirements, some funding
    needs have changed. On May 31, 2000, the Department submitted a
    reprogramming letter to the Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Subcommittees seeking approval to use $3.2 million for
    the new requirements specified in the Court's order from funds
    previously appropriated for other trust activities. Sufficient funds
    are available from fiscal year 2000 and prior appropriations to begin
    addressing these breaches of trust. The Department will use these funds
    to implement the plans for the systems architecture implementation,
    information collection activities, and Phase Two of the workforce
    planning study. The Department received approval from the House
    Subcommittee on June 12, 2000, and is awaiting approval from the Senate
    before proceeding with the reprogramming.
        The Department is currently evaluating its 2001 costs for both
    trust reform and litigation activities to determine how to address
    these increased costs. As stated in the May 31, 2000, reprogramming
    request, the Department will continue to keep the Committee staff
    informed with regard to additional requirements stemming from the Court
    order, trial two litigation costs, Federal Register Notice--IIM
    accounting costs, and TAAMS.

                NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (NAPA)

        This Committee included $5 million in fiscal year 2000 bill for BIA
    to implement the recommendations made by the National Academy of Public
    Administration.
        Question. How has the money been spent so far and what are the
    plans in the future for the enacted $5 million?
        Answer. The funds provided by the Congress in fiscal year 2000 are
    primarily for costs associated with relocating two major offices, the
    Division of Accounting Management and the Office of Information
    Resource Management, from Albuquerque, NM, to the Washington, D.C.,
    metropolitan area. As of April, 2000, this includes $700,000 in
    payments for buy-out authority and severance pay under the special
    authority provided by the Congress. In addition, the Bureau plans to
    use a portion of the funds to staff key positions under the newly
    established Deputy Assistant Secretary.
        Now, BIA requests an increase of $4 million for fiscal year 2001.
    Apparently, BIA's next phase of implementation will focus on the needs
    in the field as opposed to the needs in headquarters.
        Question. Please describe how BIA would use the additional $4
    million?
        Answer. The $4 million in additional funds requested in fiscal year
    2001 would enable the Bureau to continue implementation of the
    recommendations of the National Academy of Public Administration
    (NAPA). The next phase of the implementation will focus on analyzing
    the staffing needs for the Bureau's field structure. NAPA is conducting
    an extensive workload analysis of the current staffing in key
    administrative functions such as accounting, property and procurement
    that should be completed in June, 2000. After the completion of the
    analysis, NAPA will compare the present workload to industry standards
    and provide a staffing analysis of the law enforcement, education and
    other administrative and management functions in each of the 12 Regions
    of the Bureau. From this analysis, the Bureau will begin to fund the
    neediest of administrative functions in the Regional and Agency
    offices. This will begin the third phase of the implementation of the
    recommendations contained in the NAPA study.
        Question. How will BIA be reaching out to the BIA employees in the
    field and the Tribes in an effort to ensure that these funds will be
    addressing the critical needs in the field rather than just focusing on
    headquarters' perception of what those needs are?
        Answer. As part of the NAPA's administrative workload analysis, a
    survey instrument was provided to all Directors, Agency
    Superintendents, and other Bureau management staff to ensure that
    critical needs in the field were identified. Because of the number of
    responses, survey results are still being analyzed. Several NAPA teams
    also made on-site visits to many of the Regional Offices.

                         HIGH LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

        The revised High Level Implementation Plan, which was recently
    released, sets forth a stringent time line for each of the plan's
    subprojects. The plan refers to these time lines as ``milestones.''
        Question. Are you confident that the BIA and the Office of Special
    Trustee can reasonably meet these milestones?
        Answer. The High Level Implementation Plan (HLIP) outlines the
    Bureau's and the Office of Special Trustee's (OST) progress toward
    completing improvements in trust management and lays out additional
    steps that must be taken to reach the goals and objectives that have
    been established. In addition, the December 21, 1999, court ruling in
    the Cobell litigation, required that the Department of the Interior
    submit quarterly reports on actions taken to correct the four breaches
    of the Federal Government's statutory trust responsibility to
    individuals Indians. Significant headway has already been made in
    establishing new trust management and financial systems that will
    handle the millions of records that are the foundation of a reliable
    trust management program. The Trust Funds Accounting System is now
    operational for all Tribal and Individual Indian Monies (IIM) accounts,
    and currently the Bureau is moving forward on a nationwide deployment
    of the Trust Asset and Accounting Management System (TAAMS). In such a
    complex undertaking, there are still difficult challenges to be
    addressed, including data management, telecommunications
    infrastructure, human resource shortages, systems integration,
    competing demands within the Bureau's trust responsibility areas, and
    the need to achieve institutional changes. As a result, the Bureau has
    redirected resources to these efforts; conducted in-depth analysis and
    planning exercises; and, amended sub project plans to improve any areas
    that may be lagging behind the aggressive schedule articulated in the
    July, 1998, HLIP. Based on this experience and analysis, the Bureau and
    OST are confident that the updated HLIP (March, 2000) is achievable.
        However, the Department faces many external factors which could
    affect the achievement of these milestones. To ensure that the
    Department is diligently taking actions as set forth in the HLIP, the
    Federal District Court will retain continuing jurisdiction over this
    matter for a period of five years. As explained in a previous answer,
    the completion of the revised HLIP has also caused the Department to
    reassess funding needs for trust reform.
        The Department has continued a tracking system to identify progress
    made in meeting the milestones on the HLIP. This status is reviewed at
    bi-weekly meetings chaired by the Assistant Secretary--Policy,
    Management and Budget. Periodic updates are provided to the Congress on
    the progress and the Congress is engaged in legislative reform which
    greatly assists the efforts. For this plan to be successful, there has
    to be continued support of the Congress, the Federal District Court,
    the Tribes and individual Indians who are served, and the continued
    dedication of thousands of career Department employees.

                                PROBATE BACKLOG

        It is the Secretary's duty to determine the legal heirs to the
    trust assets after the death of an Indian trust asset owner.
    Unfortunately, BIA faces a huge backlog in probate cases. This problem
    has been addressed in the High Level Implementation Plan.
        Question. BIA has projected that it needs $9 million to address
    this backlog in fiscal year 2001. Please explain how these funds would
    be used?
        Answer. Of the $9 million request, $3 million requested in the
    Bureau's budget would support the hiring of staff to support the
    ongoing probate program needs and sustain reforms implemented under the
    Trust Management Improvement Project (TMIP). The funds will be used to
    focus on the Bureau and the Office of Hearings and Appeals' (OHA) joint
    efforts to implement the framework for streamlining the probate process
    that was recommended in the Department's Phase I and Phase II
    Reinvention Labs. The recommendations include increasing the number of
    probate staff, preparation and issuance of decisions for probates, and
    establishing consistent, streamlined standard processes. The remaining
    $6 million requested is included in OST's budget to continue
    streamlining efforts identified in the Probate Reinvention Lab to
    reduce the backlog. The Department is currently evaluating the 2001
    projected Probate cleanup project costs to determine the funding levels
    needed to meet the milestones established in the updated HLIP (March 1,
    2000).
        Question. Also, it has become apparent in the past that the backlog
    was so huge that there were not enough administrative law judges to
    hear the cases. Has this issue been resolved? How?
        Answer. Yes. First, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) has
    obtained approval to hire four additional Administrative Law Judges
    (ALJ) and re-open four of its offices. Personnel processes have been
    followed to hire the Judges. OHA is currently interviewing ALJ
    applicants and expects selections by June, 2000. Second, the Bureau
    will hire attorney decision-makers who will be issuing decisions from
    the record for the non-complex probates.
        Question. What steps have you taken to try to make an effort to use
    only ALJ's to work on these cases?
        Answer. The Department's Reinvention Lab recommended redesign of
    the existing probate program in a manner that would delegate decisions
    to the lowest level, eliminate non-value added steps, and reduce the
    processing time from the official notice of death to the issuance of
    the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, from 3-6 years to 18
    months. The new system provides two avenues to the potential heirs for
    expediting probate cases.
      --Decisions by Attorney Decision-Makers.--If the cases meet fixed
            criteria and the heirs do not object, the case will be decided
            by a Bureau Attorney Decision-Maker. The Bureau Attorney
            Decision-Maker will make on-the-record decisions in those cases
            that meet specific criteria and will decide those cases without
            a hearing.
      --Decisions by Administrative Law Judges.--Cases may go before an
            ALJ. Potential heirs and devisees will also be given an
            opportunity to indicate preferred alternate methods of
            decision-making by the ALJ, including: (1) in-person hearing;
            (2) on-the-record decision; (3) video conferencing for areas
            that are difficult to access frequently; and, (4) on a limited
            basis, teleconference.
        Question. BIA has also drafted regulations establishing policies
    and procedures for the probate program and the duties of the BIA
    attorney decision-makers and paralegal specialists. Please describe
    these policies and procedures and explain how they will assist in
    addressing the huge backlog?
        Answer. The Bureau has not issued final regulations covering the
    probate process. The proposed regulations would establish a standard
    streamlined process to reduce the time to prepare a probate package for
    decisions and increase the quality of the contents of a probate
    package. The primary focus of the regulations will be to ensure that
    decisions are at the lowest level and reduce the amount of time
    required to process a probate and to improve the consistency of
    processing and recordkeeping. The ALJ processes the probate package
    under the regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations,
    Title 43, Part 4, Subpart D. A hearing is held which increases the time
    involved to probate an estate.
        The Attorney Decision-Maker will speed the probate process within
    the Bureau by reviewing the probate package and issuing a written
    probate decision. Decisions can be issued in uncomplicated cases based
    on the information in the probate package, without conducting a
    hearing, thereby reducing the time involved in the probate process.
        Probate specialists will be trained in will drafting, estate
    planning, research techniques, customer orientation, and the
    streamlined probate process. A certification program will be
    established for probate specialists to ensure qualified probate
    personnel.

              TRUST ASSET AND ACCOUNTING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TAAMS)

        The Trust Asset and Accounting Management System (TAAMS) is a
    commercial off-the-shelf land management system which BIA has piloted.
    BIA has made sure that the system was modified to reflect the unique
    aspects of Indian trust requirements, including master lease, billings
    and accounts receivable.
        Question. How confident are you that TAAMS will be a reliable
    system and, if so, what has given you this assurance?
        Answer. To ensure that TAAMS is a system upon which the entire
    Bureau can depend, the Bureau has relied upon internal and independent
    evaluations of TAAMS readiness, including:
      --SRA, a contractor responsible for independent verification and
            validation (IV&V) of the TAAMS system and user test efforts,
            provided suggested recommendations and risk mitigation
            strategies. The Bureau has already initiated or will address
            these recommendations.
      --SeNet, a contractor responsible for IV&V of TAAMS contract
            components, performance and load testing of the Bureau's
            network to ensure proper capacity for TAAMS, security planning
            for TAAMS and the installation of security measures to fully
            protect trust data.
      --Two User Test results, both internal Bureau tests to demonstrate
            the usability of certain functions and compare the results of
            live data input. These User Tests, conducted in February and
            April, 2000, clearly indicate user support for TAAMS.
      --Applied Terravision Systems, Inc, the software vendor, conducted a
            successful system test.
        Based on the Bureau's Rocky Mountain Region pilot, the Bureau has
    been able to learn and adjust to issues related to data conversion and
    cleanup, training and deployment. In addition, important analysis has
    been conducted to improve performance of the BIANET to ensure proper
    disaster recovery methods and to complete a comprehensive security
    plan.
        Question. When do you expect that the TAAMS will move from the
    testing stage into the deployment stage?
        Answer. A final User Test was completed in April, 2000, to test
    cleanup of issues identified in the February, 2000, User Test, to
    incorporate the final recommendations by the national panel of title
    experts and to make adjustments to improve the performance of TAAMS. In
    an April 28, 2000, letter to the Appropriations Committees, the
    Secretary stated his intention to initiate deployment of the title
    function at eight LTROs beginning in May, 2000. The TAAMS schedule
    calls for the first deployment in May, 2000, when each Bureau Land
    Titles and Records Office (LTRO) will receive a limited number of TAAMS
    licenses. The plan is to have all LTROs fully deployed by December,
    2000.
        Deployment consists of the physical installation of TAAMS software
    on computer workstations. Implementation occurs after deployment once
    the site personnel have thoroughly inspected its data and are
    comfortable with using TAAMS as the ``system of record''. It is
    conceivable that some offices may take longer to implement than others
    when taking their individual circumstances into consideration. It is
    expected that this decision will occur in a relatively short period of
    time at some sites and may take up to 120 days at other sites.
        Question. Has BIA started to train the field personnel on TAAMS?
    How successful has the training been so far?
        Answer. The software and service Bureau contractor (Artesia Data
    Systems, a subsidiary of Applied Terravision Systems) has been
    conducting training for staff from the Rocky Mountain Regional Office
    (formerly Billings Area Office) in Dallas, Texas. Based on initial
    pilot feedback, a new contractor has been retained to enhance the
    training efforts. The NATEC, Inc. has created and distributed surveys
    that have provided new insights into the Bureau's training challenges.
    For example, the Bureau has learned that approximately 25 percent of
    its staff require some remedial training in the use of ``Windows''
    software. The Bureau has also redesigned the training program to
    provide some informal pre-training information to trainees to
    familiarize them with TAAMS concepts and to increase their comfort
    level once actual hands-on training is initiated. NATEC will also
    undertake a Bureauwide informational effort to ensure that all
    employees understand the importance and criticality of TAAMS.
        Question. Are there any plans to provide training not only at the
    regional level but also at the tribal level?
        Answer. Staff from the Bureau's Headquarters, Regional Offices, and
    Agencies/Field Offices, and the Tribes, will be required to attend
    TAAMS training. Training will be adapted for all levels of Bureau
    staff, including clerical program staff, mid-level managers, Field
    Representatives, Superintendents and Regional Directors.

                      TRUST FUNDS ACCOUNTING SYSTEM (TFAS)

        Developing a system to ensure that the accurate accounting and
    reporting of the trust funds for individual Indians and Tribes has been
    long overdue. The system that has been chosen is the Trust Funds
    Accounting System.
        Question. Please explain how this system has been working? Do you
    have assurances that this system will adequately track the interests of
    individual Indians? Why?
        Answer. At the end of March 2000, all individual Indian and Tribal
    accounts had been converted to the Trust Fund Accounting System (TFAS).
    Currently, there are over 269,000 accounts maintained in the new
    system. TFAS is provided by SEI Investments Inc. of Oaks, Pennsylvania,
    the leading provider of trust technology to the financial industry
    across the nation. SEI provides a commercial off-the-shelf system
    called Trust 3000 to OST through a service bureau arrangement. OST
    participates in a large user group that not only provides peer support
    but also recommends enhancements, and a third party audit of the system
    on an annual basis.
        This new system provides for a much more timely and accurate
    processing, monitoring and reconciliation of data. TFAS provides
    universal on-line real-time access to account information. An
    accountholder may inquire about his/her account at any Bureau or OST
    location (not available before TFAS) and have up to the minute
    information provided. A quarterly statement with detailed transactions
    and account balances is also provided to each accountholder who has
    provided a valid address.
        TFAS enables operational efficiencies including system self-
    balancing of input, direct deposit capabilities to the accountholder,
    interfaces with major vendors and custodians, scheduling of future
    payments with stop date provisions, overdraft protection,
    reconciliation of check production, automatic posting of interest and
    audit trail provisions. SEI also provides flexible processing times and
    24 hour-7 days a week support to OST. The implementation of the new
    system has enabled the centralization of encoding, and a complete
    review and balancing of documents provided prior to encoding and a
    review for accuracy of posted transactions after posting. TFAS has
    proven to be an excellent system to administer Indian trust funds and
    investments.
        Through TFAS, OST provides timely posting of funds received,
    interest calculations based on funds in each account, and all income
    earned and due from investment assets. Through the self-balancing
    functions, the daily reconciliation process, monthly custodial
    reconciliations, annual third party audit of the SEI system and the
    OTFM annual program audit, assurances are present that the system
    adequately tracks the interests of the individual Indians. In the past,
    many transactions were conducted via telephone and/or without full
    documentation. The need to document TFAS transactions in some instances
    requires more effort on the part of all parties involved in a
    transaction. However, this documentation also serves to more accurately
    account for the beneficiaries' funds.
        OST is dependent on the Bureau for resource data including accuracy
    of ownership and the amount of payments derived from resources due to
    each beneficiary. To fully track the land interests of individuals, the
    Bureau's land, lease and resource management data is needed. The 2001
    budget request includes $35.1 million to strengthen the Bureau's land,
    lease, and resource management capabilities. The Trust Asset and
    Accounting Management System (TAAMS), which is being developed,
    deployed, and implemented by the Bureau, will include an asset
    management system with a master lease subsystem, a billing and accounts
    receivable subsystem, and a collection subsystem. Following successful
    implementation, the TAAMS system will replace the present Bureau
    Integrated Records Management System (IRMS). In addition, the Land
    Record Information System (LRIS) function has been incorporated into
    TAAMS. Linking the data in TAAMS with TFAS will provide for an accurate
    tracking of individuals' interests.
        Question. It has been projected that $14.2 million will be need for
    TFAS in fiscal year 2001. Please explain how this money will be used?
        Answer. A total of $14.2 million is needed to meet the operating
    requirements of TFAS, as follows:
      --$12,050,000 is needed for the TFAS and related systems contracts to
            maintain an estimated total of 269,000 accounts, develop
            systems interface requirements, provide regional lock boxes for
            electronic deposit, and transfer collection of income and fees
            data from TAAMS.
      --$500,000 is required for the scheduled replacement/upgrades of
            computer workstations, computer security, and other hardware,
            software and network systems replacement costs associated with
            TFAS.
      --$1,655,000 is needed for support functions needed to operate TFAS
            including, centralized data entry, help desk, systems
            operations, and training on the functions of TFAS. Centralized
            accounting coupled with the pre- and post-review of all
            transactions enhances accountability to the account. Now that
            TFAS is operational, OST has the responsibility for training
            new users and implementing any systems enhancements.

                            QUESTIONS FOR MR. GOVER

        Question. It is tough to generalize the sentiment from the tribes
    because they are all so unique, and they all have varying interests and
    concerns. Putting that caveat aside, how confident are you that the
    priorities listed by BIA are generally in line with the priorities of
    the American Indians and Native Alaskans?
        Answer. As conveyed during the April 4, 2000, Senate appropriations
    hearing on the Bureau's fiscal year 2001 budget request, the Bureau's
    priorities are generally reflective of the priorities of the Tribes in
    Indian Country. While the Tribes' major priority has been increases in
    Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), they also support the fiscal year
    2001 priorities--trust reform, law enforcement, and school
    construction--which are focused on providing improved and increased
    services to Indian Country. These are areas in which the Tribes have
    historically expressed their views that the Federal Government should
    provide increased appropriations to address great social and economic
    needs.

                    SECTION 127 OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 BILL

        In Section 127 of the fiscal year 2000 bill, Congress included a
    provision that provides the Secretary of the Interior with the power to
    redistribute any Tribal Priority Allocation funds, including even the
    tribal base funds, to alleviate tribal funding inequities by
    transferring funds to address identified unmet needs, dual enrollment,
    overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution methodologies. The
    provision, of course, provided protections by limiting this power by
    stating that no tribe would receive more than a 10 percent reduction in
    a fiscal year.
        Question. At this time, would you advocate any expansion or change
    in this authority for fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request does not
    request continuation of the Section 127 language. No Tribes have sought
    to use this fiscal year 2000 authority to date.

                                   EDUCATION

        The Bureau has a program entitled the Family and Child Education
    (FACE) program. This is a family literacy program, serving children up
    to the age of five and their parents. It focuses on early childhood,
    parent and child time, parenting skills, and adult education. The
    administration requests $6.8 million to double the number of Family and
    Child Education sites at an average cost of $310,000 per site.
        Question. Please give an overview to everyone as to what FACE is?
        Answer. FACE is a comprehensive early childhood development program
    first implemented by the Bureau in 1990 and originally named the Early
    Childhood/Parental Involvement Pilot Program. The program serves
    children from birth through age 5 and their parents and children in
    kindergarten through grade 3. It recognizes the value of the parent as
    the child's first teacher and integrates the cultural and traditional
    values of the family. The program utilizes three research-based models
    of reform: (1) the Parents as Teachers (PAT) model, which adopts a
    home-based emphasis for children from birth to age 3; (2) the National
    Center for Family Literacy (NCFL), a center-based model for children
    from age 3 to 5; and, (3) the High/Scope model for kindergarten through
    grade 3 students that emphasizes an ``active learning'' process of
    education.
        The FACE model addresses the literacy needs of the family and
    addresses many of the educational goals in the Goals 2000: Educate
    America Act and the Indian Education Act, and the Bureau's educational
    goals in the following areas:
      --School Readiness
      --High School Completion
      --Student Achievement and Citizenship
      --Adult literacy and Lifelong Learning
      --Safe, Disciplined and Drug Free Schools
      --Tribal Government, Language and Culture
        A 1998 study on the effects of the FACE program showed the
    following:
      --Students who participate in FACE score higher on standardized tests
            in reading and language development in early elementary grades
            than children who do not participate in FACE.
      --Personal and social development is higher with FACE students than
            non-FACE participants.
      --Three and four year old participants demonstrate improved language
            and literacy skills to prepare them for school.
      --Parental involvement increases significantly once children enter
            school compared to parents who do not participate in FACE.
        Due to the success of FACE, the sites have increased from the
    original six in 1990 to 22 sites today. Continued training and
    technical assistance is provided to all sites throughout the year by
    the Bureau's Office of Indian Education Programs and the service
    providers.
        Question. What kind of planning has BIA developed for the
    implementation of these 22 additional FACE sites? Are you confident
    that it will be able to get these 22 additional FACE sites up and
    running within fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The planning stage for implementation of the 22 additional
    FACE sites has begun with a time line outlining specific target dates
    for the process. The process includes five phases aimed at
    strengthening the commitment to quality performance and implementation.
    In the first phase, new FACE site applications were mailed to the 60
    eligible applicants in April, 2000. All Bureau-funded schools serving
    kindergarten through grade 3 with appropriate facilities were eligible
    to apply. This application and selection process is based upon the
    existing FACE correlates and is similar to the current process. During
    the second phase, site applications will be completed and returned to
    the Bureau by mid-June, 2000. The Bureau will review the new FACE site
    applications during the third phase. The applications will be ranked by
    the Bureau's FACE committee by mid-July, 2000. The fourth phase is site
    visits to the 30 selected potential FACE sites to validate the
    information contained in the application. All FACE site visits will be
    completed and final selections made by December, 2000. The fifth and
    most important phase is providing intense technical assistance and
    training to the 22 selectees which will strengthen each individual
    project and assure a high degree of success. This will occur during the
    first and second quarter of fiscal year 2001.
        This five-phased approach will ensure that by the time funding is
    available in July, 2001, all selected sites will be ready for
    implementation.
        Question. Will these new sites be similar to the current FACE
    sites?
        Answer. Yes, the proposed new sites will utilize the three models
    of research-based methods currently used by the existing 22 sites.
    These models of reform are effective and easily adaptable to community
    needs, cultural values and traditions. The models are centered on
    parents receiving and utilizing educational standards and practices for
    their children well before they enter their formal education process.
    In the initial stages of implementation (the first 2 to 3 years), the
    sites will establish the core areas of the three models and then
    progress towards an outcome-based performance approach.
        Question. How and when will the additional sites be selected?
        Answer. The Bureau will establish a team to review the applications
    for the additional FACE sites. The team will include experts in the
    field of early childhood, the research-based trainers of PAT, NCFL,
    High/Scope, and Department of Education and Tribal personnel. The
    schools will be ranked by a scoring system. Site visits will then be
    conducted to determine that the schools have the appropriate facilities
    available to house the program. Final selections will be made by
    December, 2000, and notification letters will be sent to the proposed
    22 sites by January 15, 2001.
        The administration requests $8.2 million to start a new initiative
    known as the Therapeutic Residential Model (TRM) sites. This will
    provide dormitories which will offer a last chance environment for
    certain children and will offer counseling programs in addition to just
    a dormitory setting. With that money, the administration hopes to
    implement 6 pilot sites.
        Question. Please explain this new initiative?
        Answer. The Therapeutic Residential Model (TRM) program will
    address the unique social, emotional, and spiritual needs of K-12
    students in the residential programs. These residential facilities
    enroll a large population of students who are considered high risk.
    Many of these students have been exposed to physical abuse and neglect,
    have abused drugs, alcohol, and have engaged in unsafe behavior. In
    some schools, as many as 80 percent of the students are on probation
    from the juvenile court system, 40 percent or more are chemically
    dependent, and the majority of these students are children of
    alcoholics and from dysfunctional families. Given the current funding
    levels, the boarding schools do not have the resources to meet the
    critical and diverse needs of these students. In fact, each school is
    funded as though it does not enroll high-risk students. As a result,
    the high-risk students are not provided appropriate care.
        The Bureau is proposing to start the six pilot sites in fiscal year
    2001 that will provide mental health personnel as well as social
    workers, health care personnel, and support staff to meet the holistic
    needs of the high-risk students. The TRM model is encapsulated into
    nine correlates which includes: (1) Comprehensive Mental Health
    Substance Abuse Services, (2) Comprehensive Student Screening/
    Assessment, (3) Intensive Staff Training, (4) Small Group Living, (5)
    Home, School, Community, and Tribal Interaction, (6) Safe and Secure
    Environment, (7) Cultural Relevance, (8) Year Round Program, and (9) a
    Transition Period to home and community. The staff will be comprised of
    nurses, counselors, social workers, clinical psychologists, and trained
    residential support staff. The staffing will reflect each school's
    student population. The provision of appropriate staff and clinical
    personnel will provide the compensatory assistance that could bring
    achievement levels closer to norms and prepare students for post
    secondary education or employment. It is estimated that a small school
    of 200 students will require approximately an additional $700,000,
    while a large boarding school will require over $2 million for its TRM
    program.
        Question. What kind of planning has BIA developed for the
    implementation of this new initiative?
        Answer. The Bureau has been planning and developing the TRM during
    the course of the past year. The selection and implementation process
    takes place in five phases. The development of the application and
    selection criteria, based upon the nine correlates of the TRM, was
    completed in March, 2000. In the second phase, each of the selected
    populations can submit an application during April through June, 2000.
    During the third phase, applications will be reviewed, ranked and rated
    for tentative selections. The fourth phase is the validation of the
    information contained in the application through on-site visits, which
    will take place during August and September, 2000. The fifth and most
    important phase is providing technical assistance and training to the
    selectees which will strengthen each individual project and assure a
    high degree of success. This will occur during the first and second
    quarter of fiscal year 2001.
        Question. How will these sites be selected?
        Answer. A review team comprised of residential living staff, Bureau
    employees and other individuals with expertise in the field will select
    these sites based on the nine correlates and how they are addressed in
    the application. The six sites to be selected will include two off-
    reservation residential schools, two on-reservation residential
    schools, and two peripheral programs.
        Question. How does the BIA plan to evaluate the pilots to determine
    whether they are effective?
        Answer. It is imperative that the sites selected for the pilot
    programs provide a comprehensive delivery of services to the
    residential students. This will be addressed in the application and
    then supported with training for all residential staff. The Office of
    Indian Education Programs (OIEP) will hire an outside evaluation team
    to evaluate the delivery of services, training of staff and the impact
    TRM has on achievement levels and behavior of the students.
        Usually, BIA receives approximately $700,000 per fiscal year for
    the Student Statistical Initiative, an automated system to keep track
    of certain statistics relating to BIA's education programs.
        Question. Please explain why the request seeks $3 million for this
    initiative this year?
        Answer. The requested funds will provide for the first phase of a
    four-year plan to provide Central/Regional server administration and
    maintenance, software/application procurement and licensing, file
    server enhancements, staff training and network management for all
    schools under OIEP's authority. The requested increase of $3.0 million
    will be used to implement the SSI program at 50 additional Bureau-
    funded schools in fiscal year 2001 and to maintain the 28 sites
    implemented in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. Of the requested
    amount, $1.7 million will provide for: the installation and maintenance
    of the Central Office server to collect data from each school;
    maintenance of the network including technical assistance and help
    desk; software licensing for the 50 schools by midSchool Year 2001-
    2002; installation of the software at each school site, on-site
    training and follow up training; and workstations and servers for each
    school. The balance of $1.3 million will be used to maintain the SSI
    program in schools which implemented the program in fiscal year 1999
    and fiscal year 2000 to include updated software licenses, server and
    workstation enhancements, and continued training. The Bureau piloted
    SSI at four schools in fiscal year 1999 and installed the program in an
    additional 12 schools in 1999 and 12 schools in fiscal year 2000.
        The SSI will eliminate the current cumbersome and time consuming
    process for developing and distributing annual school operations
    funding by automating the process at the local school level. School
    statistics will also capture and maintain data on student records,
    academic curriculum, accreditation, student achievement, transportation
    services, personnel records, food services, and needs assessments. The
    system will provide the capability to track student movement between
    Bureau-funded schools and from/to public and private schools. The
    system will also provide data on retention rates and dropout rates. In
    addition, it will make it possible to automate the Indian School
    Equalization Program (ISEP) which will ensure schools have better
    access to their funds and are held accountable for student funding
    data.
        Question. Is BIA really equipped to more than triple its
    implementation of the Student Statistical Initiative in fiscal year
    2001? And, how has it prepared for this?
        Answer. Yes. A plan has been established for the implementation of
    the SSI. This plan includes the procurement of software, training of
    school staff and procurement of hardware for each school. Schools have
    been identified for fiscal year 2001 to receive the training, software
    and hardware for SSI. An internal core staff of information technology
    experts who are well versed in the SSI software and Indian School
    Equalization Formula requirements is essential to fully implement the
    project. This core staff will be involved in annual training at the
    school level and provide technical assistance to the field on an as-
    needed basis. Furthermore, funding for this program is being requested
    under the Central Office Operations budget activity to facilitate the
    streamlining of information resource management technologies throughout
    the Bureau for improved management oversight by a Chief Information
    Officer as recommended in the National Academy of Public
    Administration's report on the Bureau's management and administration
    functions.
        Question. How many schools could benefit from this increase and how
    is it determined which schools will reap the benefits?
        Answer. Of the total, $1.7 million of the requested $3.0 million
    increase will be used to implement the SSI program at 50 additional
    Bureau-funded schools infiscal year 2001. Schools selected to
    participate in the SSI program have a functioning Local Area Network,
    sufficient band width available, electronic mail, and the potential for
    local technical support. The remaining $1.3 million will address
    upgrades at 28 existing schools.

                          TRIBAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS

        Question. Please explain why BIA has not requested funding for
    Tribal Education Departments?
        Answer. While no specific funding is requested, Tribes have
    utilized the option of prioritizing their base TPA funds in the Other-
    Education, Tribal Design line item for Tribal Education Departments.
        Question. Are there other areas within BIA's budget request that
    would essentially address funding that would otherwise fall under
    Tribal Education Departments?
        Answer. Tribes have the option of using the Other-Education, Tribal
    Design line item within TPA for Tribal Education Departments. The
    purpose of this program is to allow Tribes to exercise their Tribal
    sovereignty by determining how best to structure their education
    program to meet the needs of the Tribal community.

                       STUDY WITH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

        BIA requests a $500,000 increase for a longitudinal study with the
    Department of Education.
        Question. What is this study for?
        Answer. This study is being conducted by the Department of
    Education on non-Indian children from birth to age five on a nationwide
    basis. The funds requested in the fiscal year 2001 budget are to build
    upon the Bureau's partnership with the Department by providing funds
    for an American Indian component of the Early Childhood Longitudinal
    Study. This study will be conducted under a Memorandum of Agreement
    between the Bureau and the Department of Education entered into under
    the direction of Executive Order 13096, American Indian and Alaska
    Native Education.
        Question. Why doesn't this fall under the Department of Education's
    budget request?
        Answer. The Department of Education's budget request for this study
    does not include funding for an Indian children component. The Bureau
    is requesting funds to allow the study to include American Indian
    children.

    USE OF SCHOOL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FORMULA GRANTS AND AREA/AGENCY
                            TECHNICAL SUPPORT FUNDS

        Please explain the purpose of the funds requested for Area/Agency
    Technical Support.
        Question. Does this purpose cover ``oversight and technical''
    assistance?
        Answer. Area/Agency Technical Support funds are distributed to each
    Education Line Official for office staff salaries, employee benefits,
    travel, training, and office operational costs to provide academic
    program monitoring, oversight, and technical assistance relating to
    Johnson- O'Malley Education Assistance program, Adult Education, Higher
    Education Scholarships and direct supervision over Bureau-operated
    schools. The functions performed by Education Line Officials for
    education programs are codified in 25 CFR 33.5 and 33.6. The Education
    Line Officers are responsible for the following:
      --Represent the Bureau education programs in their dealings with
            Indians, State and local governments, other Federal agencies
            and the public.
      --Direct and assist in the development application and implementation
            of overall policies and programs, evaluate performance, and
            coordinate those features of programs extending beyond the
            jurisdiction of a single school within the agency or office.
      --Recommend revisions of national policies, programs, procedures and
            regulations.
      --Monitor and evaluate Bureau education programs.
      --Provide technical assistance and coordination for schools and other
            offices within their jurisdiction in such areas as curriculum,
            procurement, contracting, budgeting, personnel and other
            administrative services.
      --Direct those agency positions deemed by the Assistant Secretary--
            Indian Affairs as ``directly and substantially'' involved in
            education, including all contract educator positions.
      --Coordinate, monitor, and as appropriate, certify the validity of
            management information system data collected by these schools.
      --Enhance technology to improve that collection.
        Question. Has the BIA, on occasion, withheld funds from various
    schools' Operations and Maintenance formula grants and other funds? If
    so, what for?
        Answer. Yes. The Bureau does withhold funds from some isolated
    Bureau-operated schools' Operations and Maintenance (O&M) formula
    grants to provide skilled craftsmen such as licensed electricians,
    boiler operators, and water treatment plant operators and to offset the
    cost of program oversight and accountability. Centralized Agency and
    Regional crews have been found to be more cost effective for these
    isolated locations. These types of positions at the school level are
    hard to fill and retain due to isolation factors and lack of available
    employee housing. A policy to withhold funds for all Bureau-funded
    schools was issued but has since been rescinded before any withholding
    of funds occurred from any Bureau grant or contract schools' O&M
    formula grants or other funds. The Bureau only withholds funds from O&M
    formula grants to the extent requested by such Tribe or Tribal
    organization.
        Question. Have some of these funds been used to perform tasks that
    could also fall within Area/Agency Technical Support?
        Answer. No. Facilities Operation and Maintenance funds have and are
    being used to provide technical assistance and oversight which has
    historically been the responsibility of non-education Regional/Agency
    offices. For instance, within the Navajo Region, operations and
    maintenance funds have been used for centralized crews that monitor and
    abate hazardous materials violations, natural gas line inspection and
    repair, radio equipment repair, pest control services, and water well
    repair. This function is not provided for by funds appropriated for
    Area/Agency Technical Assistance.
        Question. If the BIA has done this in the past, does it foresee
    withholding such funds from schools for such purposes in fiscal year
    2001?
        Answer. Yes. In the Navajo Region there is a formal agreement
    between the Regional facilities management office and the education
    line officials for scheduling and accounting for work performed by
    centralized crews throughout the Navajo Region using Operations and
    Maintenance funds. At all other Bureau Regions and Agencies, Operations
    and Maintenance funds may be reduced through negotiations with the
    affected schools to provide the aforementioned services.

                              SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

        The administration requests $300.5 million for school construction
    for fiscal year 2001. This is a 126 percent increase. The
    administration's decision to focus significant resources on BIA school
    replacement in fiscal year 2001. In conjunction with this request, BIA
    has issued a new priority list for school replacement construction. Two
    Washington state schools are in the top 13--one for the Lummi tribe and
    one for the Colville tribe. The administration proposes that the $300.5
    million would take care of the top 6 schools on the list, of which
    Lummi is included.
        Question. What process was used to establish the new list?
        Answer. In 1998, the Bureau began preparations for developing a new
    Education Facilities Replacement Construction Priority List, including
    the acceptance and evaluation of applications from Tribes who wished to
    have schools placed on the priority list.
        The Bureau published a notice in the Federal Register on November
    17, 1998, (63 FR 63942) requesting comments on the draft revised
    instructions and criteria entitled ``Instructions and Application for
    Replacement School Construction, 1999.'' The new instructions governed
    the priority ranking process for construction of replacement education
    facilities and the criteria used in ranking applications. Comments were
    received relating to administrative requirements and responsibilities;
    definitions of ranking criteria; evaluation of applications; and cost
    sharing. The comments were reviewed and incorporated into the final
    instructions and criteria as appropriate by a team comprised of Tribal
    representatives and Bureau employees from the Bureau's Office of Indian
    Education Programs and the Office of Facilities Management and
    Construction. The Bureau proceeded with using the final revised
    application instructions and criteria on February 26, 1999.
        Copies of the final revised instructions and criteria were sent to
    all Bureau schools and those schools that receive Bureau funds under
    contract or grant. The Bureau held Tribal consultation meetings on the
    revised process. The Bureau's Education Line Officers offered training
    to applicants at all schools under their administrative jurisdiction on
    how to complete applications using the revised instructions and ranking
    criteria. Tribes and Bureau-funded school boards received advance
    written notices of training session dates, times, and locations for
    Tribes and schools under their jurisdictions.
        The Bureau published another notice in the Federal Register (64 FR
    14936) on March 29, 1999, calling for applications based on the revised
    instructions and ranking criteria. The Bureau accepted applications
    beginning June 28, 1999, and used the criteria in the revised
    instructions to review and evaluate all applications that were received
    on or before the deadline of July 16, 1999. After the application
    period closed, a 12-member Replacement of School Evaluation Committee,
    comprised of officials from the Bureau, Tribes, the Department of
    Education, and the Department of Defense, reviewed 105 applications and
    ranked 96 applications. These applications were ranked according to the
    new criteria and 10 schools were placed on the fiscal year 2000
    Priority List. Schools placed on the original List as of fiscal year
    1993, that were not fully funded for construction by fiscal year 2000,
    specifically projects 13, 15, and 16, did not have to submit
    applications for ranking on the new Priority List and are retained in
    order at the top of the new Priority List as projects 1 through 3.
    Thirteen schools are now listed in the Education Facilities Replacement
    Construction Priorities List as of fiscal year 2000 which was published
    in the Federal Register (Volume 65, Number 20) on January 31, 2000.
        Question. If this Committee is unable to provide the full request,
    how would you recommend we determine a funding level? Is it a matter of
    providing full funding for as many schools as can be afforded, or
    should we provide full funding for some schools and only provide design
    funds for others?
        Answer. OMB Circular A-11, Principals of Financing, requires that
    capital improvements, if phased, must provide a useable segment when
    completed. When full funding is not provided, it often results in
    higher planning costs and higher acquisition costs. This concerns the
    Bureau, especially when the second phase of the construction is subject
    to the availability of appropriations. Tribes are reluctant to enter
    into a construction contract/compact without knowing that funds will be
    provided in the subsequent year. Additionally, 31 USC Section 1341 (a)
    prohibits an officer or employee of the United States Government from
    entering into a contract or obligation for the payment of money before
    an appropriation is made unless authorized by law. Construction
    contractors may be reluctant (risk avoidance) to enter into full
    construction contracts with Tribes and Tribal organizations if full
    funding is not available when their construction contract is awarded.
    Although phased funding may allow more schools to begin construction,
    the total number of schools replaced would not increase and the total
    construction cost will increase for the project.
        Question. How many schools could be built if they were phased over
    a two year period?
        Answer. As stated previously, OMB Circular A-11, Principals of
    Financing, requires that capital improvements, if phased, must provide
    a useable segment when completed. When full funding is not provided, it
    often results in higher planning costs and higher acquisition costs.
    This concerns the Bureau, especially when the second phase of the
    construction is subject to the availability of appropriations. Although
    phased funding may allow more schools to begin construction, the total
    number of schools replaced would not increase, yet the total
    construction cost for the project will increase.
        Question. Please explain what would happen to the time line for
    construction for a particular school if the tribe opted not to contract
    and therefore if the Bureau had to do the project itself?
        Answer. If a Tribe chooses not to contract for a construction
    project, the Bureau will implement the construction work. In the past,
    the planning phase was done in one year, the design phase was done the
    following year, and the construction phase began in the third year. The
    Bureau's new re-engineering school planning, design and construction
    process will be used for three of the six replacement schools requested
    in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2001. The three schools are:
    Tuba City Boarding School, AZ; Wingate Elementary School, NM; and Baca
    Thoreau (Dlo'ay Azhi) Consolidated Community School, NM. The re-
    engineering process provides a method by which school projects can be
    completed in half the time previously expended, thus reducing the
    planning, design and construction time from six or seven years to less
    than three years. The end result provides the students in these schools
    with facilities that meet the needs of the education program in an
    environment conducive to learning.
        Question. If some schools are not contracted, is there likely to be
    a large unobligated balance for school construction?
        Answer. Since much of the construction funding would be provided to
    Tribes through grant or contracting authority, and should the
    additional funds requested for construction management staff in fiscal
    year 2001 be provided, the Bureau believes this funding would be
    obligated in a timely manner. The construction awards on four of the
    six schools requested in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget will
    be implemented through Public Law 100-297 school grants or Public Law
    93-638 self-determination contracts/compacts. The Tribes and Tribal
    organizations are able to implement design and construction faster than
    the Bureau since it is the only school project they are managing. The
    Bureau's fiscal year 2001 request includes an increase in the
    Construction account for program management to hire 20 FTE to assist in
    the increased construction and operations and maintenance program
    activities associated with the funding increase requested in Education
    Construction. To be able to accelerate school replacement, make
    progress on reducing the backlog for construction and facilities
    improvement and repair programs, and ensure adequate contract, grant,
    and compact monitoring, increased staff is critical. The additional FTE
    would also allow the Bureau to continue to improve the monitoring of
    Public Law 100-297 Tribally controlled school grants and Public Law 93-
    638 contracts.

                                LAW ENFORCEMENT

        Question. Please describe how the initiation of the Department of
    Justice's COPS program has improved the law enforcement programs for
    the BIA?
        Answer. The Bureau is not eligible for Department of Justice (DOJ)
    grants. However, the DOJ's COPS grant program has provided much needed
    resources to Tribally-operated law enforcement programs by providing
    funds to hire, equip and train Tribal law enforcement officers and to
    assist in building new detention facilities. The COPS program has
    provided grants to Tribes for approximately 1,100 police officer
    positions throughout Indian Country. However, these grants expire after
    three years and most Tribes cannot afford to assume the new police
    officer salary costs. Under the Presidential Initiative on Law
    Enforcement in Indian Country, the Bureau is requesting base funds to
    hire these trained and experienced COPS officers on a permanent basis
    and DOJ has extended the length of many COPS grants.

                               LAND CONSOLIDATION

        Fractionated ownership interests of trust and restricted lands is a
    major problem that, by its nature, will expand exponentially over time.
    It has become increasingly expensive for the government to manage these
    lands, and the fractionated ownership has resulted in the reduction of
    the lands' economic value for Indian owners. The administration is
    asking for $12.5 million to address this problem in fiscal year 2001.
    This is a $7.5 million increase over fiscal year 2000 funding.
        Question. What reservations are targeted for participation in the
    land consolidation in fiscal year 2001? How are they selected?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2001, funds will continue the acquisition of
    fractional interests on the three reservations (Bad River Band, Lac
    Courte Orielles Band, and Lac du Flambeau Band) that constituted the
    pilot; for administrative costs for purchasing the interests that must
    be redetermined and redistributed to the legal heirs and devisees
    pursuant to the Court's ruling; and potentially expanding the
    acquisition program to other reservations. Several criteria will be
    applied to determine the preferred priority of reservations for the
    project: the extent of fractionation of Indian trust or restricted
    lands associated with the reservation (the greater the fractionation
    the higher the priority); the greater the number of actual or projected
    willing sellers the higher priority; and the greater the support of the
    Tribal government for the project, the higher the priority.
        Question. As part of the selection process, does BIA focus on lands
    with the best economic prospects to ensure that the government will get
    the most return for its money?
        Answer. The Land Consolidation project is primarily a cost-
    reduction project rather than a for-profit or--income producing
    project. Although the Federal Government will received a return on its
    investment in the form of income derived from the development of the
    consolidated land, the principal cost-benefit will be the decreased
    cost of managing the previously fractionated trust land and resource.
    In fact, the only hope for producing income from the most fractionated
    allotted lands is to reduce the fractionation to a level that would
    make leasing or contracting of such lands, and the distribution of
    derived trust income, a real or practical possibility. Over time, the
    combination of cost reduction and the return on investment should
    provide a positive cost-benefit ratio for the Federal Government.
        Question. As part of the administration's request, it proposes
    language to change this from a ``pilot'' to an official program. How
    big of a program might this become?
        Answer. The Land Consolidation program would be primarily devoted
    to the acquisition of fractionated interests; a small amount would be
    used for program administration. The current Land Consolidation pilot
    project will provide data required to project the cost of
    administration and the estimated cost-benefit. The Bureau estimates
    that the cost of administration will be four to six percent of the
    total project cost.
        At present, there are more than 2.2 million undivided or fractional
    interests in trust or restricted allotted lands. The projected number
    of interests acquired by the project through fiscal year 2001 is about
    20,000 interests. At that rate, and proceeding one agency at a time, it
    would take about 115 years to acquire all fractionated interests.
    However, if sufficient funding and willing sellers were available for
    20-25 agencies at any one time, then almost all fractional interests
    could be acquired within an estimated 5-10 years (with the greatest
    activity within the first 5 years and the last acquisitions estimated
    at 15 years). In order to provide the funding and operation stability
    required for Indian Land Consolidation, the current project should be
    made a permanent program.
        The greatest impact of the acquisition of fractional interests will
    be at the Land Titles and Records Offices which must process each
    fractional interest within each deed. At present, the primary problem
    arises from the large number of ``pre-Youpee'' interests on each tract
    in each deed which substantially lengthens the time required to record
    and update the title to the land.

                                  OFFICE MOVES

        In response to the NAPA report, the BIA has decided to move two
    administrative units from Albuquerque to the Washington, D.C. area.
        Question. Explain why this move will improve the Bureau's
    management as opposed to re-focusing resources to Albuquerque?
        Answer. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) report
    and various General Accounting Office (GAO) reports have confirmed that
    hands-on management, daily direction, and increased communications are
    essential for effective management. Furthermore, the Office of
    Inspector General found that the Bureau was not in compliance with a
    number of statutes, including the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990,
    the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, the Credit Reform Act of
    1990, and the Prompt Payment Act. The longstanding nature of these
    material weaknesses resulted in a qualified audit opinion for the
    Bureau. The geographic distance between the Bureau's Washington
    Headquarters and its Albuquerque accounting management and information
    resources management operations greatly contributed to the Bureau's
    predicament. The Bureau agrees with the NAPA and GAO findings that
    combining all administrative functions in one location would facilitate
    direct supervision and lead to enhanced performance and accountability
    in all aspects of management.
        Question. How much notice were the Albuquerque employees given
    prior to the actual move?
        Answer. The first phase of the NAPA recommendation regarding the
    transfer of functions was implemented in mid-February, 2000. The
    employees within the Division of Accounting Management were presented
    with a notice of Transfer of Function on November 5, 1999. The
    employees of the Office of Information Resources Management were
    notified on December 6, 1999.
        Question. Explain what procedures, support, and options were
    provided to the employees based in Albuquerque in anticipation of the
    move. What alternatives, if any, were provided to them?
        Answer. The employee notices provided background information on the
    decision to relocate the organizations and explained the transfer
    process and the rights of the employees as they proceeded through the
    process. Employees were offered full relocation benefits with their
    acceptance to transfer. Understanding the difficulty in making such a
    decision, the Bureau provided the employees with an additional two
    weeks beyond what is required by regulations to make their decision. To
    further assist the employees, the Bureau received from the Congress the
    authority to extend the Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment program
    to Albuquerque employees affected by the transfer of functions. Special
    provisions were also added to allow the Bureau to cover health benefits
    for one year for employees who elected not to relocate. The Bureau also
    offered house hunting trips, payment of relocation costs, temporary
    quarters, and storage of household goods until a residence was located
    by the relocated employees.
        Question. What percentage of the employees actually moved to the
    Washington, D.C. area? What happened to the remainder of the employees?
    Did they retire? Did any have to retire early? Did they transfer to
    other federal jobs? Did they move to the private sector? Provide
    specific numbers of what has happened to all of the Albuquerque
    employees that were affected by the move.
        Answer. Of the 134 employees affected by the transfer of functions,
    a total of 31 employees, or 23 percent actually moved to the
    Washington, D. C. area. The remaining employees selected other options
    which include the following:
      --Voluntary Separation Incentive Program--31 employees, or 23
            percent, accepted the buy-out option;
      --Placements with other Federal Agencies--24 employees, or 18
            percent;
      --Separated from Federal service--43 employees, or 32 percent (due to
            their status as part-time and/or temporary employees with no
            fringe benefits);
      --Resignations--5 employees or 4 percent.
        Question. In addition to these two office moves, has the Bureau
    planned any additional office moves? If so, please explain the basis
    for the move.
        Answer. Yes, the only additional move that is expected at this time
    is to relocate some of the administrative functions related to
    property, contracting and information resources management from the
    Washington Headquarters to the Reston Administrative Center. This move
    will allow for additional office space at the Washington Headquarters
    to be available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary--Indian
    Affairs.

                          TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATIONS

        Under TPA, there is a request for an increase of $2.8 million for
    higher education scholarships and an increase of $1.3 million for
    Tribal Courts.
        Question. How will these funds be distributed? Will it be formula
    driven?
        Answer. The requested increase of $2.9 million for Scholarships
    will be distributed to those Tribes having a Scholarships line item
    within their Tribal Priority Allocations priority listing. These funds
    are not distributed by formula, but rather are awarded to eligible
    students who demonstrate an unmet academic financial need as determined
    by the various college/university financial aid offices. The increase
    will allow approximately 950 additional students to be awarded
    financial assistance at an average of $3,000 per student award.
        The additional $1.3 million requested for Tribal Courts will be
    used to implement provisions in the Indian Tribal Justice Act,
    specifically:
      --In partnership with the National Indian Tribal Court Judges
            Association, $200,000 will be used to initiate Tribal judicial
            conferences, 25 U.S.C. 3614;
      --The remaining $1.1 million will be used for base support funding
            for the more than 250 Tribal justice systems, including Courts
            of Indian Offenses, 25 U.S.C. 3613. Funds will be equally
            distributed among Federally recognized Tribes currently
            receiving court funds through the Tribal Priority Allocation
            process. These funds may be used for the purposes set forth in
            Section 3613(b), and funds earmarked for Tribes served by
            Courts of Indian Offenses will be used by the Bureau to improve
            those courts.
        Question. Can the Bureau assure Congress that the funds will go for
    the scholarship purpose and the Tribal Courts purpose, as BIA has put
    forth in its request, or is it possible that the funds could be
    reprogrammed by the tribes?
        Answer. The Tribes have the flexibility of shifting funding within
    their total Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) allocation to meet
    changing priorities. TPA is critical to the Tribes' goal of achieving
    self-determination and economic stability. The present TPA process
    allows the Tribes to reprogram appropriated funds from one program to
    another based on Tribally-determined priorities. Therefore, the Bureau
    cannot guarantee that funds for Scholarships or Tribal Courts will not
    be reprogrammed to another Tribal program account under TPA.
        Congress previously directed that BIA should ensure that the
    maximum amount of funding would be provided to meet law enforcement
    needs and in fiscal year 2000 Congress directed that no law enforcement
    funds were available for tribal shares. Additionally, the Bureau
    previously indicated to this Committee that it would focus on improving
    the distribution methodology so that distribution would be based on
    identified law enforcement and detention needs.
        Question. Are you still taking this distribution approach?
        Answer. Yes. Through a survey of Tribal and Bureau agency law
    enforcement and detention needs and priorities, the Bureau has
    considered population, land base, crime statistics, training and
    current levels of staffing as factors in determining the distribution
    of funds. The Bureau will continue to stay focused on improving its
    distribution methodology. Considering the great diversity from Tribe to
    Tribe, it is not possible for a ``one size fits all'' distribution
    process. In addition, the Bureau continues to work closely with DOJ to
    ensure that maximum benefit is realized in the distribution of funds.
        Question. How do you assess this? What factors are considered?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the Bureau worked with Tribal leaders
    and Indian Country police chiefs to develop a method to best distribute
    the additional funds provided. From this consultation came a wide mix
    of ideas. However, participants agreed a ``one size fits all'' approach
    was not feasible. Through a survey of needs and priorities, the Bureau
    again considered population, land base, crime statistics and current
    staffing levels for distributing funds. The Bureau also took into
    consideration the grants (i.e., COPS) provided to Tribes by the
    Department of Justice.

                           NEW CONTRACTS OR COMPACTS

        The moratorium on new contracts or compacts was lifted in fiscal
    year 2000.
        Question. As a result, how many contracts or compacts have been
    requested so far?
        Answer. As of May 1, 2000, the Bureau had received 4 requests,
    including 2 compacts, for a total of about $275,000. However, the
    Bureau's Office of Law Enforcement Services has indicated that an
    additional 10 Tribes are expected to contract Bureau law enforcement
    programs this year. The estimate for these new law enforcement programs
    is approximately $500,000. The Bureau has requested its Regional
    Offices to assist in determining the reason why the demand is not
    higher.
        Question. How many new contracts or compacts have you estimated for
    fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Prior to the fiscal year 1999 moratorium imposed by the
    Congress, the Bureau was beginning to see a leveling of requests to
    contract new programs by Tribes. However, because of the fiscal year
    1999 moratorium on new or expanded contracting and/or compacting, the
    Bureau had estimated that as many as 70 new or expanded contracts would
    be entered into during fiscal year 2000. This has not happened. The
    Bureau has requested its Regional Offices to ascertain why the demand
    is not higher.

              REALIGNMENT OF THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

        The National Academy of Public Administration report made various
    recommendations regarding BIA's management and administration. In
    response, a Secretarial Order was signed recently which authorizes the
    realignment of the Office of the Assistant Secretary. Among other
    things, the Secretary has authorized the creation of a new position of
    Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management and Budget and
    reorganizes what offices will be under the direction of the Principal
    Deputy Assistant Secretary and the Deputy Assistant Secretary.
        Question. How long does BIA anticipate it will take to fully
    implement the Secretarial Order?
        Answer. Secretarial Order No. 3214 (February 7, 2000) realigns the
    Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs' immediate office in order to
    strengthen management and accountability for Indian Affairs matters
    within the Department. The Order calls for the establishment of several
    new positions and offices and the transfer of several Bureau offices to
    the Office of the Assistant Secretary. All of the actions should be
    completed by the time the Secretarial Order expires on March 31, 2001.
        Question. Please explain how this reorganization will streamline
    the Office of the Assistant Secretary and make the office run more
    efficiently?
        Answer. As the primary Federal advocate for Indians, the Office of
    the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs must be the focal point for
    assuring that potential new initiatives, and existing programs are well
    coordinated, existing programs are providing maximum results (produce a
    high ratio of output to input), all programs are regularly evaluated
    and all resources are used to maximum advantage. The National Academy
    of Public Administration review of current Bureau management and
    administration, determined that there was very limited internal staff
    capability to provide budget, planning, human resources, policy,
    information resources management, and other types of elementary
    management assistance to the Assistant Secretary. Without basic staff
    support in these particular areas, the Assistant Secretary cannot be an
    effective leader. Conversely, with the internal staff capabilities
    typically available in other agencies, the Bureau can begin to seek
    managerial and administrative excellence.
        Question. Will this reorganization require the government to expend
    additional funds on a yearly basis? If so, how much?
        Answer. NAPA has recommended that 40-50 new staff would be needed
    for the Office of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs and
    approximately 150-200 additional administrative staff positions were
    required on a Bureauwide basis for its 12 Regional Offices and 83
    Agencies. A preliminary estimate for the cost of these positions is
    $10-$15 million.
        In the meantime, budget estimates and current realities present a
    more streamlined projection for the Office because the bulk of the
    staff is already on board and will be realigned within the
    organization. The immediate Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--
    Indian Affairs for policy, planning, budget and management will require
    about 22 new FTE to staff the policy and planning function, the Office
    of the Chief Information Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, and the
    new Human Resources Office. For staff of the Principal Deputy Assistant
    Secretary--Indian Affairs, a total of three new hires are anticipated
    to be added. The grade levels of these new recruits will average high
    because of the nature and scope of their responsibilities. Therefore,
    an estimated 25 positions at a cost of $101,000 (GS-14/5) is about $2.5
    million in additional salary, not including estimated relocation costs
    of $500,000, for a grand total of $3 million. After the initial hires
    are complete, the ongoing increased staff costs of maintaining the $2.5
    million salary costs must be added to the current budget for the Office
    each fiscal year.
        A workforce analysis conducted by NAPA is currently underway for
    the Bureau. The data from this analysis will become available in
    Summer, 2000.

                            GOVERNMENT CREDIT CARDS

        Question. What type of policy does the BIA have regarding the
    issuance and use of government credit cards?
        Answer. The Bureau uses the Department of the Interior policies and
    procedures in administering the Government credit card program. The
    Bureau's internal policies and procedures for card usage are still in
    the development stage.
        Question. For what purposes are employees authorized to use the
    government credit cards?
        Answer. The cards have three business lines of authority available:
        (1) Fleet--All cards have the fleet business line open for fuel
    charges on rental cars;
        (2) Travel--most employees have the travel cards which have the
    business line for official Government travel; and,
        (3) Purchase--some employees have the purchase business line
    authority for purchasing office supplies and equipment and other
    authorized items totaling $2,500 and under. The Bureau also has
    cardholders with purchase authority over $2,500. These cards are issued
    to Warranted Contracting Officers with authority to purchase up to
    their individual warrant authority, but no single purchase can exceed
    $100,000.
        Question. Who has established the policies regarding the use of the
    credit cards?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior has established the overall
    policy for use of the credit card.
        Question. How is this information disseminated to BIA employees?
        Answer. Information is disseminated by written memoranda,
    Departmental website, and/or via electronic mail notices by the
    Headquarters Agency Program Coordinator to the Agency Program
    Coordinators at the Regional Offices.
        Question. How many BIA employees have been issued government credit
    cards?
        Answer. As of March 31, 2000, there were 3,820 cards issued for
    travel/fleet; 18 cards were issued for purchase/fleet; and another
    1,549 cards were issued with a combination of purchase/travel/fleet for
    a total of 5,387 Bureau employees with Government credit cards.
        Question. What has been the overall level of violations, abuse
    (regarding both unauthorized use of the credit cards and/or non-payment
    of credit balances)? What kind of discipline has resulted from the
    abuse? How many employees have been disciplined? How many employees
    have been indicted? How many employees have been convicted through
    either plea agreements or trials?
        Answer. The Bureau has found violations by employees who were not
    on official travel such as ATM cash withdrawals, airline tickets, hotel
    and restaurant charges, and other personal expenses. Other violations
    include purchasing personally-owned vehicle fuel and maintenance
    charges and non-payment of card balances.
        Employees found to be in violation of unauthorized credit card
    usage have received verbal and written reprimands for abuse as
    appropriate. Other disciplinary actions include individual accounts
    being closed or the employee being placed on suspension from duty--
    placing them on Leave Without Pay. The more flagrant acts of credit
    card abuse have resulted in the employee being terminated from the
    Federal service. Currently, the Bureau has had to take disciplinary
    action against more than 80 employees for unauthorized credit card
    usage. Other than administrative actions taken, one employee has been
    indicted but none at this date have been convicted for credit card
    abuse.
        Question. Has the BIA recently engaged in any changes in policy,
    enforcement, and discipline to help curb abuse of the credit card use?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior has established the overall
    policy and use of the credit cards. Instructions with regard to the
    Travel and Transportation Reform Act which authorizes the bank to
    request garnishments of checks for delinquent accounts has been issued
    for implementation. The Bureau has written a memorandum disseminating
    this information to advise all cardholders that delinquent accounts may
    be subject to garnishment. No other changes have been instituted
    regarding disciplinary action.

                               HOUSING ASSISTANCE

        Question. Please explain the differences between BIA's Housing
    Improvement Program and HUD's housing program which is available for
    American Indians. Also, how are these programs similar?
        Answer. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD)
    Office of Native American Programs provides housing assistance on
    Indian reservations through the Native American Housing Assistance and
    Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA). To the extent possible, HUD provides
    American Indian and Alaskan Native families with home ownership and
    low-income rental opportunities. Therefore, grant funds are provided to
    Federally and non-Federally (State) recognized Tribes.
        By contrast, the Bureau's Housing Improvement Program (HIP)
    provides grant funds to American Indian families that are members of a
    Federally recognized Tribe. Housing service is provided to Indian
    families within the exterior boundaries of a reservation (or approved
    service area) without regard to Tribal affiliation. The HIP is charged
    with serving the neediest of the needy and serves the very low-income
    Tribal members that are below HUD's income level requirements for home
    ownership and who are on waiting lists for subsidized rental housing.
    Under HIP, to target the very low-income recipients, the annual
    household income cannot exceed 125 percent of the HHS Poverty Income
    Guidelines. For example, under HIP, the income of a family of four
    cannot exceed 125 percent of $16,700, or $20,876, while under income
    limits established by NAHASDA the income limit for a family of four is
    $38,250.
        HIP provides funding for housing repairs and renovations of
    existing homes, construction of a modest replacement home, or
    construction of a modest home for families who do not own a home but
    have ownership or lease of sufficient land suitable for housing. HUD
    generally provides funds for new construction, but through the
    Modernization Program, repair and replacement is also available. While
    both the Bureau and HUD provide single family housing for those who can
    demonstrate that they have a home ownership interest in the unit, HUD
    also allows multi-family units and usually accommodates rentals. HUD
    also requires some form of rent (determined by each Tribe) that may not
    exceed 30 percent of the monthly-adjusted income of such family. The
    HIP does not require a recipient to pay rent.
        Question. Do these programs overlap at all? If so, how do they
    overlap?
        Answer. The programs do not overlap. The HIP serves people with
    substandard living conditions who have no other resource for housing
    assistance.

                                 GPRA QUESTIONS

        Question. How are the BIA's annual performance goals linked to the
    BIA's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its budget
    request?
        Answer. The Mission goals within the Bureau's Strategic Plan and
    its Annual Performance Plan are the Government Performance and Results
    Act (GPRA) Program Activities. Due to the diversity of programs within
    the Bureau, it was necessary to establish the GPRA Program Activities
    at the subactivity level of the Program and Financing Schedules in the
    budget. Establishing goals at this level created broader scope long-
    term goals that reflect the valuable programs that the Bureau provides
    to American Indians and Alaska Natives on a nationwide basis. The long-
    term goals are a general outcome of the Bureau's individual budget
    programs within each subactivity and their contributions to the
    achievement of the mission goals. The goals set forth within the Annual
    Performance Plan outline what the programs will accomplish as a one-
    year increment to the long- term goals, utilizing the Strategic Plan as
    its foundation.
        Question. Describe the process used to link your performance goals
    to your budget activities? What difficulties, if any, did you
    encounter, and what lessons did you learn?
        Answer. The Bureau mission goals were developed and aligned with
    the subactivities of the Program and Financing schedules of the budget
    as suggested under GPRA. The long-term goals were then developed to
    establish the five year efforts of the budget programs within the
    subactivities to achieve the missions. The performance goals were
    developed to measure annual increments of performance toward achieving
    the long-term goals. With each goal level being established in line
    with the budget structure, there were no major problems in linking
    performance goals to the budget activities.
        Question. Does BIA's Performance Plan link performance measures to
    its budget?
        Answer. Yes, all of the Bureau's goals were developed in line with
    the activities within the Program and Financing Schedules of the
    budget. The Bureau's budget request describes which goal the request
    relates to within the Annual Performance Plan.
        Question. Does each account have performance measures?
        Answer. The Bureau can account for 100 percent of the appropriated
    budget within its performance plan. However, due to the complexity and
    volume of the Bureau's budget, performance is measured at the
    subactivity and program element levels and not at the general account
    level. Furthermore, there may not be a specific measure at the annual
    goal level for every program account, but those accounts can be
    attributed to the accomplishment of the overall long-term goals.
        Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
    differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
    justification?
        Answer. Due to the diversity of programs within the Bureau, GPRA
    program activities are aligned with the subactivity level of the
    Bureau's budget. The Bureau's performance plan is structured by program
    area--human services, education, and trust services--similar to the
    presentation of funding at the budget activity level.
        Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
    structure for fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. There are no GPRA-related changes to the account structure
    in the fiscal year 2001 request.
        Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
    described under that account structure?
        Answer. There are no GPRA-related changes to the program activities
    under the account structure for fiscal year 2001.
        Question. How were performance measures chosen?
        Answer. In consultation with the Bureau's program managers and
    Tribes, the goals and measures were developed by reviewing the primary
    budget programs and ascertaining the most valuable way to gauge the
    level of services the Bureau is providing pursuant to the mandates of
    GPRA.
        Question. How did the BIA balance the cost of data collection and
    verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
        Answer. The Bureau has strived to develop the most cost-effective
    measures and goals that could use existing verifiable data sources and
    systems to reduce costs. The Bureau will continue to assess the value
    of current goals and measures as indicators of program performance and
    in the context of what information is needed to make management
    decisions.
        Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
    reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your
    performance report?
        Answer. The Bureau has several goals that are reported on a
    calendar year rather than fiscal year basis; however, final data for
    these goals will be available by February of the following year for
    inclusion in the Annual Performance Report.
        Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
    2001 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
    to track program results?
        Answer. The Bureau recommends the following four goals be used to
    track program results:
        (1) 01.01.01.01.01: The Bureau will promote Indian Self-
    Determination by maintaining a 16 percent enhancement in training and
    technical assistance over fiscal year 1998 levels and minimizing the
    impediment of limited Contract Support funding to Tribal contracting,
    compacting and grants.
        (2) 02.02.01.02.01: The Bureau will increase the number of Tribes
    operating comprehensive welfare plans to 40.
        (3) 02.03.01.01.01: The Bureau will reduce the projected Calendar
    Year 2000 Indian Country crime rate from 2,323 crimes per 10,000
    inhabitants to 2,300 crimes per 10,000 inhabitants.
        (4) 02.05.01.02.01: The Bureau will bring prompt pay performance up
    to 97 percent.
        Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
    it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
    well'')?
        Answer. Of the four goals, one, two and four provide output
    measures; goal three provides an outcome measure.
        Question. State the long-term general goal and objective from the
    Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is linked?
        Answer. The long-term goals that these annual goals contribute to
    are as follows:
        (1) 01.01.01--By 2005, the Bureau will promote Indian self-
    determination by enhancing training and technical assistance by 50
    percent and minimizing impediments to Tribal contracting, compacting
    and grants.
        (2) 02.02.01--By 2005, the Bureau will improve the quality of life
    in Indian communities.
        (3) 02.03.01--By 2005, the Bureau will improve law enforcement
    services on Indian lands and preserve public safety for the citizens of
    Indian Country by providing a 7 percent reduction in the 1998 Indian
    Country crime rate for Class I and Class II offenses.
        (4) 02.05.01--By 2005, the Bureau will achieve minimum acceptable
    standards for successful administrative processes by eliminating the
    Bureau's existing material weaknesses, producing unqualified opinions
    to the financial statements, and bringing prompt payment performance up
    to 97 percent. The Bureau will employ modern automated techniques and
    processes for management, maintain tight control on costs, and utilize
    customer service surveys to measure efficiency, timeliness and overall
    quality of Bureau customer service.
        Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
    did BIA undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include a
    significant number of outcome measures?
        Answer. The Bureau held consultation and development meetings
    geared toward the establishment of outcome-based goals that could be
    supported by reliable data sources in line with the Strategic Plan. The
    broad spectrum of services and the strict information collection
    requirements that must be adhered to in working with Tribes and
    individual Indians has made the development of outcome goals with
    readily available data sources a difficult task due to conflicting
    statutes governing reporting requirements by the Bureau's customers.
    Comments from the General Accounting Office and the Office of
    Management and Budget on the Bureau's strategic and annual performance
    plans have been helpful in guiding the Bureau to make the gradual
    transition from output goals/measures to outcome goals/measures.
        Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
    difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
    measure effectiveness (outcome)?
        Answer. Yes, as the process has evolved throughout the Bureau since
    the enactment of the law in 1993, a general understanding of the
    difference between outcome goals versus output goals has developed.
        Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
    that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
    external customers.
        Answer. Within the Administration Services GPRA Activity, the
    Bureau has established a goal to develop customer service surveys for
    each of the primary program service areas. These surveys will request
    customers to provide their level of satisfaction with these services.
    The corrective actions determined through the survey feedback are
    expected to develop additional customer satisfaction measures for
    inclusion in future annual plans.
        Question. How were the measurable goals of your Annual Performance
    Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request and the fiscal year
    2001 Annual Plan are developed simultaneously with each document
    providing support to the other. The budget is developed in support of
    the Bureau's performance goals and funding requests include the program
    efforts required for the accomplishment of goal targets.
        Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
    this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
    the change would have on the level of program performance and the
    achievement of various goals?
        Answer. Data collection efforts are sufficient to determine the
    likely impact of funding level changes.
        Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
    reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
    so that the BIA can be properly managed to achieve the desired results?
        Answer. The Bureau has developed and implemented a database system
    and collects quarterly data on the progress of programs at the field
    and Headquarters levels in reaching goal target levels.
        Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
    management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
        Answer. All reported data is maintained in a secure database system
    administered at the Headquarters level with access by authorized
    personnel only. Reports of quarterly progress are compiled and provided
    to program managers on a Bureauwide basis. The Bureau also provides the
    information contained in these quarterly reports to the Department for
    inclusion in its quarterly reporting system.
        Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
    performance-related data located throughout your various information
    systems?
        Answer. There are two stages of database access. First, each Field
    office has an individual database that it can access to enter new data
    for upcoming reporting purposes and to review quarterly reports. Field
    staff can only access their own Regional data as authorized by
    Headquarters. Second, designated Headquarter's staff maintain the main
    database for all GPRA program reporting as well as the development and
    review authority for the Field databases. The database will continue to
    be modified and enhanced as the Bureau moves forward in meeting the
    objectives of GPRA.
        Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
    the BIA's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to define
    the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity set
    forth in your budget.
        Many agencies have indicated that their present budget account
    structure makes it difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and
    meaningful way.
        Have you faced such difficulty?
        Answer. Through the use of appropriation codes and internal
    accounting codes assigned according to the GPRA Goal Categories, the
    Bureau has developed a method of tying the budget accounting structure
    to GPRA which allows for the linkage of dollars to results.
        Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
    structure were modified?
        Answer. The Bureau believes the current system is adequate for
    linking dollars to goals, but will continue to explore possibilities
    for improving what is in place in the future.
        Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
    believe such modification would be more useful both to BIA and to this
    committee than the present structure?
        Answer. There is not a requirement to modify the Bureau's budget
    accounting structure for GPRA purposes at this time.
        Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
    program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
        Spending significant resources on performance measurement systems
    appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not linked to:
    (1) real data about what it costs to perform various government
    functions; and (2) how to allocate BIA resources to perform these
    functions.
        Answer. Modifications are not required at this point in time for
    this purpose.
        Question. Could you comment on BIA's cost accounting expertise and
    plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
        Answer. The Bureau has already aligned both the budget and
    accounting structures to GPRA. Detailed program listings by GPRA
    Program Activity and long-term goals have been provided to the
    Department in line with its cost accounting guidance.
        Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by the
    Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by OMB,
    this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to have
    a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
    methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
    known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
    calculated for each of the activities of an agency.
        Question. What is the status of BIA's implementation of the
    Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
    Based Costing?
        Answer. The Bureau is able to show direct cost, but not the
    indirect cost at this time. Efforts are underway to ensure compliance
    with Departmental guidance on fully implementing cost accounting.
        Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
    the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
    in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
    and depreciation?
        Answer. Yes, it is the Bureau's goal that in the future it can
    provide the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program.
        Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
    the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
    of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
    activities?
        Answer. Yes. It is the Bureau's goal to be able to provide
    information that will show the relationship between the dollars spent
    on a program, the true costs of the activities conducted by the
    program, and the results of these activities.
        Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
    activity and result?
        Answer. Yes, the Bureau will be able to show the detailed costs and
    results for each activity.
        Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
    particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
    activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
    costs fully allocated to goals?
        Answer. The Bureau can show full direct costs for the funding of
    activities performed in support of goals. Some indirect costs can be
    attributed, but full indirect cost accounting has not been integrated
    into the accounting system at this time.
        Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
    measures that have been put in place by BIA in conjunction with the
    development of BIA's performance plan?
        Answer. There have been no regulatory reform measures established
    by the Bureau based upon performance planning.
        Question. Does your fiscal year 2001 performance plan--briefly or
    by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
    could influence goal achievement?
        Answer. Several of the goals within the fiscal year 2001 Annual
    Performance Plan include information within the Goal Description
    section that identifies external factors. The Strategic Plan includes a
    specific section entitled External Factors under each long-term goal
    that provides external factors that could influence goal achievement.
        Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
    anticipate and plan for such influences?
        Answer. The Bureau makes every attempt to operate programs to the
    best of its ability within the available resources. The Bureau seeks to
    maintain the flexibility necessary to take advantage of new
    opportunities and to address rising issues.
        Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
    estimates?
        Answer. Some external factors apply to emergency or disaster
    situations that would require redirection of resources in line with a
    programs purpose but outside its planned scope of activities for a
    given year. This redirection would severely reduce available resources
    and restrict the Bureau's ability to accomplish the goals.
        Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
    BIA identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
        Answer. In developing the Annual Performance Plan, the Bureau did
    not encounter duplication, but did identify several areas where program
    efforts were carried out in conjunction with other internal and
    external agencies. These efforts are set forth in the crosscutting
    section of the Plan.
        Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
    duplication?
        Answer. The crosscutting efforts are set forth in Section 3.2--
    Crosscut Issues within the Annual Performance Plan.
        Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
    potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
    and if so, how?
        Answer. Yes, the crosscut tables provided in the Annual Performance
    Plan address the issue.
        Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by BIA leadership to
    guide decision making? Will this use increase in the future and if so
    in what ways?
        Answer. The Bureau leadership is using performance measures and
    results in its decisionmaking efforts on an increased basis. As goals,
    reporting data and accountability efforts become further refined, the
    Bureau leadership and its program managers are realizing the full
    benefit and potential in utilizing this information to manage their
    programs and to motivate program staff to achieve positive results.
        Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
    actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
    that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
    to allow for these kinds of uses?
        Answer. With the establishment of the Bureau's first Annual
    Performance Plan in fiscal year 1999, the Bureau has continuously
    worked to refine and improve its measures and its delivery of services.
    Based on the fiscal year 1999 report results, the Bureau achieved 30 of
    its 45 performance measures, or 67 percent, for its first reporting
    period; non-achievement of 15 of the goals were based on a range of
    factors, including lack of appropriations. It is this range of factors
    which affect performance achievement(s) that raises the concern with
    the use of performance results from any single year in funding
    decisions. The Bureau believes that multiple year trend data is more
    valid and valuable for decisionmaking because it tends to eliminate
    single year aberrations like weather, legal issues, program
    adjustments, and the effects of funding obligations across fiscal
    years.
        The Bureau's learning curve increased during the preparation of the
    first GPRA program performance report. These learned lessons were
    utilized to revise goals for fiscal year 2001 Annual Performance Plan
    and for ongoing revisions to the Bureau's Strategic Plan. For new
    goals, goals with revised performance measures, or goals with updated
    baselines, the Bureau's ability to establish precise performance
    targets may improve as it continues to refine its efforts in this ever
    evolving process. In these situations, it may be difficult to
    accurately relate budget resources to projected levels of performance.
    This is largely attributable to lack of full knowledge of how projected
    target results for new goals or revised goals will result due to the
    authorities governing the Bureau's relationship (i.e., reporting
    requirements) with Tribes.
        Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
    estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
    accuracy of resource estimates?
        Answer. There are a range of factors which could affect the
    accuracy in the determination of estimates by the Bureau for its
    performance measures. The Bureau's customers, the American Indian and
    the Alaska Native, and the Bureau's core mission itself, are unique.
    Furthermore, statutes governing Tribal self determination at times
    conflict with other statutes such as GPRA with regards to reporting
    requirements. At any time, as authorized under Public Law 93-638, as
    amended, Tribes have the authority to enter into contracts, compacts,
    or grants with the Bureau to operate Bureau programs. This makes it
    difficult if not impossible to accurately determine the outcome of a
    measurement when program factors (i.e., operations, oversight
    responsibilities) could be changed in mid-stream.
        Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
    administrative requirements?
        Answer. No, the Bureau has not requested any waivers in this
    regard.
        Question. Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of
    transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
    accountability commitments?
        Answer. No, the Bureau has not requested any waivers in this
    regard.
        Question. Based on your fiscal year 2001 performance plan, do you
    see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan?
        Answer. The Bureau's fiscal year 2001 Annual Plan is a direct
    result of the Bureau's Revised Strategic Plan that is currently in the
    review process and expected to be finalized by June, 2000. Strategic
    planning is a continually evolving process and the Bureau expects to
    make revisions to the Strategic Plan in line with the modification
    schedules to address the ever changing needs in Indian Country.
                                     ______

               Question Submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Byron Dorgan

        Question. I was gratified to note that this year the Administration
    requested a significant increase in funding for school facility
    improvement and repair (FI&R). While I agree that an increase in FI&R
    funding is warranted, do you think it might make more sense for
    Congress to devote some of the FI&R increase to building new schools,
    rather than trying to put bandaids on schools that are in desperate
    need of replacement? Devoting the bulk of the FI&R increase to
    replacement, rather than repair, would allow us to build another 6-7
    new schools. Would the Administration object if more funding were
    devoted to school replacement, rather than repair?
        Answer. Yes, the Administration prefers the more balanced approach
    in its fiscal year 2001 request to the Congress. There are 185 Bureau
    schools in the Bureau's school system. Of these 185 schools,
    approximately one third require replacement and approximately two
    thirds require extensive improvement and repair. The Bureau recognizes
    that in order to substantially reduce the backlog, an aggressive
    facilities improvement and repair program and replacement school
    construction program must proceed simultaneously.
        Question. I commend the Administration for including $8.2 million
    to implement a Therapeutic Residential Model program at 6 BIA-funded
    boarding schools. I wrote the amendment authorizing the first
    therapeutic model school as part of the 1994 reauthorization of the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and I've felt for a long time
    we must do more to address the extreme behavioral or social problems
    many of the children attending boarding schools face. Is the Assistant
    Secretary aware of the Circle of Nations Indian School, an off-
    reservation boarding school in Wahpeton, ND, which has been operating a
    therapeutic model without additional resources for the last six years?
    I encourage you to give careful consideration to the Circle of Nation
    Schools when selecting your pilot sites, because it has firsthand
    knowledge of the challenges and needs of this type of effort.
        Answer. The Bureau has reviewed the Circle of Nations School
    therapeutic program and believes that it is a fine example of how a
    therapeutic program should be operated. The Circle of Nations School
    will be provided an opportunity to apply for one of the two off-
    reservation school pilots should the Congress fund the Bureau's request
    in fiscal year 2001. In addition, much to their credit, the School has
    stated that if they are not selected they still intend to provide a
    therapeutic program for their students. This is the type of commitment
    the Bureau is looking for in its pilots.
        Question. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North and South Dakota
    has contacted me about the significant delay in payments their tribal
    members with Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts are experiencing. I
    also understand that the Tribe is one of three tribes nationally that
    have objected to the removal of their IIM files, and consequently the
    data clean-up of these files has not yet been completed.
        What steps has the OST taken to reach an amicable solution with the
    Tribe over the removal and clean-up of these files? What solutions has
    the OST suggested to resolve this problem? Is there any legal basis
    (i.e. Indian self-determination contracts) to allow the Tribe to store
    the records or does the OST believe this would not meet the fiduciary
    responsibility of the federal government? To what extent is the delay
    in clean-up of these files responsible for the delay in payments to IIM
    account holders?
        Answer. The delays in IIM payments were not related to records
    clean up issues, but were caused by necessary additional transaction
    data and verification requirements as a result of the final conversion
    to TFAS. OST continues to work with the Bureau and the Tribe to address
    the problems related to these delayed payments.
        The OST and representatives of the Tribe worked extensively last
    year to develop an agreement on the transfer of the IIM records. The
    IIM jacket folders are needed, however, to verify account information,
    gather missing information, and eliminate any duplicate accounts. The
    Principal Deputy Special Trustee met with representatives of the Tribe
    and visited the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Representatives of the
    Tribe visited Albuquerque at least three times in 1999 to inspect the
    IIM data records clean up process and to discuss an agreement. OST
    senior managers participated in a radio call in show last year to
    discuss the issue. A draft agreement called for the transfer of IIM
    file jackets to Albuquerque for cleanup and imaging, which was to be
    monitored by tribal representatives at OST's expense. Other trust
    financial documents would have remained at Fort Yates and been imaged
    by the Tribe as part of an imaging project funded by OST, then
    transferred to Albuquerque. In July, the Tribal Council voted not to
    approve the agreement.
        These are Federal records in Federal custody on the reservation.
    The Tribe simply does not trust the Government to manage these records
    appropriately and has refused to allow the Government to remove the
    records from the reservation. The matter has been referred to the
    Office of the Solicitor and the Department of Justice for further
    guidance.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

        Question. Would you please give this Subcommittee an update on any
    effort you have made to incorporate BIA ``financial partnership''
    schools into the BIA Education Facilities Replacement Construction
    Applications?
        Answer. During the Bureau's solicitation for replacement school
    applications in July, 1999, six of the 105 applicants indicated an
    interest in creating Federal/Tribal school construction partnerships.
    Presently, the Bureau has not issued a policy nor defined any
    procedures regarding the sharing of construction costs with Tribal
    groups. The Bureau expects to develop policy regarding cost sharing in
    the third quarter of fiscal year 2000. During the application
    solicitation period, the Tribes and school boards were presented with
    the idea of ``partnering'' as an alternative means of financing school
    construction. The Bureau explained it was necessary to consider the
    possibility of Federal/Tribal construction partnerships since several
    Tribes had shown an interest in using the method to construct their
    replacement schools. The Bureau emphasized that applicants showing an
    interest in partnerships would not acquire any more points than
    applicants who did not wish to use partnering. Two schools on the new
    replacement school priority list, Santa Fe Indian School and Conehatta
    Elementary School expressed an interest in cost sharing.
        In addition, in its consultation with the Tribes, the Bureau
    emphasized that ``need for replacement'' would be the determining
    factor in preparing the Bureau replacement school construction priority
    list. The entire replacement school application solicitation and
    evaluation process implemented by the Bureau in 1999 sought to
    determine which schools were in most need of replacement. Therefore,
    the Bureau does not intend to fund those schools, through cost sharing
    or other means, which are not on the Bureau school replacement priority
    list. Funding of schools not on the Bureau's priority list would be
    unfair to the Tribes who made the list, disregard the priority setting
    process, and make questionable any use of a school construction
    priority ranking.
        Question. What is the status of the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos
    pilot project to establish better accountability of Tribal Priority
    Allocation funds?
        Answer. The Bureau remains interested in conducting a pilot with
    the Eight Northern Pueblos that improves accountability of TPA funds.
    However, several of the Pueblos are behind in filing their Single Audit
    Act reports and have financial management deficiencies in their most
    recent reports. The Bureau will work with those Pueblos to improve
    their current financial performance before initiating the pilot. In
    addition, the initial proposal had significant administrative cost
    funding proposed before the pilot would begin providing measurable
    program accomplishments. Those issues also need to be resolved before
    the pilot begins. While measurement of accomplishments with
    administrative funding is of interest to the Bureau and the Congress,
    it is not consistent with the ideas in the TPA report concerning unmet
    needs in Indian Country.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Gorton. So the subcommittee will stand in recess
    until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, April 5, when we will receive
    testimony from the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the
    Interior.
        [Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., Tuesday, April 4, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, April 5.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2000

                                           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, Stevens, Cochran, Burns, Bennett,
    and Byrd.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE
                INTERIOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN D. TREZISE, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON

        Senator Gorton. Mr. Secretary, you are not much of a draw
    today.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I must say this approximates a
    new low.
        To go out on such complacency and lack of anger has been
    nostalgic actually.
        Senator Gorton. Well, we will see what we can do for you
    later in the hearing.
        In any event, welcome. This is your sixth appearance before
    the subcommittee during my tenure as chairman, and from your
    public comments, I am assuming it will be your last, whatever
    occurs in November.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, do not make that assumption too
    quickly.
        Senator Gorton. Well, maybe we will have to have a few
    other hearings before November.
        But you know and we both appreciate our long personal
    relationship over the years. We are on opposite sides of a wide
    range of issues, but I do not know of anyone with whom I have
    had a more constructive personal relationship. And I must say
    that even when we disagree, I do not know of anyone who has
    been more dedicated to the mission of the Department of the
    Interior than you have been.
        More frequently than not, you have gotten yourself in
    trouble because you speak with far too much clarity. You have
    not developed the talents of some of the other members of the
    cabinet, who can answer at great length and leave us entirely
    puzzled as to what they mean.
        It is the contentious policy disputes each year that
    receive much of the attention during the debate over the
    Interior bill, and it is at least a 50/50 chance that the same
    thing will be true this year. But there are far more lower
    profile issues on which we have found common ground and on
    which we have been able to work together, with Senator Byrd,
    Congressman Regula, and other members of this committee and our
    House counterpart that do good things for our public lands, our
    wildlife resources, and our Indian peoples. From the recreation
    fee demonstration program, to increased funding for the care
    and maintenance of our national parks, to funding for salmon
    recovery in the Pacific Northwest, we have got a great deal of
    which to be proud, particularly given the austere budgetary
    climate in which we have been compelled to operate.
        Let us talk for a moment about this year's budgetary
    climate. The Senate right now is considering a budget
    resolution that will provide about $597 billion in
    discretionary spending for fiscal year 2001. That number could
    change slightly during floor action or in conference with the
    House, but it is certainly going to be in that range. This will
    allow, I understand, some funding increases over fiscal year
    2000 levels, but it is almost $30 billion less than the
    President's total budget request. So, our 302(b) allocation
    will not accommodate the $1.5 billion increase requested by the
    President for Interior bill programs, two-thirds of which is
    for programs under your jurisdiction.
        Against this background, I hope we will begin once again to
    be able to engage in a serious discussion of priorities, both
    today and through the course of the year. There are a number of
    new initiatives and grant programs contained in your request,
    as well as dramatic increases for certain existing programs. I
    am interested to determine whether you view these requests as
    such high priorities that, if necessary, you would recommend
    reductions in other programs to fund them or in what order you
    would prioritize these increases, to the extent increases in
    funding over the current year are possible. As was the case
    last year, it is not apparent that you were compelled to make
    many of these difficult choices during development of your
    budget request. I get the sense that it was more of an exercise
    of thinking up ways to absorb the dramatic increase that the
    Office of Management and Budget has allowed you.
        I imagine you have a different perspective, but the fact
    remains that your budget request would put the Department's
    budget fully 25 percent over where it was in fiscal year 1997.
    While no one here will deny that there are compelling funding
    needs for programs under your jurisdiction, I do not think that
    it is the desire of this Congress--and I know it is not the
    desire of this Senator--to spend every penny of the estimated
    fiscal year 2001 on-budget surplus on new or expanded Federal
    programs.
        So, I hope we can work together to develop a bill that will
    not only provide for the critical needs of the Department, but
    also contribute to maintaining the strength of the Social
    Security system, reducing our national debt, and providing for
    sensible tax relief that will benefit the people who use our
    public lands and the Indian people for whom you have trust
    responsibilities.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We certainly look forward to hearing from you today. The
    full text of your statement will, as usual, be included in the
    record. So, to the extent that you can make your remarks less
    formal, we will have more time for questions and substantive
    dialogue.
        Of course, the last line in my printed statement is to turn
    to Senator Byrd who arrived precisely on time for that line.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Slade Gorton

        Mr. Secretary, welcome once again. This is your sixth appearance
    before the Subcommittee during my tenure as chairman, and from your
    public comments I am assuming that it will be your last--regardless of
    what occurs in November. As such, I think it is appropriate at this
    time to state for the record how much I have enjoyed our professional
    and personal relationship over the years. Though we have frequently
    been on opposite sides of particular issues, we have been able to
    communicate with one another frequently and with great clarity in an
    effort to get the job done. For that I am grateful.
        It is the contentious policy disputes that each year receive much
    of the attention during debate on the Interior bill, and I expect that
    will again be the case in the coming year. But there are any number of
    lower profile issues on which you and I have found common ground, and
    on which we have been able to work with Senator Byrd, Congressman
    Regula and other members to achieve substantial benefits for our public
    lands, wildlife resources, and Indian peoples. From the recreation fee
    demonstration program, to increased funding for the care and
    maintenance of our national parks, to funding for salmon recovery in
    the Pacific Northwest, I think we have a great deal of which to be
    proud--particularly given the austere budgetary climate in which we
    have been compelled to operate.
        Having said that, I'd like to take a moment to talk about this
    year's budgetary climate. The Senate this week is considering a budget
    resolution that will provide some $597 billion in discretionary
    spending for fiscal year 2001. While that number may change slightly
    during floor action or in conference with the House, the final
    discretionary level for the coming year will likely be in that range.
    While this amount will allow for some funding increases over fiscal
    year 2000 levels, it is some $30 billion lower than the spending level
    contemplated in the President's budget request. As such, there is
    little question that this subcommittee's 302(b) allocation will not
    accommodate anything near the $1.5 billion increase requested by the
    President for Interior bill programs. Of that increase, roughly $1
    billion is for programs under your jurisdiction.
        Against this backdrop, I hope we will once again be able to engage
    in a serious discussion of priorities--both in this hearing and
    throughout the course of the year. There are a number of new
    initiatives and grant programs contained in your request, as well as
    dramatic increases for certain existing programs. I will be interested
    to see whether you view these requests as such high priorities that, if
    necessary, you would recommend reductions in other program areas to
    fund them, or in what order you would prioritize these increases to the
    extent increases in funding over the current year are possible. As was
    the case last year, it is not apparent that you were compelled to make
    many of these difficult choices during development of your budget
    request. I get the sense that it was more an exercise of thinking up
    ways to absorb the dramatic increase that the Office of Management and
    Budget has allowed you to have.
        I imagine you have a different perspective in this regard, but the
    fact remains that your budget request would put the Department's budget
    fully 25 percent over where it was in fiscal year 1997. While nobody
    here will deny that there are compelling funding needs for programs
    under your jurisdiction, it is not the desire of this Senator--nor I
    believe this Congress--to spend virtually every penny of the estimated
    fiscal year 2001 on-budget surplus on new or expanded Federal programs
    as the President's budget would do. And so I hope we can work together
    to develop a bill that will not only provide for the critical needs of
    your Department, but also contribute to maintaining the strength of the
    Social Security system, reducing the national debt, and providing for
    sensible tax relief that will benefit the people that use our public
    lands and the Indian people for which you have trust responsibilities.
        Mr. Secretary, we look forward to hearing from you today. The full
    text of your statement will be included in the record, so to the extent
    you can summarize your remarks, there will be that much more time for
    questions and substantive dialogue.

        Senator Gorton. Senator Byrd.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

        Senator Byrd. Well, Napoleon said that the Austrians did
    not know the value of time, so I thought I better get here on
    time.
        Let me join our distinguished chairman in welcoming you
    back for your sixth appearance before the Interior and Related
    Agencies Subcommittee. It has been a pleasure to work with you,
    Mr. Secretary, these past few years.
        I congratulate you on your stewardship of the Interior
    Department from the standpoint of financial accountability.
    Unlike some agencies of the Government, I know that your
    Department has received a clean financial audit from its
    Inspector General for the past 2 years. While your next audit
    is not due out for a few more days, I trust that it, too, will
    reflect positively on you and your staff.
        Unfortunately, keeping a good set of books does not
    necessarily translate into good policy choices. As I look at
    the Department's fiscal year 2001 budget submission, I am
    troubled by the sheer size of the increase being sought. You
    are asking for an additional $1 billion over the fiscal year
    2000 level for programs under the jurisdiction of this
    subcommittee. Even under the best of scenarios, it is doubtful
    that the Interior Subcommittee will receive a $1 billion
    increase in its allocation. Assuming that we did, though, I
    think a strong argument could be made that it would be far more
    prudent to forego, for example, a so-called Lands Legacy
    program and instead use that money to attack the unmet needs of
    the lands and facilities the Department already controls.
        Despite my reservations with the budget proposal, I look
    forward to hearing Secretary Babbitt offer his perspective in
    what I know will be his usual forthright and honest manner.
        Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.
        Senator Bennett.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the
    Secretary here. I will save most of what I have to say for the
    question period, but I do want to make one comment in the
    opening comment period.
        Some time ago, I invited the Secretary to come to Utah and
    together we would go to the San Rafael Swell. He agreed to do
    that, and neither his schedule nor mine has been able to mesh
    to the point that we have been able to do that. But it may be
    just as well because we have reached an agreement and the
    agreement is more important than the tourism.
        But the Secretary and the citizens of Utah have not had the
    best of relationships over the years in some areas, and there
    have been some areas of great cooperation and accomplishment in
    others. I am delighted that with respect to the San Rafael
    Swell, we now have a deal formulated in a piece of legislation
    which so far the Department of the Interior has indicated they
    would be willing to support. I would hope, Mr. Secretary, we
    will have a chance to talk about that a little more, but I want
    to let you know how grateful I am that members of your staff
    have, in fact, been willing to make the trip that you and I
    have been unable to work out and make. I am hopeful that this
    actually can come to pass so that we get a resolution in this
    particular land usage issue. One hopes it becomes a model for
    other similar resolutions not only in the State of Utah but
    around the rest of the country.
        So, I am optimistic and grateful and look forward to the
    Secretary's testimony.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Stevens.

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, Mr. Secretary. This subcommittee often sees
    me coming in here with smoke coming out of my ears and flame
    coming out of my mouth I think.
        But I want to change that this morning and say good morning
    very kindly because I want to thank you for working with us on
    the Kodiak Island borough issue. We had a tough dispute over
    valuing refuge lands for the purpose of refuge revenue sharing
    payments. As you know, those were lands purchased after the
    Exxon Valdez spill which devastated many communities in our
    State. Many people, including me, did not like seeing the oil
    spill payments by Exxon going to reacquire Federal land after
    it had been deeded out of Federal ownership--after statehood--
    to entities in Alaska because there were many other issues
    involved that could have used that money.
        However, the new Federal acquisitions for Kodiak National
    Wildlife Refuge meant revenue sharing payments for the borough
    there. These acquisitions were high dollar, given the
    Government's emphasis on the importance of conserving Kodiak.
    However, when it came to valuing the land for the purpose of
    revenue sharing, the initial appraisal was lower than what the
    Federal Government actually paid. And that dispute went on for
    several years and at a great uncertainty for the boroughs, the
    budgeting for schools and other services for the people, even
    those involved with the refuge.
        Last fall, through the efforts of yourself I believe and
    your Department, we resolved that to the satisfaction of the
    borough and I want to thank you very much for resolving a very
    contentious dispute in our State. It is nice to see you again,
    Bruce. I appreciate it very much.
        Secretary Babbitt. Thank you.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT

        Senator Gorton. Boy, you could not do better, Mr.
    Secretary. Now it is your turn.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator Gorton, Senator Byrd, committee
    members, I obviously have reflected on the fact that this is my
    last appearance presumably--never say never, but most likely--
    before this appropriations committee in my eighth year as
    Secretary. I must say I look back on these years of working
    with all of you with great satisfaction and pride. I think that
    in a political culture characterized by enormous antagonism and
    name-calling and rancor, that kind of pervades this entire
    town, we have managed over these years to establish some quiet
    space in which we manage to do business. As Senator Gorton
    suggested, I think we have done a great deal together and that
    we have done a good job of separating the ritual kind of food
    fights from the arena in which we do business.
        I must say I have not succeeded in 8 years in doing that
    with the authorizing committees. It is a striking kind of two-
    track life around here, but I say that by way of simply
    reflecting the chairman's remarks. It has been a great
    pleasure, and I will do my best in the balance of my tenure to
    do what we have done I think so successfully and so well
    together.
        Senator Gorton always starts by pointing out that we are on
    a collision course between this committee and the Congress and
    the administration. And I will give you my ritual response,
    which is I cannot make the numbers add. I have read the budget
    resolutions and I will once again, for the eighth consecutive
    year, say I cannot make them add and for the eighth consecutive
    year, say the President's budget is, in all of its exquisite
    detail, essential for the safety, health, and well-being of the
    Republic.
        Now, that said, I would point out that this year is
    somewhat different from many previous years in which the budget
    constraints have weighed very heavily on our mutual endeavor. I
    do believe that the President's program provides more working
    space and that we ought to be able to proceed under that kind
    of climate.
        Nonetheless, I will say ritually and meaningfully that I
    accept the chairman's customary admonition to see if we can
    work to set priorities so that whatever comes out of this
    committee reflects priorities, whatever differences we may have
    as to the sum total of the budget.
        With that, I think what I could do most usefully, just
    briefly, is go through the three areas that I think have
    already been raised as out there on the margin of contention
    and importance. One is the Indian affairs issues. Second, is
    the President's Lands Legacy program. Third, raised by Senator
    Byrd, is this issue of a backlog for construction and
    maintenance of the tens of thousands of miles of roads, the
    millions of acres of lands, and the tens of thousands of
    buildings that we administer.
        Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, would you allow me to
    interrupt you? Mr. Chairman, may I do that? I have got to go to
    a meeting, unfortunately, on the budget.
        But I have a solution for you, Mr. Secretary. You just help
    us get ANWR open, we will earmark part of that money to keep up
    the parks and wildlife refuges and all of the systems that you
    are responsible for.
        I am sure this committee would love to allocate that money
    every year to the majority of all of those facilities, parks,
    wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness areas.
    Over 60 percent of each one of those is in my State. We would
    be glad to support them with money coming from production in
    Alaska.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I knew this harmony had to fall
    apart quickly.
        And, Senator, as you leave, I just want to say how much I
    appreciate the ability that we have had to work together on the
    subsistence issue, an enormously complex, volatile, difficult
    issue. I just want to say that I have never had such an
    exquisite experience as working through that political mine
    field to a result that I think we can at least move forward
    with. I just want to thank you publicly for that.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Gorton. Go ahead.

                                 INDIAN ISSUES

        Secretary Babbitt. Let's start with the Indian issues for
    two reasons. One, they are high on the President's agenda, and
    second, I want to say that this committee has been unflaggingly
    helpful in providing the resources, especially in these last
    few years, to deal with some very difficult issues.
        The increases in the President's budget this year relate to
    a number of areas. First is school construction. This is a part
    of our backlog issue, and we have discussed it before in this
    committee. The President's budget bumps school construction up
    from about $130 million to about $300 million. I do not think I
    need to belabor that. The priority list of Indian schools
    speaks for itself. This obviously does not eliminate the
    backlog. We can come back to that. But I think it makes an
    important statement about taking care of the very worst issues
    out there.
        There is an important increase on the law enforcement side.
    It is fairly modest. It is $18 million, but it is paired with
    an $80 million increase from the Justice Department. We have
    finally managed, I think, to spring free some resources that
    will help us with the law enforcement, jails, and all of the
    other issues. Again, a well-known and lamentable situation.
        There is a line item for the so-called NAPA report, the
    National Academy of Public Administration. The Academy points
    out that the downsizing and the RIFs and the clearing out of
    personnel in Washington really went too far and we must now
    take some of that back to beef up our ability to do accounting,
    management, personnel, and those kinds of thing.

                         OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TRUSTEE

        The Office of Special Trustee--again, I am especially
    grateful for the chairman's willingness and desire to really
    help us through this. We are making progress. It has not been
    easy, and I would say at the outset there are so many cooks in
    this kitchen now that it is almost impossible to get anything
    off the stove. It is a world full of judicial participation,
    special masters, restraining orders, plaintiffs, committees of
    all kinds, and it has been no easy task.
        We are making progress. That fact is seldom acknowledged. I
    normally do not watch television, and I made no exception for
    the ``60 Minutes'' piece this last week.
        The facts. The IIM conversion, conversion of these hundreds
    of thousands of individual Indian accounts, into the modern
    accounting system was completed over the last weekend. They are
    now up and running in the new data processing system.
        Beneath the accounting system is what is known in the
    jargon as the TAAMS system. This is the system to track leases,
    oil leases, grazing leases, the land records system, the
    probate system. We have the pilot which integrates the entire
    system, from top to bottom, up and running in Billings,
    Montana. I believe by the end of this month, I will be ready to
    certify the deployment of the big part of that system out to
    the rest of the country. It is a big decision because people
    are out there waiting to pronounce failure. I would say at
    least 50 percent of the participants who are standing around
    the kitchen have gotten so used to predicting failure that they
    really want to see failure. So, I have been personally watching
    over this deployment, and I think I am ready to walk the plank
    at the end of this month and see what happens. I believe we are
    on top of it.
        One real success that we have had in the last year is in
    this area of land fractionation which is, of course, at the
    root of this whole problem. If we cannot reverse the
    generational fractionation of lands, we are wasting our time
    with all of this. It will never get turned around.
        Last year we spent about $10 million for voluntary land
    consolidations, and it was a fabulous success. We spent all of
    the money. We have got, I think, 30,000 or 40,000 individual
    accounts purchased out. By account, I mean the underlying land.
    So, there is a line item for that, and I think it is going to
    be very important to build on that success.
        We will be back in court. We are always in court, but we
    will be back in court as we move through this year to try to
    get at the remaining issue at the core of the litigation, and
    it is this: Where do we finally draw the line upon our attempt
    to reconcile accounts? Accounts in many cases were open 100
    years ago and have now descended through 6, 7, 8, 10
    generations into literally thousands of errors in an
    environment in which it is a literal impossibility to
    reconstruct with 100 percent certainty what has happened in
    those accounts over 100 years. It cannot be done. We could
    spend the gross national product and still fail. But we have
    spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 4 or 5
    years, and I think we are now ready to go back to the court and
    say, OK, we can keep spending money or we can draw a line and
    then apply a generous measure of resources to the
    reconciliation.
        The Special Trustee, the successor trustee, has been
    selected and nominated, and I believe the confirmation process
    is moving. There has been no large----
        Senator Gorton. It is taking place in the committee this
    morning as we speak.
        Secretary Babbitt. Great, great. Well, he is a good guy. We
    hired a search firm. Nobody had ever heard of him, and I think
    that is a great advantage. He has a fine record out in the
    private sector, and I think it is going to go well.

                              LANDS LEGACY PROGRAM

        Let me say a word about the Lands Legacy program because I
    share, obviously, the enthusiasm of the administration for this
    program. I will be brief.
        The essence of this commitment was made back in the 1970s
    with the authorizing legislation with respect to earmarking
    offshore oil and gas revenues. The $1.4 billion figure in the
    President's program is obviously not all an increase. It
    combines a number of important existing programs and asks for
    the full $1.4 billion. Of that--and I think this is the
    important point to make--the land acquisition earmark is only
    $320 million. Some of the rest of that $1.4 billion of course,
    goes to the Forest Service and other land management agencies.
    However, a huge amount of it goes out to the States in a
    revenue sharing program with State game and fish agencies, with
    a land acquisition fund that goes directly to the States with
    an increase in the North American Wetlands program, which has
    been so successful, and with an earmark for municipalities in
    the urban parks and recreation program.
        The $320 million that we are asking for in the Interior
    Department is tremendously important to deal not with vast
    acquisition programs, but with taking care of opportunities and
    problems as they arise. A couple of quick examples.
        I am headed out in a couple of weeks back to my hometown of
    Flagstaff, AZ. Those of you who have been there understand the
    extraordinary mystique and beauty of that town. There is this
    vast volcano, which would do justice to the Pacific Northwest,
    rising out of the desert over this town. It is being taken
    apart by a mine which was located in one of these abusive
    misuses of the Mining Law of 1870, and the mountain is being
    torn down for pumice.
        One may ask, what does pumice have to do with furthering
    the gross national product and the welfare of this country?
    This volcano is being ripped apart for the stone-washing of
    jeans, and a few million dollars may help us eliminate that
    abuse. It will not obviously reform the Mining Law, which we
    must still do.
        You have all heard about the bison issues at Yellowstone
    where we have had enormous conflict. It is now on the verge of
    being resolved. It is being resolved with a land purchase where
    we are paying $13 million for 6,000 acres of land, which is
    half of the ranch that we will have to buy. Had this been taken
    care of when it first came to this Congress in 1980, we could
    have bought the entire ranch for half the price. We are paying
    four times what we could have paid in one shot to Malcolm
    Forbes 20 years ago. I illustrate the point that matters do not
    get better; they get worse. And these are essential
    acquisitions.
        Last, we have an opportunity, just by way of illustration,
    to create an extraordinary new national park in southern
    Colorado. This is such an extraordinary opportunity that for
    the first time since I have been here, we have the Colorado
    delegation, including Colorado's two Republican Senators,
    supporting the creation of this national park. It involves the
    purchase of a Spanish land grant in the Sangre de Cristo
    Mountains in one block for $30 million. I think that works out
    to $300 an acre.
        So, that is the reason those monies are there and the
    reason that I urge your attention to them.

                              MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

        Let me finish up with this taking care of what we have,
    with the backlog. It is a serious, important issue, which we
    have struggled with in many ways with partial success. First,
    if I may, the backlog is represented as $7 billion to $8
    billion. I contest that figure. I would at least like to break
    it down into manageable parts. The reason I contest it is
    because the agencies have little or no interest in responding
    to my desire that we get an accurate assessment. They have been
    in the business for 20 years of crying that the sky is falling.
    The sky is falling now.
        What is the problem with the backlog? First of all, it
    disguises decisions about what we ought to do that need to be
    made not in the context of the budget. In this backlog is a
    place called the Many Glaciers Hotel in Glacier National Park.
    This hotel was built in 1908. It ought to be torn down. I am
    going to regret having said that in public because the entire
    national historical/restoration group is going to evict me from
    membership for that statement. It will cost $100 million to
    bring this hotel up to modern standards. It is not a good
    investment.
        Go to Ellis Island, which is one of our really fabulous
    successes. We have put together that Central Hall. It is a
    magnificent tribute, an enormously popular thing, mostly done
    with private funds, because Americans want to see their own
    ancestry reflected through that island. This has metamorphosed
    into an assumption that we are going to restore to that
    standard every barracks, every clinic, every remaining building
    on all of Ellis Island. We should not be larding that into the
    budget without making a front end decision.
        So, what else is in the backlog? There are $2 billion of
    road maintenance and repair. That is real. It has been assessed
    according to FHA standards. We should not be dealing with this
    in the budget before this committee. This is not a road-
    building budget. This should come out of the public roads funds
    and TEA-21 and all of the others. So, out of that $7 billion to
    $8 billion, I am going to subtract $2 billion, and say, yes, we
    have got problems. TEA-21 is helping, but it is not evidence
    that there is a great crisis out there other than a regular
    crisis in road repair.
        There is $1 billion of BIA backlog. That is very real. That
    is Indian schools, and I chalk that one up as real.
        The balance of it we need to address. Are we addressing it?
    Yes. We have $1.8 billion in this year's budget. That includes
    the road money that comes from TEA-21, but it also includes
    annual maintenance of $600 million that is in the 5-year
    deferred maintenance, repair, and construction program that we
    put forward to you last year. That is an additional $600
    million which is in the budget this year. It was in the budget,
    for the most part, last year.
        We have $150 million coming in from the recreation fee
    program. That money is being well used. It is a great success.
    Once again, it did not come from any authorizing committee. We
    would have never gotten it. It came from this committee, and it
    has been an enormous success.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        That is some perspective. We are doing a lot. Are we doing
    enough? No. Are we making progress? Yes. Are we making enough
    progress? No. Now, I would be happy to pursue that in any
    direction you want because it is an important topic, and I
    appreciate your interest.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce Babbitt

        I am pleased to be here today before the Subcommittee on Interior
    and Related Agencies to present the fiscal year 2001 budget for the
    Department of the Interior.
        When I appeared before you last year at this time, I remarked that
    the 2000 budget would be the first of the new century and, as such,
    should be a bold step into the new millennium. At the time I made those
    comments, I could not have foreseen the outcome of deliberations on the
    2000 budget, and the broad, bipartisan agreements that were reached on
    common goals for land protection, Indian self-determination, and
    stewardship.
        The 2001 budget I am here to discuss today builds on our collective
    good works. This is a visionary budget that is designed to benefit all
    Americans with a focus on three areas: enhancing opportunities for
    Native Americans; protecting great places and building stronger
    communities through Lands Legacy; and taking care of what we have.

                                BUDGET OVERVIEW

        The Department's 2001 request for appropriations is $9.2 billion,
    an increase of $979.9 million above the amounts provided in 2000. An
    estimated $2.2 billion will be provided in permanent appropriations.
        For Department programs that are under the jurisdiction of the
    Subcommittee, the request for annual appropriations is $8.4 billion, an
    increase of $946.2 million above the levels provided in the 2000
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The budget also
    includes a 2000 supplemental request of $110.8 million for emergency
    contingency fire costs and the highest priority damages caused by
    Hurricanes Floyd, Dennis and Irene.

               THE FIRST AMERICANS: STEWARDSHIP, INVESTMENT, HOPE

        In his July 1999 visit to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in
    South Dakota, President Clinton increased America's awareness of the
    critical needs in Indian Country. The President's visit and his
    imperative to ``begin this new century by honoring our historic
    responsibility to empower the first Americans'' signal a commitment to
    support Indian self-determination and the government-to-government
    relationship with Indian Nations. The 2001 budget proposes $9.4 billion
    across the government for Native American programs. Within the
    Department of the Interior, the budget proposes $2.2 billion for BIA
    programs that will honor our responsibilities and empower the first
    Americans. The budget provides the largest increase ever for school
    construction and addresses priorities identified by the Tribes
    themselves, including: safe communities, improved housing, adequate
    educational facilities, and sound management of trust resources.
        The Federal government has a unique and historical responsibility
    for the education of over 50,000 Indian children. BIA operates 185 day
    and boarding schools, many of which are located on remote and isolated
    reservations. BIA's 2001 request includes $300.5 million for education
    construction, repair, and maintenance programs, an increase of 126
    percent over the amount provided for these programs in 2000. This
    increase is needed to replace and repair facilities that have serious
    health and safety deficiencies and to provide Indian children with the
    basic resources that are critical to student learning. To address
    school operations needs, the 2001 budget includes $506.6 million for
    operation of schools, an increase of $39.7 million over 2000. This
    increase in funding includes $6.8 million for the Family and Child
    Education Program to improve children's readiness for school and adult
    literacy, and $8.2 million for a pilot therapeutic treatment program
    that will focus on the needs of high-risk students at boarding schools.
        In 1997, we worked with Attorney General Janet Reno and developed a
    four-year initiative in collaboration with tribal leaders to combat
    rising crime rates in Indian Country. As a result of this initiative we
    are seeing real progress. Over the past two years BIA and the Justice
    Department have hired additional officers and investigators, are
    replacing dilapidated detention centers, strengthening tribal court
    systems, and improving programs for at-risk children. The 2001 budget
    includes increases of $18.8 million for BIA to continue this initiative
    and strengthen core law enforcement functions, upgrade radio systems,
    and improve detention center services. The Department of Justice is
    requesting an increase of $81.8 million to support tribal law
    enforcement programs.
        Over 100,000 Indian families are in desperate need of better
    housing but cannot qualify for assistance through the Department of
    Housing and Urban Development because they cannot meet minimum income
    requirements. The 2001 budget doubles funding for the Housing
    Improvement Program, requesting an increase of $16.3 million for
    housing repairs, replacement, and renovation.
        The 2001 budget includes an increase of $4.0 million to implement
    fundamental changes to BIA's internal management and administrative
    systems based on recommendations of the National Academy of Public
    Administration. Funding will be used to address highest priority
    improvements at central and field office locations that will strengthen
    planning, budgeting, finance, human resources, and information
    resources management.
        Early in this Administration I made a commitment to resolve the
    decades-old trust fund management issue and promised to fix it on my
    watch. Last spring I asked for your help in providing funding to solve
    this problem. You saw fit to fully fund our budget request for the
    Office of the Special Trustee in 2000, and as a result, we are making
    progress in implementing much-needed reform efforts. Conversion of
    individual Indian accounts to the new trust fund accounting system will
    be completed by May. We have piloted the Trust Asset and Accounting
    Management System in one location and we expect to begin deploying the
    land title functions of the system to other locations this May.
        The 2001 budget includes a comprehensive proposal to continue
    ongoing trust management improvements, institute permanent and lasting
    changes in trust management functions in BIA, and resolve land
    ownership fractionation, which is one of the root causes of trust
    management problems. I want to thank this Subcommittee for the interest
    and fortitude it has regularly displayed in assisting us to tackle one
    of the most formidable and critical management issues in all of
    government. The reforms in this area continue to be my highest
    management priority for the Department.
        A total of $58.4 million is requested for trust management
    improvements under the Office of the Special Trustee in 2001. This is a
    reduction of $6.9 million from 2000, reflecting one-time computer
    acquisition costs. The 2001 budget requests a $35.1 million increase
    for BIA trust management functions, including real estate services,
    probate, cadastral surveys, and land titles and records programs. These
    increases are absolutely crucial to ensure that the trust management
    improvements we are implementing are institutionalized and maintained
    in the long term. The 2001 budget also includes $12.5 million to expand
    the Indian Land Consolidation program. In 1999, BIA implemented a pilot
    program on three reservations in Wisconsin and by the end of 2000 will
    have acquired over 36,000 fractional interests in allotted Indian
    lands. The 2001 request will allow us to acquire up to 40,000
    additional fractional interests.
        While the Department is well underway in reforming our trust fund
    management systems, we also need to examine the past to ascertain
    whether income for IIM accountholders was properly credited, maintained
    and distributed to and from their IIM accounts. We have submitted for
    publication a Federal Register notice to gather information from IIM
    account beneficiaries and the public to determine the most reasonable
    methods for providing account holders with information to evaluate
    their accounts and determining whether there are discrepancies due to
    past management practices. We expect the Federal Register notice to be
    published this week.

                                  LANDS LEGACY

        One of America's most cherished icons, President Theodore
    Roosevelt, understood the compelling need for land protection and
    embraced a visionary, long-term approach to conservation that led to
    creation of the first national wildlife refuge at Pelican Island in
    Florida and designation of the Grand Canyon as a National Monument.
    President Roosevelt believed that we must work together to leave this
    land ``an even better land for our descendents than it is for us.''
        Based on the idea that we need to reinvest in the preservation and
    renewal of resources, the Land and Water Conservation Fund provides a
    secure source of funding for land acquisition. On an annual basis $900
    million is deposited into the Fund, primarily from Outer Continental
    Shelf rents and royalties, for acquisition. In practice we have
    diverted much of the Fund to deficit reduction. The Lands Legacy
    proposal makes good on the promise Congress made in 1964 when it
    created the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The President's budget,
    by creating a new budget category, would end this practice. Funds could
    only be spent on Lands Legacy programs and could no longer be diverted
    to other priorities.
        The first step in creating a legacy for our children is the
    identification and protection of pristine peaks, unspoiled beaches, and
    verdant prairies. In many of these places we have a one-time
    opportunity to preserve the matchless wonders of nature before they
    fall victim to development. With ever-widening opportunities to
    communicate through the internet and via satellite, the geographic
    barriers that once limited access to wide open spaces no longer exist,
    and it is becoming more and more difficult to find these pristine,
    unspoiled landscapes. Not surprisingly, many of our prized parks,
    refuges, public lands, and open spaces that provide recreation and
    other benefits for local communities are now at the borders of suburbia
    and are being impacted by encroaching development. We are fortunate to
    have within our grasp the right economic conditions and public support
    to take action--now. It is our imperative. If we do not, our children
    will wonder why we squandered an opportunity to leave a permanent and
    lasting legacy.
        Will Rogers said it best: ``Invest in land--they're not making any
    more.''
        The President's Lands Legacy Initiative builds on our 2000
    achievements and expands efforts to preserve America's great places.
    The 2001 budget includes $1.4 billion for Lands Legacy government-wide
    and $735.0 million for Department of the Interior programs. A new
    budget category is proposed to provide dedicated, protected
    discretionary funding for this initiative. In this request only the
    Federal acquisition and State Conservation Grant programs will be
    funded from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
        The 2001 budget requests $450.0 million for Federal land
    acquisition, including $320.0 million for acquisition programs in the
    Department. Funding will be used to complete purchases in the
    California desert and continue acquisition of Civil War battlefields,
    the Florida Everglades, the Lewis and Clark Trail, and the Northern
    Forest. In addition to these areas, the 2001 budget requests funding
    for the New York--New Jersey watershed where acquisition will protect
    the last vestiges of wetlands and uplands that serve as stopover sites
    for migratory birds and buffer refuges from the impacts of rapidly
    growing suburbs. Proposed acquisitions in the Lower Mississippi Delta
    will protect areas that are rich in cultural, historical and ecological
    values, and vital to our continued efforts to restore wildlife and
    fisheries. In Southern California acquisition will protect unique
    ecosystem types and endangered species, archeological finds and fossil
    deposits, and expand community access to recreational opportunities and
    outstanding scenery.
        Land acquisition is a key component to many of our landscape-scale
    restoration initiatives. Restoration of the South Florida ecosystem is
    one of the most significant environmental initiatives of our lifetime.
    Historically, this ecosystem contained some of the most diverse
    habitats on earth, but deprived of sufficient water supplies it can no
    longer support a diverse array of wildlife. The 2001 request for land
    acquisition includes $80.0 million for acquisition in South Florida and
    the Everglades. Of this amount $47.0 million is for a matching grant to
    the State of Florida to continue acquisition for restoration purposes.
    The request also includes $33.0 million that will be used to complete
    acquisition of Big Cypress National Park and Preserve and to add 1,870
    acres to national wildlife refuges to preserve habitat that is critical
    to wildlife and important to ongoing restoration efforts.
        As we continue acquisitions to safeguard our national parks,
    refuges, and public lands that will preserve the magnificent views of
    Yellowstone's Grand Canyon and the Grand Tetons, we must also be
    attentive to the needs for open space in our own backyards. The public
    is demanding that we tend to the small parcels and pockets of open
    space that provide recreational opportunities, reduce suburban sprawl,
    and revitalize urban areas. In New Jersey voters have been able to
    secure a multi-year commitment for funds to acquire these important
    green spaces and are looking for a partnership commitment from the
    Federal government. The 2001 budget includes $150.0 million, funded
    from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, for State Conservation
    Grants. Funded for the first time since 1995, the 2000 appropriation
    included $41 million for this program. Using these grants, communities
    will leverage resources and acquire open spaces and develop outdoor
    recreation areas. In the past, these grants have been used by states
    and communities to acquire areas such as Point Dune State Beach in
    California. This locally operated park 18 miles west of Santa Monica
    features cliffs, secluded coves and tidal pools, and its headlands
    offer views of migrating California gray whales between November and
    May.
        The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program creates and renews
    close-to-home recreation opportunities that strengthen economically
    distressed urban communities and positively impact at-risk youth and
    the safety of our cities. The 2001 budget request includes $20.0
    million that will be used to enhance urban park and recreation areas
    that have deteriorated to the point where health and safety are
    endangered. Grants will be provided to state and local governments that
    will leverage grant funding with public and private sources, building
    local support and commitment for the protection and management of
    neighborhood parks. For the first time since 1995, the Congress
    provided funding for this program, appropriating $2.0 million in 2000.
    Grants will be allocated to sponsor projects such as Indianapolis's
    Youth Conservation Corps, a program in which inner-city youth renovated
    a neighborhood park and constructed an ecological pond utilizing funds
    provided by area businesses.
        The 2001 budget requests $65.0 million, an increase of $42.0
    million for grants to states and local governments to conserve species
    through the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. This
    program provides communities with flexible approaches and resources to
    use in resolving the conflicting demands caused by economic growth,
    increasing population, and declining habitat. Through the development
    of Habitat Conservation Plans, implementation of candidate conservation
    agreements, safe harbor agreements, and other means these communities
    are able to assure the protection of imperiled species and assist in
    their recovery.
        Since 1991, the FWS has worked in partnership with Canada, Mexico,
    State and local governments, farmers and other private landowners,
    Tribes, and non-profit conservation groups to conserve wetlands through
    the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. Nearly 13 million acres
    of wetlands and associated uplands in Canada and the U.S. have been
    protected, and an additional 25 million acres in Mexico have benefited
    from similar conservation actions. A total of $727 million has been
    provided by partners to match the $288 million provided from the Fund
    in support of these projects. The 2001 budget includes $30.0 million,
    an increase of $15.0 million over 2000, to restore breeding grounds,
    resting and over-wintering areas for waterfowl and migratory species
    and wetland dependent wildlife. In combination with partnership
    contributions, this request translates into a minimum of $60 million in
    wetlands restoration projects and associated benefits.
        The 2001 request for Lands Legacy includes $100.0 million for a
    State Non-Game Wildlife Grants program. Through this program funds will
    be provided to States, Tribes, and territories for activities that will
    conserve and restore non-game species including planning, monitoring
    and conducting inventories, restoring habitat, acquiring land, and
    increasing opportunities for non-game wildlife recreation. This program
    will address non-game species protection and restoration needs that
    have not been addressed through existing programs and will respond to
    public demand for increased access to non-game recreational
    opportunities. An estimated 62.9 million nature enthusiasts currently
    spend over $29.2 billion a year in pursuit of these activities.
    Projects will include restoring habitats favored by songbirds and other
    non-game species and protection of key stopover points for migratory
    songbirds.
        The Department is committed to providing relevant science to
    decision-makers at all levels of government and strengthening their
    ability to protect valuable natural resources, identify optimal lands
    for acquisition, design effective land use and development strategies,
    develop efficient transportation systems, and mitigate natural hazards.
    A $50.0 million State Planning Partnerships program in the USGS 2001
    budget will provide State and local decision-makers and Federal
    resource managers with geospatial data, earth science information, and
    tools such as GIS. This request includes $10.0 million for an expanded
    Urban Dynamics Program to assist city and regional land use planners in
    developing plans for community growth that will resolve potential land
    use conflicts. The State Planning Partnerships proposal also includes
    $10.0 million for predictive modeling and decision support systems for
    Federal and State natural resource managers to improve their
    effectiveness. Finally, $30.0 million is requested to work
    collaboratively with local communities, States, and others to improve
    data sharing and access to spatial data and maps. These funds would be
    made available to local communities through competitive matching grants
    and other cooperative agreements under the Community/Federal
    Information Partnership program. Efforts sponsored by the Federal
    Geographic Data Committee, such as the Cooperative Agreements Program,
    and other efforts such as the Ohio View project, have demonstrated the
    usefulness of information sharing among Federal, State, and local
    organizations and universities for decision-making purposes.

                          TAKING CARE OF WHAT WE HAVE

        During my tenure as Secretary, we have worked diligently with the
    Subcommittee to strengthen and rebuild the operational programs of the
    land management agencies. Despite budget cutbacks and limitations in
    discretionary appropriations, a constant theme in negotiations on the
    budget has been to take care of what we have and uphold our
    responsibility for stewardship of the land, natural resources, and
    facilities.
        Since 1993, we have grown the operating accounts of the National
    Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management
    by $851.1 million, or 43 percent. This compares to the 19 percent
    growth rate for appropriations for the Department of the Interior in
    this same time period. These operational funding increases have been
    focused on building bench strength in the field and improving the
    delivery of programs to the public and not on building a bureaucracy.
    We have maximized efficiency by working collaboratively with our
    partners, encouraging volunteerism, fostering programs like the Youth
    Conservation Corps, and holding Federal staffing to the minimum
    required. Consider that the 2001 budget increases staffing by only two
    percent while the increase in funding is 12 percent. Even with the
    increases sought in this budget, the Department's staffing will be more
    than 10 percent below our 1993 base.
        The 2001 budget continues this theme of taking care of our
    operational programs with increases totaling $214.3 million for the
    land management agencies in order to safeguard the integrity of the
    Nation's parks, refuges, and public lands. Funding is targeted to
    address operational needs, resolution of specific land management
    issues, and repair and rehabilitation of facilities.
        Bureau of Land Management.--Over the last decade, BLM has
    transformed itself into a model of multiple use management, emphasizing
    conservation while protecting the access rights of a diverse group of
    customers. The budget proposes a $76.5 million increase in the bureau's
    primary operating accounts to continue and expand its quiet successes
    including: collaboration with 24 independent Resource Advisory Councils
    to bring about changes to livestock grazing practices and applying new
    standards to conserve western lands; implementing the Northwest Forest
    Plan in order to allow for timber production while protecting sensitive
    species; and fulfilling a vision for preservation of public lands such
    as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah and the
    Headwaters Forest Reserve in California.
        The designation of monument status recognizes the biological,
    archeological, and geological significance of areas that stand out from
    the landscape because of exceptional beauty, and geographic and
    historical value. In 1908 Teddy Roosevelt designated the first
    monument, the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon-Parashant National
    Monument protects the entryway to the Grand Canyon and extends
    protection for the deep canyons, mountains, and isolated buttes that
    extend from the Canyon along the Colorado River plateau. Clearly,
    President Roosevelt recognized the need to protect the Grand Canyon,
    but even he could not have anticipated the need to extend protection to
    the surrounding area and the urgency driven by population expansion and
    development that is transforming so much of the western landscape.
        Arising from this series of designations is a newly emerging BLM
    conservation system, that alongside national parks and national
    wildlife refuges, will constitute an enduring part of our public land
    heritage. Establishing a new model for conservation, our management of
    these areas will maintain traditional relationships with the
    surrounding communities. At Grand Staircase Escalante we responded to
    the challenge by Governor Leavitt and the communities of southern Utah,
    agreeing that visitor centers and other visitor service facilities
    could be located in surrounding communities to continue the historical
    link between the landscape and community life.
        Improved management of national monuments, national conservation
    areas, wild and scenic river corridors, and other places are a focus of
    BLM's 2001 budget. An increase of $16.0 million will allow BLM to focus
    on stabilizing and restoring existing resources and enhancing
    recreational and educational opportunities at officially designated
    areas. Funding for the three new monuments, Grand Canyon-Parashant
    National Monument, Agua Fria National Monument, and California Coastal
    National Monument is included in this request.
        The 2001 budget also includes an increase of $19.0 million to
    improve land use planning and begin a multi-year process to update
    resource management plans. This planning effort will allow the bureau
    to be more responsive to use authorization requests and ensure
    sustainable use. Another land management priority that is addressed in
    BLM's budget request is $9.0 million to tackle one of the most
    difficult management issues--the explosive growth of wild horses.
    Today's herds are almost 75 percent above appropriate herd management
    levels and populations continue to increase at about 20 percent per
    year. BLM is proposing to increase removals, adoptions, and gelding
    and, where necessary, implement a long-term strategy to reach
    appropriate herd management levels by 2005.
        National Park Service.--Careful stewardship of National parks is
    essential to protect scenic vistas and cultural resources, mitigate the
    effects of air and water pollution, and support fish and wildlife
    populations, while accommodating increasing visitor use. The 2001
    budget includes an increase of $90.3 million for operation of the
    National Park Service. Included within this request is $24.0 million
    for special park increases to address specific program needs at 72
    parks, three trails, and for the U.S. Park Police. Funds will be
    directed to parks with new responsibilities, priority operations and
    maintenance needs, and to improve the visitor experience. Examples of
    specific park increases include improving the employee safety program
    at Yosemite National Park in California; operating a new information
    plaza at Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona; and improving cultural
    and natural resource management at the Tallgrass Prairie National Park,
    Kansas.
        The operational increase for NPS also includes $18.0 million for
    the Natural Resource Challenge, a five-year program launched in 2000 to
    improve the management of natural resources in parks. Funding is
    requested to accelerate efforts to acquire basic data on natural
    resources and monitor the condition of parks. Funding will be used for
    control of invasive species in 13 parks to restore healthy, functioning
    ecosystems and to initiate water quality monitoring at 12 networks of
    parks. At the Great Smoky Mountains National Park efforts to control
    alien species of plants and fish that are destroying native vegetation
    and habitat will be increased. Parks will restore habitat for
    endangered and threatened species, including two endangered nesting
    birds at Haleakala National Park in Hawaii, and foxes faced with
    extinction at Channel Islands National Park in California.
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.--The 521 unit National Wildlife
    Refuge system is a national network of lands and waters devoted to the
    conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and
    plants. This system of over 93 million acres is important to the long-
    term survival and restoration of the nation's wild resources providing
    important breeding, feeding, and stopover areas for migratory birds;
    nursery areas for important commercial and sport fisheries; and refugia
    for native plant species. Approximately 34 million visitors enjoy
    wildlife watching, photography, hiking, educational programs, and other
    activities on refuges. The 2001 budget includes an increase of $19.9
    million for refuge projects that will protect wildlife, improve
    habitat, and provide improved educational opportunities for the public.
    This request continues our efforts to be stewards of the refuge system.
    Since 1996, we have increased funding for refuge operations and
    maintenance by $113 million or 67 percent.
        One of our greatest successes is the creation of flexible and
    innovative programs that make the Endangered Species Act work for
    people and wildlife. We have developed a conservation framework that
    utilizes habitat conservation planning, safe harbor agreements,
    candidate conservation agreements, and other programs in order to
    permit sound economic development and protect imperiled species.
    Examples of our specific accomplishments include:
      --Candidate conservation agreements in the southwest have kept
            species including the Pecos pupfish and Arizona bugbane off the
            endangered species list.
      --Streamlining the Section 7 consultation process for timber sales in
            the Pacific Northwest has reduced timeframes by 50 percent.
      --Habitat conservation plans have been put in place that protect
            salmon and bull trout.
      --The gray wolf and California condor have been reintroduced and are
            flourishing. A recent Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling
            eliminates the threat of removal for the Yellowstone wolves and
            their offspring.
      --Bald eagle populations are proposed for downlisting from endangered
            to threatened.
        The 2001 budget includes $115.3 million for the endangered species
    program, an increase of $7.0 million. Funding will be used to develop
    42 candidate conservation agreements, work on 550 habitat conservation
    plans, consider an additional 27 species reclassifications and
    delisting actions, and develop an additional 10 safe harbor agreements.
    These varied programs offer a full range of alternatives to states,
    local governments, and communities for conservation of species and
    resolution of competing demands.
        The protection of refuge lands, endangered and threatened species,
    and migratory birds demands the vigilance and skills of a cadre of law
    enforcement officers that are trained in the latest techniques in
    detection and interdiction of wildlife violators. The 2001 budget
    includes an increase of $12.6 million to better train and equip FWS law
    enforcement personnel and expand the agent work force to defend
    wildlife against criminals that are becoming increasingly sophisticated
    and well equipped.
        Title VIII of the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act
    protects the subsistence harvest rights of rural residents of Alaska.
    For these Alaskans, subsistence harvests form the foundation for a way
    of life and are essential for meeting economic, social, and cultural
    needs. To uphold our responsibilities to provide a priority for
    subsistence uses, the budget includes $12.9 million for the Department
    to fully implement the court-ordered Federal takeover of the
    subsistence fisheries program in Alaska. In addition, the Forest
    Service is requesting $5.5 million for its program responsibilities.
    The Department's request includes $5.4 million for program management
    and coordination and $7.5 million for resource and harvest monitoring.
    We will utilize the expertise of the State, Native organizations, and
    others and contract with them for resource and harvest monitoring. This
    Subcommittee has been very supportive of our efforts to adequately
    budget for our uncontrollable costs. On an annual basis we incur
    increased costs as a result of pay rate increases, rising costs for
    retirement benefits, and the charges passed onto us for workers'
    compensation, unemployment compensation and space rental costs. For
    2001 these ``hidden costs'' total $141.7 million and would have to be
    absorbed by the operational programs if funds are not provided. Part of
    our efforts to take care of what we have includes making sure we do not
    have to absorb these costs and adversely affect our ability to manage
    and maintain lands, resources, and facilities.
        Safe Visits.--The Department manages an extensive infrastructure of
    administrative and public use buildings, housing, roads and trails,
    dams, bridges, water and wastewater systems, schools, laboratories, and
    other facilities. Some of these facilities are over 100 years old and
    many are located in remote locations.
        With the encouragement of the appropriations subcommittees, the
    Department instituted a comprehensive Safe Visits to Public Lands
    initiative to bring consistency and accountability to management of the
    Department's infrastructure, and to focus funding on the highest
    priority maintenance and construction needs. We will soon provide the
    Subcommittee with a comprehensive report on the status of projects
    funded in 1999.
        The 2001 request for Safe Visits is $1.2 billion, an increase of
    $134.6 million or 13 percent, over 2000. The budget includes $570.3
    million for maintenance and $601.3 million for construction to
    accelerate repairs to Indian schools, replace six Indian schools,
    repair and replace facilities in parks, refuges and other Interior
    properties. Included within the request is $9.2 million to conduct
    condition assessments on a five-year cycle. These condition assessments
    will establish a baseline of current conditions of facilities and
    provide a thorough evaluation of repair and rehabilitation needs. The
    budget also includes $4.3 million to continue the development and
    implementation of maintenance management systems that will provide
    reliable, consistent information to facilities managers.
        Other Programs.--The 2001 request continues Outer Continental Shelf
    regulatory and environment research programs that limit negative
    consequences that could result from exploration and production in
    sensitive offshore lands. The 2001 budget request for MMS programs
    totals $130.2 million. These MMS programs also collect revenues that
    finance one-half of the costs of the Department's programs.
        Through the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund we provide grants to
    states and Tribes to reclaim previously mined lands. On an annual basis
    this program restores approximately 9,000 acres to productive use and
    reduces threats to public health and safety. An increase of $15.3
    million from the Fund will allow the reclamation of an additional 1,000
    acres. Of this increase, $2.0 million will be available for the
    Appalachian Clean Streams initiative. This program brings together
    Federal and local resources to restore stream habitat and water quality
    by reducing acid mine drainage, and thereby improving water quality for
    local communities and restoring habitat for species such as the
    Appalachian brook trout. With this increase, an estimated 46 new
    projects will be initiated.
        Finally, I ask that you consider operational needs for other
    Departmental priorities including the Solicitor's Office, our new
    Inspector General, and Departmental Management. For these offices, we
    are requesting uncontrollable cost increases and funding for ongoing
    litigation support provided by the Solicitor's Office, to expand the
    capability of the IG's audit and investigation function, and for
    Departmental Offices to address important needs in electronic data
    security and improved financial accountability.
        This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any
    questions you may have.

        Senator Gorton. We do have a number of our members here. I
    think my members know that at 11 o'clock we are going to have
    two votes. Since I have the most questions, I will defer for a
    while and turn my first question privilege over to you, Senator
    Bennett. You can ask your questions and then stay or do
    whatever you wish, and then, Senator Byrd, to you.
        Senator Bennett. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate that. I do not have a large number of questions.
        I will make a comment, Mr. Secretary. I am delighted that
    the Colorado delegation is behind the creation of a new
    national park. I think a lot of the difficulty we had in Utah
    over the national monument could have been avoided if there had
    been some prior conversation with the Utah delegation. As you
    are talking about new national monuments and use of the
    Antiquities Act, even though I think your use of the act is
    improper, the fact that you are talking to people about it,
    instead of doing it in the somewhat clandestine way the Utah
    monument was created, is a step in the right direction. I
    understand that that was not entirely under your control. I do
    not blame you personally for the way that particular situation
    unraveled.

                        ESCALANTE SCIENCE CENTER FUNDING

        Now, President Clinton designated some Grand Staircase-
    Escalante National Monument funds for the Escalante science
    center. Can you tell us what the status of those funds are--or
    the status is I guess; ``status'' is singular--and what actions
    are being taken to ensure that the monies will be spent as
    Congress has designated them?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the answer is I do not know,
    but I will certainly get back to you. I can tell you that our
    attention certainly has been to spend and sub-event all of
    those funds. It has been essential to the development of that
    entire plan. If they are in the budget, the answer is I support
    it. If they are appropriated, the answer is they will be
    expended.
        Senator Bennett. OK, fine.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, there is a $5 million line item
    in the President's request for this issue.
        Senator Bennett. OK.

                                MORMON CRICKETS

        We are on the verge once again of a massive infestation
    from what has come to be known as Mormon crickets. They breed
    on undisturbed Federal lands, lands that are managed by the
    BLM. The BLM has an account for grasshopper and Mormon cricket
    control, but it appears that the account is empty. Now, I have
    had conversations with Senator Cochran about how we can get a
    little help out of the Agriculture Committee. But if BLM could
    pay some attention to address the cricket infestation, it might
    obviate the need for some of this money later on because there
    are things that can be done to see to it that the crickets do
    not arise in the same quantity that they sometimes do.
        So, I just want to lay that down. It is a very parochial
    interest, but it has enough historical background behind it. I
    think we need to pay attention to it, and I just call your
    attention to the fact that this all starts on BLM land and then
    ends up being a very serious problem that Senator Cochran has
    to address later on with some control funds.

                   DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

        Now, one of the first issues I ever got involved in as a
    Senator and one that we count as a success in terms of our
    relationship with the Department of the Interior has to do with
    the habitat of the desert tortoise down in Washington County. I
    think we have had a good experience down there of getting that
    HCP in place.
        Now every private landowner whose lands were impacted by
    the HCP has been compensated except one, and ironically it was
    this one who was the first one to come to me after I was
    elected and before I was sworn in to talk about this. I simply
    again would call your attention to that situation and hope that
    some acceleration on the compensation to James Doyle might move
    forward. I know that sometimes he has been a bur in the side of
    the Department. We have all met and dealt with Mr. Doyle, but
    what is fair is fair and I would hope that could be addressed.
        Other than that, Mr. Chairman, I simply want to take the
    opportunity to thank the Secretary for the efforts in Utah of
    Molly McUsic, Sally Wisely, and Dick McManus, all of whom are
    Interior Department appointees sent into the State. We have a
    very good relationship with all of them and we appreciate the
    cooperation that they give us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                          SAN RAFAEL SWELL LEGISLATION

        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, if I may, I would just like to
    say a word about the San Rafael legislation.
        Senator Bennett. Yes.
        Secretary Babbitt. I spent yesterday afternoon calling the
    Democrats on the House Resource Committee to see if we can get
    some momentum going on this. I just want to say that I not only
    support the bill, I am eager to see the bill acted upon and
    passed. I am aware that there are, I believe, less than 70
    working days left, at least on the Senate side, in this
    session, and it is going to be a major effort. I want you to
    know that I am deeply committed to that because I do believe
    that there is a great deal of precedential value in the way
    that that bill emerged, was shaped, and the way in which it
    balances the various interests.
        Senator Bennett. Well, I am delighted to hear that. Senator
    Hatch and I have introduced it on this side and we will do what
    we can to move it along. But we are very grateful, Mr.
    Secretary. We know you are taking some heat in the
    environmental community for taking that stand, and I applaud
    you for your willingness to do that because it is the right
    thing to do and it will set a precedent that I think will take
    some of the sting out of many of the environmental
    controversies in the years ahead. So, I am grateful for the
    report and for the support. Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Byrd.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                   WEST VIRGINIA COAL MINE PERMITTING PROCESS

        Mr. Secretary, the State of West Virginia has been advised
    by the Office of Surface Mining that the State's coal mine
    permitting process is woefully understaffed. In a letter dated
    February 8, 2000, OSM effectively told West Virginia that
    unless the State takes swift action to correct the situation,
    the State's authority to administer its mine permitting program
    may be in jeopardy.
        The February 8 letter was the first step in a two-step
    process, as I understand it, which could eventually lead to a
    Federal takeover of the State's regulatory program, a situation
    which I would hope you would agree would not be in the Interior
    Department's best interest.
        Over the past few months, officials from the State and OSM
    have been working together to see what can be done to bring
    West Virginia's program up to standard. Those discussions have
    convinced both OSM and West Virginia that the State's coal mine
    permitting process is in dire need of substantial emergency
    investments by both Federal and State government.
        Would you confirm for this committee that the February 8
    letter from OSM to the West Virginia Division of Environmental
    Protection was, indeed, the initial step in a process that
    could lead to a Federal takeover of the State's regulatory
    program?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, that is possible, certainly.
        Senator Byrd. Am I also correct in suggesting that a
    Federal takeover of the State's regulatory problem would result
    in significantly greater cost to the Federal Government than
    adding additional sums to West Virginia's current request?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I think that follows. It is a
    50/50 matching program, and obviously the State match would
    fall away and 100 cents on the dollar would be Federal.
        Senator Byrd. As you know, Mr. Secretary, the Nation's coal
    industry is currently struggling with the dual challenge of
    meeting America's mounting energy demands while ensuring
    protection of the environment.

                              OSM DIRECTOR KARPAN

        At the same time, I note several recent newspaper articles,
    including the Washington Post on Monday, April 3, that raised
    questions regarding OSM Director Kathy Karpan's recent recusal
    of herself from the decisionmaking process. Now, I think Kathy
    Karpan has been doing a good and professional job, but I must
    also say that the integrity of that agency is very important.
        Can you tell the subcommittee anything about that
    situation?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, we have discussed this a great
    deal. Kathy Karpan is the former Secretary of State of Wyoming.
    She is a coal miner's daughter. She is also the Director of the
    Office of Surface Mining and has done a really solid job.
        In her final year, she was approached by a head hunter and
    asked if she would be interested in being on the list, being
    considered for the head of Colonel Lawson's crowd, the Mining
    Association. She immediately went to the Solicitor's Office and
    said, what do I do? The Solicitor said, you must recuse
    yourself from the following things. She promptly recused
    herself and is in full compliance with the law.
        The remaining question is the dilemma of appearance. I
    guess there is no perfect answer to that. She is in compliance
    with the law. She is making no decisions that relate to things
    that the Mining Association is directly involved in. The Mining
    Association is thought by many to be a reflection of the
    industry which she regulates. I would be happy to have advice
    from anyone who would like to give me guidance. I mean, those
    are the facts.
        Senator Byrd. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I think it is
    a very unfortunate situation to have arisen at this time.
        Secretary Babbitt. Yes, Senator, I agree. But can I tell
    the woman you cannot be on a list for a job? I don't know.

                     NATIONAL CONSERVATION TRAINING CENTER

        Senator Byrd. The National Conservation Training Center,
    which is located in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, is operated
    by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and is by every definition a
    world class training facility. Since it opened its doors in
    October 1997, more than 25,000 people have gone there to learn
    to improve natural resource management and conservation. In
    addition to Fish and Wildlife Service employees, I am told that
    the center serves individuals from literally hundreds of
    different organizations from every State and from over a dozen
    countries.
        We had a great time, Mr. Secretary, you and I, on the
    occasion of our dedication of that facility. I have had many,
    many compliments since from people of all walks of life who
    have visited there. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you and other
    members of the committee will be able to visit that training
    center, if you have not already done so.
        It currently has three dormitories, each consisting of two
    stories, each housing 50 students for a total on-campus
    capacity of 150. But the center is equipped to handle 250
    students in its classroom facilities. Consequently, hundreds of
    people each month are forced to seek housing away from the
    center and even more are not utilizing the center because of
    this situation.
        In an effort to address the problem, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service has proposed adding a fourth two-story dormitory at the
    center in fiscal year 2001, which would bring the available on-
    campus housing up to 200. I believe that if the Fish and
    Wildlife Service is going to build this fourth dormitory, it
    would be far more efficient for it to be built as a three-story
    facility, thus bringing the housing availability up to 225,
    rather than as a two-story facility.
        How would you feel about such a proposal?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I endorse that proposal. This
    training center has been a very pleasant surprise. It was in
    the news when the State Department commandeered the facilities
    and threw everybody out in order to host the Israelis and the
    Syrians for one of their talks. That is a reflection of the
    utility and location of this place. We are basically fighting
    off the rest of the world now. It is booked solid and we are
    trying to draw some lines, saying hey, this is ours.
        In that context, I think it is perfectly appropriate to add
    this extra dormitory and to configure it for the additional
    beds through the use of a third story. No question that it will
    be used. None.
        Senator, I must say I always supported this project.
        Senator Byrd. I know you did.
        Secretary Babbitt. I was accused, not infrequently, by OMB
    of pandering to Senator Byrd.
        And, of course, I was.
        In addition to the fact that I always thought it to be a
    good project.
        Senator Byrd. Well, you gave it your complete support. No
    doubt about that. And I am glad to have your answer this
    morning to the question.
        Mr. Chairman, I have one more question.

                          STATE GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING

        The budget request for the Fish and Wildlife Service
    includes a new $100 million State grant program for non-game
    wildlife. You are aware of the abundance of wildlife in West
    Virginia and of my State's vast natural wildlife habitats.
        Given that, I would like to know how it is that the Fish
    and Wildlife Service determined that West Virginia would only
    qualify for the minimum State grant amount, the same level, I
    would point out, that is proposed for Rhode Island. Now, I love
    Rhode Island, but it does not have the mountains or the
    wildlife or the wildlife habitat that we have.
        So, can you tell me anything on that by way of answering
    that question?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I was approached by the Fish
    and Wildlife Service yesterday, and they said, we know of your
    friendship with Senator Byrd. You cannot back down on this one.
        So, I will confine myself to the facts.
        My understanding is that the proposal of the President's
    budget has beneath it an allocation formula with a floor and a
    ceiling, a 1 percent minimum, a 5 percent maximum. And within
    that range of 1 percent minimum, 5 percent maximum, a third of
    the formula is based on the area of the State and two-thirds is
    based on the population. I am going to stop right there. My OMB
    handlers are right behind me here.
        Senator Byrd. Well, they are wrong.
        They are wrong and I would appreciate it if you would
    reevaluate this, take another look at it. The apportioned funds
    for West Virginia, $960,000; Rhode Island, $960,000; New York,
    $4,800,000.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I guess I could add one thing.
    Last summer I took some time off and I went with the West
    Virginia Game and Fish Director and some of his employees from
    the mountains of West Virginia, and we went trout fishing. I
    must say, as a cultural experience, it was one of the
    highlights of my life. It was really quite extraordinary. It
    really was. They are good people, and the hunting and fishing
    part of West Virginia culture is not to be underestimated. They
    really care about this stuff and they do a nice job taking care
    of a lot of beautiful territory.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

                         NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY FUNDING

        Mr. Secretary, I was pleased to notice in the budget
    submission an increase of $90.3 million for operation of the
    National Park Service and your observation in your statement
    that careful stewardship of national parks is essential and you
    go on to talk about why. You say that some of the funds will be
    directed to parks with new responsibilities, priority
    operations and maintenance needs, and to improve the visitor
    experience.
        The other day I had a chance to look at the funding in the
    national parks of the southeast region and how the parks in
    Mississippi ranked among all those parks. I have a graph that
    shows the constant dollar increase allocated to each national
    park in the southeast region, and I was disturbed to find the
    Natchez Trace Parkway fifth from the bottom. The reason I was
    disturbed to see that is because this national park in our
    State has the most visitors annually, 12 million. Driving up
    and down this parkway, you run into potholes; you run into
    obvious deterioration of the road surface; and one can see the
    National Park Service's inability to keep up with the obvious
    needs for safety purposes.
        So, I hope that in the allocation of this new money, if we
    are able to approve it in the budget, that the operation and
    maintenance account for the Natchez Trace Parkway is increased.
    It has been increased only 7 percent since 1980. Since 1980 to
    2000, a 7 percent, in constant dollars, increase. That is not
    enough to maintain that parkway.
        So, I am pointing out that one of the glaring examples of
    the problem that you focus on in your statement is located in
    my State, and I hope that we are able to see a substantial
    increase in the O&M funds for the Natchez Trace Parkway.
        Do you have a reaction or can you give us any encouragement
    that you will look at that and try to be helpful to us?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, my initial reaction was that
    that was probably in the public roads piece of the highway
    matrix, but apparently that is not the case. Apparently it is
    in our direct budget before this committee, in which case I
    will have a look at it and see if we can be responsive. There
    is a small increase. It may or may not be enough. I will have a
    look at it.
        Senator Cochran. I do not know in this committee if we are
    going to get into the business of trying to set the operation
    and maintenance levels of funding for various parks. I really
    think that is trying to over-achieve what we are cut out to do
    here. It is really a responsibility of the Department, as I see
    it, to keep up and monitor and be sure that the parks are
    treated fairly and that no one is really conspicuously left out
    of the mix. And it seems like the Natchez Trace Parkway has
    been.
        We have gotten additional funds, as you point out, from the
    roadway construction accounts that are available to continue
    the progress toward final completion of the parkway, and that
    is really good. This committee has acted I think in a
    supportive way to help ensure that the parkway maintains its
    schedule of completion. We are finally at a point now that
    within 5 years we will see final completion of that parkway.
    The authorization for construction was adopted the year I was
    born, 1937. The Romans built the Appian Way quicker than we
    have built this Natchez Trace Parkway and with a lot less
    resources and technological know-how, and it is just
    inexcusable that it has dragged out for so long, but
    nonetheless it has.
        But here we are toward the point where we are going to
    celebrate in the near future the final completion of the
    construction, but the part that has been there since the 1940's
    is in desperate need of repair and upgrading. I hope that that
    will not be ignored any longer by the Department of the
    Interior.

                        VICKSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK

        I also want to point out one other thing that may not have
    gotten to your desk, and that is the disparity in the
    equivalent staff years that we have at the Vicksburg National
    Military Park in Vicksburg, compared with Gettysburg, for
    example. Vicksburg exceeds Gettysburg National Military Park in
    visitors per full-time equivalent staff. We fall behind the
    curve in staffing and funding. This is operation and
    maintenance again. So, the $90.3 million increase in O&M
    funding and support for the Vicksburg National Park I hope will
    receive the attention of the Secretary's office.
        I do not know whether you got a chance to visit Vicksburg
    when you came down to the lower Mississippi Delta last year. We
    were glad you visited our State, but it really is quite a show
    place and it attracts, as I say, a considerable number of
    visitors each year.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I not only have visited
    Vicksburg, I stayed overnight and went back out again the next
    morning. It is a marvelous place. It really is. It resonates
    with the history of the Civil War in many of the ways that
    Gettysburg does.
        I visited the Illinois Monument. There is a most
    interesting statistic about the impact that this had. The
    Illinois legislature in the late 1860s, 1 year, earmarked 20
    percent of the State's entire budget to build the Illinois
    memorial at Vicksburg. I mean, you walk up into that memorial
    thinking about that. A whole State allocated a fifth of its
    budget.
        Senator Cochran. Yes. Vicksburg has a lot of interesting
    aspects to it.
        The commissioners who were selected by--well, who were
    appointed by authority of the Congress to manage the park were
    three in number. Two were encouraged to be officers of the
    Union Army, one a former officer of the Confederate Army. The
    three commissioners met to select their chairman, and the two
    Union officers voted that the Mississippi general, Steven Lee,
    should be the commissioner who was in charge of the commission.
    And there began a process of healing among the general
    officers' ranks of both armies.
        A ceremony was held last year where descendants of all of
    the original commissioners came together to rededicate the
    statues of these first commissioners, which are located there
    in the park. It was really quite an interesting experience. I
    put in the congressional record copies of the remarks that were
    made on that day by Bill Nichols, the current superintendent of
    the park, and Terry Winschel who is the historian there, who
    travels all over the country to talk about the history of the
    country and the National Park Service assets and resources that
    he is so familiar with all over the country.
        Anyway, it is a wonderful place and I think that rather
    than have visitors line up because they have a hard time
    getting into the park, the staffing is not sufficient to keep
    pace with the increased visitation each year, that attention
    ought to be paid to taking care of what we have, as you point
    in your statement, and providing the funds for staffing and
    operation and maintenance that those assets represent.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, if I may, this is not directly
    responsive, but in this vein. We have, at the National Park
    Service, been reflecting upon our administration and
    interpretation of Civil War battlefields, and 3 weeks from now,
    we are going to have 2 days at the Ford Theater devoted to a
    national seminar on these issues. We are going to have John
    Keegan on the program. He is by any measure the foremost
    military historian in the world now. James McPherson who wrote
    Battle Cry of Freedom will be there as well as Eric Foner who
    is the leading authority on reconstruction. It is our hope that
    out of this we can begin to think even a little more
    intensively and creatively about how it is we tell the
    appropriate stories to Americans about these extraordinary
    places.
        Now, this is a pure pander.

                               SHILOH BATTLEFIELD

        I do want to tell you that we have not neglected
    Mississippi entirely because there is a line item--for how
    much, John--for a visitor center at the Corinth unit of the
    Shiloh Battlefield.
        Senator Cochran. That is great to hear. It is an important
    area. We hope to be able to tie that northeast region together
    with a trail system of some kind to permit visitors to have a
    coherent visit to that entire region where Corinth and Shiloh
    are located.
        Secretary Babbitt. Shiloh is the least disturbed of all
    Civil War battlefields in terms of the landscape and the way a
    visitor can actually see the entire region that approximates in
    many ways what was there in 1862.
        Senator Cochran. I have walked all over the Shiloh
    Battlefield and Corinth, Robinette's Battery, and other sites.

                            NOXUBEE WILDLIFE REFUGE

        Let me just point out one other thing, and I am taking up
    too much time. The wildlife refuge funds in Mississippi have
    somehow not included enough to maintain any offices at the
    Noxubee Wildlife Refuge. I visited there with my wife 2 years
    ago really and saw, for the first time, the deteriorated
    condition of offices that had been there for maybe 30 years. I
    do not know exactly when they were constructed, but they are in
    a very decrepit state of repair, totally inadequate for the
    refuge staff. It is one of the real pretty places in
    Mississippi to visit. You can see geese, even alligators,
    interesting places for students from Mississippi State
    University to come out on field trips.
        They have even built there with local government and
    private funds an education center, no Federal funds involved.
    So, the local citizens are investing capital funds there on
    Federal lands. It seems like at least the National Government
    can pay for some improved office facilities because these are
    important for the continued operation of that facility. I
    invite your attention to that problem as well in our State.
        Secretary Babbitt. I shall.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. The chairman is delighted at the spirited
    sponsorship that the Senator from Mississippi has at the site
    of a total Union victory, perhaps even more important to the
    outcome of that war than Gettysburg was.
        Senator Cochran. But it took a long time.
        Senator Byrd. If Stonewall Jackson had not been killed, the
    outcome might have been different.
        Secretary Babbitt. In a discussion somebody said, who is
    taking care of the cottage in which Stonewall Jackson expired
    after he was taken off the battlefield at Chancellorsville?
        Senator Cochran. It is down in Virginia.
        Secretary Babbitt. That is right, yes. But anyway, I
    promised to have a look. I think it is doing OK and I do not
    think it is in the park system.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. We may find out Stonewall is still alive
    before this is all over.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming this morning. I have
    got a couple questions here with regard to Montana. If he can
    stay in Mississippi, I will take a look at Montana.
        Secretary Babbitt. Now, Senator, you are not going to ruin
    the harmony and good will that has prevailed at this hearing,
    are you?
        Senator Burns. I am not.
        I am not at all. Now, you will do that, but I will not.
        I was wondering about that money for varmint and vermin. If
    they do not want all that money, we will take it for bears and
    wolves in Montana. We might make that arrangement and visit
    with you about that.

                                 UPPER MISSOURI

        The upper Missouri, Mr. Secretary, has been a topic of
    great interest out in Montana. We consistently hear from your
    office that you want to involve the delegation and, of course,
    the Governor before any decision is made on the designation of
    the upper Missouri. Many plans have been put forward, as you
    well know, in order to deal with the management of the upper
    Missouri. It is not an area that has been abused. It has been
    taken care of all these years, and there is quite a lot of
    concern that we are going to change the designation regardless
    of that. A new designation has not been recommended by the RAC
    either.
        We want to invite you out for a meeting. We want to make
    sure that we have proper notification and that it is open to
    the public, like the rest of us have to have these types of
    meetings. We would like to talk about the recommendation that
    the RAC has made and so forth.
        Can you assure me and this committee that you are not going
    to make any designation without the recommendation of the RAC?
        Secretary Babbitt. No.
        Senator Burns. I knew you were going to bust up the harmony
    of this thing right away.
        I know that you have said that you are going to implore the
    President to make a new designation on the area, and that is
    what gives us a whole lot of----
        Secretary Babbitt. I deny that.
        Senator Burns. I have got it written down here by hand.
        There is also a very strong feeling in Montana that a
    change in the management of the river would probably address
    what you want to do. Would you support that?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, could I respond at a little
    more length as to my perception of this?
        Senator Burns. Yes.
        Secretary Babbitt. Because all kidding aside, this is a
    serious issue.
        Senator Burns. It is serious.
        Secretary Babbitt. It is an important opportunity. Before
    you came, Senator Bennett was explaining the success we have
    had in Utah handling a very comparable issue where we are on
    the verge of a really magnificent legislative success.
        As you know, I have been talking intensively with the
    communities on the Missouri Breaks. Approximately a year ago, I
    asked the RAC to look at these issues. They submitted a report
    which is very well done. We had a teleconference meeting in
    which we discussed the report. I think we are in agreement on
    about 95 percent of what it is that needs to be done by way of
    helping the communities with development and visitation issues,
    kind of like the surrounding communities in the San Rafael in
    Utah. What are the issues that relate to river management, to
    grazing, to that gas field that covers part of it. We did not
    reach a conclusion as to whether or not there should be
    legislation or an Antiquities Act designation.
        What I said to the RAC was, the important thing in my
    judgment is not the label on the package. It is what actually
    happens in that river corridor. It was my feeling that we could
    bring this thing to a pretty good consensus about what the
    Federal role is and what the role of the BLM is.
        At that point, my visa to enter the State of Montana was
    abruptly canceled, and I was informed that I could not enter
    the State of Montana. So, I canceled the meeting.
        Senator Burns. Not by us.
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, there is some dispute about who
    canceled my visa, but it was clearly canceled.
        Since then, I have renewed my desire to come and keep
    talking about this. Now, I had thought when my visa was
    canceled, I will have another teleconference. You cannot
    prohibit me from having a teleconference. I will come in via
    modern communications.
        Senator Burns. We will take that up in another committee.
        Secretary Babbitt. But seriously, I would be happy to come
    back out, to sit down and continue this process. I think if we
    just focus on what it is that needs to be done, we might get
    something. I sure would be willing to try.
        Senator Burns. Well, the invitation is open but we just
    want a public meeting and a public notice of it. That's all.
        Secretary Babbitt. OK. Well, tell them to safeguard their
    firstborn and barricade the doors, that I may be coming.
        Senator Burns. Do we have to check our guns at the door?
        This issue is going to continue to be out there and I think
    we ought to come to some kind of fruition on it.

                          NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREAS

        We recently saw an internal memo from the BLM dated January
    11, 2000 that sets forth an interim management policy for newly
    created monuments. Would this document apply to the so-called
    national conservation areas? That is a new term that we have
    not----
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, Senator, the difference is, a
    national conservation area is legislated. Congress does
    whatever it wants. Here is my bottom line. I would
    enthusiastically support the creation of a national
    conservation area in which Congress would write all the rules,
    and I think that would be a terrific result. But I do not
    preclude, if we cannot get that done, other alternatives. I
    would prefer to do it that way.
        Senator Burns. What would be those other alternatives?
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, do nothing, or ask the President
    to use his authority under the Antiquities Act are two that I
    can think of.
        Senator Burns. Well, we are concerned about that. How does
    that affect our management of predators?
        Secretary Babbitt. I am willing to work that all out. I am
    willing to sit and discuss that. What I would really like to do
    is work all that out and then say, now, let us decide how we do
    it now that we have agreed on what ought to be done.
        Senator Burns. OK.

                         SNOWMOBILING IN YELLOWSTONE NP

        Yellowstone Park, snowmobiling, EPA. Have you read the
    comments of the EPA regarding the National Park Services winter
    use EIS? They say it is not very good and are making
    recommendations that are concerning to a couple of folks around
    Yellowstone Park.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I am not sure which one you are
    referring to, and I probably have not read it anyway.
        Senator Burns. Does EPA take precedence over you and over
    the decisions you make in that park?
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, not if I can help it, but
    sometimes their law appears to give them the upper hand, yes.
        Senator Burns. We need your help on that, by the way, and
    we kind of want to get that fixed. We were told by the Park
    Service that some changes had to be made in order to maintain
    winter snowmobiling in Yellowstone Park. Those changes are
    being made with new engine technology and a lot of things for
    the future. We should certainly take that into consideration
    when we start making management decisions.
        I do not think an economic impact statement has been made
    for the people in and around that park who rely on winter
    activities up there.

                              MANY GLACIERS HOTEL

        You mentioned a while ago your thoughts about the hotel in
    Glacier National Park at Many Glaciers. We are working with Mr.
    Barry on legislation that would create a demo project in which
    it would cost no Government funds to restore that hotel. Could
    you support an idea like that? And are you aware of what we are
    talking with the National Park Service?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I am aware of the concept. In a
    nutshell, what you would do is find a concessionaire and let
    them build additional new units in sufficient quantity that
    they could cross-subsidize the rehabilitation of the hotel. I
    am open to discussing that. It is by no means an idea that has
    got widespread approval among the park constituencies. I am
    willing to discuss it. It would require a very substantial
    expansion and building of new units. They would probably have
    to be on the upscale end to generate the cross-subsidy.
        Senator Burns. That is a part of what we are trying to do,
    but I do not think it is based on a large expansion of the
    facility.
        Secretary Babbitt. No, I understand.
        Senator Burns. I think it is the length of the lease that
    offers some possibilities.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would expand the lease in a
    moment, but it will not do it. I support a long-term lease. I
    would do that. It is not enough.
        Senator Burns. OK. We will talk about that in a little bit.

                            BISON IN YELLOWSTONE NP

        The bison coming out of Yellowstone Park. That will
    continue even if you buy the Royal Tetan Ranch for more money
    than you thought you would pay Malcolm Forbes. Malcolm was
    happy when he sold it to the Church Universal and Triumphant.
    We still think that some movement should be made in the
    management of that herd, and I guess some will be talking about
    that at our funerals.
        Secretary Babbitt. I think we both agree on that.
        Senator Burns. It is such a common sense thing. It is such
    a common sense thing. I know in the Babbitt empire in Arizona,
    you probably were pretty good neighbors and probably tested
    your livestock. Is that correct?
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, I disagree with the
    characterization because if there was once a Babbitt empire, it
    is now a lot of rag-tag ends. It is not worthy of the name
    empire.
        Senator Burns. You did not test your cattle? Never mind.

                         GUN RESTRICTIONS ON BLM LANDS

        A couple other questions with regard to gun restrictions on
    BLM. Are you familiar with this conversation?
        Secretary Babbitt. I do not know which conversation you are
    referring to because I am not aware----
        Senator Burns. Recently the BLM outlawed the right for
    American citizens to carry guns on specific lands in Montana
    deemed to be habitat for threatened and possibly endangered
    species. Could you explain what provisions of the Endangered
    Species Act allows you to prevent Americans from simply
    possessing firearms on public lands?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I think I should respond in
    writing because there is no general BLM policy that should
    trigger your anger with respect to this. There may be some
    specific situations of which I am unaware. I would be happy to
    respond in writing.
        Senator Burns. OK, and I will accept that.
        [The information follows:]

                        GUN RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLIC LANDS

        The Bureau of Land Management in Montana has restricted the
    discharge of firearms for other than legitimate game hunting on public
    lands in Phillips County, in order to protect prairie dogs whose
    populations have been significantly reduced. Prairie dogs are the prey
    base for black footed ferrets, an endangered species that has been re-
    introduced in the area over the past several years. The shooting
    restriction in no way precludes citizens from possessing and carrying
    firearms on public lands, nor does it preclude the discharge of
    firearms for game hunting by a licensed hunter.
        Pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,
    Public Law 94-579, sections 302(b) and 303(a), BLM may close land for
    the protection of natural resources. The Bureau has coordinated this
    shooting restriction with law enforcement specialists, the Department
    of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor, the U.S. Attorney's office,
    and the Montana State Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, it took me 8 years to learn
    that I do not always have to take the bait in these hearings.
        Senator Burns. Well, but you always allow the Senator to
    throw the lure.
        Secretary Babbitt. Absolutely.
        Senator Burns. There is a couple of other things: We want
    to talk about the reintroduction of the grizzlies over in the
    Bitterroot and Selway.

                             MORALE PROBLEM IN BLM

        But more than anything else--and we talked about this on
    Mr. Fry's confirmation hearing the other day--we got a serious
    problem in morale in the BLM. I am concerned about that because
    we have got some outstanding land managers out there. I mean
    outstanding people who understand multiple purpose and multiple
    use, and we sure want to see those people stick around. I would
    like to just, one of these days, come down to your office or
    you come down to mine and let us talk about some of these
    situations because some of them are of a personal nature and
    should not be discussed in this realm. I am concerned because
    we have got just some outstanding land managers. I do not agree
    with all of them. But nonetheless, we have a real problem and I
    think those problems should be addressed.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I appreciate that. Maybe we can
    have this discussion on the banks of the Missouri River in the
    next few weeks.
        Senator Burns. I would do that, but I am only bringing my
    pole.
        Secretary Babbitt. I understand.
        Senator Burns. So, I am going to throw the lure or
    something.
        Those are my concerns. As we move through this process, we
    are going to be very critical on where the money goes.
        I also want to take you by road, not fly you, between--let
    me see--Reed Point and over around Grey Cliff, MT, right by the
    road and take you by a prairie dog town over there. We want to
    show you some effects of densely populated prairie dogs, what
    they can do to range country. We will do that.
        Senator Gorton. Mr. Secretary, I had hoped that we would be
    able to complete this hearing without a recess. Actually these
    votes started early, and I do have several questions. I will
    ask one or two of them now and then we will crave your
    indulgence while I go late for one and try to come back quickly
    from another. Senator Byrd also told me that he might be back
    with a couple others. Will you have time?
        Secretary Babbitt. Sure.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.

                            BASIC RESEARCH FUNCTIONS

        You have increases in your budget of $13 million to the
    Geological Survey to provide integrated scientific research and
    information necessary for the Land Resource Divisions and $18.5
    million for the Park Service for the National Resource
    Challenge. Given that we gather that the whole purpose of
    establishing the Biological Research Division in the Geological
    Service was to consolidate basic research functions, why are we
    trying to go up on two that seem to have, if not identical
    goals, very, very similar ones?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, there is some mission creep
    going on in all directions here. I think it is an appropriate
    subject for some close scrutiny. It is still my belief that we
    are on the right track with the Geological Survey doing natural
    science research, that it is working, that it is efficient. It
    is the right direction.
        The continual discussion is about the dividing line between
    the sort of strategic research agenda and the sort of tactical
    mission-specific issues that are appropriately done within the
    Fish and Wildlife Service or the Park Service. We have not
    succeeded in drawing a bright line, and the result is that you
    get this creep over the lines.
        I guess all I can say is I would be happy to work on that.
    I think it is very important that we evolve a solid policy so
    that I and all of us can be responsive to the legitimate
    research needs of the agencies, impress the GS with the
    importance of that, and then be able to say to the agencies we
    are not in the business of trying to recreate the past where
    there were five separate research programs, none of them
    reaching up toward the long-term issues.
        Senator Gorton. Well, you and I are in full agreement in
    that connection.
        Secretary Babbitt. I have actually been talking to the Park
    Service and the Fish and Wildlife people and asking, what are
    your specific concerns? Tell us exactly what is on your minds
    because maybe it would be appropriate to put some earmarks in
    the GS budget as a way of bridging some of this in a rational
    way.
        Senator Gorton. Good. Well, let us continue to work on
    that. This did jump out at our staff.
        Secretary Babbitt. This is also a Fish and Wildlife issue
    too that has been raised in the House. The House is seeing this
    on that side as well.

                            LANDS LEGACY LEGISLATION

        Senator Gorton. Has the administration submitted
    legislation to establish the Lands Legacy reserve fund?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, we do not believe that
    legislation, although desirable, is necessary.
        Senator Gorton. Well, so the administration will not submit
    such legislation?
        Secretary Babbitt. We will not. We would certainly be happy
    to work on any one of a flock of legislative proposals floating
    around.
        Senator Gorton. Have you endorsed any one of those?
        Secretary Babbitt. We have endorsed them in concept only. I
    think the leading candidate at this point is the so-called CARA
    legislation which has a lot of signatures in the House, but has
    not yet moved to the floor. We have said to all of the
    participants that we support the concept. It has gotten very
    large, as you know.
        Senator Gorton. It has gotten huge. It certainly does not
    have the support of this Senator or the chairman of the Budget
    Committee who is a member of this subcommittee as well.
        This Senator still puzzles as to why we need this approach
    that amounts essentially to an entitlement, fencing off
    acquisitions and some other forms of activities from the
    requirement each year that we come up with the money for the
    deferred maintenance to maintain what we already have. You
    listed three very important acquisitions in your initial
    testimony. I think we are not only capable of supplying those
    as a part of our discretionary appropriation this year or any
    year, but are very likely to agree with those priorities. Will
    you not be reasonably comfortable with a reasonable set of
    appropriations this year as in the past?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the problem is that over the
    last 8 years, we have watched this sort of bump up and down get
    turned around. I have two thoughts that I think justify either
    this fencing, but not appropriated approach, or a permanent
    authorization in appropriation, subject to whatever year-to-
    year appropriation oversight is necessary.
        The reason I think it is important is that from our
    perspective the promise of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    was just that.
        Second, there is an important place for some stability of
    revenue sharing with the States to cover some of the gaps. I
    think the most important gap is the State game and fish
    commissions, which, as you know, are now in a permanent revenue
    sharing partnership on sport fishing and game that has worked
    very, very well across the years. There is this big gap for
    non-game species, and we are having a hard time working these
    endangered species programs back into State governments because
    we confront a historic structure of State game and fish
    management which excludes attention to endangered species both
    by Federal law and, in many cases, by State law. This is an
    opportunity to do something about that. It could really I think
    encourage a real devolution of much of these endangered species
    issues towards the States. Those are a couple of examples. This
    is a substantial hunk of money, but the revenue sharing piece
    of it I think is really important.
        Senator Gorton. Well, I think, Mr. Secretary, that is one
    issue on which we are going to have to continue to disagree. We
    will not disagree on some of the specific priorities, and I
    hope we are going to be able to deal relatively generously with
    them.
        With that, I am probably holding up this roll call now. I
    will call a short recess. If Senator Byrd comes back before I
    do, let him start up and ask his questions, and I will be back
    as promptly as possible.
        Senator Byrd had a couple more questions. I will once again
    defer to him and then go forward with my own.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
    characteristic courtesy.

                            OSM'S REGULATORY GRANTS

        I want to stay on the subject of OSM's regulatory grants
    because I am concerned with the level of funding for the
    program. OSM has requested $52.6 million in State and tribal
    regulatory grants for fiscal year 2001, an increase of only
    $541,000 above the fiscal year 2000 levels.
        My first question is this, how does the $52.7 million
    request of OSM square with what the States told you they
    needed, Mr. Secretary? Is OSM fully funding or underfunding the
    regulatory program?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, that level has been relatively
    constant in recent years, and for some of those years, I think
    it was adequate. There was actually some money not being
    obligated. I do think that has changed. I think that the States
    are making a plausible case. Some of that is being driven, of
    course, by the increased level of contention and difficulty
    over these issues. The answer is, yes, it is a real issue.
        Senator Byrd. Did the States not identify needs totalling
    about $61 million?
        Secretary Babbitt. That is correct.
        Senator Byrd. West Virginia has seen its share of the
    program drop from $7.9 million in fiscal year 1999 to $7
    million in fiscal year 2001. That would be about an 11 or 12
    percent decrease. To make matters worse, these cuts are coming
    at the time that the State is being subjected to an onslaught
    of litigation.
        Would you explain how these cuts can be justified,
    particularly in light of the fact that OSM has gone on record
    as saying that West Virginia's regulatory program is
    understaffed and is in need of additional Federal funding to
    correct just that problem?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, my impression of this is that
    when the allocations are actually made, it is unlikely that
    West Virginia will actually be cut. I acknowledge that that is
    not responsive to your larger question of whether or not a flat
    level of grant making is sufficient. I understand your concern
    and I am ready and willing to take it up in this process. There
    is a legitimate request from West Virginia based on all these
    factors you discussed. I do not deny that.
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, could I count on your support
    in ensuring that West Virginia is in a position of maintaining
    administrative primacy in the operation of its mine permitting
    program?
        Secretary Babbitt. Yes.
        Senator Byrd. Just one more question now, Mr. Chairman.

                        OHIO RIVER ISLANDS NWR STAFFING

        The conference report language accompanying the fiscal year
    2000 Interior appropriations measure took note of--I am quoting
    now--``the continuing unmet maintenance needs'' of the Ohio
    River Islands National Wildlife Refuge. I understand that the
    conference report language has apparently had the desired
    effect and that the Fish and Wildlife Service is expediting the
    process of making sure that the refuge has adequate maintenance
    personnel.
        Could you confirm this understanding is correct, that the
    refuge is in fact in the process of hiring a full-time
    maintenance worker?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, having personally inspected
    this refuge and the river, they need this position. It will be
    filled shortly.
        Senator Byrd. Very well. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary,
    and thanks again for your many courtesies over the years. I
    hope we will both be in West Virginia together on a number of
    occasions yet.
        Secretary Babbitt. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you, Senator Byrd.

                      RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

        The recreation fee demonstration program you referred to
    earlier. It has obviously been a favorite of mine. It has been
    an imaginative and I think responsive way to help with some of
    the challenges that you have faced.
        Could you give me your general description of its success
    so far and what you have learned from the experiment and
    whether or not you would anticipate or suggest to us any
    changes?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I have learned a number of
    things, starting with the fact of public support. We have
    talked about this before. It is absolutely astonishing. A
    public which rejects added fees routinely, unanimously supports
    this. I was out in Yosemite last week dealing with a number of
    issues there before a large Yosemite audience, and I pointed
    out to them that not only did we raise the fees at Yosemite, we
    quadrupled them. And there was not a ripple of objection.
        Now, that points up both the success and the future
    direction. The reason for that is people believe that it is
    coming back in tangible improvements in the park, not somewhere
    else, not in the abstract, but in the park where they are.
        Therefore, I believe it is very important for me and for
    this committee to keep watching over the shoulder of these
    folks to avoid the kind of dissipation of this money as a sort
    of supplementary source of income. I realize that those lines
    are drawn around the program, but there is always some leakage.
    I think, again, it is very important that we emphasize that
    this really is about improvements and maintenance of park
    facilities.
        There has been some backwash, if I may step over the line,
    in the Forest Service piece of this program. I would call that
    to your attention because I think the reason is that there is a
    problem when the public perceives these as a permit to go on
    public land. You are going to get a big backlash from that
    whether it is on a wildlife refuge or a park or the Forest
    Service or BLM land. I do not even need to go to the Forest
    Service. If it is perceived by Westerners that they have got to
    get a permit to get on this place, there are going to be
    problems. So, I think that needs some continual oversight and
    watching.
        We need to work on collection overhead. It is going down.
    It was understandably pretty high. It was over 30 percent,
    maybe even 35 at one point. We have got it down in the
    neighborhood of 20 now. I just think we need to make certain
    that there is not some creep going on there in terms of
    collection overhead being creatively expanded.
        With those issues, obviously, I think it has been an
    exceptional success.
        Senator Gorton. Well, you know it runs out. We will do
    everything we can to see to it that it does not run out. But is
    the administration going to submit any legislation on making it
    permanent?
        Secretary Babbitt. The budget assumes we will.
        Senator Gorton. Yes.
        Secretary Babbitt. When I am asked will the administration
    submit legislation, the reason I hesitate is that we really do
    not need to submit anything. I could come up here to an
    authorizer and write the legislation on the back of an
    envelope. Frankly, in many cases we come up with legislation
    and it becomes an automatic flash point of contention. I guess
    my hope would be that we could say, let us authorize this. I
    will be available any time if you need any assistance of any
    kind with language.
        Senator Gorton. Or you can just always come back to us and
    have us do it a year at a time I suppose.

                          EVERGLADES LAND ACQUISITION

        I have a whole series of questions on the Everglades. I am
    going to submit most of them to you in writing. But I would
    like you to tell me--this obviously is a tremendously important
    project. It is also a tremendously expensive project. Senator
    Byrd and I have just signed off on an acquisition for greater
    than the appraised value. You persuaded us that it was
    necessary. But can you give me any indication as to how much
    more property we are going to need to acquire and any remote
    estimate as to the cost to the Federal Government of those
    acquisitions before we have reached the point of some stability
    in the Everglades?
        Secretary Babbitt. We have some figures in our submission.
    Let me say this and then point out the judgment call. We have
    completed the land acquisition within the authorized boundary
    of Everglades National Park. That is an extraordinary
    accomplishment because the Congress expanded the Everglades
    basically across one of these old horizon-style subdivision
    promotions. The whole damn thing had been sold off. Well, we
    now have the money to get it back.
        There is a big unresolved issue in the so-called 8\1/2\
    square mile area. It is not within the Everglades. It is on the
    wrong side of the barrier dike that separates the system from
    the Miami area. That has not been resolved. My opinion is we
    ought to bite the bullet and authorize the takeout. I am not
    sure that Florida is with us on that and it is becoming a bit
    of a controversy.
        Beyond that, the land acquisition becomes a little more
    judgmental. What we have basically done conceptually with
    Florida is said, beyond these core Federal properties--the
    Talisman property, which this committee appropriated the money
    for, was a big bite. It was over $100 million. From now on, I
    think Florida becomes the lead in terms of defining their open
    space future, and I would advocate the continuance of the
    match, as long as it is within the parameters of the so-called
    restudy, that is, reconfiguring the water supply system of
    Florida.
        That is a 20-year project and it is a multi-billion dollar
    project. The figures are not absolutely firm, but it is going
    to be $5 billion to $7 billion on each side over 20 years.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you. That is a straightforward
    answer. I have a number of other detailed questions that we
    will submit to you in writing.

                                LEWIS AND CLARK

        Lewis and Clark. I can never go to the southeast or
    southwest part of my State without having a Lewis and Clark
    request. I am inundated with them from my colleagues all the
    way from Illinois to the Pacific.
        How have you set up your priority for Lewis and Clark
    funding requests that are on public lands? And do you have any
    thoughts as to how we should prioritize non-Federal projects or
    projects on non-Federal lands in that connection, or whether we
    should do it at all?
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, those are the right questions. I
    guess my simple answer would be that the Lewis and Clark
    commemoration should be State driven for all of the reasons
    that you imply, and for the most part, I think we should view
    the Federal issue as to what extent should we help in those
    State efforts with some matching approach. Now, that's a
    judgment call.
        I am inclined toward a modest yes because I think that it
    is particularly helpful in these rural communities. Almost all
    of the whole pathway remains in one way or another in rural
    communities where there is still a fair amount of economic
    distress. To the extent that these things can be focused upon
    developing a little more capacity and self-identification of
    the communities, it starts to sound very much like the heritage
    trails and the heritage areas programs in the National Park
    Service, the same kind of rationale.
        There are some specific Federal issues that I think are
    very important now. Senator Burns and I talked about the
    Missouri Breaks. If there is one Federal centerpiece, this is
    it. The Missouri Breaks are really the heart and soul of the
    Lewis and Clark experience, as you can see it on the landscape
    today. Steven Ambrose is absolutely rapturous as he recreates
    those days on the Missouri Breaks. It is a fabulous place, and
    we are still arm wrestling about that. That is really the core
    of the Federal commitment as far as I am concerned because it
    is all BLM land--mostly BLM land.
        Senator Gorton. Now I would like to go to some questions
    that are somewhat more parochial. Can you explain to me the
    role that the Fish and Wildlife Service plays in the Federal
    Caucus with respect to our All-H Paper and the management of
    the Columbia River?

                                  ALL-H PAPERS

        Secretary Babbitt. The All-H Caucus is presided over by the
    Council on Environmental Quality. The preparation of the H
    papers and all of the other material is presided over by
    National Marine Fisheries. The Fish and Wildlife Service is a
    participant and, as you are well aware, has spoken out from
    time to time not necessarily out of school but maybe halfway
    between the classroom and the playground.
        Senator Gorton. Would that comment cover Ann Badgley's
    statement at a press conference that removal of the dams is a
    no-brainer?
        Secretary Babbitt. That does not reflect my position. This
    would not be the first time that one of my agencies has said
    something that does not reflect my position.
        Now, that said, she is a fair-minded, highly competent
    regional manager, and I believe--my impression is that her
    remarks were in the context of there were a lot of other
    participants who were kind of getting off the train in the
    other direction. So, I believe that is the context because the
    Corps of Engineers was kind of out of school in the other
    direction.
        Now, you know where my position is on this, or maybe you do
    not.
        Senator Gorton. Why don't you explain it?
        Secretary Babbitt. My position--he says, leading me over
    the cliff. My position is that the jury is out on these dams
    and that what we need to do is try to see if we can move toward
    a process, as difficult and frustrating as it is, to see if we
    can sharpen the science and the analysis and the economics.
    This decision is not going to be made on my watch and, in my
    judgment, should not be made on my watch.
        Notwithstanding my remarks so unfairly seized upon by the
    good chairman back in 1993 with respect to the adjective
    ``high'' as it was placed before dams, you no doubt recall
    that.
        Senator Gorton. Well, Mr. Secretary, this is a decision
    that I trust will be made on my watch, if not on yours, over
    which I will have some effect.

                                 CASPIAN TERNS

        Obviously the dams are not alone in their impact on the
    salmon. Will you explain the Fish and Wildlife Service policy
    with respect to Caspian terns and what plan the agency has for
    providing a long-term strategy to control the terns? The Corps
    of Engineers has sort of laid that off on you where it, I
    think, feels to a certain degree at loggerheads with the Fish
    and Wildlife Service, the Corps putting a higher value on their
    removal at least than Fish and Wildlife does.
        Secretary Babbitt. I guess the basis is the Migratory Bird
    Treaty Act. The Caspian terns are not an endangered species. It
    is not clear to me why it is that this has to be a Fish and
    Wildlife decision, and I guess what I ought to do is go back
    and work this through a little more. My sense is that the State
    of Washington ought to be dealing with this rather than the
    Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Senator Gorton. Do you want to respond more in detail on
    that?
        Secretary Babbitt. I would prefer that because there may be
    some wrinkle in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
        [The information follows:]

     UPDATE ON THE CASPIAN TERN POPULATION AT RICE ISLAND AND COOPERATIVE
                             EFFORTS WITH THE NMFS

        The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is the lead agency in
    addressing Caspian tern predation because it has the lead in salmon
    recovery. In determining how to recover listed salmon, NMFS must
    address all factors that may have caused the decline in salmon
    populations including harvest, habitat loss, hydro power production,
    and predation. By developing a comprehensive recovery strategy that
    addresses all the threats, they will be better able to recover these
    species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) responsibility in
    this effort is to provide technical assistance on the Migratory Bird
    Treaty Act, conservation of Caspian terns, and seabird predation.
        As an active member of a joint-agency working group, the USFWS also
    provides funding assistance and field assistance for the project.
    However, it is not our role to mitigate for salmon losses from
    predation. Multi-disciplinary science reviews have found no compelling
    scientific evidence that predation has been a primary cause for the
    recent salmon declines. Predation is a natural part of the salmon life
    cycle and no evidence exists that tern predation is limiting salmon
    recovery. However, the USFWS continues to support NMFS's efforts to
    recover salmon through relocating the nesting terns to an island in the
    lower Columbia River. Preliminary relocation efforts have been
    successful in reducing predation of salmon smolts by 40 percent. This
    is a substantial reduction in smolt losses and should provide some
    short-term recovery benefit until other more substantial efforts begin
    to restore population numbers.
        Estimates of tern predation may vary by year and have been refined
    as data collection has improved. The current estimates of tern
    predation on out-migrating smolts range from 4 to 8 percent of the
    salmon smolts produced in the basin, and approximately 90 percent of
    these smolts are hatchery-reared fish. Predation losses will be reduced
    by an estimated 40 percent when the birds are relocated to the island
    near the mouth of the Columbia River.

        Senator Gorton. One other matter which I would just like to
    counsel you on. Your budget requests $15 million in connection
    with the lower Elwha Dam and the Park Service. I think--and I
    think I can tell you that that $15 million will be
    appropriated----
        Secretary Babbitt. Thank you.
        Senator Gorton [continuing]. As another payment toward a
    goal, the ultimate goal on which we disagree, but the
    preliminary goal on which we agree.

                           PORT ANGELES WATER SUPPLY

        But the first thing that has to be done, of course, is the
    water supply for the City of Port Angeles. I want to urge the
    Park Service, through you, to attempt to reach an agreement
    with the City of Port Angeles as promptly as possible. It is
    certainly possible that the city is asking for a more gold-
    plated version of this new water system than may be warranted.
    I have also felt that the Park Service was being too tight, too
    narrow, and too restrictive on what it felt was necessary. But
    if we are to reach the goal, even the interim goal that we
    share and that the community shares, we have got to solve that
    problem as promptly as possible.
        You can count, I think, on the $15 million in the fiscal
    year 2001 appropriations, but I would sure like to get that
    division of responsibility behind us as quickly as possible.
        Secretary Babbitt. I understand and I will proceed
    accordingly.

                            EXPIRING GRAZING PERMITS

        Senator Gorton. I have a lot of other questions that I am
    going to submit in writing, but I do have one other because it
    has been of such great interest to a number of my colleagues.
        Because of court decisions, BLM has got to do additional
    environmental reviews on expiring grazing permits. This has
    caused a large backlog, obviously. You have got $2.5 million in
    an increase for processing them. How are you doing on that? Are
    we going to be able to get through this year's appropriations
    battle without having any serious disagreement with you and the
    administration over grazing permits?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I believe so. I really think at
    the core of this is the problem of perceptions. The fear was
    that somehow these permits would expire and people would be
    driven off the land by Federal proclamation. It is not the
    case. Where permits expire, they are automatically renewed.
    There may be some language in last year's bill to that effect.
    The bottom line is there will be no one off the land because of
    a permit which expires because the environmental work and the
    decision have not been made.
        That said and looking at John's note, I believe we are
    going to get done with this. There are 3,456 that were carried
    forward, plus 2,000. The answer is no new legislative authority
    is necessary. I guarantee you that nothing will happen.
        I was going to try to say that we would have this all
    wrapped up by the end of this year. I am not certain I can say
    that in terms of doing the environmental work to get the
    permits out.
        Senator Gorton. But you at least are cutting back on the
    backlog.
        Secretary Babbitt. We are whittling it down. I think we
    have got a good program. Mark Stiles out in Montrose Grand
    Junction has been shepherding this, and I am absolutely
    satisfied that we are doing it right and that we are on a track
    toward completion and that our appropriation request will help
    us get there. So, I think it is under control.
        Senator Gorton. Good. I trust you will share these views,
    as I will, with Senator Domenici and the others who are
    interested in it. I would be delighted if we were able to
    satisfy everyone on this without it going through another
    legislative rider debate.
        Secretary Babbitt. They have my word that there will be no
    changes on the land or permits or cattle removed or otherwise
    affected because of our failure to renew the permit.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Gorton. Well, with that, thank you very much, Mr.
    Secretary. I appreciate your candor as always. We do have other
    questions for you to answer and we appreciate your appearance
    here.
        [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

                            LAND MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

        The request for the U.S. Geological Survey includes a $13 million
    increase to ``provide integrated scientific research and information
    necessary for DOI land resources decisions.'' The increase would be
    used to ``develop projects to meet the high-priority management
    requests from each [Interior] bureau.'' I suspect this is an effort to
    respond to the dissatisfaction that has been expressed by some in the
    land management agencies ever since their scientific capabilities were
    consolidated into the Biological Research Division.
        In the same budget request, the National Park Service is seeking an
    increase of $18.5 million increase for ``The Natural Resource
    Challenge''--an initiative to ``revitalize and expand the natural
    resource program in the national parks.''
        Question. Given the whole purpose of establishing the Biological
    Research Division of the USGS was to consolidate the basic research
    functions of the land management agencies, how do you justify a
    continued and rapid expansion of National Park Service scientific
    capabilities?
        Answer. The Service is seeking to expand its capability to make and
    implement park management decisions in a scientifically sound manner
    (consistent with the requirements of the National Parks Omnibus
    Management Act of 1998). On-the-ground identification of solutions
    requires technically trained resource managers.
        The National Park Service is seeking funds in fiscal year 2001 to
    complete basic inventories and monitor conditions of what it manages.
    Much of the NPS funding will be used to put available scientific
    information to direct use in management activities--such as patrols to
    prevent poaching and to protect nesting endangered species, mechanical
    removal of exotic plants, and restoration of native vegetation.
        Some of the funding requested for the National Park Service is also
    intended to make parks more attractive to outside researchers,
    including those from USGS. In fact, USGS will be a partner with the NPS
    in its Learning Centers, as well as in the interagency Cooperative
    Ecosystem Studies Unit Network.
        Question. What is the division of labor between USGS and the land
    management agencies when it comes to science?
        Answer. USGS is the primary provider of biological and earth
    science research and information for the DOI land management bureaus.
    USGS data collection, analytical capabilities, and scientific research
    and information contribute to the conservation and sustainable
    development of the natural resources managed by DOI bureaus. DOI
    bureaus request and use studies from the USGS disciplines of water,
    biology, geology, and mapping to guide planning, management, and
    regulatory activities on public lands in a scientifically sound manner.
        Generally, the Department's resource management bureaus apply the
    results of science in their management actions and decisions, but it is
    USGS that actually conducts the science. The resource management
    bureaus may also perform certain inventory and monitoring functions,
    but it is USGS that develops the research-derived protocols and
    standards that ensure the reliability and integrity of the Department's
    inventory and monitoring programs. The distinction between conducting
    science and applying science can be subtle and difficult to discern.
    There are some activities that one could argue would be appropriate for
    either a resource management bureau or USGS to perform. Some of the
    elements of NPS's ``Challenge'' proposal may fit this description.
        The Department's primary objective in the creation of NBS/BRD was
    not just that science funding be consolidated in the new organization
    to the maximum extent possible, but more importantly, that the
    scientific expertise and capability and actual performance of science
    be not be duplicated in the other Interior bureaus. It has always been
    recognized that invariably resource management bureaus might have the
    need for science during the course of the year that was unanticipated
    during the formulation of the USGS budget or exceeds USGS's financial
    capabilities. In these cases, it is perfectly acceptable for the
    resource bureaus to use their funding for science. But our expectation
    in these cases is the same as our expectation in case of NPS's
    ``Challenge'' proposal; that NPS will consult with USGS as it
    implements the ``Challenge'' initiative to ensure it takes advantage of
    USGS's inherent strengths and expertise.
        Question. How is such research coordinated?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999, the Department instituted a new
    process to improve the identification and coordination of science needs
    (and science projects to address those needs) in the Department, and
    improve USGS's ability to address these needs. The ``Agreement on USGS
    Research Support for DOI Resource Management Bureau Needs'' involves
    extensive consultation between USGS and the other DOI bureaus to
    identify highest priority science needs, assess the status of current
    USGS science support, identify gaps and cross-bureau commonalities. The
    process resulted in the collaborative formulation of the ``DOI Science
    Priorities'' budget request of $13.0 million in 2001.
        Research planning is coordinated through a variety of other
    mechanisms as well, including:
      --formal meetings, such as regional BIN meetings,
      --interagency initiatives, such as the South Florida Ecosystem
            Restoration Task Force,
      --joint planning with NPS under the National Resources Preservation
            Program to address short-term biological needs and the Clean
            Water Action Plan to conduct water quality studies in Parks,
      --MOUs and Interagency Agreements,
      --informal communications, shared facilities, etc.
        Question. Are you personally involved in ensuring the duplication
    of effort does not occur?
        Answer. The Secretary is personally committed to the consolidation
    of biological and earth science resources in the USGS and the avoidance
    of any duplication of effort. The Secretary is emphatic that Interior
    policy and resource management decisions be grounded in sound and
    objective science. This can best be assured by conducting science in an
    independent, non-regulatory bureau such as the U.S. Geological Survey.
    The Secretary recognizes that consolidating science responsibilities in
    a single bureau is the most cost-effective approach to realizing sound
    science needs.

                         BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIVISION

        During last year's hearing, I asked you about the work of the
    Biological Resources Division (BRD) and your role in coordinating its
    activities with those of the land management agencies. In your
    response, you referred to the need to make a distinction between basic
    wide-ranging science that would appropriately be accomplished by the
    BRD and site-specific applied science that would more likely be the
    responsibility of the individual agencies.
        Question. How was it determined that the proposed increase of $1.6
    million for Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units should be included
    within the National Park Service budget?
        Answer. Contributions of the U.S. Geological Survey complement the
    contributions of the National Park Service so the partnership effort
    more strongly meets the mission of each bureau. Cooperative Ecosystems
    Studies Units (CESUs) have a broad mission to provide multidisciplinary
    research, technical assistance, and education to multiple Federal
    agencies concerned with natural and cultural resource management. CESUs
    include multiple Federal cooperators; currently six Federal agencies
    within three Departments are participants. As a partner in the CESUs,
    the NPS seeks to bring the research and technical assistance
    capabilities of the university, USGS, and other partners to bear on
    fulfilling National Park Service resource management needs for research
    and assistance in a broad array of disciplines. These include cultural
    resource disciplines and interpretation and education. The NPS
    leverages these resources to address park needs by identifying
    opportunities that exist in parks for the partners to conduct their own
    research, technical assistance, and logistical support, coordinating
    activities and sharing information among partners to maximize
    opportunities and avoid duplication.
        Question. Why wouldn't a project of this scope be directed through
    the Biological Resources Division of the Geological Survey?
        Answer. The network is authorized under section 203 of the National
    Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998. Continued involvement by the
    Biological Resources Division (and other USGS divisions) is expected.
    Like the other bureaus and agencies in the CESU Network, the National
    Park Service is the organization that is best able to represent its own
    park needs for biological, physical, and social science research,
    technical assistance, and education to its partners in the Cooperative
    Ecosystem Studies Units, including the BRD and other USGS divisions,
    and to university participants. It will be the task of the National
    Park Service personnel involved to be the advocates and spokespersons
    for park research, technical assistance, and education needs and to
    serve as brokers to meet those needs and the harnessing of university
    resources (including students). It is not always necessary to build
    Federal programs and infrastructure if universities are interested and
    see advantages in working on the ``real world'' problems in preserving
    national parks.

                                LEWIS AND CLARK

        This subcommittee has been inundated with requests for projects
    relating to the upcoming anniversary of the Lewis and Clark expedition.
    Some of these requests are for Federal projects on Park, forest or BLM
    lands, others are for non-Federal projects that commemorate or
    interpret other portions of the trail. There are more of these
    proposals than this subcommittee can possibly afford.
        Question. Can you give us your thoughts as to how you have
    prioritized Lewis and Clark funding requests in your budget development
    process?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 President's budget request includes an
    increase of $6.3 million in operational accounts and $9.6 million for
    land acquisition representing the highest priority Lewis and Clark
    funding needs. The 2001 budget presents the first year of a six-year
    effort to prepare parks, refuges and public lands for expected
    increases in visitation, to help the nation commemorate this historic
    event, and to work in partnership with the Tribes to support their
    participation. The President's request was the result of a coordinated
    process facilitated by a multi-agency team that reviewed the results of
    agency long-term plans for the Lewis and Clark commemoration. The
    agencies began the process of identifying on the ground resource needs
    and bringing together local and state partners in this planning process
    over a year ago in order to identify priority funding needs for the
    six-year initiative.
        Question. What are your thoughts as to how this Subcommittee should
    prioritize the non-Federal project proposals?
        Answer. We do not know how such a diverse array of projects
    identified by a variety of entities can be prioritized. Our
    recommendation is to fund the President's budget request and thereby
    allow the land management agencies to work in partnership with local
    communities, states and Tribes to accomplish projects as appropriate
    and in a coordinated manner. The land management agencies have
    programs, including challenge grants, that can fund projects with
    states, local communities and others that will provide for the
    protection of natural and cultural resources, enhanced visitor
    experiences, and expanded outreach and education.
        Question. Should such projects be funded at all?
        Answer. Many of the projects have merit, however, since the
    projects were identified by a diverse number of states, localities, and
    other entities, they are not coordinated and no priority has been
    established. We recommend that funding be provided to Interior
    agencies, consistent with the President's budget request. Further, we
    recommend that land management agencies be permitted to work in
    partnership with state, local and other entities to undertake selected
    projects that will provide for the protection of natural and cultural
    resources, enhanced visitor experiences, and expanded outreach and
    education.

                                   EVERGLADES

        You recently approved a request from DOI for the acquisition of a
    large property in South Florida for greater than the appraised value.
    Governor Bush had originally opposed the purchase as too expensive, but
    a renegotiated deal now has Bush's support. The House has indicated it
    will approve the request, but not until after its Everglades hearing
    today.
        The subcommittee recently received a request to approve the
    acquisition of the Berry Groves property in South Florida for greater
    than the appraised fair market. The State of Florida would purchase the
    property, with Federal appropriations paying half of the cost. The
    property itself would be used to provide water storage in the
    Caloosahatchee River Basin as called for in the Corps of Engineers
    ``Restudy.''
        Question. Why does the Department regard this property as such a
    high priority it would be willing to pay in excess of the fair market
    value for the land?
        Answer. The State of Florida and the owners of Berry Groves have
    negotiated and announced an agreement in principle to acquire
    approximately 9,000 acres of the property for $65.6 million, which is
    $8.6 million, or 15 percent, above the appraised fair market value of
    $57.0 million. The State of Florida and the South Florida Water
    Management District have again requested the Department fund half the
    cost of acquisition, for a total Federal share of $32.8 million.
    Acquiring these lands now creates opportunities to increase water
    storage capacity in the Caloosahatchee Basin. The proposed project
    feature in the Comprehensive Plan for the Caloosahatchee Basin
    anticipates expanding water storage capacity by approximately 160,000-
    acre feet. The Army Corps of Engineers advised us that the purchase of
    this site is exceptionally suited to fulfilling the Comprehensive
    Plan's needs in the region. Specifically, the unusual heavy claylayer
    underlying the property provides greater than normal water storage
    capacity and means we may be able to save land acquisition money in the
    future by acquiring fewer acres than anticipated. Further, the
    Department believes that the property appraisal did not account for the
    full value of infrastructure existing on the property--canals and
    levees--that will be used by the Army Corps to link the storage
    facility on this property to the river. For these reasons, the
    Department believes that this acquisition is in the public interest.
        Question. To what extent do you feel approval of this acquisition
    will establish an expectation for future land purchases in South
    Florida?
        Answer. The Department does not believe that this acquisition will
    establish an expectation among landowners for future land purchases in
    South Florida. It is likely that if the lands are not acquired now from
    a willing seller, ultimate lands costs would be higher in the future.
        Question. How much more land is likely to be purchased by the
    Federal government, or with Federal dollars, in order to restore the
    South Florida ecosystem?
        Answer. The Department's total cost report identified a total of
    $160 million: $150 million in future Federal land acquisition costs to
    acquire the remaining lands within the national wildlife refuges
    located in South Florida; and, $10 million for acquisitions at Big
    Cypress National Preserve. Additionally, the Comprehensive Everglades
    Restoration Plan identifies a $2.2 billion requirement for lands needed
    to modify existing project features of the Central and Southern Florida
    Project in order to restore, preserve and protect the South Florida
    ecosystem. Although this $2.2 billion requirement is the responsibility
    of the local sponsor, the Administration may propose the expenditure of
    Federal funds in the future to assist in this effort.
        Question. With what frequency are we likely to be asked to approve
    over appraisals?
        Answer. Under the reprogramming guidelines between the Committees
    and the Department regarding the acquisition of lands at levels
    exceeding the appraised fair market value, the Department will submit a
    reprogramming request as such conditions arise in the future. The
    reprogramming guidelines apply to land acquisition grants provided by
    the Department to the State of Florida and procedures are in place to
    notify the Committees at any time such an acquisition is proposed for
    each tract of land that is covered by the overall grant.
        Question. Assuming the replumbing projects proposed in the Restudy
    are authorized, what is earliest date at which the Berry Groves
    property would be used for actual water storage?
        Answer. Based upon the proposed construction schedule presented in
    the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan provided to the Congress
    last July, the earliest date that the Berry Groves property would be
    used for actual storage would be in the year 2015, after construction
    is complete.
        Question. Will the property be leased in the interim?
        Answer. Yes. The property will be leased through 2008. The leasing
    of the property in the interim period and maintaining it in its
    existing use provides for important benefits, including limiting the
    spread of invasive exotics that would occur if the land was returned to
    its natural state; decreasing land management costs; and providing
    lease income for the South Florida Water Management District.
        Question. What are terms of the lease?
        Answer. The Department understands that the terms of the lease
    allow the present owners of the property to remain on and farm the land
    until 2008. Beginning in 2005, annual lease payments of $500,000 are
    due to the South Florida Water Management District (District). These
    payments will allow the District to defray its costs in this
    acquisition.
        Question. How do these terms differ from the lease terms associated
    with the original purchase proposal that was rejected?
        Answer. The lease period was extended by four years and the overall
    lease payments were reduced by a total of $2 million.
        Question. What is the monetary value of difference in these terms
    to the State and Federal government?
        Answer. For the Federal government, the revised lease terms have no
    effect on the overall Federal share of $32.8 million for this
    acquisition. However, because the transaction was renegotiated at a
    lower price ($65.6 million in lieu of $70 million originally), the
    overall 50 percent Federal share of the total cost was reduced by $2.2
    million.
        Question. The budget request for the National Park Service includes
    another $12 million for the Modified Water Delivery System as part of
    the Everglades restoration initiative. How much has this Committee
    appropriated to date for the Modified Water Deliveries project?
        Answer. The Committee has appropriated $63 million through fiscal
    year 2000 for the Modified Water Deliveries Project. Based upon current
    plans, the Department estimates that between $72 million and $150
    million will be needed to complete the project. There are a range of
    costs for the Modified Water Deliveries Project that represent the
    uncertainties associated with the ongoing NEPA process for project
    components, including the 8.5 Square Mile Area and the changes to
    integrate this project within the larger Comprehensive Everglades
    Restoration Plan (CERP). We are working on a capital asset plan that
    will specify more precisely the cost, schedule and performance goals
    for this Project. These estimates do not represent a final agency
    decision to select any alternative that is presently being studied.
        Question. How much of this amount has been obligated to date?
        Answer. Approximately $42.3 million has been obligated through
    March 31, 2000.
        Question. Will the funds requested for fiscal year 2001 actually be
    needed for obligation in fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The funds may not be obligated in fiscal year 2001,
    however, the $12 million request for fiscal year 2001 will be needed
    regardless of what option is chosen through the NEPA process and will
    reduce future year costs.
        Question. A review of the South Florida restoration project
    requested by this Subcommittee recommended that the South Florida Task
    Force draft a strategic plan that would encompass all elements of the
    restoration effort. The Committee endorsed the GAO recommendation in
    the Statement of Managers accompanying the fiscal year 2000
    appropriations bill. Will the Task Force deliver this plan on time?
        Answer. Yes. The Task Force is planning to deliver an outcome
    oriented strategic plan to the Committee by July 31.
        Question. Are you confident that the plan will include the elements
    identified by the GAO as critical to any strategic plan?
        Answer. The Florida-based Working Group has been working to develop
    a strategic plan that contains the critical elements identified by GAA
    for the past several months. A draft of the strategic plan was
    presented members of the Task Force on May 12, 2000.
        Question. The language of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill
    made release of certain Everglades land acquisition funds contingent
    upon the submission to the Congress of legislation that would ensure an
    adequate supply of clean water, at the appropriate times, to protect
    the natural areas of South Florida such as Everglades National Park.
    When will the Administration propose such language?
        Answer. The Administration transmitted the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2000 to the Congress on April 10, 2000. Section 3 of
    the bill is the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and is the
    language referenced in the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act.
        Question. What challenges have you faced in drafting this language?
        Answer. The Administration faced two challenges in drafting the
    Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) section of the bill.
    One challenge in developing the assurances language was to set up a
    process to identify the amount of water that is to be dedicated and
    managed for the natural system. The second challenge was determining
    the cost share arrangement with the State of Florida for the future
    operations and maintenance of the project modifications that are
    proposed as part of the CERP.
        Question. Are you confident the Administration proposal will
    ultimately provide adequate protections for the natural areas that you
    manage directly, and for which this Subcommittee is directly
    responsible?
        Answer. Yes, under the Administration's proposed legislation
    authorizing the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, the
    Secretary of the Army will issue programmatic regulations, with the
    concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, that identifies the
    quantity of water to be dedicated and managed for the natural system.
    This provision was included in the legislation to ensure that the
    special expertise of the Secretary of the Interior is taken into
    account when setting aside the proper quantity of water, with the
    proper flow and distribution, for the natural system. The Department is
    confident that the Administration's proposal will provide the natural
    areas with the proper quantity, quality, timing and distribution of
    water.
        The Administration agrees that the concurrence of the Secretary of
    the Interior in developing the programmatic regulations that establish
    the proper quantity of water, with the appropriate timing and
    distribution, is critical to ensure that the remaining natural areas of
    the Everglades are protected and that the project is always managed to
    restore, preserve and protect the Everglades ecosystem.
        Question. What other related challenges have arisen in your work
    with the Corps and other agencies to draft the legislation that will
    authorize the Corps of Engineers ``Restudy?''
        Answer. Not all stakeholders agree with the approach contained in
    the Administration's legislative proposal. For example, the State of
    Florida would prefer that state law allocate the water that is to be
    captured from the features proposed in the CERP, as opposed to the
    programmatic regulations contained in the Administration's legislative
    proposal.
        Additionally, the Seminole Tribe would like to ensure that its
    rights to water under its water rights compact are not affected. There
    are other areas of disagreement and the Department and the
    Administration are working together to resolve these areas of concern.
        Question. As for the additional acreage to be purchased by the
    Federal government in fee, what kind of plans has the Department made
    for ensuring that the lands will be properly managed by the Department?
        Answer. The Department has worked closely with the State of
    Florida, county officials, and landowners to ensure that the lands will
    be properly managed.
        Question. In particular, does the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
    Park Service, BLM and the Forest Service have a coordinated system
    where each of the Realty Offices work with the Operations and
    Management to ensure that appropriate planning takes place?
        Answer. The National Park Service has a realty office in Naples,
    Florida that handles the Federal land acquisition program at Big
    Cypress National Preserve, Everglades National Park and Biscayne
    National Park. The realty office coordinates its land acquisition
    program with park management at the three parks. The parks identify
    land acquisition priorities and the realty office at Naples, Florida
    executes the program based on these priorities. The Fish and Wildlife
    Service in Atlanta administers the State of Florida grant program. The
    Department works with the Fish and Wildlife Service Atlanta Office to
    coordinate the state grant program. The FWS's Atlanta Office
    coordinates land acquisition planning, operations, and management
    within South Florida and with other regional and national needs.

                       LAND ACQUISITION AND LANDS LEGACY

        The Administration is requesting $1.4 billion for the Lands Legacy
    initiative, including $735 million for programs under your
    jurisdiction. This would double the initiative as a whole, and provide
    an increase of $470 million for Department of the Interior programs.
    The Administration also proposes to create a fenced reserve fund for
    Lands Legacy programs that would provide a permanent, aggregate funding
    level for these programs.
        Question. Why do you consider it necessary or advisable to
    establish a reserve fund for this particular array of Federal and non-
    Federal grant programs?
        Answer. An overriding issue confronting State and local public
    officials throughout the Nation is how to preserve open space in the
    face of growing populations, increasing demands for land and water
    resources, traffic congestion, and other pressures. Around the country,
    voters have approved in the last several years nearly 200 initiatives
    aimed at controlling or limiting sprawl, preserving open space, and
    improving their communities. The States and localities have done their
    part, now is the time for the Federal government to provide their
    support to these efforts. To this end, the Lands Legacy initiative
    provides additional tools for States and localities to preserve open
    space and to tackle some important negative impacts of growth and
    development. The new category proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget
    provides dedicated and protected funding for the programs included in
    the initiative. Funds not appropriated to programs within the proposed
    fund will be unavailable to offset spending elsewhere. This will ensure
    that the original purpose of the Land and Water Conservation Fund--to
    protect America's natural resources--will be realized. The current
    balance of the LWCF exceeds $13 billion.
        Question. Why didn't the Administration simply propose a higher
    discretionary level for these programs?
        Answer. The initial intent of LWCF was to use the receipts from
    non-renewable resources (Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas) and
    invest them back into permanent resources (land and water) for future
    generations. By proposing a new budget category to provide dedicated,
    protected discretionary funding for these programs, the Lands Legacy
    Initiative would ensure that funds not appropriated to programs within
    the proposed cap of $1.4 billion will be unavailable to offset spending
    under other discretionary funding caps. This would ensure that these
    funds will be available for these important conservation purposes in
    the future.
        Question. How would you have felt if your predecessor had
    established a permanent funding allocation for those programs that he
    felt were the highest priority?
        Answer. These programs are not just a high priority for the
    Administration, but a high priority for people across the country. Over
    the past several years, voters have approved nearly 200 initiatives
    aimed at controlling or limiting sprawl, 50 governors have voiced their
    support of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and HR 701, the
    Conservation and Reinvestment Act bill, has over 300 co-sponsors. The
    need to preserve open space and to tackle the negative impacts of
    growth and development will only become greater and will continue to be
    a high priority for communities and leaders across the country for
    years to come.
        Question. How did you determine what would be included within the
    initiative and what wouldn't?
        Answer. The Lands Legacy initiative was created to focus on
    protecting natural treasures and historic places, provide opportunities
    for States and other entities to conserve important lands for
    recreation, open space, and wildlife habitat, preserve forest,
    farmland, and coastal areas, and provide the tools to states,
    localities and Tribes to deal with the loss of open space and manage
    fragile ecosystems. These criteria provided the focus for selecting the
    programs to be included in the Lands Legacy initiative.
        Question. How do you justify including grants for urban parks in a
    permanent initiative titled ``Lands Legacy,'' while not including other
    programs and activities that provide for critical care and maintenance
    of our Federal lands?
        Answer. One of the purposes of the Lands Legacy initiative is to
    provide tools to States and localities to deal with the loss of open
    space. The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program does this by
    rehabilitating parks in distressed urban communities, ensuring that
    they remain available to these communities in perpetuity.
        The critical care and maintenance of our Federal lands is addressed
    through the Safe Visits to Public Lands initiative and the 5-year
    maintenance and construction plans recently completed by the bureaus.
        Question. By establishing a permanent funding source for Federal
    acquisition programs, aren't we by definition committing ourselves to a
    permanent stream of funding increase for the care and maintenance of
    those lands-an activity that would not be protected from competition
    within the budget process?
        Answer. Over time, we expect care and maintenance funding to
    increase somewhat, but most of the lands being acquired do not require
    large infrastructure expenditures. We believe the Federal acquisition
    program will actually help us better maintain our lands through the
    acquisition of inholdings and consolidation of lands. This will help to
    ensure better overall management of the lands and better ensure their
    overall care. Also most of the Lands Legacy funds will go to States to
    acquire and protect non-Federal lands. By assisting States'
    acquisitions, we can avoid Federal management costs in the future.
        Question. Are you at all concerned about the long term impact this
    might have on our public lands?
        Answer. Absolutely, but we are especially concerned about the long-
    term protection of the Nation's wildlife, habitat, and special places.
    It is important that we act now to protect and preserve those areas
    near or within our public lands that are threatened with degradation
    from urban growth and other development. Being able to purchase those
    areas now will ensure the protection in the future of their habitat,
    wildlife, recreation and other values.
        Question. Has the Administration submitted legislation to establish
    the Lands Legacy reserve fund?
        Answer. No, language is still under development and we look forward
    to working with Congress on this and other amendments.
        Question. When will it do so?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2001 Budget is based on a
    balanced approach that maintains fiscal discipline, eliminates the
    national debt, extends the solvency of Social Security and Medicare,
    provides for an appropriately sized tax cut, establishes a new
    voluntary Medicare prescription drug benefit in the context of broader
    reforms, expands health care coverage to more families, and funds
    critical investments for our future, including the Lands Legacy
    Initiative.
        Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2001 congressional budget resolution
    provides inadequate resources for discretionary investments, and
    doesn't address the protections for Lands Legacy.
        When Congress is ready to address these problems with the overall
    budgetary framework, the Administration is prepared to work with
    Congress on amendments to implement the President's Budget, including
    language to establish a new Lands Legacy category.
        Several bills are being considered in Congress that would establish
    permanent funding streams for lands programs on an even larger scale
    than is being proposed by the Administration, and for an even wider
    variety of programs.
        Question. Does the Administration support these proposals?
        Answer. The Administration strongly believes that now is the time
    to provide a permanent stream of significant new resources as long as
    it is in the context of a Balanced Budget. The Lands Legacy Initiative
    and much of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999,
    support State and community efforts to protect wildlife and local green
    spaces, reinforce Federal efforts to save natural and historic
    treasures, and expand efforts at all levels to protect ocean and
    coastal resources. Such an investment would be both a fit to our
    children of today and a promise to our children of tomorrow. This
    priority is reflected in the President's Lands Legacy initiative, which
    has been submitted to the Congress in each of the past two years.
        Question. Why does the Administration budget not include a more
    expansive proposal such as these?
        Answer. Unlike the proposals currently going through Congress, the
    funds for the Lands Legacy are fully paid for on budget within the
    context of a Balanced Budget. The important point, however, is that the
    Administration shares many of the goals of these proposals. We look
    forward to continuing to work with Members of Congress interested in
    these funding and program issues during this Congressional session, so
    that historic conservation legislation within a Balanced Budget
    framework can be enacted.

                                LAND ACQUISITION

        The administration has proposed a rather large increase over the
    enacted fiscal year 2000 level for land acquisition. Land acquisition
    has taken the form of both purchases of land in fee as well as
    purchasing conservation easements.
        Question. As for the additional acreage to be purchased by the
    federal government in fee, what kind of plans has the Department made
    for ensuring that the lands will be properly managed by the Department?
        Answer. For lands to be considered for acquisition by the Bureau of
    Land Management, their use must be consistent with existing BLM land
    use plans (LUPs). Once lands are acquired, they are managed in
    conformance with existing land use plans prescribed under the Federal
    Land Management Policy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
    LUPs provide specific management prescriptions for all the public lands
    within the planning area and are extended to the acquired lands. On
    occasion, LUPs may need to be amended when new lands are acquired.
    Because the majority of acquisitions are ``inholdings'' within larger
    tracts of BLM-managed lands, LUP amendments are generally not required.
        In the Fish and Wildlife Service, funding for operations and
    maintenance of new refuge lands is incorporated into the annual budget
    process. Projects to manage these lands are prioritized in the Refuge
    Operating Needs System (RONS) and compete with projects from the entire
    Refuge System; there is not currently a separate process for budgeting
    operations and maintenance expenses associated with new lands.
    Operation and maintenance needs for new lands are projected for the
    time at which these lands come into the Refuge System; thus
    corresponding operation and maintenance funds are requested in the
    budget years subsequent to the land acquisition appropriation. For
    example, lands acquired from the fiscal year 2001 land acquisition
    funding requested for and appropriated in fiscal year 2001 will be
    incorporated into operations and maintenance requests in fiscal year
    2002 and beyond. Preliminary project proposals are required for all new
    refuges and or/significant refuge expansions. The Director approves all
    preliminary project proposals. Included in the preliminary project
    proposal is an estimate of the necessary annual operating and
    maintenance costs anticipated once the property is acquired.
        The National Park Service acquires land that has been identified as
    essential to a park unit, either because of its natural resource
    integrity or historical importance. This determination is detailed in
    the parks' General Management Plan, and the lands that are necessary to
    be acquired are described in priority order within the park's Land
    Protection Plan.
        Once the land is acquired, it is the responsibility of the NPS to
    manage the land under the authority, regulations and internal policy
    which govern the management of resources entrusted to the NPS. Should
    additional budgetary resources be necessary, it is the responsibility
    of the NPS to address these issues within available budget allowances
    or through operational increase requests, as NPS priorities dictate.
        Question. In particular, does Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park
    Service, BLM, and the Forest Service have a coordinated system where
    each of the Realty Offices work with Operations and Management to
    ensure that appropriate planning takes place?
        Answer. Yes, in the Bureau of Land Management, this coordination
    occurs in local field offices having the delegated authority to propose
    land acquisition, conduct planning, and consider outyear operation and
    maintenance (O&M) costs associated with these potential acquisitions.
    Land acquisition proposals submitted by field offices are required to
    include additional short and long term costs associated with each
    acquisition. Because the majority of acquisitions are ``inholdings''
    within larger tracts of BLM-managed public land, additional O&M costs
    are typically negligible, as these acquisitions reduce costs to the BLM
    by eliminating boundary management issues (i.e., maintenance, signage,
    trespass, etc.).
        The Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Realty (which handles
    land acquisition) as well as the Division of Refuges (which handles the
    management of lands acquired) are supervised by the Chief of the
    National Wildlife Refuge System who reports to the Director of the Fish
    and Wildlife Service. This organizational structure ensures that there
    is the appropriate oversight between the acquisition and management of
    lands for the National Wildlife Refuge System. For each new refuge, FWS
    will be developing a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the
    management of the refuge. The National Wildlife Refuge System
    Improvement Act of 1997 mandates that a CCP be prepared for each refuge
    within 15 years of establishment. Any comprehensive conservation plan
    that has a land acquisition component must have an approved preliminary
    project proposal which includes cost estimates for stewardship of the
    proposed new land. Also, the final approval of any comprehensive
    conservation plan that includes a land acquisition component can be
    given only by the Director. The CCP is a blueprint for all the
    biologic, operational, management, and administrative actions that must
    take place to make a particular land area into a national wildlife
    refuge.
        For the National Park Service, the initial step in requesting funds
    to acquire land during a fiscal year lies within the purview of the
    Superintendent of each park unit. These requests, in priority order as
    detailed in the park unit's current Land Protection Plan, are submitted
    through the regional Director to the Land Resources Division. The Land
    Protection Plan is a component of the General Management Plan which
    details how an area will be managed to protect its natural and
    historical resources, as well as the cost of this management over time.
    This request for acquisition funds to acquired additional land, either
    in fee simple or an easement, is processed through the Land Acquisition
    Ranking System, and reviewed by the NPS Washington and Regional
    directorate. Within available budgetary allowance and as priorities
    dictate, a funding request for land acquisition is submitted to
    Congress for approval.
        As the land acquisition requirements are being identified and
    evaluated through the budget cycle, the NPS requires field managers to
    identify, evaluate and prioritize both recurring and one-time
    operational requirements at their park. These requirements are
    contained within two database systems recently developed and
    implemented by the NPS for budget formulation. The first, the Operation
    Formulation System (OFS) contains all the unfunded, recurring
    operational needs of the Service. The other, the Project Management
    Information System (PMIS) contains all the unfunded, non-recurring
    project requirements. The NPS issues annual guidance for the update of
    these two systems. All unfunded needs for the Service, even needs
    reasonably anticipated to be required several years in the future, are
    required to be entered into these databases. Requirements resulting
    from potential land acquisitions should be identified in OFS and PMIS
    at the time the acquisition is identified and proposed.
        At present, records in the OFS database can be linked to
    maintenance projects in PMIS. This allows, for example, recurring
    operational requirements resulting from a specific line-item
    construction request to be associated directly with the project. In
    doing so, the NPS is trying to ensure that the full cost associated
    with a particular action be taken into account when decisions are made
    to proceed. This approach also ensures that, at the appropriate time,
    funding is requested to protect the Federal investment and to allow
    full operation of the new or rehabilitated facility. Similarly, in a
    future version of OFS under development, the Service intends to require
    a link form an OFS operating increase record to the specific,
    associated land acquisition project. Effective utilization of this
    process will help to ensure that appropriate management and budgetary
    planning take place when land is acquired

                              RECREATION FEE DEMO

        Information provided by your department indicates that the
    recreation fee demonstration program will generate $170 million in
    revenues for participating Interior bureaus in the current fiscal year.
        Question. How has this program benefited the land management
    agencies for which you are responsible?
        Answer. For the National Park Service, fee revenues retained since
    the inception of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program through March
    2000 have totaled over $350 million. Of these receipts, over $170
    million has been obligated. A total of 2,443 projects have been
    approved for obligation. These projects include maintenance for roads,
    trails, infrastructure and buildings, safety related improvements,
    resource management projects, interpretive projects, shuttle systems
    and new enhanced services for visitors.
        Question. What specific lessons has the Department learned with
    regard to implementation of the fee program?
        Answer. Most critically, the success of the program has clearly
    demonstrated the need for permanent authorization of the program to
    allow agencies to think more strategically and implement long range
    programs and policies. Many projects are of such magnitude that
    agencies need to be confident of the availability of funding in future
    years. The assurance of funding from a permanent program would also aid
    agencies in their ability to plan, research and fund new technologies,
    revamp old accounting systems, and invest in capital improvements that
    could support the collection of fees in more efficient, modern methods.
        Experience gained during the implementation of the program has
    indicated that the public is supportive of fees. Responses to surveys
    attest to the fact that park visitors are generally satisfied with
    entrance fees, the quality of park attributes and the process of
    entering parks. The majority felt that entrance fees were ``about
    right'' or ``too low'' (89 percent of those surveyed).
        In addition, visitation to recreation sites participating in the
    Recreational Fee Demonstration Program continues to appear unaffected
    in any significant way by new fees. Statistics show that visitation at
    Recreational Fee Demonstration Program sites has remained relatively
    constant.
        Question. How could the authorities provided in the current program
    be improved?
        Answer. The NPS believes the current authorities governing the fee
    program could be improved through the following means:
      --The passage of permanent authority to allow for adequate planning
            and program/policy development, and the extension of the
            authority to all sites, deemed appropriate within each agency.
      --Greater flexibility in the distribution of revenues. For example, a
            formula that would provide no less than 60 percent to the
            collecting park, with other revenues to be distributed at the
            discretion of the Director, should be considered. This would
            enable more funds to be available to those parks that do not
            participate in fee collection. There are critical issues at
            these parks that must be addressed and the authority could
            provide an excellent means of doing so.
      --The ability to revamp and redesign the Golden Eagle Passport
            program.
      --The authority to establish new fee rates, new fee structures, new
            agency specific passes (no imposed caps).
      --Partnerships designed to collaborate fee collection and revenue
            sharing programs with other entities (counties, states, other
            Federal agencies, and cities).
        As you are aware, the recreation fee demonstration program is set
    to expire at the end of fiscal year 2001. The President's budget
    assumes the program will be made permanent.
        Question. Does the Administration intend to submit specific
    legislation proposing to make the program permanent? If so, when? If
    not, why not?
        Answer. Yes. A draft bill was developed by an interagency workgroup
    composed of USFS, USFWS, BLM and NPS. The language is broad, in an
    effort to meet the needs of the various agencies.
        Question. What would be the impacts on the Department of the
    Interior if the program were not continued after fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. A significant revenue source, which is allowing the NPS to
    address deferred maintenance and other project needs, would be removed,
    and the NPS would be forced to rely more heavily on appropriations. Use
    of new technologies in fee collection, such as automated machines, the
    expansion of the reservation system to new parks and the purchase of
    new equipment would be curtailed.

                     GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

        Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
    the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
    budget request?
        Answer. Within the Department of the Interior, strategic goals are
    derived from the bureau and departmental missions and programs. All
    goals in the Department support achievement of one or more of
    Interior's five strategic goals:
      --Protect the Environment and Preserve Our Nation's Natural and
            Cultural Resources
      --Provide Recreation for America
      --Manage Natural Resources for a Healthy Environment and a Strong
            Economy
      --Provide Science for a Changing World
      --Meet Our Responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our Commitments to
            Island Communities
        Annual performance goals are the annual increments of
    accomplishment toward achieving the strategic goals. The program
    activities in our annual performance plans are linked to our budget
    requests. Our goals are grouped as ``GPRA program activities,'' and
    these are linked to the budget accounts in a manner that shows which
    GPRA program activities are funded from that account.
        Question. Could you describe the process used to link performance
    goals to your budget activities? What difficulties, if any, did you
    encounter, and what lessons did you learn?
        Answer. Generally, the funding in the annual budget request is
    allocated among the goals so that the annual performance plan accounts
    for 100 percent of the budget request. The annual performance plans of
    all Interior bureaus contain cross-walk tables that show how budget
    activities and sub-activities link to the GPRA program activities.
    Funds from a budget activity may support one or more GPRA program
    activities. As we gain experience under GPRA, we can allocate the
    budget resources to GPRA program activities with greater precision and
    confidence.
        Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
    measures to its budget? Does each account have performance measures?
        Answer. All of Interior's bureaus link their annual performance
    plans to their budgets. The link is shown by cross-walk tables that
    display how the funds requested in the budget activities and sub-
    activities are allocated to GPRA program activities. The cross-walk
    tables are necessary because in Interior's budget structure, the budget
    activities and the GPRA program activities are not always in alignment.
    In two bureaus, the Office of Surface Mining and the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, the GPRA program activities level align with the budget
    activities. For other bureaus there is not a one to one correspondence
    between performance measures and budget activities. Funding for one
    activity may support several different GPRA program activities.
        Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
    differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
    justification? Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
    structure for fiscal year 2001? Will you propose any changes to the
    program activities described under that account structure?
        Answer. For most Interior bureaus, the performance planning
    structure and the budget account and activity structure are not the
    same. As mentioned previously, the Office of Surface Mining and Bureau
    of Indian Affairs have budget activities that relate closely to their
    performance goals. For other bureaus, the GPRA program activities do
    not align with the budget structure. However, all our annual
    performance plans provide cross-walk tables to link funding allocations
    to GPRA program activities. The Department did not propose a change to
    our account structure in the fiscal year 2001 budget justifications and
    has no plan to do so for the fiscal year 2002 budget.
        Question. How were Performance Measures chosen? How did the agency
    balance the cost of data collection and verification and validation
    with the need for reliable and valid performance data? Does your plan
    include performance measures for which reliable data are not likely to
    be available in time for your first performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. The performance goals and measures used by the Department
    were developed through an iterative process begun in 1996 and
    continuing today. In fiscal year 1997, Interior formed a Performance
    Management Council (PMC) to develop guidelines for preparing strategic
    plans and annual performance plans. Many bureaus established work
    groups with program offices to develop the initial set of performance
    measures, or solicited appropriate measures from program offices and
    from the organization at large. The proposed measures were then
    evaluated for how relevant, reliable, available, and outcome oriented
    the performance indicator was. The Department has encouraged bureaus to
    use goals relevant to their mission, use outcome-oriented measures
    rather than output measures, and have reliable data sources for the
    measure. The initial goals were included in the 1997 Strategic Plan,
    and the goals and measures have been adjusted as needed on an annual
    basis. Today, most bureaus use leadership teams consisting of top level
    managers from program areas and subject matter experts to review and
    revise goals.
        To balance the costs of data collection and verification with the
    need for reliable data, in the initial development of GPRA goals and
    measures, the Department encouraged bureaus to have goals and measures
    that could use, to the extent practicable, existing data sources and
    systems. Some bureaus, like the National Park Service (NPS) used the
    criteria of relevant, reliable, and available to ensure that the most
    cost-effective measures were selected. All bureaus continue to assess
    the value of their goals and measures as indicators of program
    performance and in the context of what information is needed to make
    management decisions.
        We have completed and submitted the fiscal year 1999 program
    performance report due in March 2000. Department-wide we measured
    progress on nearly 300 performance measures. Our reports show that we
    had annual performance data for about 97 percent of our measures, and
    we reported on our verification and validation efforts related to each
    goal. We continue to assess data reliability through ongoing reviews
    and evaluations.
        Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
    2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
    to track program results? For each key annual goal, indicate whether
    you consider it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome
    measure (``how well''). State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general
    goal and objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the goal is
    linked.
        Answer. The broad and varied missions carried out by Interior's
    bureaus are difficult to track through a short list of key measures.
    Our bureaus consider all of the performance goals in their annual
    performance plans to be key goals for tracking program results. For
    fiscal year 2001, the Department has prepared an annual performance
    plan overview to highlight key performance measures under each of
    Interior's five strategic goals. Many of these performance measures are
    drawn from the individual bureau plans. The fiscal year 2001 overview
    includes a summary table of our fiscal year 2000 goals, showing the
    revised long-term goal (see below).

       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN
                           GOALS AT-A-GLANCE TABLE \1\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fiscal year 2000 annual performance
             Long-term goal                            goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Goal 1.--Protect the Environment and Preserve Our Nation's Natural and
                               Cultural Resources

    Restore the Health of Public      Acres of Land Restored: In fiscal year
     Lands.                            2000, 2,465,000 acres of mined lands,
                                       refuges, park lands, and forests will
                                       be restored or enhanced.
    Restore the Health of Public      Hazardous Waste Sites Restored: In
     Lands.                            fiscal year 2000, increase the
                                       cumulative number of restoration
                                       projects to 75, increase the
                                       cumulative number of damage
                                       assessments resulting in settlements
                                       to 145, and to increase the
                                       cumulative percentage of funds
                                       received into the Restoration Fund
                                       equal to 205 percent of the
                                       cumulative annual appropriations.
    Maintain Healthy Natural Systems  South Florida Ecosystem: In fiscal
                                       year 2000, Federal agencies
                                       participating in the South Florida
                                       task force will acquire approximately
                                       26,000 acres of land in the South
                                       Florida ecosystem, and the State of
                                       Florida will acquire approximately
                                       99,042 acres of land in the South
                                       Florida ecosystem, of which 3,755
                                       will be acquired with funding
                                       provided through the Department of
                                       the Interior.
    Maintain Healthy Natural Systems  Fire Management: By 2000, restore
                                       natural ecological processes by
                                       increasing the use of fire (wildland
                                       and prescribed) and other land
                                       treatment to 1.0 million acres.
    Protect and Recover Imperiled     Species Protected: In fiscal year
     Species.                          2000, 197 of 568 species populations
                                       listed a decade ago or more are
                                       improving or stable, 57 species are
                                       approved for removal from candidate
                                       or proposed status, 57 of 442 species
                                       in park areas show improved status,
                                       and 80 of 442 species in park areas
                                       have stable status.
    Protect and Restore Cultural      Cultural Resources in Good Condition:
     Resources.                        At the end of fiscal year 2000, 47
                                       percent of 23,167 historic structures
                                       are in good condition and 35.2
                                       percent of 236 cultural landscapes
                                       are in good condition against
                                       baseline.

                     Goal 2.--Provide Recreation for America

    Provide quality experiences to    Visitor Satisfaction Rate: Fiscal year
     visitors on federal lands and     2000 target levels are 95 percent
     facilities.                       satisfaction for NPS visitors, and 93
                                       percent satisfaction for BLM
                                       visitors.
    Provide for Safe Visits to        Visitor Accident/Incident Rate: The
     Public Lands.                     fiscal year 2000 target is to reduce
                                       the NPS visitor accident/incident
                                       rate to 8.82 incidents per 100,000
                                       visitor days.

    Goal 3.--Manage Natural Resources for a Healthy Environment and a Strong
                                     Economy

    Ensure Environmentally Sound      Authorize Sustainable Grazing and
     Development.                      Timber Production: In fiscal year
                                       2000, authorize 3,456 livestock
                                       grazing allotments, and attain power
                                       production costs per Megawatt that
                                       rank in the upper 25th percentile
                                       (ranked lowest cost to highest) for
                                       comparable hydropower facilities.
    Ensure Environmentally Sound      Pacific Northwest Forest Plan: In
     Development.                      fiscal year 2000, offer 211 mmbf of
                                       timber for sale, and restore 35,000
                                       acres of forested lands.
    Manage Resources to Ensure        Fair Return of Value to the Public on
     Economic Viability and Sound      Minerals: In fiscal year 2000,
     Management of Mineral Receipts.   maintain the current high bids
                                       received for OCS leases to MMS
                                       estimated value ratio of 1.8 to 1 and
                                       ensure payments are at least 90
                                       percent of the expected value at the
                                       due date for 35 percent of
                                       properties.

                  Goal 4.--Provide Science for a Changing World

    Add to the Environmental and      Improve Environmental and Natural
     Physical Science Knowledge Base.  Resource Information: In fiscal year
                                       2000, provide and improve long-term
                                       environmental and natural resource
                                       information, systematic analysis, and
                                       investigations about natural systems
                                       by maintaining 46 long-term data
                                       collection/data management efforts,
                                       and develop 6 new decision support
                                       systems and predictive tools.
    Increase Hazard Knowledge and     Improve Prediction and Monitoring of
     Warning.                          Hazardous Events: In fiscal year
                                       2000, deliver to customers 10 Risk
                                       Assessments of areas particularly
                                       vulnerable to natural disaster to
                                       mitigate loss, and increase to 900
                                       the cumulative number of real-time
                                       earthquake sensors.

      Goal 5.--Meet Our Trust Responsibilities to American Indians and Our
                        Commitments to Island Communities

    Protect Indian Trust Assets.....  Protect Natural Resource Assets: In
                                       fiscal year 2000, 95 percent of
                                       requests for Technical Assistance for
                                       Mineral Operations on Indian lands
                                       will be completed, and 16 dams
                                       (cumulative) will have repair
                                       construction completed.
    Protect Indian Trust Assets.....  Protect Fiscal Resources for Tribes
                                       and Indians: By the end of fiscal
                                       year 2000, facilitate the growth of
                                       Trust income by processing 37,000
                                       trust transactions for Tribal and
                                       individual Indian land owners, and
                                       have all of BIA Regional Offices (12)
                                       using both the Trust Funds Accounting
                                       System (TFAS) to ensure accurate
                                       accounting, collection, investment,
                                       and disbursement of Tribal and
                                       individual Indian trust funds; and
                                       the Trust Asset and Accounting
                                       Management System (TAAMS) to ensure
                                       that land title ownership information
                                       is current and accurate and that
                                       income derived from these lands are
                                       properly collected and allocated.
    Improve the Indian Quality of     Improve Facilities and Services: In
     Life.                             fiscal year 2000, 1,348 housing
                                       applicants will receive repair and
                                       replacement work on homes, 5,700
                                       (cumulative) miles of existing BIA
                                       system roads will be maintained, and
                                       25 Tribes will operate comprehensive
                                       welfare plans.
    Improve the Indian Quality of     Improve Indian Education: In fiscal
     Life.                             year 2000, to improve the quality of
                                       education, 100 percent of schools
                                       will be accredited, 47 percent of
                                       students will be proficient in Math
                                       and 45 percent of students will be
                                       proficient in Language Arts, and
                                       1,000 new/replacement computers
                                       (cumulative) will be provided for
                                       classroom use.
    Improve Management of Island      Improve Government Services: In fiscal
     Communities.                      year 2000, financial management
                                       improvement plans will be completed
                                       for 5 of the 7 insular governments,
                                       and the ratio of OIA-funded projects
                                       completed to projects started will
                                       increase to 0.45.

               Goal 6.--Managing for Excellence and Accountability

    Lead People to Succeed..........  Increase in Diverse Workforce
                                       Representation: Diverse
                                       representation in Interior's
                                       workforce will increase by at least
                                       2.1 percent from 1997 levels.
    Lead People to Succeed..........  New Training and Development Programs:
                                       Develop and implement at least 1 new
                                       training program.
    Provide the Services and          Amount of Purchase Card Transactions:
     Technology to Manage.             Purchase card transactions will
                                       exceed $333 million.
    Provide the Services and          Museum Objects Inventoried: Accurately
     Technology to Manage.             inventory 2 million museum objects
                                       (for a cumulative total of 43.7
                                       million)
    Ensure Financial and Managerial   Number of Unqualified (clean) Audit
     Accountability.                   Opinions: Achieve unqualified (clean)
                                       audit opinions for Interior's eight
                                       bureaus, the Office of the Secretary,
                                       and the Department's consolidated
                                       financial reports.
    Ensure Financial and Managerial   Resolution of Material Weaknesses and
     Accountability.                   Management Risks: Complete
                                       implementation of 65 percent of OIG
                                       and GAO audit recommendations within
                                       1 year of referral, and complete 70
                                       percent of corrective action plans
                                       for material weaknesses by their
                                       original target date.
    Provide Safe and High Quality     Facilities Maintenance and Capital
     Places of Work.                   Improvements: Complete 30 percent of
                                       repair and construction projects
                                       funded through the Department's Five-
                                       year Facilities Maintenance and
                                       Capital Improvement Plan by the end
                                       of the funding fiscal year, complete
                                       70 percent by the end of the second
                                       year after funding, and 95 percent
                                       after the third year.
    Provide Safe and High Quality     Completion of Environmental Audits:
     Places of Work.                   Complete initial environmental audits
                                       of 70 percent of all Interior
                                       facilities (cumulative).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Source: DOI 1999 Annual Performance Report/fiscal year 2001 Annual
      Performance Plan.

        Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
    did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
    a significant number of outcome measures?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1997, Interior formed a Performance
    Management Council (PMC) to develop guidelines for preparing strategic
    and annual performance plans and annual performance reports. The PMC,
    led by the Department's Office of Planning and Performance Management
    and consisting of GPRA representatives from all DOI bureaus, was Guided
    by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11. The PMC met
    regularly to insure that bureaus were developing a significant number
    of outcome goals/measures in their strategic and annual performance
    plans. Comments from the General Accounting Office and OMB on the DOI
    agency's strategic and annual performance plans were helpful in guiding
    agencies to make the gradual transition from output goals/measures to
    outcome goals/measures.
        Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
    difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
    measure effectiveness (outcome)?
        Answer. We believe that most of Interior's program managers are
    familiar with the differences between output measures and outcome
    measures for goals. Our planning staff in the Department and in the
    bureaus work with program managers to define, to the extent possible,
    appropriate outcome goals and measures.
        Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
    that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
    external customers.
        Answer. Several of our bureau annual performance plans already
    include customer satisfaction measures, and the Department is asking
    all bureaus to define customers and develop customer satisfaction
    measures. Those already in place for fiscal year 2000 or planned for
    fiscal year 2001 are:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Customer        Performance goal and
                Bureau                measured              measure
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Goals in place for fiscal year 2000

    Bureau of Land Management....  External......  In fiscal year 2000, 93
                                                    percent of recreational
                                                    users are satisfied with
                                                    the quality of their
                                                    recreation experience on
                                                    the public lands, and 84
                                                    percent are satisfied
                                                    with BLM's interpretive
                                                    and environmental
                                                    education at Special
                                                    Recreation Management
                                                    Areas.
    Bureau of Reclamation........  External......  In fiscal year 2000,
                                                    complete a report of
                                                    recommended business
                                                    practices for customer
                                                    service benchmarking and
                                                    initiate up to five
                                                    process improvement
                                                    efforts.
    U.S. Geological Survey.......  Internal and    In fiscal year 2000,
                                    External.       establish customer
                                                    satisfaction baseline
                                                    (for both their hazards
                                                    science and environment
                                                    and natural resources
                                                    goals).
    National Park Service........  External......  Visitor Satisfaction: In
                                                    fiscal year 2000,
                                                    maintain 95 percent of
                                                    park visitors satisfied
                                                    with appropriate park
                                                    facilities, services,
                                                    and recreational
                                                    opportunities.
                                                   Legislated Partnership
                                                    Customer Satisfaction:
                                                    In fiscal year 2000, 90
                                                    percent of users are
                                                    satisfied with historic
                                                    preservation-related
                                                    technical assistance,
                                                    training, and
                                                    educational materials
                                                    provided by NPS.

               Goals proposed to be in place for fiscal year 2001

    Minerals Management Service..  External......  For 2001: Have a goal in
                                                    place for customer
                                                    satisfaction with
                                                    information and data
                                                    provided by MMS.
    Bureau of Indian Affairs.....  External......  For fiscal year 2001:
                                                    develop survey tools and
                                                    methods.
    Office of Insular Affairs....  External......  In fiscal year 2001:
                                                    increase insular
                                                    government's
                                                    satisfaction regarding
                                                    communications with the
                                                    Federal Government over
                                                    baseline established in
                                                    fiscal year 2000.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Department is also considering using balanced measures that
    will consider both employees and customers. Existing and future
    employee satisfaction survey results will help Interior and bureaus
    establish baselines performance targets.
        Question. How were the measurable goals in your fiscal year 2000
    Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
    If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by this committee,
    will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact the change would
    have on the level of program performance and the achievement of various
    goals?
        Answer. The goals for fiscal year 2000 were used as baseline
    information to help develop the fiscal year 2001 Annual Performance
    Plan and the fiscal year 2001 budget. The fiscal year 2000 performance
    targets were adjusted to reflect the fiscal year 2000 enacted budget,
    and become the performance base for planning and for showing changes in
    performance based on the fiscal year 2001 budget proposal.
        If a proposed budget number is changed up or down, depending on the
    magnitude of the change and the budget activity affected, we would be
    able to indicate the likely impact the change would have on the level
    of program performance and the achievement of one or more goals.
        Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
    reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
    so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
    results? If so, who has access to the information--senior management
    only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too? Are you able to
    gain access easily to various performance-related data located
    throughout your various information systems?
        Answer. In 1999, the Department developed a quarterly data
    reporting system to track progress in achieving GPRA goals. Interior
    bureaus are required to electronically submit performance data on a
    quarterly basis to the Department. The data is then reviewed and
    entered into a central database containing all Department and bureau
    performance data. The quarterly submittal schedule provides the ability
    to measure progress toward individual performance goals throughout the
    annual performance reporting period. The database is presently being
    upgraded to allow bureaus to provide updates through the Internet.
    Bureau and Department managers will be able to access performance
    information on a continuous basis through this system. In addition to
    this quarterly data reporting system, program managers in Interior
    bureaus and offices have access to their internal management
    information systems.
        Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
    your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
    define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
    set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
    present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
    results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
    Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account structure were
    modified? If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
    believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
    to this committee than the present account structure? How would such
    modification strengthen accountability for program performance in the
    use of budgeted dollars?
        Answer. In 1997, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) revised their
    budget structure to align their GPRA mission goals. Subsequently, OSM's
    GPRA goal structure was revised but remains linked to their budget. The
    Bureau of Indian Affairs has aligned their GPRA goal structure to link
    to their existing budget account structure. Interior's other bureaus
    have not aligned their goal structure to their budget structure;
    however, each bureau's annual performance plan links budget dollars to
    GPRA program activities through a cross-walk table. The crosswalk
    tables show to the account, and in some cases the sub-account level,
    how the budget dollars are linked to GPRA program activities (goal
    categories).
        Initially, allocating budget resources to GPRA program activities
    was difficult because there was no clear understanding of the resources
    and work efforts related to goals. Although some bureau budget
    structures are aligned with performance goals, most budget activities
    are aligned with the organizational structure of the bureaus, their
    missions, and programmatic themes, and the bureaus are accountable for
    program performance within this structure. The linkage of budget
    dollars to the GPRA program activity level has been technically
    challenging, but as we benefit from more experience, we gain confidence
    in allocating the amounts.
        A budget structure that is aligned with goals could reduce the
    ambiguity in relating budget initiatives to results. However, the
    Department is not prepared to propose such a change until we have more
    experience, and until such time as we have a set of GPRA goals and
    measures that are settled and stable from year to year. Such a change
    would need to be carefully coordinated with appropriations committees
    to ensure that a revised account structure was beneficial to the budget
    process and Congressional decision making.
        Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
    systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
    linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
    government functions, and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
    perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
    accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process.
        Answer. Each bureau of the Department operates separate cost
    accounting systems which capture budget execution and cost accounting
    information. Depending on their cost accounting needs, some of the
    bureaus are further developed in this area than others. Cost accounting
    has been performed in the Department for some time--well prior to the
    FASAB standard--to meet various management requirements. Interior has a
    significant number of user fee programs and has used cost accounting
    principles and concepts to price the products/services it provides in
    order to recover the relevant costs. Taken as a whole, the Department
    has cost accounting expertise due to the significance of user fee
    activities, working capital funds, and the Interior Franchise Fund.
        Interior's annual performance goals are already linked to the
    budget through a GPRA program activity structure. An estimate of the
    resources from the various budget accounts associated with each GPRA
    program activity is presented in the annual performance plan. Bureaus
    include the annual performance plan as a section in their budget
    justifications.
        Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
    the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
    OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
    have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
    methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
    known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
    calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status
    of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting
    requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing? Will you be able
    in the future to show to this committee the full and accurate cost of
    each activity of each program, including in those calculations such
    items as administration, employee benefits, and depreciation? By doing
    so, would we then be able to see more precisely the relationship
    between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs of the
    activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
    activities? Will you be able to show the per-unit cost of each activity
    and result? To what extent do the dollars associated with any
    particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
    activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
    costs fully allocated to goals?
        Answer. All bureaus of the Department have cost accounting systems
    and processes in operation. The FASAB Standard does not require the use
    of a particular type of cost system or costing methodology. The
    standard specifically states ``It is too early to tell which cost
    systems are best for specific types of operations. As experience and
    research in cost accounting progress, reporting entities and
    responsibility segments may find a preferred costing methodology for
    their operations.'' Federal agencies are encouraged to study
    ``Activity-Based Costing'' because it has been successfully used in the
    private sector. However, there are other acceptable methods under the
    standard. Within Interior, we use direct tracing of costs, job order
    costing, process costing, cost finding and activity-based costing
    methods. These methods are used based on the nature of the activity and
    the current availability of costing systems/software. One bureau of the
    Department, the Bureau of Land Management, does use activity-based
    costing extensively.
        In terms of the status of implementation of the Managerial Cost
    Accounting requirements, Interior has spent a great deal of time and
    effort in meeting the external reporting requirements of the standard
    that require cost information to be reported at the responsibility
    segment level. We have linked the responsibility segments directly to
    the GPRA program activity costs. Our thrust in fiscal year 2000 and
    beyond will move more in the direction of internal management
    reporting.
        Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
    measures that have been put into place by your agency in conjunction
    with the development of the agency's performance plan.
        Answer. As a result of regulatory reform efforts, some of
    Interior's goals have been changed. For example, in response to
    Executive Order 12862 on Setting Customer Service Standards, the Bureau
    of Land Management examined its levels of customer service and later
    modified performance goals to better reflect delivery of services to
    the public. In fiscal year 1999, the Minerals Management Service
    revised its final electronic reporting rule because of stakeholder
    comments, even though the change adversely affected MMS's ability to
    meet one of the goals in its fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance Plan.
    The revision deleted a proposed requirement to electronically report
    production on a form that is scheduled to be eliminated by re-
    engineering the royalty management program in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
    by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
    could influence goal achievement? If so, what steps have you identified
    to prepare, anticipate, and plan for such influences? What impacts
    might external factors have on your resource estimates?
        Answer. Interior's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan include
    discussions of strategic issues either for each bureau or for GPRA
    program activities. Some of the strategic issue discussions include
    references to external factors or references to what is happening in
    the program operating environment.
        Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
    agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication? If so,
    does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or duplication?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1997, a Performance Management Council
    (PMC), led by the Department's Office of Planning and Performance
    Management (PPM) and consisting of GPRA representatives from all DOI
    bureaus, was formed to develop guidelines for preparing strategic and
    annual performance plans and annual performance reports. Throughout the
    development of the strategic and annual performance plans, the PPM
    Office continuously reviews the bureau's strategic and annual
    performance plans and identifies any program duplications. Also, the
    bureau GPRA representatives regularly review the strategic and annual
    performance plans of the other DOI agencies for potential duplication.
        The following is an example of a broad crosscutting effort among
    various agencies to eliminate program reporting duplication.
        The Administration, through the Clean Water Action Plan, directed
    agencies with wetland programs and responsibilities to develop an
    interagency tracking system that will more accurately account for
    wetland loss, restoration, creation, and enhancement by October 1999.
    The agencies were tasked with identifying their contributions toward
    the Administration's goal of 100,000 acres net-gain of wetlands
    annually by the year 2005. To meet this long-term goal, a White House
    Wetlands Working Group was formed to develop consistent definitions for
    wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation. The Group consisted of
    representatives from 16 civilian and military departments/agencies.
    Each agency/department has specific statutory wetlands functions. The
    Department of the Interior was represented by the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and
    the National Park Service. The Group met regularly during fiscal year
    1999, and established five categories of wetland conservation
    activities, Establishment, Re-establishment, Rehabilitation,
    Enhancement, and Protection/Maintenance.
        To assure consistent application of these categories, definitions
    of the categories and beginning conditions of project acres were
    determined. These definitions were used to establish a tracking system
    that will account for agency contributions toward meeting the
    Administration's long-term goal. To avoid multiple counting of wetlands
    conservation activities, specific reporting mechanisms were created for
    project areas done in cooperation with other funding partners. This
    interagency tracking system will ensure that duplication in reporting
    wetlands accomplishments will not occur among various bureaus/
    departments.
        Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
    potential duplication of overlapping functions in their GPRA plans, and
    if so, how?
        Answer. Agencies should address management challenges in their
    annual performance plans if they have goals and measures related to
    resolution of the management issue. As management challenges and risks
    may be identified every year and are continually being resolved, it is
    not appropriate to address management challenges in the strategic plan
    because of their three-year revision cycle and five-year planning
    horizon. Potential duplication and overlap of program functions can be
    identified in the annual performance plan as part of the discussion of
    crosscutting issues.
        Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
    guide decision making? Will this increase in the future, and, if so, in
    what ways?
        Answer. The information and performance measures in our GPRA
    documents are increasingly being used to guide decisionmaking and
    manage programs. As part of Interior's fiscal year 2001 budget process,
    all funding initiatives had to include information about anticipated
    additional levels of performance and accomplishments. Incremental
    increases in performance are part of the decision making information
    used in working with OMB on Interior's funding requests. Starting in
    fiscal year 1998, the Department has held mid-year performance review
    meetings with bureau leadership to assess reported progress in
    achieving GPRA goals. GPRA will prove more valuable in the future as
    our performance data systems become more robust, as we develop activity
    based cost accounting associated with GPRA goals, and as trend
    information is becomes available.
        Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
    actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
    that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
    to allow for these kinds of uses? Are there any factors, such as
    inexperience in making estimates for certain activities or lack of
    data, that might affect the accuracy of the resource estimates?
        Answer. The maturity of performance measures varies bureau by
    bureau. Some bureaus, such as the NPS, have many goals and performance
    measures that have been used for several years. In other bureaus, some
    goals and measures are newly developed while others continue to be
    refined. Based on the fiscal year 1999 reported results, we estimate
    that approximately 70 percent of our goals are sufficiently mature to
    accurately compare expected and actual performance. However, we are
    concerned with the use of performance results from any single year in
    funding decisions. We believe that multiple year trend data is more
    valid and valuable for decisionmaking because it tends to eliminate
    single year aberrations like weather, legal issues, program
    adjustments, and the effects of funding obligations across fiscal
    years.
        We learned a great deal as a result of preparing the first GPRA
    program performance report for fiscal year 1999, and that information
    was used to revise goals for the fiscal year 2001 annual performance
    plan and for ongoing revisions to our strategic plans. For new goals,
    goals with revised performance measures, or goals with updated
    baselines, our ability to establish precise performance targets may be
    limited. In these situations, it may not be possible to accurately
    relate budget resources to projected levels of performance. As noted in
    the question, this is largely due to inexperience with projecting
    target results for new goals or revised goals.
        Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
    administrative requirements? Specifically, are you requesting any
    relaxation of transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
    accountability commitments?
        Answer. No, we are requesting no waivers.
        Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
    see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
    issued on September 30, 1997?
        Answer. The OMB A-11 guidance calls for our strategic plans to be
    revised by September 30, 2000. When compared with the first strategic
    plan published by Interior in September 1997, these revised strategic
    plans will include substantive revisions. However, as permitted under
    GPRA, Interior has used the annual performance plans for fiscal year
    1999, fiscal year 2000, and fiscal year 2001 to make minor revisions to
    our strategic plans every year. Taken cumulatively, there are
    substantive changes. For example, the Department has changed from
    having ten commitments in the 1997 strategic plan to having five goals.
    Many of our bureau's goals have been revised, added to, or dropped
    through this process. These changes--revisions to goals, revised
    performance measures and targets--are all based on continuous learning
    as we implement GPRA.

                               PERFORMANCE AWARDS

        Question. Please provide for the record a table displaying, by
    bureau, the total number and dollar amount of performance awards
    provided to departmental employees for the most recent two years which
    data is available.
        Answer. The data requested is displayed in the table provided
    below.

                          NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF PERFORMANCE AWARDS IN FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND 1999
                                               [Amounts in whole dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fiscal year 1998               Fiscal year 1999
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------
                          Bureau                                              Average                        Average
                                                         Number     Amount     amount   Number     Amount     amount
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bureau of Land Management.........................    7,198   $5,485,703     $762    6,613   $5,432,112     $821
    Minerals Management...............................    2,279    1,895,359      831    2,552    2,205,440      864
    Office of Surface Mining..........................      408      323,767      793      691      607,676      879
    U.S. Geological Survey............................    5,261    5,075,285      965    6,589    6,525,618      990
        USGS, Biological Res. Div.....................      515      576,358    1,119  .......  ...........  .......
    Fish and Wildlife Service.........................    7,409    7,089,315      957    8,272    7,950,075      961
    National Park Service.............................    6,702    4,519,260      674    8,298    6,319,973      761
    Bureau of Indian Affairs..........................    2,658    3,477,962    1,308    2,316    3,222,559    1,391
    Departmental Management...........................      861      821,673      954      839      997,904    1,189
    Office of the Solicitor...........................      181      175,388      968      116      131,487    1,133
    Office of the Inspector Gen.......................       69      102,893    1,491       93      145,381    1,563
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.......................................   33,541   29,542,963      881   36,379   33,538,225      922
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 LEAVE NO TRACE

        Field level managers consider Leave No Trace an effective resource
    management tool, viewing an educated public as an efficient means to
    protect and preserve the resources while enabling compatible use and
    enjoyment. Historically, the Congress has supported education as an
    effective management tool.
        Question. In terms of dollars, human resources and time, what is
    your agency's involvement and commitment to the Leave No Trace ethics
    program?
        Answer. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been an equal
    partner in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service (USFS) in the Leave
    No Trace program. To provide continuity, credibility, and overall
    depth, BLM and the USFS partnered with the National Outdoor Leadership
    School (NOLS) to develop a ``Master of Leave No Trace'' training
    program and establish NOLS as the provider of the education component.
        BLM was the first federal agency to establish a full time National
    Coordinator for the Leave No Trace and Tread Lightly Outdoor Ethic
    programs. BLM's National Coordinator worked closely with NOLS in the
    development of educational materials and in training of agency
    personnel as ``Masters of Leave No Trace.'' BLM provides 12
    scholarships annually for personnel to take the ``Masters'' course. To
    date, some 120 BLM personnel have become ``Masters'' through this
    program. BLM selected State Leave No Trace Coordinators from these
    ``Masters'' who have demonstrated their commitment to the program.
    State Coordinators distribute Leave No Trace educational materials and
    train over 79,000 people annually. It is also BLM's goal is to have a
    ``Master'' in every field office to reach even more of the public.
        Desiring to see the program expand into the private sector and
    become more self sufficient, BLM worked with the USFS to create a
    private nonprofit organization (Leave No Trace, Inc.), to administer
    the Leave No Trace program. The BLM National Coordinator serves as an
    advisor to the private organization's Board of Directors. An Education
    Review Committee was established within Leave No Trace, Inc. The BLM
    National Coordinator is a member of that committee, which meets every
    three months.
        The BLM Leave No Trace Coordinator takes the lead every third year
    to develop and administer and interagency coordinators meeting among
    BLM, USFS, National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service
    state, regional and refuge coordinators to keep everyone informed and
    enthused about the Leave No Trace program.
        To increase the awareness and use of Leave No Trace within the 4.2
    million Scouts and 1.2 million scout leaders in the Boy Scouts of
    America (BSA), BLM developed a ``Leave No Trace Awareness Award''
    within the BSA. It is now a recognized national BSA award for Scouts
    and Scout leaders. BLM also coordinates a special training effort each
    year for all the Boy Scout staffs at the National Philmont and Northern
    Tier Canoe Base (Boundary Waters).
        Question. How much money does your agency spend annually on the
    Leave No Trace program? What is the agency's historical expenditure on
    the Leave No Trace program? How do these amounts, historical and
    current, compare with other major public education programs within the
    agency? (For example: Smokey Bear and Woodsy Owl.
        Answer. U.S. Bureau of Land Management spends $155,000 annually to
    support the National Coordinator position, State Coordinator,
    educational materials and training for Masters of Leave No Trace. BLM
    spends an additional $297,000 for work month support of the ``Masters
    of Leave No Trace'' for their work within the program. These
    expenditures combined reflect an annual expenditure of $452,000.
        BLM's real involvement within the Leave No Trace program began in
    the late 1980's with a few thousand dollars to purchase USFS Leave No
    Trace posters and brochures. By 1992 when the BLM's Washington Office
    established a Leave No Trace National Coordinator position, $70,000 was
    being spent in support of the program. By 1995, the use and
    distribution of many new educational materials, establishment of State
    Coordinators and support of several ``Masters'' saw the expenditures
    reach $115,000. The support dollars have risen proportionately from
    1995 as the additional ``Masters'' have been trained and work to
    support the program.
        In answer to the last part of this question, Smokey the Bear and
    Woodsy Owl are mascots for issue-specific public education campaigns
    administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Within the agency, Leave No
    Trace is the BLM's pre-eminent public education program from which all
    other bureau public education programs are based. As a general rule,
    these other programs are not tracked for comparison purposes since they
    are limited to specific geographical areas.
        Question. What is your agency doing to establish Leave No Trace as
    a recognized resource for the manager? For the public?
        Answer. State Leave No Trace Coordinators and ``Masters of Leave No
    Trace'' within our field offices are meeting with managers and field
    personnel to show and demonstrate to them how utilizing the principles
    of Leave No Trace can encourage the public to minimize their impacts on
    the land. Managers and field specialists are also being shown how Leave
    No Trace principles can be utilized as stipulations for all types of
    activities and resource uses on public lands.
        The Leave No Trace program has been integrated into several
    training courses for managers and field specialists to further
    recognize and emphasize Leave No Trace as a viable tool for land
    resource management and land stewardship education. The steadily
    increasing number of individual field specialists who are becoming
    masters also helps managers see what an important resource this is.
    Before field specialists are permitted to take a ``Master of Leave No
    Trace'' Course, their managers must agree to allow them to have the
    time to implement the program within the field office.
        The establishment of State Leave No Trace Coordinators in each
    state, and the goal of having a ``Master'' in every field office is
    helping to demonstrate and recognize this important tool for management
    of natural resources on public lands.
        BLM is helping the publics we serve recognize Leave No Trace as a
    resource for preserving and enhancing public lands through a variety of
    means. One of the largest public organizations that utilize BLM
    administered lands are the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). BLM has worked
    for the last nine years to substantially increase the awareness of
    Leave No Trace as an important resource for BSA by:
        (1) Developing a ``Leave No Trace Awareness Award'' which has now
    been implemented within BSA nation wide.
        (2) Coordinating a federal interagency team to provide Leave No
    Trace training at all National Scout Jamborees, Order of the Arrow
    (Service Arm of Scouting) Conferences, National Scout Camps and Scout
    Council camps and activities. (i.e. 22,000 Scouts & leaders were taught
    at the 1997 National Scout Jamboree at Ft. AP Hill, Virginia during the
    9 days of the Jamboree)
        (3) Assisting in getting Leave No Trace principles within the Boy
    Scout Handbook, leader manuals, and other Scout publications
        (4) Developing an 81 page Leave No Trace activity booklet for Boy
    Scout leaders, Girl Scout leaders, and school teachers.
        BLM is a major supporter of community programs and activities in
    promoting an increased public awareness and use of the Leave No Trace
    program. Our 120 ``Masters of Leave No Trace are reaching over 79,000
    members of the public annually. Posters, displays and brochures are
    displayed in BLM public rooms and field offices across the country to
    recognize Leave No Trace as an important resource.
        Question. What would be the ideal structure to efficiently and
    effectively evolve Leave No Trace within you agency?
        Answer. The Recreation Program of BLM has the primary
    responsibility for managing people who use the public lands for
    recreational purposes. As such, it is ideally suited to efficiently and
    effectively promote, coordinate, and evolve Leave No Trace within BLM.
    State Leave No Trace Coordinators, who are real advocates of the
    program, use it in their daily dealings with the public, and are
    committed, enthused and anxious to evolve the program.
        With management support from the top, national, state and field
    Outdoor Recreation Planners can evolve the program most efficiently and
    effectively. There is also strong support from the acting BLM Director
    Tom Fry, Assistant Directors and State Directors. The Department of the
    Interior has also expressed their support and commitment for the
    program. With managements support and commitment to the program, the
    Recreation program can efficiently and effectively evolve the program.
        Question. Through programs such as Smokey the Bear, your agency has
    proven a commitment to and the value of public outreach and education.
    Given today's concentration on recreation impacts and resource
    preservation, what is the agency strategy to establish Leave No Trace
    and similar conservation education initiatives as the Smokey equivalent
    in funding, resources, and long-term benefits?
        Answer. The BLM and the USFS early realized that ensuring the
    future of the Leave No Trace program and the financial means to reach
    all of the public land users would require sufficient funding to build
    the program. The chosen tool was the creation of a private nonprofit
    organization to administer the program, and get private partners to
    disseminate the message and fund initiatives, development of
    educational materials, and special outreach teams to expand our
    outreach efforts.
        Leave No Trace, Inc. is the private nonprofit organization that was
    created to help move the program forward and recruit private partners
    to help convey the message and fund the outreach efforts. This is the
    most efficient and effective means of maximizing BLM's limited funding,
    resources to achieve the long-term benefits that can result from
    educating the public with regards to embracing the principles of Leave
    No Trace.
        Question. What is the most effective means of allocating funding
    that will go toward solidifying your agency's commitment to education
    and Leave No Trace as a recreation management tool? Is it a general
    appropriation to the agency; an appropriation to personnel training and
    education; an appropriation for public outreach and education; or a
    line item earmarking funds for Leave No Trace?
        Answer. Currently, the Leave No Trace Program is funded within the
    BLM's base for labor. Although the most effective means to advance the
    Leave No Trace Program is for Congress to provide a direct line item
    increase in funding for the program, this would have adverse effects if
    it were carved out of or earmarked from base funds without providing
    additional funding capability. This would only cause service in other
    critical resource protection efforts to decline. To date the
    Administration has not requested this as a direct line item.
        Question. Your agency developed the Leave No Trace ethic and has
    signed on as a national partner with the program. How can congressional
    oversight provide support and encouragement of Leave No Trace as an
    effective land management, resource education and recreation impact
    tool?
        Answer. Congressional oversight could encourage emphasis and
    support on the importance of Leave No Trace in the education of the
    public as a management tool for protecting and enhancing natural
    resources on public lands. Congressional oversight would emphasize the
    interest and desire of Congress, on behalf of the American public, to
    utilize the Leave No Trace program in preservation and protection of
    public lands. The establishment of State Leave No Trace Coordinators in
    each state, and the goal of having a ``Master'' in every field office
    is helping to demonstrate and recognize this important tool for
    management of natural resources on public lands.
        Question. How can Leave No Trace and other conservation education
    programs best be utilized to involve the American people as partners in
    resource preservation, thereby mitigating human impacts; stretching
    management resources and funds; and dampening the pressure to regulate
    or restrict use?
        Answer. When the American people see all the federal partners,
    private nonprofit organizations and private partners working together
    to promote and implement the Leave No Trace program, they will sense
    the value we see in principles in terms of resource preservation and
    will have a much greater desire to be a part of it.
        As we jointly teach the American people the principles of Leave No
    Trace, they will have a greater desire to embrace the principles and
    become our partners in preservation of natural resources.
        We have to demonstrate to the public that making the principles of
    Leave No Trace a part of their lives will preserve the natural
    resources that they come to the public lands to enjoy. Once they see
    what's in it for them, they will have a greater desire to be partners.
        The principles of Leave No Trace should be implemented into all
    aspects of use and utilization of natural resources on public lands.
    These principles should become an integral part of natural resource
    preservation. If it is a way of life for us, the American people will
    have a greater desire to make it a way of life for them.

                         NATIONAL MONUMENT DESIGNATION

        Question. Please provide the status of the Department's
    negotiations over legislation to declare the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
    mountains a national monument. How do you expect these negotiations to
    proceed over the next 30 days?
        Answer. On March 16, 2000, the Secretary testified before the House
    Resources National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee in opposition to
    HR 3676, the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument
    Act. Following the hearing, the Secretary and his staff entered into
    discussions with Representative Bono and the committee staff and they
    successfully addressed our concerns. On July 25, 2000, HR 3676 passed
    the House and was referred to the Senate. With Senator Feinstein's
    sponsorship, the bill is scheduled for a hearing before the Senate
    Energy and Natural Resource Committee on September 13, 2000. The
    substantive concerns of the Department have been addressed, and we are
    eager to see the bill signed into law.
        Question. What amount of funding will the Department of the
    Interior require for management of new monuments in fiscal year 2001,
    including the three new monuments declared by the President in January
    and any additional monuments that you anticipate being declared by the
    President in the remainder of fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. As stated in the BLM's fiscal year 2001 budget submission
    to Congress, the BLM request for funding for interim management,
    resource protection, and public outreach activities at Agua Fria, Grand
    Canyon-Parashant, and California Coastal National Monuments will be
    $5.3 million. The funding request for resource management planning is
    $1.3 million for these three monuments.
        The BLM is in the process of developing cost estimates for the
    recently created Ironwood, Canyons of the Ancients, and Cascade-
    Siskiyou National Monuments.

                     USE OF GOVERNMENT ISSUED CREDIT CARDS

       Question. What type of policy does the Department of the Interior
    have regarding the issuance and use of government credit cards?
        Answer. The fundamental elements of the Department of the
    Interior's charge card policy are:
      --Charge cards are issued by the Bank of America under the auspices
            of the General Services Administration's SmartPay contract.
      --Interior's charge cards are integrated, meaning that a single card
            may be used for official purchase, travel, and/or fleet
            requirements. Individuals with responsibilities for purchasing
            and/or fleet management are issued integrated cards. Employees
            that do not have these responsibilities are issued cards that
            can be used for travel only.
      --A charge card may be issued to any employee with a need and a clean
            record of responsible government charge card use. Purchase
            authority is limited to employees who have received additional,
            required program training.
      --Roles and responsibilities of cardholders, transaction reviewing
            officials, and other agency officials are clearly defined
            regarding compliance with Federal acquisition, property
            management, and travel regulations, the Bank of America
            Cardholder Agreement, and the SmartPay contract terms and
            conditions.
      --Charge card misuse is explicitly defined, and appropriate penalties
            for charge card abuse, including payment delinquency, are
            required.
      --Proper procedures for charge card account use and maintenance are
            spelled out.
        In November 1998, to coincide with charge card issuance under the
    SmartPay program, the Department issued its Integrated Charge Card
    Program Guidelines. The guidelines supplement the SmartPay contract,
    Bank of America Cardholder Agreement, and applicable regulations such
    as the Federal Travel Regulations (for travel charge accounts), Federal
    Acquisition Regulation (for purchase charge accounts), and the Federal
    Property Management Regulations (for fleet charge accounts). This
    policy document includes general charge card guidance applicable to all
    three business lines, as well as specific requirements related to each
    business line. Charge card policy has been supplemented by charge card
    bulletins, advisories, and other guidance issued by the Assistant
    Secretary--Policy, Management and Budget and the Director, Office of
    Acquisition and Property Management. Procedural changes made necessary
    by the Travel and Transportation Reform Act, Public Law 105-264, have
    been covered by revisions to the November 1998 guidelines. This
    revision was issued in final May 22, 2000. In addition, the Office of
    Financial Management issues periodic Financial Administration Memoranda
    on topics relating to charge card use and card program administration,
    primarily for travel related issues and technical instructions on
    matters such as electronic funds transfer. The DOI guidelines on charge
    card use is available at our website: http://www.ios.doi.gov/pam/
    charge.html.
        Question. For what purposes are employees authorized to use the
    government credit cards?
        Answer. Employees who are issued a card, and have completed
    applicable training, are authorized to use the charge card only for
    official travel, purchase, or fleet transactions. Employees are not
    authorized to use the government card for personal transactions, nor to
    allow another person to use their card for any reason.
        Question. Who has established the policies regarding the use of the
    credit cards?
        Answer. The Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management and Budget is
    responsible for management and oversight of the charge card program.
    The Department's Office of Acquisition and Property Management, in
    cooperation with the Office of Financial Management, is responsible for
    developing and issuing policies regarding use of the charge cards.
        Question. How is this information disseminated to the Department's
    employees?
        Answer. The Guidelines have been provided electronically to
    designated bureau Program Coordinators, who then redistribute them to
    subordinate program coordinators, designated reviewing officials,
    procurement, travel, fleet and financial managers, and cardholders. In
    addition, they are posted on the Office of Acquisition and Property
    Management's charge card web site at: http://www.ios.doi.gov/pam/
    charge.html. The Bank of America provided training to more than 2,000
    Program Coordinators in the fall of 1998, which included instruction on
    the (then) draft Guidelines.
        Charge card bulletins and other supplementary materials are
    distributed through routine correspondence channels.
        Financial Administration Memoranda are distributed through routine
    correspondence channels and are also available on the Internet at
    http://www.doi.gov/pfm/fams.html#2000.
        Standard cardholder orientation is supplemented with instruction in
    basic contracting for the 23,000 purchase card holders.
        Weekly meetings are held with all the Program Coordinators to
    refine policy implementation, review program status, resolve
    operational issues and rapidly circulate information.
        Every cardholder is sent a written Cardholder Agreement, which
    clearly states that the card is for official use only, and provides
    additional information about the cardholder's responsibilities. They
    are also provided a wallet-sized card printed with reminders of proper
    charge card use. The card sleeve is printed with ``For Official Use
    Only,'' as are the cards themselves. The cards are printed with a
    distinctive background pattern that may not be used for any non-
    government cards.
        Question. Do any of these policies vary from bureau to bureau?
        Answer. No, the Department's fundamental charge card policy does
    not vary from bureau to bureau. However, bureaus are responsible for
    developing unique, day-to-day operational procedures. Some bureaus have
    added more restrictive requirements to address risk mitigation, based
    on experience with previous card programs. For example, the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs set a lower limit ($250 per week) for cash advances than
    did the other bureaus ($500 per week).
        Question. If so, why?
        Answer. The policies do not vary, but their implementation in
    certain bureaus may be more restrictive to mitigate risk.
        Question. How many employees have been issued government credit
    cards, Department-wide and per bureau?
        Answer. The Bank of America has issued almost 54,000 charge cards
    to Interior employees under the SmartPay program. Approximately 20,300
    additional cards are assigned to Interior-owned vehicles or equipment
    in order to allow multiple users to purchase fuel and maintenance
    services. The following chart provides information on relative bureau
    card program size, based on most recent bank data.

                INTERIOR BUREAU CARD PROGRAM ACCOUNTS, APRIL 2000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Number of   Percent
                          Bureau                         accounts   of total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Minerals Management Service.......................      1,496        2.8
    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and                  593        1.1
     Enforcement......................................
    Fish and Wildlife Service.........................      7,476       13.9
    National Park Service.............................     12,739       23.7
    Bureau of Indian Affairs..........................      5,464       10.1
    Bureau of Reclamation.............................      4,981        9.3
    Office of the Secretary...........................      1,841        3.4
    U.S. Geological Survey............................      8,193       15.2
    Bureau of Land Management.........................     11,006       20.5
                                                       ---------------------
          Total DOI...................................     53,789        100
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Has abuse of the government credit cards been worse in
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs than in other bureaus?
        Answer. We do not have concrete information whether unauthorized
    use is more prevalent in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) than in
    other bureaus. We have asked the Department's Inspector General to
    conduct a review of the entire program to assess the scope of possible
    abuse. (See Question 10 for a discussion of delinquencies.
        Question. If so, why? If not, is there another bureau that has had
    the most problems with abuse?
        Answer. We do not yet have the information to answer this question.
        Question. What has been the overall level of violations, abuse
    (regarding both unauthorized use of the credit cards and/or nonpayment
    of credit card balances)?
        Answer. At Interior, delinquencies (past due cardholder accounts)
    and charge-offs (accounts that are more than 210 days overdue that have
    been ``charged off'' as bad debts by the bank, as required by the
    Comptroller of the Currency regulations) only occur in the context of
    individually billed travel accounts. All other charge accounts are paid
    on an average of four days after receipt of daily invoices. Overall,
    Interior's delinquency rates are lower than Bank of America's other
    government customers. Based on data from the bank for the second
    quarter (January--March 2000), Interior's average delinquency rate is
    4.4 percent, as compared to 7.6 percent for other non-Defense agencies
    and 24.8 percent for the Department of Defense. Our average net charge-
    off rate during the same period was 3.3 percent, while the bank's other
    non-Defense government customers averaged 3.5 percent and the
    Department of Defense averaged 16.8 percent. In contrast, our
    delinquency rate in May 1998 under the former travel card contract with
    American Express was 9 percent.
        We attribute this improvement to billing more types of travel-
    related transactions directly to our bureau accounts rather than
    through the cardholder (such as rental cars), significant attention to
    risk mitigation (for example, not issuing new accounts for employees
    with a record of delinquency under the American Express contract), and
    improved reporting capabilities under the SmartPay program. Under the
    American Express contract, the National Park Service had the highest
    delinquency rate; under SmartPay, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    currently has the highest rate. The Bureau of Indian Affairs' rate has
    been dropping recently as a result of aggressive management action.
        Question. What kind of discipline has resulted from the abuse?
        Answer. Disciplinary actions include counseling by supervisors,
    limitation or loss of card privileges, verbal reprimands, written
    reprimands, suspension, and termination of federal employment.
        Question. How many employees have been disciplined, Department-wide
    and per bureau?
        Answer. No central database or record of statistics exists on
    disciplinary actions related to charge card misuse attributed to
    unauthorized use of the cards. In an informal survey, bureau and office
    Program Coordinators reported about 100 actions.
        Question. How many employees have been indicted, Department-wide
    and per bureau?
        Answer. Based on information from the Inspector General's office,
    three employees have been indicted on card-related charges since the
    SmartPay program began. Two were from the Bureau of Land Management and
    one from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        Question. How many employees have been convicted, Department-wide
    and per bureau?
        Answer. None of the three indictments has progressed to the point
    of trial yet. Under the previous purchase card program, a small number
    of employees were convicted as a result of card-related abuses.
        Question. Has the Department recently engaged in any changes in
    policy, enforcement, and discipline to help curb abuse of the credit
    card use?
        Answer. Yes, we track and report delinquency data at monthly
    meetings of top Department managers. The Guidelines have been revised
    to expand coverage regarding charge card misuse, delinquency, and basic
    consumer/cardholder safeguards. We expect to begin salary offsets for
    charged-off and severely delinquent accounts within the next 60 days.
    An expanded array of electronic transaction reports has been developed
    by the Bank of America and made available to assist in program
    oversight. Charge card use can be tracked to the transaction, making
    the tracking of unauthorized card use more accurate and timely than
    ever before. We understand that there are problems, but they have
    typically been caused by a minute portion of our cardholders, and
    represent a very small fraction of our total transactions.

                           Bureau of Land Management

                             MONUMENT DESIGNATIONS

        On January 11, 2000 the President established three new national
    monuments to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
        Question. How will these designations change the way these Federal
    lands will be managed?
        Answer. In general, actions that are not precluded by the
    applicable Presidential proclamation and that do not conflict with the
    general purposes of the Monument can continue. Where the BLM finds that
    an activity may conflict with the Monument's purposes, such activities
    would be restricted.
        The President's proclamations have provided specific direction
    regarding certain uses that may occur in monuments managed by the BLM.
    Each proclamation provides that Federal lands and interests in lands
    within a designated monument are withdrawn from all forms of entry,
    location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under the
    public land laws, including, among others, the mineral leasing and
    mining laws. Further, the proclamations provide that valid, existing
    rights will still be recognized after the Monument's designation. The
    following activities are generally unaffected by the proclamations that
    have designated BLM land as national monuments:
      --The State's responsibilities and authorities regarding wildlife
            management, including fishing and hunting, within the Monument
            are unaffected by the proclamation,
      --Grazing activities shall continue to be governed by applicable laws
            and regulations other than the applicable proclamation, and
      --Existing withdrawals, reservations, or appropriations are not
            revoked, but the Monument is the dominant reservation.
        Question. What effect will the establishment of these new monuments
    have on the economies of the surrounding local communities?
        Answer. At this time, the BLM cannot predict precisely what effect
    the establishment of these new monuments will have on the economies of
    surrounding communities. Some recently designated monuments, such as
    Grand Staircase/Escalante, have experienced a seasonal increase in
    visitation, while other more inaccessible areas have not seen an
    increase in visitation. If the monuments increase visitation to the
    area in general, it is expected that the local communities will receive
    additional economic benefits and revenues from increased visitation.
        During the land use planning process for each monument, the BLM
    will analyze how the monuments will affect the communities and evaluate
    the impacts of the designation on those communities.
        Question. How will the Department and the BLM deal with individuals
    and companies that have valid existing rights?
        Answer. The President's proclamations are subject to valid existing
    rights. The Department and the BLM will continue to work with
    individuals and companies to honor valid existing rights. The planning
    process for these monuments is a public process and public comments are
    invited at various stages throughout the process. Individuals and
    companies will have an opportunity to actively engage in the NEPA
    planning processes that are moving forward in each of the newly created
    national monuments.
        Question. Will the Committee be faced with future requirements to
    construct new and costly visitor centers for these monuments?
        Answer. There is no requirement stipulating construction of new
    visitor centers for these monuments. During the planning process, the
    BLM will evaluate the need for new visitor centers to accommodate
    public interest in the new monuments. Due to the proximity of Agua Fria
    National Monument to a major metropolitan center and transportation
    corridors, it is likely that the Monument will require some kind of
    outreach center. If a center is recommended, the BLM will make every
    effort to design one that is cost effective and to develop the center
    in partnership with local communities, encouraging cost-sharing and
    locations outside the monument.
        Question. Will you be developing comprehensive management plans for
    these lands similar to the plan developed for Grand Staircase-Escalante
    National Monument?
        Answer. The BLM will be developing comprehensive management plans
    for these lands similar to the plan developed for Grand Staircase-
    Escalante National Monument.
        Question. If yes, when do you expect these plans to be completed?
        Answer. The BLM requested funding in the fiscal year 2001 Budget to
    formulate plans for the new monuments and will develop a schedule for
    completion when plan formulation begins.
        On February 16, 2000 the Secretary announced his intention to
    establish new ``National Landscape Monuments'' designations for the
    protection of certain Bureau of Land Management lands.
        Question. Can you provide some of the details to this new proposal?
        Answer. The national landscape monument concept is a useful
    construct to frame the BLM's management of specifically protected
    units, including the newly created national monuments and existing
    national conservation areas (NCAs). Considering the BLM's two major
    land conservation unit designations and other special areas as one
    system will help ensure coordinated planning efforts to support
    adequate funding and resource objectives are achieved. These
    conservation components have already been designated either by an Act
    of Congress or Presidential Proclamation pursuant to Congressional
    statute. They include the Congressionally designated NCAs: King Range
    in California, Steese in Alaska, El Malpais in New Mexico, San Pedro
    Riparian in Arizona, Red Rock Canyon in Nevada, Gila Box Riparian in
    Arizona, Snake River Birds of Prey in Idaho, and Gunnison Gorge in
    Colorado; and BLM monuments created by Presidential Proclamation under
    the Antiquities Act, including: Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah, Agua
    Fria in Arizona, and Grand Canyon-Parashant in Arizona.
        Question. What other areas are you considering for National
    Monument designations?
        Answer. The Secretary is committed to pursuing protective
    designations for significant landscapes through the legislative
    process. In the past such legislative protection has been provided
    through the National Conservation Area designation. In the current
    Congress, legislation has been introduced which proposes creating the
    Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, which would
    encompass BLM managed lands in California. No other legislative
    proposals for BLM National Monuments are pending before Congress.
    Several proposals have been introduced in Congress for new BLM National
    Conservation Areas or other protective designations. On August 11,
    2000, the Secretary recommended to the President that he establish a
    new national monument at Vermilion Cliffs in Arizona and expand the
    Craters of the Moon National Monument in Idaho. The President has not
    acted on these recommendations. The Secretary has since stated that he
    does not intend to recommend to the President any further national
    monument designations unless current legislative efforts in this
    session fail.
        Question. For how many of these do you anticipate making a monument
    designation?
        Answer. The Secretary is committed to pursuing protective
    designations for significant landscapes through the legislative
    process. He is hopeful that most if not all of these areas would be
    protected by legislative designations. Because legislative progress on
    such designations is uncertain, there is no specific number of
    potential monument designations.

                                COAL BED METHANE

        The Congress provided an additional $2.5 million for processing
    Applications for Permits to Drill (APD) due to increased coalbed
    methane development.
        Question. How many permits were processed in fiscal year 1999 and
    fiscal year 2000? How many does the agency expect to process in fiscal
    year 2001?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999, there were 170 Coal Bed Methane (CBM)
    Application Permits to Drill (APD's) processed. Thus, far, in fiscal
    year 2000 BLM has processed 600 permits. The BLM expects to process 400
    more this fiscal year. In fiscal year 2001 we expect to process 1,000
    to 1,200 CBM APD's.
        Question. What is the current backlog of permits? What is the long-
    term trend for necessary funding to process APD's?
        Answer. Within the BLM Wyoming Powder River Basin, there are
    approximately 2,400 Applications for Permit to Drill (APD's) pending
    for CBM development. The fiscal year 2001 President's Budget includes
    $2,127,000 to process 1,000 CBM APD's in addition to the average BLM
    Wyoming Powder River Basin workload. We anticipate that over the next 8
    to 10 years operators/industry in the BLM Wyoming Powder River Basin
    will submit more than 1,000 CBM APD's per year for approval. Without
    increased capability, an APD backlog will develop. To meet this
    workload demand and have the resources to process an estimated 1,500
    CBM APD's per year, our budget will need to be increased by $873,000,
    for a total of $3,000,000 per year above our current base funding level
    in the Wyoming Oil and Gas program. The permitting of 12,000 to 15,000
    CBM wells in the next 10 years will also necessitate the continued base
    funding increase of $3,000,000 in the out years. The reason for this
    being; (a) compliance and monitoring of the environmental protection
    activity; (b) carrying out the inspection and enforcement/production
    verification responsibilities as a result of this cumulative increase;
    and (c) related operational monitoring, compliance and reclamation
    efforts commensurate with this increase in CBM activities. These BLM
    funding needs will be long term in nature, with the addition to the
    program base remaining until final abandonment and reclamation of the
    wells is completed.
        Question. What is the status of the Environmental Impact Statement
    (EIS) which is designed to replace the Wyodak EIS which was completed
    in 1999? How many wells will this EIS authorize to be drilled? How, if
    at all has BLM factored in development on State lands so that the EIS
    will be capable of dealing with production issues for more than just
    one or two years as was the case with the Wyodack EIS?
        Answer. The Wyodak EIS did cover all lands, including non-federal
    lands, within the EIS boundary. The Powder River Basin Oil and Gas EIS
    will cover the area of the previous Wyodak EIS as well as additional
    areas with potential for CBM development within the Wyoming portion of
    the Powder River Basin. The Wyoming State Director approved an MOU on
    April 4, 2000, that establishes a funding agreement between industry
    and the BLM for development of this EIS. This agreement is presently
    being reviewed by industry representatives, with the anticipation that
    a contract for the preparation of the EIS will be awarded early next
    month. The BLM's contribution to the EIS effort will be primarily in
    the areas of air and water quality and quantity studies and modeling.
    Scoping meetings have been held in Sheridan, Wyoming, on June 6, 2000;
    in Buffalo, Wyoming, on June 7, 2000; in Gillette, Wyoming, on June 8,
    2000; and Douglas, Wyoming, on June 12, 2000.
        The final Wyodak EIS contained a Reasonably Foreseeable Development
    scenario for CBM and analyzed the environmental impacts of 5,000 total
    wells, federal and non-federal, on approximately 2,300,000 acres within
    the Powder River Basin (PRB). During preparation of the Wyodak EIS, the
    Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) continued to accept
    and approve applications for a permit to drill on non-federal mineral
    leases. By the time the BLM Wyoming State Director signed the Wyodak
    EIS Record of Decision in November 1999, the WOGCC had already
    permitted approximately 4,000 non-federal wells. As a result, the BLM
    was allowed to approve approximately 1,000 wells on federal mineral
    leases. Since approximately 80 percent of the development had or will
    occur on non-federal leases, the potential of gas being drained from
    federal leases and produced from non-federal wells is significant. As a
    matter of fact, in some areas of the Wyodak study area, BLM reservoir
    analysis indicates that substantial drainage is already occurring. In
    order to protect the federal gas resource from further drainage, the
    BLM has initiated a Drainage Environmental Assessment (EA). The BLM
    hosted a scoping meeting in Gillette, Wyoming, on April 11, 2000. This
    meeting was attended by approximately 125 individuals.
        The number of wells to be addressed by the Powder River Basin EIS
    will be between 30,000 and 50,000 while the Drainage EA will consider
    between 1,500 and 2,500 wells. These numbers are based on estimates
    from both the BLM and the oil and gas industry. The Powder River Basin
    EIS well numbers represent the total number of CBM and conventional oil
    and gas wells anticipated being drilled on both federal and non-federal
    mineral leases during the next ten years. The Drainage EA well numbers
    will be limited in consideration to federal wells only.
        Question. What has BLM's role been with respect to coalbed methane
    development in the Powder River Basin in Montana? Is industry interest
    in Montana expected to be as great as it has been in Wyoming? When will
    significant production in Montana commence?
        Answer. The BLM, Miles City Field Office is working closely with
    Redstone Gas Partners, Powder River Gas and Pennaco Energy on coal bed
    methane development in the Powder River Basin in Montana. They are
    working on environmental assessments (EA) for their areas of interest.
    These EAs are being prepared in close coordination with both the
    Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of
    Natural Resources Council and with the U.S. Geological Survey. The
    Pennaco Energy EA, completed on July 13, 2000, allows Pennaco Energy to
    drill and test 5 wells. Additional environmental analysis is required
    before any wells can be put into production. There are 72 applications
    for permits to drill on file pending completion of the environmental
    documents. There is significant interest in coal bed methane
    development in Montana, although at this time there is not sufficient
    data to project whether or not interest will be as strong as it is in
    Wyoming. There are approximately 130 methane wells currently producing
    in the area, however, all of these are privately-owned wells.
        Question. Recently litigation was filed in Montana with respect to
    the discharge of water associated with coal bed methane development.
    What is the current status of this litigation? What impacts might it
    have on the BLM's program? Has BLM done an analysis of water impacts
    from coal bed methane development?
        Answer. The recent litigation filed by the Northern Plains Resource
    Council (NPRC) against the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation
    (Board) in respect to the discharge of water has not been resolved. The
    Board met with the NPRC on April 26, 2000, in Helena and discussed
    terms of settlement. The BLM was invited to be in attendance at the
    meeting. On June 20, 2000, the Board and the NPRC reached a tentative
    settlement. A motion to intervene was filed by 7 CBM operators on July
    11, 2000, and a decision on this motion is pending a court hearing
    scheduled for September 7, 2000. The Board is currently not issuing any
    CBM drilling permits until the settlement agreement reached between the
    Board and the NPRC is approved by the Court. It is unclear at this time
    how the litigation may impact the BLM's program. Our plan at this time
    is to continue to work on the EAs for CBM in the Montana portion of the
    Powder River Basin. If a finding of no significant impact is
    determined, the pending applications for permit to drill will be
    approved. The water impacts from methane development are being analyzed
    in the EAs that are being prepared.

                             LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS

        The agency has asked for a $19 million increase to update its land
    management plans.
        Question. How many plans does the agency expect to update or
    replace during fiscal year 2001 if this increase is provided? How many
    plans need to be updated?
        Answer. Preparing a land use plan (LUP) can take two or more years
    to complete. For this reason none of the planning efforts initiated
    with the proposed increase will be completed in fiscal year 2001. The
    BLM does anticipate that if the funding in the President's Budget is
    provided, between 2001 and 2004 the following will be completed:
    Management plans for 6 military ranges as required by the Military
    Withdrawal Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-65); 12 LUPs covering 3 new
    National Monuments and 9 existing National Conservation Areas; 17 new
    or revised LUPs (11 of these plans consolidate and replace 19 older
    land use plans, thereby reducing the total number of plans to maintain
    over time); and preparation of 12 separate plan amendments to update 21
    existing land use plans.
        Over time, all land use plans must be updated. Many of BLM's 162
    LUP's are aging. Approximately 21 percent are less than 10 years old
    and can be generally considered current, 50 percent are between 10 to
    20 years old and 39 percent are older than 20 years. An initial
    assessment to determine our highest priority planning needs is
    summarized in the Report to the Congress entitled ``Land Use Planning
    for Sustainable Resource Decisions'' (attached). We are scheduled to
    complete comprehensive evaluations of all of our land use plans (LUPs)
    by the end of fiscal year 2002, by which time detailed information will
    be available concerning deficiencies of all existing plans.
        Question. In what geographical areas has the BLM been sued based on
    outdated land management plans? Does the agency anticipate more such
    suits this fiscal year?
        Answer. The BLM has been increasingly faced with litigation arising
    from issues such as mineral development activity, off-highway vehicle
    (OHV) use, grazing, and endangered species issues throughout the 10
    public lands states in the West. In California, the BLM recently
    received a Notice of Intent to File Suit on Endangered Species Act
    compliance issues related to their land use plans. In Arizona and New
    Mexico, BLM has recently settled several endangered species related
    lawsuits. These settlements have addressed the BLM's failure to consult
    more extensively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, prepare
    biological assessments, reinitiate consultation on land use plans and
    associated Environmental Impact Statements, and implement additional
    monitoring and planning actions.
        In the area of mineral development, successful planning for future
    coal and non-coal extraction requires that the BLM address new
    environmental standards and cumulative impacts in the Powder River
    Basin of Wyoming and Montana. Failure to address these concerns could
    result in litigation over future leasing decisions and significant
    delays in leasing coal reserves. These delays, particularly for current
    coal operators whose operations are short on reserves, could lead to
    mine closures or financial losses which impact royalty income to
    Federal and State Governments, as well as coal availability nationally.
        Other instances of litigation directly or indirectly relating to
    allegedly outdated land use plans include: San Juan Citizens Alliance
    v. Babbitt (00-S-379) in the District Court of Colorado; Montana
    Wilderness Association v. Tom Fry, Larry Hamilton, BLM; and Macum
    Energy, Inc. challenging lease sales done without adequate National
    Environmental Policy Act work for rights of way for a natural gas
    pipeline and lease issuance in the Upper Missouri River Corridor in
    Montana; Gallatin Wildlife Association, National Wildlife Federation v.
    Scott Powers, Field Manager, Dillon Field Office, BLM, alleging lack of
    a resource management plan to support oil and gas activity in Montana;
    Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, et al. v. Babbitt, 11/23/99,
    alleging that BLM has failed to comply with executive orders outlining
    the use and management of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) on public lands,
    particularly as it relates to wilderness study areas and other areas
    with wilderness characteristics; Forest Guardians v. BLM regarding
    grazing in the Albuquerque district; and Wyoming Outdoor Council, et
    al. v. U.S. Forest Service, Michael Dombeck, Chief, and BLM, Tom Fry,
    Acting Director concerning the impacts of oil and gas leasing
    activities in the Shoshone National Forest and failure to consult with
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on grizzly bears.
        Updating the BLM's land use plan will not always prevent a lawsuit.
    The BLM New Mexico State Office received a Notice of Intent to Sue from
    the Forest Guardians over land use planning in the El Malpais National
    Conservation Area, where the planning document is in its final stages.
    Regardless, lawsuits draw personnel away from on-the-ground work and
    direct financial resources to cover litigation costs. While the BLM is
    proactive in seeking to avoid costly new litigation, the BLM will, in
    all probability, be sued this fiscal year as an outgrowth of aging land
    management plans and/or NEPA documents.
        Question. How is the agency prioritizing which plans to update
    first? Is it solely based on litigation risk or are other factors used?
    How long will it take to update all the plans needing revision? What is
    the expected total cost?
        Answer. The BLM has established the following criteria for
    prioritizing planning actions: (1) new congressional or court ordered
    mandates; (2) the need to address changed resource conditions or
    resources at risk (such as listing of an endangered species); (3)
    anticipated changes in use (demand) not adequately addressed in
    planning/NEPA documents (such as large scale coal bed methane
    development); (4) program or administrative requirements the BLM has
    not fulfilled (such as new clean water standards or an executive order
    relating to managing use of OHVs); and (5) outside interest or concerns
    as expressed by the public. The above stated criteria is not solely
    based on litigation risk factors.
        The BLM estimates it will take approximately 10 years to bring all
    its plans up to date. This effort will be followed up with a sustained
    plan maintenance and evaluation effort to prevent similar situations
    from reoccurring in the future. The BLM's initial request of
    $19,000,000 represents one year startup costs needed to begin to
    address this long term problem. Additional increases will be needed and
    sustained over time to address this longterm problem. More information
    on the planning issue is available in the ``BLM Report to Congress:
    Land Use Planning for Sustainable Resource Decisions''. This report was
    submitted as part of the Bureau's fiscal year 2001 Budget
    Justifications. More precise estimates can be made after the evaluation
    of existing plans is completed. When compared to the funds expended on
    land use planning by the other land management agencies, in particular
    when compared on a ``per acre basis,'' the BLM's proposal is very cost
    effective. This is particularly true when you consider the complexities
    involved with the BLM's mandate to provide for a variety of uses from
    full wilderness protection, on one hand, to providing land for
    development on the another.
                          wild horse and burro program
        Question. The agency is requesting a $9.5 million increase for the
    Wild Horse and Burro program in fiscal year 2001. How will the increase
    be used to reduce the herd levels to a manageable number?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 President's Budget request includes an
    increase of $9 million for implementation of a long term strategy to
    attain Appropriate Management Levels (AML) on all Herd Management Areas
    (HMA) in four years beginning in fiscal year 2001, provided that the
    requested funding is available. Under the strategy, the BLM will remove
    approximately 13,000 animals the first year, dropping to 4,500 animals
    by the sixth year and remaining at that level. At that level, adoption
    demand will greatly exceed the number of horses requiring removal from
    the range.
        A key component of the strategy will be long term pasturing
    facilities for hard to adopt animals and older animals. The savings
    from reduced gathers, preparations and adoptions will more than offset
    the costs for long term care. As the number of animals in long term
    care declines through natural attrition and adoptions, the long term
    care costs will also decline.
        Question. If additional funds are not provided what will be the
    impact in terms of additional animals on the range?
        Answer. Wild horse and burro populations are exceeding the capacity
    of the land to support a thriving ecological balance among all the
    various resource values. Wild horse populations are increasing at a
    rate of 18-20 percent per year, with some herds as high as 23 percent.
    Wild burro populations are increasing at a rate of 16 -17 percent per
    year. Currently, wild horse and burro populations are exceeding
    estimated AML on 159 of 192 HMAs. The BLM estimates total AML to be
    27,379 animals. By the end of fiscal year 2000, we estimate the
    populations will approach 51,000 animals or approximately 23,000+
    animals over AML.
        Damage is occurring to herd habitat, riparian zones, upland
    vegetation, sensitive, threatened and endangered species habitat and
    water quality. Irreparable damage will occur to the natural resources
    if the BLM is not able to reduce current numbers. If population levels
    are not reduced to AML, we anticipate that other users such as
    livestock grazers and state wildlife departments will resort to legal
    remedies through court decisions.
        Question. How were the population trend models for wild horses and
    burros developed?
        Answer. The projected numbers, time frames and costs were based on
    data generated by a wild horse population model developed by Dr.
    Stephen Jenkins, University of Nevada at Reno. Every HMA was evaluated
    under several different scenarios to develop the preferred BLM
    strategy. HMA specific information for each HMA was entered into the
    model to develop accurate projections. During the evaluation, the model
    was programmed to run 15 different runs for every HMA in each scenario.
    The average was then utilized to formulate the projected outputs for
    each scenario.
        Question. Have they been peer-reviewed by any groups outside the
    BLM?
        Answer. The population model has been peer reviewed by five
    scientists employed by U.S.G.S., Biological Research Division (BRD). In
    summary, the model was termed as solid, highly useful to the BLM
    planning efforts and based on tested modeling methods and population
    dynamics principles. The reviewers felt the BLM can apply the model
    with confidence provided the data is appropriate. As with all models,
    the scientists cautioned about limitations and the use of adequate
    data. The BLM is well aware of the limitations and used the best
    available data with the model.
        Question. What has been the historic variability in horse and burro
    populations? Over the last 25 years hasn't the population normally
    fluctuated between levels of 20,000 to 50,000? What is different now
    such that the agency calculates that the population will reach over
    120,000 animals if additional funds are not provided for management
    activities?
        Answer. Within 4 years of the passage of the Act, populations
    exceeded estimated AML and fluctuations have occurred as would be
    expected with any wild animal populations. However, wild horses and
    burros have no effective natural predators that can limit the
    populations. Humans serve that purpose (the BLM has removed over
    165,000 head from the range). With increases and declines in numbers
    due to environmental factors such as above average precipitation,
    drought and fires, populations have fluctuated between 30,000 and
    50,000, well above the levels necessary for a thriving ecological
    balance as mandated by the Act. Our projections reflect where
    populations can be expected to go based on monitoring data and without
    consideration for environmental factors since we don't know when and to
    what degree they will occur. Our projections are based on straight-line
    increases, since current funding is not adequate to keep up with annual
    reproduction. Attaining AML on all HMAs will prevent catastrophic death
    events, such as happened on the Nellis Wild Horse Range in the early
    nineties, when the land became incapable of supporting existing
    populations.
        Question. Once a manageable level of animals is reached, what is
    the long term annual funding need for the Wild Horse and Burro program?
        Answer. Actual funding needs will be determined by updated annual
    monitoring and censussing data. However, based on current information,
    it is anticipated that funding needs will vary from $25 million to $29
    million dollars. Inflation has been factored into the projections at a
    rate of 5 percent per year. By 2006 it is projected that the cost to
    implement this strategy will be equivalent to current funding (adjusted
    for inflation), and by 2010, will be less than the equivalent of
    current funding.
        Question. How are the agency's efforts at developing contraceptive
    tools for use on wild horses and burros proceeding? When will these be
    ready for widespread use?
        Answer. Field trials of the immuno-contraceptive vaccine were
    initiated in December 1992, in the Antelope and Antelope Valley Herd
    Management Areas (HMA) in eastern Nevada. The initial trials studied a
    two injection, one-year vaccine. That has since evolved to a one year,
    one shot vaccine. The goal of the BLM's immuno-contraception program is
    to develop a cost effective 3-5 year, one shot vaccine. This would
    provide a cost effective immuno-contraception program and reduce
    handling of mares. Initial field testing of a two year, one shot
    vaccine began in fiscal year 2000 in the Clan Alpine HMA in Nevada.
    Modeling indicates that immuno-contraception efforts will be most
    effective in helping to suppress population levels once AML has been
    attained through intensive gathering and removals. During the research
    phase, the BLM will conduct 1500-3000 field applications per year,
    depending on funding levels. Pen studies on a two year, one shot
    vaccine are currently being conducted at the University of California,
    at Davis.
        Researchers are predicting that widespread management application
    of a multi-year, one shot vaccine may take as long as 6 years to
    accomplish. We will be entering into negotiations with the Food and
    Drug Administration (FDA) in an attempt to accelerate the approval
    process that is required before widespread application can occur.
        The following is a list of HMAs where the immuno-contraceptive has
    been applied in the field trials:
            1992--Antelope/Antelope Valley HMAs, Nevada
            1996--Nellis Wild Horse Range, Nevada
            1997--Nellis Wild Horse Range, Nevada
            1997--Pokegama HMA, Oregon
            1998--Fish Lake HMA, Nevada
            1998--Kama Mountain HMA, Nevada
            1998--Antelope/Antelope Valley HMAs, Nevada
            1999--Monte Cristo/Sand Springs East HMAs, Nevada
            2000--Clan Alpine HMA, Nevada (2 year, 1 shot vaccination
        Question. Are other agencies involved with this effort? If so, what
    agencies? What is their role? Do they provide any additional funding?
    Does BLM get funding for research from any other sources for this
    program?
        Answer. The Biological Research Division (BRD) of the US Geological
    Survey is the conduit by which the BLM conducts research. They develop
    and oversee research contracts and conduct peer review of the research.
    All funding for BLM research is included in BRD's annual
    appropriations. The BLM does not get funding from other sources.

                     AUTOMATION OF LAND AND MINERAL RECORDS

        Question. Given the failure of the software developed as part of
    the ALMRS effort, what is the agency's strategy for developing usable
    software with respect to automating its land and minerals record
    systems in the future? What is the agency's plan to ensure that
    whatever is developed in the future does not have the same problems
    that occurred with ALMRS?
        Answer. The BLM has revised its strategy and plans for all
    automated systems development to emphasize a business-driven, modular
    approach that uses hands-on iterative methods. Key to this change in
    strategy is the development of a Bureau Enterprise Architecture which
    is based upon the BLM's strategic goals and business practices. The
    development of Land and Resources Information Systems (LRIS)
    operational software will be derived from the Bureau Enterprise
    Architecture. As part of this strategy, the BLM will make a concerted
    effort to maximize the use of commercially available software and
    minimize custom development. We will also incorporate proven Geographic
    Information System (GIS) technology for land and resource management
    and provide a solid basis for partnerships with other government
    agencies and public users.
        The BLM has implemented improved project management procedures that
    engage users and systems development personnel as a team from the
    beginning to the end of the LRIS project. Each product developed
    through this process must be approved by field office representatives
    working outside of the project office, before work can proceed.
    Development will occur in a prototype environment which will help
    ensure that user needs are met. In addition, an Information Technology
    Investment Board, comprised of senior agency executives, ensures that
    the best investment decisions are made for information technology,
    including LRIS.
        The General Accounting Office is also closely monitoring our
    activities. They are encouraging us to continue our efforts to
    strengthen our investment management and acquisition processes and
    practices.
        Planned actions for 2001 include:
        (1) implementation and maintenance of a Bureau Architecture;
        (2) improving compliance with data standards and cleaning up
    existing data;
        (3) initiation of system development to automate re-engineered
    business processes;
        (4) production of a technical reference model, derived from the
    Business Architecture, to guide new development and enhancement of
    existing applications; and
        (5) initiation of a concerted effort to add Internet access to
    existing software applications to meet the mandated completion by 2003.
        Question. How much will it cost?
        Answer. The Information Technology Investment Board has approved
    detailed analysis and design work to proceed for LRIS contingent upon
    alignment with the Bureau Enterprise Architecture. Decisions on what
    modules will be developed and their costs will be determined based upon
    completion of this work. As stated in the budget submission to
    Congress, BLM expects to spend $19.6 million to meet land and minerals
    records management needs in fiscal year 2001. Of this amount, about
    one-third will be spent on designing and building components of the new
    LRIS system.
        Question. When could this software be deployed for use in the
    field?
        Answer. The deployment of capabilities to assist with cleaning up
    existing data sets and standardization have been initiated in fiscal
    year 2000. Initial deployment of LRIS operational software is currently
    scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2001 continuing through fiscal year
    2003. These schedules, however are contingent upon architectural
    alignment and investment priorities.

                                LEWIS AND CLARK

        Question. What, if any, role will BLM play in the Lewis and Clark
    bicentennial celebration? Are additional demands on BLM resources
    anticipated? What resources will be impacted the most? Will the agency
    need additional funds to address these impacts?
        Answer. The BLM manages over 300 miles along the Lewis & Clark
    (L&C) Trail in Montana and Idaho, including significant landscapes such
    as Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River; Pompey's Pillar
    National Historic Landmark; Blackfoot River Corridor; Chain-of-Lakes
    Complex and the Snake and Clearwater River Corridors. Today, these
    landscapes appear much as they did 200 years ago. The BLM initiated L&C
    Bicentennial planning efforts in 1996 to identify on-the-ground
    resource needs and develop local and state partnerships under our
    multiple-use mandate.
        Through this planning process BLM identified the following
    management objectives for L&C Bicentennial initiatives:
        (1) Trail Protection and Restoration;
        (2) Enhancing Visitor Services;
        (3) American Indian Involvement;
        (4) Partnerships; and
        (5) Improved Access.
        Working within this framework, the BLM has identified a 6-year
    needs analysis, reflective of our mission and local community
    priorities. The strategy identifies critical infrastructure upgrades
    and enhancements targeted to be completed prior to the influx of
    visitors to our nation's public lands. During the Bicentennial years,
    our strategy focuses on community events and activities and recognizes
    statewide issues such as search and rescue, county road maintenance and
    other community and tribal partnership programs.
        Based on historic visitor use data, the BLM anticipates that the
    most pristine landscapes and sites along the trail will be inundated
    with visitors wanting to ``walk in the footsteps'' of Lewis and Clark.
    Although the BLM initiated L&C planning efforts in 1996, the BLM
    resources and staffing have been strained. With visitation increasing,
    the BLM is working to allocate available resources to manage our public
    lands in a way that provides adequate visitor services while protecting
    our resources. The L&C Bicentennial creates both opportunities and
    concerns for our agency. The nation's public land treasures and
    collaborative efforts will be the legacy of the Bicentennial. The BLM
    has requested $1,247,000 in the fiscal year 2001 Budget request to
    begin to address the anticipated demands on the L&C Bicentennial
    celebration, mainly for facility preparedness.

                                GRAZING PERMITS

        Question. How many grazing permits which are set to expire this
    year will go unprocessed?
        Answer. All grazing permits expiring this year will be fully
    processed, or issued and extended in accordance with Sec. 116 of the
    fiscal year 2000 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, by
    September 30, 2000.
        Question. When will the agency get on top of this backlog?
        Answer. The Bureau is focusing its processing efforts (NEPA
    analysis and ESA consultation) on the expiring permits with the highest
    resource values, and expects to complete about 85 percent of the
    expiring permits before September 30, 2000. With the exception of 79
    permits in Utah that are expected to require the preparation of an
    environmental impact statement, the remaining permits that expire this
    year will be processed with appropriate NEPA and ESA documentation by
    September 30, 2001. By that same date, BLM will also process all 1,646
    permits that are scheduled to expire in 2001.
        Question. Does the language contained in the fiscal year 2000
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act concerning the
    extension of unprocessed expiring permits need to be retained? If not,
    how does the agency plan to deal with unprocessed permits?
        Answer. The strategy described in the previous answer will allow
    the Bureau to eliminate the permit processing backlog in fiscal year
    2001, so the general provision referenced in the question does not need
    to be retained in the fiscal year 2001 Appropriations Act.

                             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        An increase of $1.6 million is requested for cooperative ecosystem
    studies units, though Service participation in this program actually
    began with fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 funds.
        Question. Were funds identifies in the fiscal year 1999 or fiscal
    year 2000 budget request for this activity, and were funds ultimately
    appropriated for this activity in fiscal year 1999 or fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. No special funds were appropriated for this activity. Three
    of the four pilot Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units currently have
    personnel (non-research grade) placed in them or in the process of
    being placed. In each case, regional or park funding was committed
    because of the advantages of placing staff in universities.
        When a region identifies science coordination needs that require a
    staff position, the CESU is one choice (among regional office, park, or
    central office) of where to place that position. Because there are many
    leveraging opportunities for each federal dollar available for
    research, technical assistance, and education at a university, there is
    great interest in this option. So far, there are commitments from NPS
    regions for the 10 competitively established units, including the
    Universities of Tennessee, Washington, Miami, Nebraska, Alaska, Hawaii,
    Rhode Island, Arizona and Montana and Northern Arizona University.
        Question. If not, does the Service regard its initial conduct of
    this activity consistent with Committee reprogramming requirements?
        Answer. The National Park Service believes that resource
    management, including the coordination of research and responding to
    the technical assistance needs of parks, is fully within the activities
    described for its base funding. The request is being made for
    additional funding because not enough base funding exists to meet the
    needs for these activities in 379 national park units.
        Question. Why did the Service decide to specifically identify this
    activity in the fiscal year 2001 budget request?
        Answer. There is great potential for enhancing available resources
    for science-based decision-making through flexible partnerships with
    universities. Base funding will speed up the Park Service's ability to
    make this very advantageous tool available to meet park needs in the
    changing modern landscape.
        During the recent NATO meeting in Washington, D.C., I understand
    that additional funds were required for the National Park Service to
    provide required security. I also understand that these funds were
    derived from available repair and rehabilitation funding.
        Question. Is this true?
        Answer. Yes. The United States Park Police expended $579,525 in
    direct support of the NATO Summit held in Washington, D.C., April 23
    through April 25, 1999. Of this amount, $250,000 was provided from
    Emergency Law and Order funds. The balance was reallocated from repair
    and rehabilitation projects that could not otherwise be obligated in
    fiscal year 1999.
        Question. How much was reallocated?
        Answer. A total of $329,525 in repair and rehabilitation funds was
    reallocated to the United States Park Police to cover this activity.
        Question. How does the Service justify the use of R&R funds for
    this purpose absent a reprogramming request?
        Answer. The NPS is careful in its management and budget practices
    and works extremely hard to comply with all guidance from the Congress.
    The 1998 reprogramming guidelines, as contained in the House
    Appropriations Committee Report, state: ``Any proposed reprogramming
    must be submitted to the Committee in writing prior to implementation
    if it exceeds $500,000 or results in an increase or decrease of more
    than 10 percent annually in affected programs, . . .'' Since the
    threshold level was not exceeded, the reallocation of $329,525 in
    maintenance funding for this emergency activity is justified. The
    funding was derived from repair and rehabilitation projects that could
    not be obligated in fiscal year 1999.
        Question. What are the Service's plans for the upcoming IMF/World
    Bank meetings in Washington, D.C? The Republican convention in
    Philadelphia?
        Answer. In anticipation of demonstrations during the IMF/World Bank
    meetings and the Republican convention similar to those that caused
    disruptions in Seattle, Washington, during a recent international
    conference, the National Park Service, in coordination with other local
    law enforcement agencies, will provide security and law enforcement to
    protect park properties, visitors and employees. The NPS has developed
    cost estimates for projected overtime of United States Park Police
    officers and law enforcement rangers, travel and per diem, and for the
    purchase of defensive equipment. The Service did submit a reprogramming
    proposal in fiscal year 2000 in order to be prepared to respond to
    these two emergency law and order needs, indicating that up to $2
    million would be needed to respond to the IMF/World Bank meetings and
    the Republican National Convention.
        Question. Will funds have to be reallocated to accommodate security
    needs for these events? From what source will such funds be derived?
        Answer. The reprogramming defers Hazardous Waste projects to
    respond to the emergency law enforcement needs. The NPS will shift
    funds from the Hazardous Waste Program within the Operation of the
    National Park System appropriation to cover costs associated with these
    emergency situations.

                           FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

                             ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

        Question. Please summarize in chart form funding for the Endangered
    Species Act programs from fiscal year 1995 through the fiscal year 2001
    request. This summary chart should include (but show separately)
    funding for both the ESA programs in the Resource Management account
    and the amounts appropriated for the Cooperative Endangered Species
    Fund.
        Answer. Funding for Endangered Species Act programs from fiscal
    year 1995 through the fiscal year 2001 request is summarized in the
    table below.

                             FISCAL YEAR 1995-FISCAL YEAR 2001 APPROPRIATIONS HISTORY TABLE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Activity/subactivity/program        1995       1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001
                  element                 enacted    enacted    enacted    enacted    enacted    enacted    request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Ecological services

    Endangered Species.................    $68,944    $60,297    $67,385    $77,181   $110,817   $108,282   $115,320
        Candidate Conservation               4,442      3,800      4,800      5,703      6,753      7,388      8,447
         (Prelisting)..................
        Listing........................      6,499      4,000      5,000      5,190      5,756      6,208      7,195
        Consultation/HCP...............     18,294     15,997     17,949     23,828     27,231     32,342     39,400
        Recovery.......................     39,709     36,500     39,636     42,460     66,077     57,363     55,297
        ESA Landowner Incentives         .........  .........  .........  .........      5,000      4,981      4,981
         Program.......................
    Cooperative Endangered Species           8,983      8,074     14,085     14,000     14,000     23,000     65,000
     Conservation Fund.................
        Grants to States (Section 6)...      8,480      7,600      7,600      7,520      7,520      7,520     41,048
        HCP Land Acquisition...........  .........  .........      6,000      6,000      6,000     15,000     21,125
        Conservation Planning            .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,625
         Assistance....................
        Administration.................        503        474        485        480        480        480      1,202
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                LAND ACQUISITION

        GAO recently issued a report on lands acquired by the Fish and
    Wildlife Service. It reports that in addition to lands being acquired
    by federal dollars, lands are included in our refuge system through
    private donations, transfers, and exchanges. The report notes that 15
    of the 23 refuges the Service established between 1994 through 1998
    (totaling 54,000 acres) were established without federal funds. 12 were
    established with donations, 2 with private land exchanges and one with
    a land transfer.
        Question. How does the Service currently evaluate these additions
    to the refuge system so that proper planning is performed to ensure
    adequate management after the lands become part of the refuge system?
        Answer. The Service only accepts donations of those lands that have
    already undergone the Service's planning process (including NEPA) and
    which meet the goals and purposes of the National Wildlife Refuge
    System. The future costs of operation and management of additional
    refuge lands is considered at a number of decision points prior to
    purchase of lands. These costs are estimated in the Preliminary Project
    Proposal, and further refined in the Concept Management Plan that is
    developed as part of the detailed planning process. Finally, costs of
    management related to new acquisitions are provided in the President's
    Budget. The 15 refuges described in the GAO report had, at the time of
    acquisition, met all of the Service requirements for inclusion into the
    refuge system and thus were managed as part of the system after
    acquisition.
        Question. Is there any danger that the appetite of the Service's
    realty office could exceed the ability of the Service to budget for the
    proper management of these lands once they become part of the refuge
    system?
        Answer. The Service's Divisions of Realty (which handles land
    acquisition) as well as the Division of Refuges (which handles the
    management) is supervised by the same Assistant Director who ultimately
    reports to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. This
    structure ensures that there is appropriate oversight and coordination
    between the acquisition and management of lands for the National
    Wildlife Refuge System.
        Question. How do you plan to change this system to make it better?
        Answer. Land acquisition is used judiciously to further the
    Service's mission of conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and
    wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
    people. Only those lands that are important and fall within the
    Service's mission are typically acquired. The Service's land
    acquisition is performed under the authority of a variety of Acts
    passed by Congress. These authorities include the Migratory Bird
    Conservation Act of February 18, 1929, as amended; the Fish and
    Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended; the Endangered Species Act of
    December 28,1973, as amended; and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act
    of November 10, 1986, among others.
        The Service has agreed with the GAO recommendation to include
    estimates of future operations costs for proposed acquisitions when
    funding is requested in the President's Budget. This, along with the
    Director's reorganization and establishment of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System as a program area, of which Realty will be a Division,
    will enhance communication and coordination of land acquisition
    priorities and proposals, with refuge management funding initiatives.

                                  SUBSISTENCE

        The Department requests $12.9 million to address subsistence
    fisheries. Part of the request is Fish and Wildlife Service's request
    for an $11 million increase to fully implement the Federal takeover of
    the subsistence fisheries in Alaska. $7.5 million is expected to be
    housed in a centrally controlled monitoring account. As part of this
    plan, the Department has set a goal to contract out 60 percent of the
    resource monitoring work primarily through contracts with the State,
    Native corporations, Tribes and other organizations.
        Question. Has the Department set in place a plan to ensure that
    this 60 percent target is met? And, if so, what is the plan?
        Answer. Yes, the Department has a plan in place to meet this goal.
    The Federal Subsistence Board, acting for the Secretary, has adopted a
    systematic program for soliciting, evaluating, and selecting fisheries
    resource monitoring projects. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game
    (ADF&G), Alaska Native organizations, tribes, and other fisheries
    organizations are routinely included in planning and developing
    monitoring projects. The proposed projects are evaluated based on
    subsistence management priorities, technical-scientific merit, and the
    extent the projects develop effective partnerships with non-Federal
    entities. The approved projects constitute a state-wide annual
    fisheries monitoring plan.
        To date, the Department has exceeded the Secretary's commitment
    that 60 percent of the resource monitoring work would be performed by
    non-Federal partners. As of April 24, 2000, the Federal Subsistence
    Board has allocated or recommended $3.5 million in 33 DOI fisheries
    resource monitoring projects. Of this, $1.16 million or 33 percent is
    directed to ADF&G and $1.34 million or 38 percent is directed to Alaska
    Native, and other rural organizations, or local hires. Only $1.01
    million, or 29 percent is directed to work performed by Federal agency
    staff.

                               GOOSE DEPREDATION

        The Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that it was actively
    preparing a plan entitled ``Goose Population Problems in the United
    States: A Strategic Plan.''
        Question. Has the Fish and Wildlife Service completed this plan
    yet? Can the Subcommittee at least see some informal numbers regarding
    future costs to address the problem in Region 1 which the Fish and
    Wildlife Service could legitimately spend to address this problem?
        Answer. The Service has completed the requested report entitled
    ``Goose population Problems in the United States: A Strategic Plan''
    and transmitted it to Congress on May 1, 2000. With regards to
    potential options within Region 1 to implement the actions under the
    Northwest Oregon and Southwest Washington Goose Agricultural
    Depredation Plan, the Service and their partners estimate $1,000,000
    would be an optimal level of funding for the Federal responsibilities.
    However, due to other priorities, this funding was not included in the
    President's budget. Funding could be used by the Canada Goose
    Depredation Working Group to enhance the hunting programs in Washington
    and Oregon, support landowner assistance in keeping geese out of
    agricultural fields, augment law enforcement activities, and improve
    survey coverage for detecting changes in distribution and abundance of
    Canada geese. The President's Budget includes a program increase of
    $1.0 million for on the ground management activities for priority
    habitats and species of concern. Included in this increase is one
    project to implement the environmental impact statement on Snow Geese
    in the Central and Mississippi Flyways.

                         NON-GAME WILDLIFE STATE GRANTS

        The Administration proposes the initiation of a new $100 million
    program entitled the Non-Game Wildlife State Grants program. The
    request proposes that the funds be distributed to states, tribes and
    U.S. territories to be used for such purposes as planning,
    inventorying, and monitoring non-game species.
        Question. What other programs funded through the Fish and Wildlife
    Service already provide certain protections for non-game species in
    either direct or indirect ways?
        Answer. Historically, Federal and State wildlife funding has been
    prioritized toward species that warrant Federal or State protection,
    such as implementing approved recovery plans for endangered species or
    toward species that are fished or hunted for recreation or commercial
    purposes.
        The Administration's proposed Non-Game Wildlife Grants program
    would compliment ongoing programs and enable state fish and game
    agencies to develop more comprehensive wildlife programs for a wide
    diversity of fish, wildlife and plant resources, expanding their scope
    beyond traditional programs that have focused primarily on game
    species. Currently, the only FWS program that is dedicated solely to
    non-game species is the Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund.
    This program received $0.8 million in 2000.
        Other existing programs that contribute to non-game species
    (through habitat restoration and other natural resource management
    practices) include the NWR system, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    Program, certain aspects of the Fisheries program, the land acquisition
    program, and the ``Duck Stamp'' program.

                                  FORENSIC LAB

        Question. The Service's National Fish & Wildlife Forensics
    Laboratory is known as one of the best of its kind in the world. Does
    the Service currently have a backlog of its own projects at the lab?
    What are the backlog numbers and why?
        Answer. Yes, the Service has a backlog. Although forensic
    scientists have responded to 526 Service requests during this fiscal
    year, a backlog of 223 requests exists as of May 1, 2000. Backlogs
    occur for a variety of reasons, including a higher demand for services
    than existing staff, instrumentation, and facilities can accommodate;
    time-consuming analysis required by high priority federal cases (i.e.,
    caviar); and an increase in services offered as lab scientists develop
    and test new identification techniques using serology and DNA. The
    planned expansion of the forensics laboratory scheduled for completion
    in fiscal year 2002 should help alleviate this problem.
        Question. Has the Service had a backlog in fiscal year 1994 through
    fiscal year 1999? If so, please provide backlog numbers per each year.
        Answer. Yes. The following table identifies the backlog of Service
    requests for lab assistance during fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year
    1999.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Backlog at    Requests     Requests
                                                                   beginning     received    completed    Backlog at
                 Fish and Wildlife Service requests                of fiscal      during       during       end of
                                                                      year     fiscal year  fiscal year  fiscal year
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year:
        1994....................................................           65          721          743           43
        1995....................................................           43          789          790           42
        1996....................................................           42          903          860           85
        1997....................................................           85          751          760           76
        1998....................................................           76          727          703          100
        1999....................................................          100          808          816           92
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Is it true that the Service provides certain laboratory
    services for free (or a discounted basis) to certain foreign countries,
    states and other entities? If so, provide statistics of how many
    projects have been provided for free, or at a discounted rate, between
    fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1999. Please provide estimates of
    how much would have been received by the government for these services
    if the government had charged for these services.
        Answer. Since opening the forensics laboratory, it has been Service
    policy to provide lab services to outside agencies without charging
    fees. The table below shows the total number of requests handled by the
    Forensics lab, broken out by FWS, other Federal agency, state and
    international requestors. Over all, non-FWS requests averaged 35
    percent of the total for fiscal years 1994-1999.
        Notwithstanding the necessity of recovering costs whenever
    possible, the Service believes that charging outside user groups
    (specifically state and international wildlife law enforcement
    agencies, and other Federal law enforcement agencies) for forensic
    support services would result in wide-ranging negative impacts far
    exceeding any monetary gain by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        A fee system would drastically limit the Service's ability to have
    a positive impact on federal, state, and international wildlife law
    enforcement investigations; add significant administrative burdens; and
    compromise the lab's ability to develop techniques and protocols
    necessary to conduct reliable wildlife identifications.
        Development of a catalog of blood and tissue samples of known
    origin worldwide is critical to current and future lab projects.
    Various state and international wildlife agencies have continued to
    provide these samples free of charge. The lab currently has over 50,000
    standard (comparison) specimens in its collection, approximately 70
    percent of which were collected by state officers. This cooperative
    effort saves the Fish and Wildlife Service hundreds of thousands of
    dollars in travel and field collection costs, which would be incurred
    if lab technicians had to personally collect the samples. By developing
    a cooperative working relationship with other wildlife conservation
    agencies, similar to the relationship developed between the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation's crime laboratory and local police
    departments, the lab has been able to significantly enhance its
    wildlife identification capability while reducing the cost to the
    government. The work of the lab will suffer if the cooperating agencies
    stop providing the specimens.

       U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FORENSICS LABORATORY REQUESTS RECEIVED PER FISCAL
                                                   YEAR BY AGENCY TYPE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               1994        1995     1996     1997     1998     1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USFWS.............................................          721          789      903      751      727      808
    Other Federal.....................................           82           62       36       48       34       41
    State.............................................          469          506      494      453      358      166
    International.....................................           91           44       47       47       36       23
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.......................................        1,363        1,401    1,480    1,299    1,155    1,038
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 DAM BREACHING

        The Fish and Wildlife Service decided to share its dam-breaching
    position with private interest groups in favor of breaching dams, such
    as ``American Rivers,'' before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    notified other coordinating agencies in the Federal caucus.
        Question. Can you explain why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    considers American Rivers to be such an important part of the ``All H''
    process?
        Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) would like to
    correct two inaccuracies with the statement in Committee Question 11.
    First, the Service does not have a policy position on dam breaching.
    The draft All H paper does not advocate any specific salmon recovery
    options. Rather, it presents options for habitat, harvest, hatcheries,
    and hydropower; shows how those options can be combined into integrated
    alternatives; and stimulates an honest and constructive debate among
    the governments and people of the region about major changes that must
    be made in a wide range of activities if salmon recovery is to be
    successful. Second, the Service did not provide American Rivers with
    the draft All H paper, or other Service documents relating to the
    evaluation of the lower Snake River dams, in advance of the Federal
    Caucus or other regional interest groups. While American Rivers is an
    important participant in the regional debate on these issues, the
    Service does not consider them to be more important than other
    organizations, governments, and people in the region who have much at
    stake.
        The draft All H paper is now being revised and comments received on
    the draft from all stakeholders are an important consideration in
    revising the document. Ongoing scientific analyses also play a key role
    in the debate and the decisions that must be made to recover salmon.
    These analyses will be incorporated into the revised All H paper. The
    Service will not have a policy position on dam breaching or on the
    other options for salmon recovery until the All H process is completed.
        The Service did develop preliminary technical recommendations about
    the effects of the four hydropower alternatives in the Corps of
    Engineers' Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility
    Report/Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on resident and anadromous
    fish and terrestrial resources in the area of the four lower Snake
    River dams. The preliminary recommendations were included in the
    Service's draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (FWCAR) which
    was released to the public in mid-December, 1999, as an appendix to the
    Corps of Engineers' DEIS. The FWCAR contained a preliminary technical
    assessment that the natural river drawdown alternative was the most
    likely alternative to improve conditions for fish and wildlife
    resources in the area of the four lower Snake River dams.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service did not share its technical
    recommendations on dam breaching and the other alternatives with
    American Rivers before the draft FWCAR was released in mid-December.
    However, a standard procedure in the development of FWCARs includes
    wide distribution of drafts to fish and wildlife agencies and tribes. A
    preliminary draft FWCAR provided in June, 1999, contained projections
    of benefits of the various alternatives to fish and wildlife, but did
    not include the Service's preliminary technical recommendation.
    However, the June draft projected many more benefits to fish and
    wildlife in the area of the Snake river dams in the long-term from the
    natural river drawdown alternative than from the other alternatives.
    While the June draft was only provided to fish and wildlife managers
    and tribes, it resulted in widespread knowledge of the Service
    assessment of the relative benefits of the alternatives. Therefore,
    although the Service did not directly provide American Rivers with the
    preliminary draft FWCAR, they may have received the information through
    other sources.
        Beginning in July, the Service directly provided the preliminary
    draft to the Federal agencies involved in the Federal Caucus for
    internal review and comment as an appendix to the Corps of Engineers'
    preliminary DEIS. In November 1999 our final draft FWCAR was submitted
    to the Corps of Engineers for incorporation into the DEIS. The Service
    not only shared drafts of the FWCAR with the other Federal agencies but
    had numerous discussions and briefings with them on the contents of the
    FWCAR.

                                 CASPIAN TERNS

        An Environmental Assessment released by the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers in January revealed that Caspian terms consume an estimated
    1.6 million threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead and nest on
    islands near the Columbia River estuary. Because of efforts begun by
    the Corps of Engineers last year to move terns from the area, an
    estimated 77 percent of the salmon species previously consumed by terns
    in that area are expected to return to the river at the end of their
    life cycle. Yet, it appears that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service does
    not consider the effort to control terns to be an agency priority.
        According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, its ability to
    address the impact of terns on salmon smolt survival is limited without
    the active involvement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service given the
    agency's jurisdiction over this migratory bird species.
        Question. Can you explain the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
    policy with regard to the terns and what plans the agency has for
    providing a long-term strategy to control the terns.
        Answer. The Service believes a phased relocation of the terns from
    Rice Island to East Sand Island would be a successful and appropriately
    proportional response to addressing the effects of tern predation on
    salmon recovery. This action provides a measurable benefit to short-
    term recovery efforts and successfully addresses National Marine
    Fisheries Service's goal of significantly reducing tern predation on
    smolts. The Service has provided technical assistance regarding
    Migratory Bird Treaty Act issues relative to the Caspian Tern
    relocation effort and served as an active member on the interagency
    Caspian Tern Working Group (CTWG) since 1998. In an effort to provide
    some short-term recovery benefit to listed salmonids, the CTWG
    developed a strategy to translocate the terns nesting on Rice Island to
    East Sand Island. The 1999 pilot relocation effort demonstrated that
    this colony relocation would result in a 40 percent reduction in losses
    of smolts to tern predation. This is a significant reduction in
    predation.
        The Service supported the 2000 relocation project by funding and
    implementing habitat restoration on East Sand Island to facilitate the
    relocation effort. The Service issued a Migratory Bird Treaty Act
    Depredation Permit for a limited take of tern eggs as part of a
    comprehensive effort to discourage terns from recolonizing Rice Island.
    As of mid-April, over 5,000 terns had settled on East Sand Island, a
    significant increase in the new colony compared to the 2,400 birds
    relocated in 1999. Currently, relocation efforts are halted as a result
    of a court issued temporary restraining order in response to a suit
    filed by the National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Seattle
    Audubon Society, and American Bird Conservancy.
        While the Service will continue to support the relocation of terns
    to East Sand Island, the Service believes salmon recovery efforts
    should be refocused on long-term goals to reduce other more substantial
    sources of smolt mortality. The Service recommends that the Corps and
    NMFS prepare a comprehensive assessment that addresses all the factors
    that influence salmon survival. This assessment will allow managers to
    focus efforts on actions that will have the most significant benefit
    for salmon restoration.

                    FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REORGANIZATION

        The Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed a reorganization of its
    Washington, D.C. office. Though I am inclined to support this
    reorganization, this Committee has not yet approved the proposal.
        At the same time, the Audubon Society is proposing that the
    Division of Refuges be removed entirely from the Fish and Wildlife
    Service and be established as a separate bureau within the Department.
        Question. What are the merits of the reorganization proposed by the
    Fish and Wildlife Service? Would the reorganization enhance the voice
    of the refuge system within the Service?
        Answer. The Service's proposed Washington Office reorganization
    will address national workload issues and strengthen management focus
    on key programs. The reorganization will more effectively manage
    programs with states; promote greater visibility and leadership for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System; consolidate habitat protection
    programs; and increase oversight of Federal Aid programs. The Refuge
    programs will have a dedicated Assistant Director, rather than an
    Assistant Director with additional responsibilities for land
    acquisition, Migratory Bird Management, and North American Waterfowl
    and Wetlands programs, as was the case with the predecessor
    organization.
        The Service is also implementing a complementary reorganization of
    its Regional Offices, that will enhance the changes being made in
    headquarters. These reorganizations will raise the visibility and
    stature of the National Wildlife Refuge System, give more attention to
    the important functions of Migratory Bird and Federal Aid programs, and
    continue to recognize the critical roles of Fisheries and Ecological
    Services. These organizational changes will provide a stable foundation
    from which the Service can focus on their resource mission, enhance the
    voice of the refuge system, and support all programs in a manner that
    will ensure a strong conservation heritage for the nation.
        Question. What are your thoughts about the Audubon proposal?
        Answer. The Service strongly opposes the Audubon Society's
    recommendation to establish a separate agency for the Refuge System.
    This recommendation would have the opposite effect of that envisioned
    by Audubon. It would seriously weaken the Refuge System. The Refuge
    System and other programs within the Service share the common goal of
    conserving the nation's fish and wildlife resources for the continuing
    benefit of the American people. The Service provides many specialized
    capabilities ranging from migratory bird, endangered species, and
    fisheries management to wildlife law enforcement and contaminants
    management that compliment Refuge System programs. The Refuge System
    cannot operate effectively in isolation and the interaction and synergy
    among the various programs within the Service is a source of strength
    for the System. Separating these efforts would not only reduce resource
    management effectiveness but would also result in loss of efficiencies
    as duplicate administrative systems would need to be developed for the
    Service and the new refuge agency.
        The Refuge System is prominent within the Fish and Wildlife Service
    and the Service continues to work diligently to improve it. Not only is
    nearly 40 percent of the Resource Management budget devoted to the
    annual operation and maintenance of the Refuge System but also 65
    percent of the Service's other appropriated funds (primarily
    Construction and Land Acquisition funds), and an additional $42 million
    from the Migratory Bird Conservation Account are also devoted to the
    Refuge System. The Service has consistently considered the needs of the
    Refuge System as budgets are developed, as policy development is
    pursued, and as legislative priorities are attended to.

                            Bureau of Indian Affairs

                              SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

        The Administration requests $300.5 million for school construction
    for fiscal year 2001. This is a 126 percent increase. I am encouraged
    by the Administration's decision to focus significant resources on BIA
    school replacement, which is an area in dire need.
        Question. This is a significant portion of the Department's fiscal
    year 2001 request. How does this fall within your priorities for fiscal
    year 2001?
        Answer. Eradicating the serious health and safety deficiencies that
    afflict the 185 BIA-funded schools is one of the Department's top
    priorities. As of January 2000, the estimated cost to repair and
    improve BIA's education facilities was more than $800 million. To
    address this significant backlog, BIA's fiscal year 2001 education
    construction budget is the largest ever requested--$167.3 million over
    the fiscal year 2000 funding level, an increase of 126 percent. This
    request would fund replacement of six schools that have structural and
    code deficiencies which threaten student safety and are not equipped
    with modern educational tools. This request would also fund maintenance
    and major and minor repair projects to address critical health and
    safety concerns and reduce the significant repair backlog. The fiscal
    year 2001 budget represents a commitment to ensuring that American
    Indian youth have adequate educational facilities in which to obtain
    the skills necessary to succeed in the 21st Century.

                             CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        There appears to be a big difference in the budget request this
    year between BIA and the Indian Health Service. BIA requested an
    increase of $8 million for contract support costs while the Indian
    Health Service requested an increase of $40 million.
        Question. Are you aware of why there is such a large difference in
    the requests? And if so, why is there such a large difference?
        Answer. Both IHS and BIA requested additional contract support
    funding for fiscal year 2001 to help Tribes administer contracted
    programs efficiently and effectively. Contract support is essential to
    ensuring Tribes have the resources necessary to build strong and stable
    tribal governments and exercise their authority as sovereign nations.
        The IHS request for an additional $40 million for contract support
    costs is needed to provide for new assumptions of IHS programs under
    self determination agreements and to increase contract support payments
    for existing contracts. The BIA's request for an additional $8.2
    million in contract support funding will meet approximately 100 percent
    of eligible costs for new contracts and approximately 88 percent for
    existing contracts. The difference in the funding levels requested by
    IHS and BIA is due to the number and costs of new and expanded
    contracts that each agency expects during 2001.

                       OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE AND BIA

                                  TRUST REFORM

        Question. The federal government has been severely criticized,
    especially in recent years, about its ability to properly adhere to its
    trust responsibilities owed to American Indians. Last year you
    indicated that your number one priority for appropriations was the
    Office of the Special Trustee. Is this still your top priority for
    fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The reforms in this area continue to be the Secretary's
    highest management priority for the Department. The combined OST and
    BIA budget requests reflect the continued emphasis the Administration
    places on implementation of Indian Trust Asset Reform efforts and the
    resources needed to sustain the operational and organizational
    improvements initiated in previous years. Improvements in systems,
    operations and policies are critically needed to ensure the Federal
    Government meets its fiduciary obligations to Indian tribes and
    individual American Indians. New systems linking the management of
    underlying trust assets and the financial accounts are expected to
    begin operations in late 2000 to ensure that collections and payments
    are accurate.

                                  COBELL CASE

        Question. At the hearing yesterday, Mr. Thompson testified that
    litigation responsibilities connected to the Cobell case have taken up
    a significant amount of time and resources of the Office of the Special
    Trustee. How have demands generating from the Cobell litigation
    affected the Department of the Interior as a whole?
        Answer. The Department has dedicated significant funding and
    staffing resources to meet litigation responsibilities connected to the
    Cobell case. For example, as of August 31, 2000, the Department has
    spent over $14 million on the Five Named Plaintiffs Document
    Production. In addition, employees have been dedicated to meeting the
    wide array of responsibilities in the Cobell case from across the
    Department in the Office of the Secretary, Office of the Special
    Trustee, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Minerals Management Service, United
    States Geological Survey, Office of the Solicitor, Office of Hearings
    and Appeals, and the Bureau of Land Management. The major
    responsibilities include the following: Five Named Plaintiffs Document
    Production; meeting the Special Master's requests; responding to a
    temporary restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction to
    prevent the move of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Office of Information
    Resources Management from Albuquerque, New Mexico to Reston, Virginia;
    responding to the Special Master's judicial inquiry into Plaintiffs'
    allegations about the preparation of a declaration by a Department
    official; responding to Plaintiffs' motion for an order to show cause
    that alleges violation of the Court's anti-retaliation order;
    implementing initiatives to remedy the four Court-identified breaches
    of trust; preparing quarterly reports to the Court on the actions taken
    to correct problems related to the Federal government's trust
    responsibilities; and, implementing the trust reform initiatives as
    established in the High Level Implementation Plan. Employees dedicated
    to this effort are often fully involved in their regular duties and
    then are required to assist in trial preparation and document searches.
    Staff is working overtime to meet the wide-ranging demands of the
    Cobell litigation.

                            OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

                             ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE

        Question. You state several times in your budget justification that
    your costs are rising faster than you can compensate. In fiscal year
    2000 you estimate a level of 312 FTEs. Having six separate divisions to
    manage so few people seems excessive. Couldn't you consolidate some of
    these divisions and save money?
        Answer. For several decades, the headquarters of the Office of the
    Solicitor has been organized along subject matter lines, through
    divisions. Four of the divisions--Indian Affairs, Land and Water
    Resources, Mineral Resources, and Parks and Wildlife--serve the
    distinct and sometime conflicting missions of the Department's eight
    bureaus. A fifth division, General Law, provides legal services to the
    Secretariat and all the bureaus on cross-cutting issues such as
    personnel, equal employment opportunity, ethics, Freedom of Information
    Act, Privacy Act, tort claims, and intellectual property. A sixth
    division, Administration, provides non-legal support services to the
    Office as a whole, and with the exception of the Associate Solicitor,
    is not staffed by lawyers.
        The rationale for this organization has been the strong belief,
    held through many different Administrations, that it is the most
    efficient form of organization to deliver legal services to the
    Department. Among other things, it is perceived to provide an
    appropriate balance between serving the different individual clients
    and missions in the Department, and responding to the needs of the
    Secretary and the Department as a whole. While this assumption is
    periodically reexamined, it has for a long time been the belief of both
    career and political officials in the Office that moving away from the
    subject matter divisions through some form of a consolidation would not
    be in the Department's best interests.
        That is not to say that the organization and content of these
    divisions has remained static. Within that general framework, Office
    management has periodically evaluated the effectiveness of its
    organizational structure. Over the last several years we have made a
    number of significant changes to division and branch alignments for
    greater efficiency. Responding to changes in workload priorities and
    staffing levels, some smaller branches have been consolidated into
    larger branches. Less often, larger branches have been divided into
    smaller branches. Some workload has been shifted from one branch to
    another. One large and one small division were substantially realigned
    into two divisions of equivalent size. Division management structures
    were also streamlined, by eliminating stand-alone Deputy Associate
    Solicitor positions in five of the six divisions. Now the Deputies
    manage one of the branches in these divisions, as well as serving as
    the Deputy Associate Solicitor.
        While we are not complacent, we think we have already put sensible
    organizational changes in place that have brought improved efficiencies
    in our operations. We continue to believe that a major consolidation of
    divisions would not lead to further efficiencies, but likely would have
    the opposite effect.
        Question. Why is it necessary to have 19 separate locations for 312
    FTEs?
        Answer. All of our field and regional offices are in locations
    where there are large offices of one or more of our client agencies,
    e.g., Anchorage (National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service),
    Albuquerque (Bureau of Indian Affairs), Knoxville (Office of Surface
    Mining), and Billings (Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of
    Reclamation). Like the organization of the Washington office, there has
    long been a consensus belief that this organizational structure in the
    field is the most efficient way to deliver legal services to our client
    agencies.
        Over the last several years, Office management has made a number of
    efficiency-oriented changes to this regional and field office
    structure. We currently have 7 regional offices and 11 field offices,
    down from 8 regional offices and 13 field offices a decade ago. (The
    distinction between regional and field offices is primarily one of
    size; the smaller field offices are organizationally located under the
    regional offices for budgeting and management purposes, but they
    coordinate directly with Washington, D.C., on substantive issues when
    appropriate.) Some offices have grown in size in response to workload
    changes, while others have shrunk. One regional office was changed to a
    field office. Two field offices were closed altogether. One field
    office was merged into an existing regional office. The reporting
    relationship of a number of field offices was changed.
        As this record shows, we have not hesitated to close field offices
    where efficiency improvements and money savings could be demonstrated.
    We have looked carefully at closing additional field offices, but we
    have concluded that it would not be cost-effective to do so. Again,
    while we are not complacent, we think we have already undertaken the
    reorganizations that make sense.
        Were we to close any additional offices, we would incur substantial
    costs in relocating staff from the field office to its regional office,
    paying severance costs for staff who did not relocate, and moving the
    newly consolidated office to larger quarters. These costs would far
    exceed the first-year savings that would result from the consolidation
    and would therefore require an increased appropriation. Our offices are
    located where they are in order to best serve the client bureaus within
    each office's geographic areas. Closing an office would necessitate
    increased travel expenditures by staff in other locations to serve the
    needs of the clients in the closed office's location.
        Question. If we approve the additional 19 FTEs, would you need
    additional locations and if so, why?
        Answer. The 19 positions we are seeking to convert from client
    funding to the Office's appropriation are already distributed among our
    various offices. They do not represent new positions. They would not
    require any additional locations. The attorneys who already occupy
    those positions would simply receive their funding from the Office,
    rather than from the bureaus.
        Question. What additional costs would there be and how will you pay
    them?
        Answer. There would be no additional costs to the Department as a
    whole. Existing costs would merely be shifted from bureau funding to
    Office funding.
        Question. How much money would you save if you reduced your number
    of locations to 10?
        Answer. For the reasons explained above, we would significantly
    increase our costs if we consolidated 9 existing offices into the
    remaining 10, especially over the next few years. Some duplication of
    rental space, library resources, equipment, and support staff could
    potentially be eliminated, but the savings would not be significant.
    For example, if we closed virtually all of our field offices, we would
    have to increase the space of our regional offices to accommodate the
    displaced staff, ending up with almost as much total square footage as
    we have now; yet our regional offices are generally located in larger
    cities with higher rents. Moreover, most regional offices would likely
    not have room to expand in existing quarters, and would have to move to
    find additional space and possibly pay even higher rental rates.
    Shipping furniture, equipment, and files from the closed field offices
    to the regional offices, and moving the regional offices to larger
    facilities, would themselves be very costly. Unless we were to separate
    all of our field office staff through a reduction in force--at a great
    cost of expertise and experience--we also would have to pay relocation
    costs. We might be able to reduce the number of network file servers
    and fax machines; but we would still need the same number of desks,
    computers, filing cabinets, and telephones for 30 attorneys in one
    location as we currently need for 30 attorneys in 2 or 3 locations.

                       FISCAL YEAR 2001 PROGRAM INCREASE

        Question. In fiscal year 1992 we gave you an additional 12 FTEs,
    now you want another 19. Why do you think that an additional 19 FTEs
    will provide the Office a ``deal of self-sufficiency?''
        Answer. The Office's workload has increased substantially since
    1992, in nearly every area. Our client bureaus are requiring more legal
    services than we can provide with just our own appropriation. This has
    led the bureaus to fund a growing number of positions in the Office. By
    transferring these 19 positions to the Office's appropriation, we will
    reduce our dependency on client funding and thereby regain lost self-
    sufficiency.
        Question. Will this be enough?
        Answer. In formulating our fiscal year 2001 budget request, we
    reviewed all of our client-funded positions, with specific criteria in
    mind. We excluded situations in which we have detailed an employee to a
    bureau for a term-limited assignment. There are a handful of these
    arrangements in place at any given time; typically, one of our
    attorneys is asked by the client to serve in some acting capacity in
    their offices. We also excluded positions associated with discrete
    legal projects that will have a definite end to them. These include
    work on the Presidio that is now winding down, the South Florida
    restoration project that is in mid-stream, and the major Indian trust
    fund reform effort that is likely to continue for some years. That left
    us with 19 positions that we determined had evolved over time into
    indefinite arrangements, with no end in sight to the associated
    workload. It is this group of 19 positions that we believe should be
    converted to Office funding.
        Question. In your justification you state that ``Client funding may
    exert subtle pressures to tell the client what it wants to hear rather
    then to provide objective legal advice.'' I find this to be a very
    disturbing statement. Are you really saying that the lawyers paid with
    agency funds are afraid they won't get paid if they don't tell the
    agency what it wants to hear?
        Answer. The statement in our budget justification was not intended
    to suggest that clients will pull funding for individual attorneys if
    they don't like the legal advice given. The concern is more general, at
    the institutional level. Congress made a specific decision back in 1946
    to establish a separate Solicitor's Office within the Department. We
    believe the principal basis for this decision was that there should be
    a central law office independent of the individual clients and bureaus.
    Congress did not, in other words, envision each client agency having
    its own ``in-house'' counsel. We move away from that congressional
    model of an independent central law office the more we staff it with
    individual lawyers paid for by the clients. While the pressures are
    subtle, relating primarily to work priorities rather than outcomes,
    client agencies who are funding individual attorneys in our Office
    inevitably come to believe they are entitled to special deference. The
    undermining of the Office's independence is particularly problematical
    when attorneys representing different bureaus are seeking to reconcile
    conflicting positions among those bureaus in order to develop a unified
    departmental position.
        Question. It should make no difference who pays, everyone has
    subtle pressures placed upon them. If this logic follows then they
    probably could not deal with the subtle pressures your office would
    place upon them. Perhaps the problem is not with the lawyers but the
    terms of your agreements. If the lawyers were assured of payment no
    matter the outcome--where's the problem?
        Answer. Please see the answer to the previous question.
        Question. If it's a reimbursable agreement, doesn't the money come
    to you and you disburse it?
        Answer. Reimbursable accounts are established for each client-
    funded position. The costs of that position are billed to the bureau
    through the reimbursable account.
        Question. As for your statement regarding ability to pay, it makes
    one wonder if your office has a problem determining how to set
    priorities. If you know that some agencies have funds available to pay
    doesn't that enable you to use your base funding for the agencies that
    don't have funds available?
        Answer. In each reimbursable situation, we have already been
    providing the client bureau with a certain level of legal services,
    using our appropriated funds. The client has then come to us with a
    specific additional need. If we cannot meet that need within our
    existing resources, the client has offered to pay for a new legal
    position, to be filled by hiring an additional attorney on a term basis
    to meet the specific need that has been identified. Consistent with the
    reimbursable agreement, we cannot simply take the client's funding,
    apply it to existing positions already filled, and use the money
    previously devoted to those positions to perform work for some other
    bureau.

                        OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

                                  ORGANIZATION

        Question. You have fourteen locations for an estimated 265 FTEs. I
    know that you have been directed to have a presence at some locations.
    However, isn't there still some way to consolidate your locations and
    save money?
        Answer. Fourteen locations actually result in cost savings. By
    placing staff where the audit and investigative work is we save in
    travel costs. Indirectly, we also enhance staff productivity by
    eliminating time spent on the road--not to mention the intangible
    benefit of continuous, on-site working relationships with Bureau
    personnel and local U.S. Attorneys and oversight of Bureau operations
    and activities.
        Question. In fiscal year 2000 you have an increase of 17 FTEs above
    your fiscal year 1999 actual level, and twelve of the 17 are grades 13
    and higher. Why are most of the increases in the upper grades including
    three senior executives?
        Answer. Three vacant SES positions have been filled in fiscal year
    2000. The Deputy IG position had been vacant for almost 5 years, the
    General Counsel position had been vacant for 1\1/2\ years, and the
    Assistant Inspector General for Investigations hire replaced the
    retiring AIGI. Other upper grades have been advertised/filled to gain
    specialized skills for the new Special Inquiries Unit in Washington,
    D.C., which was established, in large part, to improve our
    responsiveness to Congressional inquiries and requests. Finally, the
    new IG felt it was important to bring some outside experienced managers
    to revitalize staff and bring new vision to the mission of the OIG and
    how we might better meet the needs and expectations of our customers.

                                     AUDITS

        Question. You state that in fiscal year 1999 your discretionary
    audits made up only 13 percent of your direct audit staff time. Will
    five additional FTEs bring you to an appropriate staffing level? And
    what percentage of discretionary audits do you want to achieve?
        Answer. The request for five additional auditors is the first part
    of a 5-year ``glide-up'' Human Resources Staffing Plan to return to the
    fiscal year 1994 level of staffing (171 FTEs) and audit workload
    performance (34 percent of our direct audit staff time devoted to
    discretionary audits).
        Question. Do you have the same arrangement as the Office of the
    Solicitor (SOL) for the agencies to pay for your services? If not,
    would that be feasible?
        Answer. The OIG cannot be compared to the SOL. Historically, we
    have funded our audit and investigative services through our annual
    appropriations, with very limited exceptions. Due to the increasing
    financial strain of conducting audits of the individual Bureau
    financial statements, however, we are seeking reimbursement in fiscal
    year 2000 (and beyond) for these CFO-related audit activities that are
    not required by law.
          natural resource damage assessment and restoration handbook
        You are using an interdisciplinary team to develop a Restoration
    handbook. This handbook will address how to handle a variety of issues
    and obstacles concerning planning (NEPA) and implementation.
        Question. Which agencies have members on your team?
        Answer. Members on the team include the: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of
    Reclamation, Solicitor's Office, and the Office of Environmental Policy
    and Compliance. Technical assistance is provided to the team by the
    U.S. Geological Survey, and assistance on economics is provided by the
    Office of Policy Analysis.
        You state that this will be the first standardized document to
    guide the Interior bureaus in restoration activities.
        Question. Who will be involved in the peer review of this handbook?
    If it's not being peer reviewed-why not?
        Answer. The restoration handbook draws on the multi-disciplinary
    expertise of the FWS, BOR, BLM, and NPS. So essentially, it is being
    peer-reviewed as it is drafted. Upon completion of the draft, the
    entire package will be reviewed by the Department's land managing
    bureaus and the Office of the Solicitor. We will also request outside
    review by other trustee agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and
    NOAA.

                               DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

        Question. Please explain the new process you have implemented for
    screening and ranking your projects.
        Answer. The revised process for evaluating project proposals
    prioritizes cases based on the likelihood of success in achieving
    restoration and by demonstrating technical, administrative and legal
    merit. The system is designed to:
        (a) Be inclusive of all resources under DOI trusteeship and trustee
    roles (i.e. Interior lands, trust species, and tribal interests).
        (b) Provide a process that encourages thorough planning and
    enhanced opportunities for restoration.
        (c) Provide a process that evaluates both objective and subjective
    aspects of individual cases.
        (d) Fund cases that have demonstrated sufficient technical and
    legal merit, trustee organization and readiness.
        The funding request features four tiers of questions that require
    increasing levels of case-specific information. The ability to answer
    these increasingly detailed levels of questions is used as an indicator
    of a case's readiness and potential for successful outcomes.
        (1) Threshold Questions--are used to determine whether sufficient
    information has been gathered to warrant further consideration of the
    potential case.
        (2) Screening Questions--are used to provide more detailed, factual
    information on technical, administrative and legal merits of a case.
        (3) Qualifying Questions--are used for a more in-depth, qualitative
    evaluation of the technical, administrative and legal merits of a case.
        (4) On-going Case questions--are used to evaluate the progress of
    ongoing cases to identify appropriate adjustments and changes in timing
    and case strategy.
        All submitted proposals are evaluated, ranked and scored on the
    basis of the four criteria identified in (d) above, and then are
    recommended for funding approval (to the extent funds are available) by
    the Restoration Program's Work Group. All final allocations are
    approved by the Program's Executive Board.

                               PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

        You state you are developing a Restoration Program database.
    Databases are often very expensive to populate and maintain.
        Question. How much is your database going to cost?
        Answer. We do not currently have a estimate of the costs of
    developing our database. The Restoration Program is aware of the
    potential for high costs to populate and maintain such a system.
    However, due to limited funding we are taking a very measured approach.
    To the greatest extent possible, we are utilizing existing personnel,
    and plan to house the data in an existing data management system. Data
    for the prototype is currently being developed by field practitioners,
    while quality control will be provided by our regional coordinators.
    Additionally, where possible we are utilizing data already collected by
    others to build a limited prototype.
        Question. Will this database be tied to the different bureaus'
    databases?
        Answer. We envision that our database will be tied in some fashion
    to other existing databases.. Our database will become part of the
    Environmental Conservation On-line System (ECOS) data management system
    developed and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This will
    allow us to relate our data to a variety of other contaminant and
    natural resource databases and display it on a geographical basis.
    Currently, the ECOS system contains data from a variety of sources
    including the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Geological Survey. This
    list will expand as the system is further developed. By utilizing this
    system we will be able to immediately access and relate our data to
    these other data. We are also working with the Department of Justice to
    link with their data so that common fields will not be duplicated.
        Question. How will it be maintained?
        Answer. We are currently in discussions with the Fish and Wildlife
    Service to provide funding to them to operate and maintain our
    database. As they currently have the need and expertise to develop and
    maintain their larger system, efficiencies will be gained by
    ``piggybacking'' onto their data management capabilities.
        Question. Who will have access to it?
        Answer. Currently the database is being developed to be used
    primarily in-house, by practitioners and managers. Some of the data
    fields will be a matter of public record while others will be
    litigation sensitive. As part of the prototype we are looking into
    questions of appropriate accessibility and protection for portions of
    the database.

                          MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

                        OIL VALUATION--RECENT COURT CASE

        The D.C. Federal District Court ruled against the Minerals
    Management Service last week with respect to whether natural gas
    producers have a ``duty to market'' the federal share of production at
    no cost to the government.
        Question. What, if any, impact will this decision have on the new
    oil valuation regulations which the agency issued on March 15?
        Answer. The Departments of the Interior and Justice are considering
    whether to appeal the decision and have already filed a motion with
    Judge Lamberth asking for clarification of certain aspects of the
    decision. Therefore, because the litigation on this issue is not over,
    it is difficult to say what impact, if any, the District Court's
    decision will have on the new oil valuation regulations. In April, the
    Independent Petroleum Association of America and the American Petroleum
    Institute have filed suit on the oil valuation rule. Notwithstanding
    the outcome of the oil rule litigation, if the District Court's
    decision on marketing stands, there would be an impact on what costs
    the lessee would be permitted to deduct for the costs of marketing
    Federal crude oil downstream from the lease. We estimate those costs
    (and the loss to the Treasury) would be between $6-$13 million
    annually.
        Question. Does the agency have any plans to suspend implementation
    of the regulations based on this ruling?
        Answer. We have no plans to suspend implementation of any of our
    regulations based on this ruling. At this time, we believe that this
    issue should be decided through the court system.
                              offsetting receipts
        Almost one half of the MMS's budget is funded through offsetting
    receipts derived from rents charged on oil and gas leases. The MMS
    budget request states that $117 million will be collected through
    offsetting receipts this year. We have heard recently that this number
    is overstated by more than $7 million.
        Question. What are the current MMS estimates of the amount of
    receipts that will be collected?
        Answer. In addition to making estimates of offsetting receipts for
    the President's Budget, we periodically update our projections of rent,
    bonus, and royalty receipts that are expected from leasing of OCS
    resources. These estimates fluctuate over time depending on a variety
    of factors that affect OCS leasing.
        Because these projections are by nature uncertain, we have to
    settle on an estimate early in the year and use that estimate for
    planning. For the Administration's budget purposes our current estimate
    of offsetting collections is the $117 million submitted by the
    Administration in its fiscal year 2001 budget. The $117 million
    includes the proposal for $10 million in new fees.
        Question. How would MMS absorb a $7 million reduction in funding if
    the projections are now, in fact, lower?
        Answer. If a shortfall materializes for fiscal year 2000, Congress
    has granted us the authority to utilize receipts from the $3 per acre
    rents to make up the difference. If a shortfall were to occur in fiscal
    year 2001, we would spread the impact among all MMS programs; for
    instance, delaying implementation of the Royalty Reengineering
    Initiative, and reducing helicopters used to support the inspection of
    offshore facilities.
        The agency's budget request also claims a $10 million credit for
    ``user fees''. No more explanation is provided. This proposal has yet
    to be sent to Congress.
        Question. What can you tell us about the specifics of this
    proposal?
        Answer. MMS is exploring possible options that could be used to
    generate new receipts to address any potential shortfall in offsetting
    collections, so as not to adversely affect MMS's operating budget. Our
    goal is to identify possible charges or fees that could generate
    sufficient amounts to offset potential shortfalls, without adversely
    affecting leasing and development of OCS oil and gas. To establish a
    new revenue source designed to maintain a consistent level of
    offsetting receipts, we believe that legislation may be needed to
    authorize the Department to establish and retain a new type of fee.
    Currently, MMS is discussing several possible new fees with the
    Department and the Office of Management and Budget.
        Question. When will you send this proposal to the Committees of
    Jurisdiction?
        Answer. Currently MMS is discussing possible new user fees with
    both the Department and the Office of Management and Budget. When those
    discussions are completed, MMS will prepare and forward the necessary
    proposed legislative proposal to the Congress.
        Question. Is it sound policy to increase operating costs on oil
    companies which will be passed on to consumers when gas prices are so
    high?
        Answer. The Department believes that any proposed fee would have
    little or no effect on the price of oil or gas since the total cost of
    production will be affected only negligibly.

                                 DUTY TO MARKET

        Question. If a legal determination is made that producers have no
    duty to market at no cost to the government, what would the impact be
    on MMS's estimate that it would collect an additional $66 million
    dollars with its new oil valuation rules?
        Answer. We estimate the annual costs of marketing Federal crude oil
    production at between $6-$13 million.

                                OFFSHORE LEASES

        The agency recently granted suspensions on a number of leases off
    the coast of California. The state has sued claiming that this decision
    is subject to the Coastal Zone Management Act.
        Question. What would the impact be on the agency if such decisions
    were subject to the CZMA? Is this the first instance in which a state
    has made such a claim?
        Answer. The MMS approves suspensions of operations (SOO) and
    suspensions of production (SOP) to allow more time for activities that
    are the subject of the suspension to occur. We do not believe that
    suspensions are subject to consistency review. A suspension is not a
    Federal license/permit, as it does not license any activity or
    constitute a permit for any activity. Even if a suspension was found to
    be a license or permit, CZMA exempts application for other permits
    necessary to conduct activities described in an approved OCS
    exploration or development and production plan from further state
    consistency review.
        If consistency review were required for MMS suspensions, the
    increased workload and time would adversely affect MMS, as well as
    coastal states and OCS operators. The MMS approves suspensions in all
    regions of the OCS; in 1999, MMS approved five SOOs and 92 SOPs on the
    OCS in the Gulf of Mexico Region. MMS's administrative costs associated
    with running these 97 suspensions through a multi-state federal
    consistency review would be high. For coastal states, it is not clear
    that their coastal management programs have the capacity and resources
    to handle the increased paperwork and staff time associated with
    consistency review. In addition, OCS operators would have to bear costs
    associated with a three to six month consistency review delay.
        Such costs would be understandable if there was a need to protect
    coastal land, water use, and natural resources from activities
    associated with MMS suspensions. Because suspensions delay activities
    instead of permitting them, there will be no value added for the added
    administrative burden that a consistency review would bring.
        To our knowledge, this is the first instance in which a state has
    made such a claim. Until the recent California suspensions, coastal
    states have not asserted that the suspensions required federal
    consistency review. In fact, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, MMS
    approved numerous suspensions for the undeveloped leases on the
    California OCS. All of the operators of the remaining 36 California OCS
    leases had received more than one granted suspension without the state
    ever suggesting that a federal consistency review was required.
        Question. When is production expected from these leases? What are
    the estimates for the amount of federal royalties that will be
    received?
        Answer. Currently, there are 11 known oil and gas fields underlying
    the 36 undeveloped leases. Three of these fields can be developed from
    existing facilities, which means that production from these fields
    could begin as early as 2002. The remaining eight fields would require
    new platforms for development, so production might begin no sooner than
    2007. An exploratory well is scheduled for 2002 and could result in
    discovery of another field.
        The recoverable oil and gas reserves from the discovered fields
    underlying the 36 leases is estimated to total 1.091 billion barrels of
    oil and 578.502 billion cubic feet of gas. Assuming future prices of
    $17 per barrel for oil and $2.50 per thousand cubic feet of gas
    (derived from EIA and other projections), Federal royalties from
    producing these reserves could total $3 billion over the life of the
    fields. Please note that this $3 billion projection is a gross estimate
    (not discounted over time) based on a single price assumption that does
    not take into account different start-up times for production, price
    growth, or inflation during the life of operations.

                              ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT

        Recently, an employee of the agency pleaded guilty to embezzling
    MMS funds. The Inspector General concluded that the MMS had weak
    internal controls.
        Question. Has an independent review been conducted and
    recommendations made by outside auditors to fix the problem? What other
    steps is the agency taking to correct this problem?
        Answer. Initially, the Department's auditors reviewed MMS's finance
    and control processes. Currently, MMS is using the services of KPMG to
    perform an independent review of our financial processes and controls.
    Recommendations will follow KPMG's review.
        MMS staff discovered the embezzlement during reconciliation of the
    bureau's administrative operating accounts. MMS staff compiled the
    initial evidence provided to the Inspector General's investigators and
    cooperated with them to obtain further documentation.
        The embezzlement scheme involved funds about to be returned to the
    Treasury from expiring appropriations. The individual responsible for
    ensuring that these funds were correctly returned to Treasury felt that
    she could defeat the existing checks and balances. No system or
    procedure gave the embezzler the authority to approve and make payments
    without the proper documentation to indicate a legitimate expense to
    the MMS. Instead, the embezzler created false records to conceal her
    actions and make it appear that legitimate expenditures were being
    made. She was able to accomplish these actions by illicitly obtaining
    the passwords and system authorities of other employees. This made it
    appear that the payments were being ordered and verified by two
    separate people. No other MMS employees were culpable in this theft.
        A number of steps have been taken to prevent this event from
    occurring again. Immediately upon discovering the likelihood of
    embezzlement, the passwords and authorities of the suspected employee
    were revoked. This included her access to the building in which she had
    been working as well as her access to files and systems.
        At the same time, the passwords of all other employees in the
    finance organization were changed and their authorities to take actions
    in the accounting system were temporarily curtailed pending a more
    detailed review of any possible overlaps. The more detailed review has
    been completed and authorities necessary to the conduct of regular
    business have been restored to finance organization employees.
        Other steps taken included the reassignment of the lead accountant
    and the establishment of an interagency task force to review and
    reconcile MMS accounts. The Inspector General's auditors have been key
    participants in the review of all of our processes. Finally, we have
    engaged a nationally known public accounting firm to provide a further
    review of the finance processes and controls.
        As the Inspector General was quoted as saying in a February 19,
    2000 Washington Post article on this incident, ``the system has been
    fixed'' and the embezzlement ``would not happen today.''

                             REENGINEERING EFFORTS

        The agency's budget proposes a large increase in fiscal year 2001,
    as it did last year, to support its reengineering efforts.
        Question. How is this effort proceeding? Are any unexpected
    problems arising? When is deployment planned if the increase is
    provided?
        Answer. The reengineering effort continues to advance as planned. A
    favorable contract for design and implementation of the new RMP
    financial system was awarded to Andersen Consulting in September 1999.
    Andersen recommended a commercial-off-the-shelf package, called
    PeopleSoft Financials for Government and Education, for the project.
    With the requested fiscal year 2001 funding for the reengineering
    initiative (which is unchanged from our fiscal year 2000 request), we
    will be able to deploy the new RMP financial system in September 2001.
        Major milestones to date include hardware and software acquisition,
    final definition of user requirements, an initial fit analysis which
    matches PeopleSoft capability with RMP requirements, and completion of
    Conference Room Pilots. PeopleSoft capability closely matches our
    defined requirements, which will keep the amount of custom code within
    an acceptable range. To date all critical milestones have been met as
    scheduled and we do not foresee any deviations from established
    schedules. General and detailed designs will be completed this summer
    after which the project focus will shift to coding, testing, data
    conversion and implementation. While an effort of this magnitude is
    challenging as we define requirements, resolve issues and adjust
    processes to fit the new PeopleSoft based environment, we haven't
    encountered any unexpected problems that would alter project plans or
    objectives. We are also engaging Andersen Consulting to design, develop
    and implement our reengineered compliance and asset management process
    (CAMP). Requirements are in the process of being analyzed and the
    scope, approach and cost associated with CAMP implementation will be
    negotiated and finalized this summer. Final contractual arrangements
    will be in place no later than September 2000, and we anticipate
    implementation concurrent with the new financial system (Sept. 2001).
        Question. To what extent have industry, states, and tribes been
    involved with the reengineering effort?
        Answer. Customer and constituency input has been gained across a
    broad front throughout the course of the reengineering effort. State
    and tribal representatives participated directly on initial
    reengineering design teams and continue to be involved through
    permanent assignment to operational model teams and the Program
    Reengineering Office. We have instituted an aggressive outreach and
    communications strategy involving regular dialogue with industry groups
    (Council of Petroleum Accountants Societies) and state and tribal
    organizations (State and Tribal Royalty Audit Committee).
        Full working partnerships have been established for operational
    models and systems development, and reporting requirement analysis
    activities. Oil and gas industry partners include Texaco, BP AMOCO, and
    Chevron. Solid mineral industry partners include Peabody, Cyprus-Amax
    (RAG America, Inc), BHP, and Kennecott. State and tribal government
    partners include Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, the
    Navajo Nation, Ute Tribe, and the Crow Tribe. As partners,
    representatives are assigned to operational model teams, review
    proposed report formats and participate in contractor led design
    sessions. These partnerships and associated outreach efforts allow us
    to jointly explore ways to exchange information and advance new
    reporting and operational procedures. RMP will continue its active
    communications strategy to fully involve industry, states and tribes
    and gain input from them as the reengineering effort progresses to
    completion and thereafter.
        Question. Will the new systems being implemented by MMS as part of
    reengineering place any burdens on stakeholders such as acquisition of
    new hardware or software? If so, what would be the cost of such
    additional resources?
        Answer. States, tribes and other Federal agencies have access to
    and exchange information with RMP on a regular basis. Existing
    hardware, software, and network configurations maintained by these
    entities to access RMP data will not be directly impacted by new RMP
    systems. RMP data and applications can be accessed by these users with
    existing desktop capabilities. We will be introducing new reporting
    formats and dialogue is underway with affected stakeholders to ensure
    that their systems can receive and process RMP supplied data. Not all
    reporting issues have been finalized, but we anticipate that changes
    will be handled by conversion programs which will translate new RMP
    formats into existing receiving agency formats.
        Industry reporting requirements will also change as modifications
    are made to royalty and production reporting formats. While there are
    no hardware related costs to industry as a result of RMP reengineering,
    we recognize there will be a minimal one time cost to industry as they
    modify their systems to accommodate new reporting changes. Reporting
    service providers that contract with payors will also have to modify
    their systems. It is impossible to gauge with complete accuracy what
    these costs might eventually be given the thousands of entities that
    report to MMS and their diverse size and systems environments. Most
    will incur little or no cost as they utilize MMS's templates. For those
    companies that do have to make software changes, we estimate that the
    cost industry-wide may total between 10 and 20 million dollars;
    however, we believe that the long-term cost savings to industry will
    significantly outweigh their system conversion costs. While it is
    difficult to estimate initial costs to industry, full implementation of
    the reengineering process will improve MMS's overall program
    performance and realize significant benefits to MMS and industry. For
    example, reducing the business cycle from 6 years to 3 or fewer will
    accelerate cash flows, improve accuracy of first reporting and payment
    of royalties, and expedite problem resolution. This will mean
    substantial dollar savings to MMS and industry. Furthermore, industry
    has repeatedly requested many of these reporting changes and recognizes
    the benefits to all parties.

                                SAND AND GRAVEL

        Last year, by statute, MMS's authority to assess fees on state and
    local governments for sand and gravel expired.
        Question. Since MMS will no longer be able to charge fees to these
    entities for ``public purpose'' projects how much does the agency
    anticipate that demand for sand and gravel will increase? How does MMS
    plan to deal with this increased demand? What are the long term funding
    needs for this program?
        Answer. Since MMS no longer has authority to assess fees for sand
    and gravel for ``public purpose'' projects, we have seen requests for
    the use of OCS sand increase substantially. We currently have requests
    that we are processing from the State of Maryland; Brevard County,
    Florida; and the community of Corson's Inlet, New Jersey. Outer
    Continental Shelf sand and gravel is also being considered as a source
    for barrier island restoration offshore Louisiana. We have a request
    for the use of Federal sand from Gulf Shores, Alabama and an indication
    of the need for OCS sand offshore Avalon-Stone Harbor, New Jersey, as
    well as a request for further cooperative work with the State of New
    Jersey offshore Monmouth-Sea Bright. In addition, the State of Florida
    has indicated its interest in establishing a coastal marine institute
    with us, the Florida Geological Survey, and the Florida State
    University to conduct sand source investigations and environmental
    studies of sites identified as potential sources of shore protection
    material. They are interested in further work in Federal waters off
    both their east and west coasts to identify quality sand for beach
    nourishment projects.
        In fiscal year 2001, MMS will initiate a study to design a pilot
    program/framework for environmentally sound management of offshore
    borrow areas along the U.S. East and Gulf of Mexico coasts. The study
    involves the design of a monitoring program to examine long-term
    cumulative effects of dredging, as well as developing options and
    recommendations for the inclusion of Federal, State, and local
    governments in an overall planning process. The study will provide
    valuable information to help MMS design an effective regional
    management strategy for OCS sand resources.
        We are in the process of evaluating the long-term needs of this
    program. Based on the current requests we have, we believe these needs
    will continue to grow in the foreseeable future.

                            OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING

                             COMBINED BENEFIT FUND

        Due to a Supreme Court case that struck down the reach back tax for
    certain companies which contribute to the United Mine Workers of
    America, Combined Benefit Fund fewer companies are now required to pay
    into the fund. This has threatened its solvency. The Office of Surface
    Mining budget justification states that the Administration will propose
    legislation to ensure continued solvency of the Combined Benefit Fund.
        Question. What are the specifics of this proposal? How much money
    will it cost to maintain the solvency of the Combined Benefit Fund?
        Answer. The Administration projects that, without the
    Administration's proposal, the Combined Benefit Fund will have an
    accumulated deficit of nearly $50 million by the end of fiscal year
    2001. A $50 million annual deficit is projected each year thereafter,
    if the current level of service is maintained. Such steadily deepening
    deficits, which the Congress foresaw last fall, cannot be sustained,
    which is why the Administration proposes a long-term intervention.
        The President's fiscal year 2001 Budget proposal includes
    legislation in three parts that addresses long term concerns associated
    with the Combined Benefit Fund's Health Care premium accounts.
        First, the legislation will provide for an annual mandatory General
    Fund Federal transfer for a period of 10 years. Over the 10-years the
    transfer will total $346 million, beginning with a transfer of $38
    million in fiscal year 2001.
        Second, the legislation will reverse the effects of the court
    decision in National Coal v. Chater regarding calculation of the
    premiums charged to coal companies that had contractually agreed to pay
    their employee's retirement health benefits. This would increase
    operator premiums by about 10 percent over current levels, bringing it
    to a level that better reflects actual benefit premium rates and also
    continues cost containment practices. By reversing Chater, the Combined
    Benefit Fund will gain approximately $11 million in fiscal year 2001
    with a total of approximately $86 million over a 10-year period.
        Third, the legislation will clarify a provision of the Coal Act
    regarding the timing of the Social Security Administration's assignment
    of retired miners to the companies that had employed them and had
    agreed to pay for their retirement health benefits.
        The Administration also proposes to extend the AML reclamation fee
    an additional 10 years, beginning in fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year
    2014. In addition to financing growing reclamation needs identified
    under current law, some of the interest earnings on the fund balance
    will continue to finance the health costs of coal miners (and their
    families) who are ``unassigned'' under current law--generally retired
    miners whose former employers are no longer in business.
        Question. Are other companies litigating the legality of the reach
    back tax so that the costs to the federal government of ensuring
    solvency will increase?
        Answer. The Department is not involved in any current litigation
    involving companies challenging the legality of the reach back tax. The
    Department of Justice or Social Security Administration however, may be
    involved in litigation with companies challenging the Coal Act for
    various reasons, not necessarily related to the reach back tax.

                            STATE REGULATORY PROGRAM

        Twenty-four states have permanent regulatory programs for the
    regulation of mining activities. OSM's state regulatory program
    provides a 50 percent match to these states which have the primary
    responsibility for conducting regulatory operations. This is a much
    cheaper alternative to the federal government having these
    repsonsibilites. The OSM budget for fiscal year 2001 proposes a small
    increase for the state regulatory grant program. Representatives of the
    many states which receive grants under this program have indicated to
    the Subcommittee a strong concern that this is not sufficient to meet
    their needs.
        Question. How do you respond to these concerns? How much did the
    States request for regulatory grants in fiscal year 2001? What will be
    the consequences of providing less than this level of funding?
        Answer. The State and Tribal grant estimates for fiscal year 2001,
    submitted in May 1999, totaled $61 million. OSM's decision regarding
    the level of funding for the regulatory grant program was based on
    anticipated State and Tribal expenditure levels, historic obligation
    rates and budget target levels. While the primacy states as a group do
    claim that they have a funding shortfall, OSM will work with the States
    and Tribes to adjust regulatory grants to meet state needs within
    overall funding limits.

                               BRAGG V. ROBERTSON

        Question. What is the current status of the Bragg v. Robertson
    litigation concerning mountaintop mining in West Virginia? Does the
    Department of Justice intend to file an appeal?
        Answer. On October 20, 1999, U.S. District Judge Haden issued a
    decision in Bragg v. Robertson on the stream buffer zone question. The
    United States, the State of West Virginia and mining industry and union
    intervenors all appealed Judge Haden's decision to the United States
    Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
        In the October 20, 1999, decision, Judge Haden interpreted West
    Virginia's stream buffer zone rule as precluding the placement of
    excess spoil from mining in intermittent and perennial streams.
        Apart from the stream buffer zone question, the State of West
    Virginia and the plaintiffs had earlier entered into a consent decree
    which had settled the remaining counts of the litigation. Judge Haden
    approved the consent decree in February 2000. The industry has appealed
    the approval of the consent decree to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth
    Circuit consolidated this appeal with the appeals of Judge Haden's
    October 20, 1999, decision.
        On Monday, April 17, 2000, the United States and the mining
    industry and union intervenors filed their appellate briefs on the
    stream buffer zone ruling. West Virginia's brief is due on May 17,
    2000.
        In its brief, the United States argues that excess spoil from
    mining operations is ``fill'' material and accordingly regulated by the
    Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As to
    the stream buffer zone issue, the United States largely agrees with
    Judge Haden's ruling, but argues that Judge Haden's injunction
    prohibiting the placement of any excess spoil into intermittent or
    perennial streams is overly broad.
        Question. What will the impacts be on coal mining in West Virginia
    if the district court's ruling is upheld on appeal? What other states'
    programs will be impacted the most by this decision?
        Answer. As part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
    process, OSM and the other agencies are conducting economic benefit
    analyses of steep slope mining operations in the Appalachian states.
    After Judge Haden's decision, OSM expanded the EIS analyses to include
    a specific study of the economic impacts from Judge Haden's ruling.
    These studies will help OSM and the other federal and state agencies
    determine the impacts on coal mining in West Virginia if Judge Haden's
    ruling is affirmed.
        If Judge Haden's decision is upheld, it would automatically apply
    to West Virginia and, depending on the basis of the Circuit Court's
    ruling, it could apply in the other coal producing states in the Fourth
    Circuit. Besides West Virginia, those states in the Fourth Circuit are
    Maryland and Virginia.

                          ABANDONED MINE LANDS PROGRAM

        The most significant increase in the OSM budget ($14.4 million) is
    for the Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) program. The Administration wants to
    get the program at a level commensurate with fee receipts by fiscal
    year 2003.
        Question. What is the level of fee receipts anticipated in fiscal
    year 2000-fiscal year 2003?
        Answer. The level of fee receipts anticipated in fiscal year 2000--
    fiscal year 2003 is as follows:

                              [In millions dollars]

    Fiscal year:
        2000.......................................................... 276.7
        2001.......................................................... 277.0
        2002.......................................................... 281.2
        2003.......................................................... 280.6

                            CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN

        The agency's budget states that $12.4 million 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 projects is
    a CWAP project?
        Answer. A Clean Water Action Plan project is any project that
    corrects Acid Mine Drainage, either directly or indirectly. Many
    abandoned mines contribute to water pollution in ways such as acid mine
    drainage from abandoned gob piles, sedimentation of streams as waste
    piles erode, and acid mine drainage formed as water enters the
    underground mine workings and emerges as a pollutant. An AML project
    that would correct any such conditions, 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. Therefore, there are no new or different criteria being
    applied to AML projects.
        Question. What, if any, groups would 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. We believe that all have
    eligible problem sites that could be reclaimed in support of the
    President's Clean Water Action Plan. (based on a staff review of
    unreclaimed sites listed in the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System,
    and discussions with States and Tribes) The same is true for the
    watershed organizations participating in the Watershed Cooperative
    Agreement Program.

                           OFFICE OF INSULAR AFFAIRS
                                 COMPACT IMPACT

        The Office of Insular Affairs budget seeks to provide an additional
    $5.4 million of mandatory funding to Guam for the impacts on Guam of
    the migration of citizens from the Federated States of Micronesia. This
    migration has occurred because of the immigration provisions in the
    Compact of Free Association which allows virtually unlimited access to
    other U.S. territories and to Hawaii.
        Question. What is the offset for this proposal?
        Answer. This proposal was incorporated into the President's budget
    and is thus offset by general revenue increases or other domestic
    spending cuts. It should be noted, however, that the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation included one-time increases of $3 million to technical
    assistance for Compact impact and a $3 million subsidy payment
    associated with the American Samoa tobacco settlement loan, neither of
    which are included in the 2001 budget request.
        Question. Why is Guam slated to get all of these additional funds
    when other areas such as the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas and
    the State of Hawaii also have significant impacts caused by migration
    from Micronesia?
        Answer. There are several reasons. Guam has done the best job
    documenting impacts and impact costs. The data indicates Guam is
    experiencing the greatest impact. Hawaii is authorized to receive
    appropriations under the Compact of Free Association Act (Public Law
    99-239); but OIA's appropriation, which includes impact aid, is
    entitled Assistance to Territories and provides funding for grant
    assistance to the U.S. territories and freely associated states. We
    must ensure new assistance provided to the State of Hawaii is not done
    at the expense of important program assistance for the territories. In
    the case of the CNMI, the impact is less; the CNMI has been given
    greater control over immigration policies; and the CNMI government is
    already receiving significant guaranteed multi-year assistance that can
    be used to mitigate the impact.
        Question. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to determine how much in
    impact aid should be given to CNMI, Guam, and Hawaii as part of the
    renegotiation of the Compact of Free Association which is currently
    underway?
        Answer. We agree that impact aid should be considered in the
    context of the Compact renegotiation; but it should not stop our
    current efforts to assist Guam or the other governments. The Compact
    negotiations may not be completed until late in fiscal year 2003, more
    than 3 years from now.

                               TOBACCO SETTLEMENT

        Question. Has the Office of Insular Affairs been working with the
    American Samoa Government (ASG) with respect to formulating a plan that
    will allow ASG to receive a federal advance on tobacco settlement funds
    as provided in the fiscal year 2000 Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act? What are the specifics of this plan?
        Answer. Yes, we are working with representatives of the American
    Samoa Government, but they have not yet given us details of their plan
    to pay off debts or their plan to improve American Samoa's overall
    financial position.
        Question. How, if at all, will money from the tobacco advance be
    used to satisfy debt for unpaid medical bills to Hawaiian hospitals?
        Answer. Under the legislation, debts involving health care services
    are the highest priority, so we would expect the ASG plan to include
    repayment of these referral bills.
        Question. What has the OIA's role been in attempting to resolve
    this situation?
        Answer. OIA officials have met with the creditors and ASG officials
    advocating a settlement. OIA also supported the legislation authorizing
    the advance on tobacco settlement funds and its prescribed use to repay
    ASG debts, including medical referral debts.
        Question. What is the current amount owed?
        Answer. The current amount owed to hospitals is less than $5
    million.
        Question. How much could be satisfied from the tobacco advance?
        Answer. It can be completely satisfied by the tobacco advance. The
    claims by the hospitals fall in the first priority for use of the
    tobacco settlement money, if the hospitals are willing to meet the
    prerequisite and settle for 75 percent of the total owed. If they are
    not willing to settle at the lesser amount, their claims shift from the
    first priority for repayment to the fifth priority. The fifth priority
    is for creditors who decline to settle for a lesser amount and insist
    on full payment. If this happens, there is a much higher probability
    that some of the hospital claims will not be paid out of the tobacco
    advance.

                             CORAL REEF INITIATIVE

        The agency requests $500,000 for the Coral Reef Initiative in
    fiscal year 2001, the same amount as provided last year.
        Question. How were the funds allocated in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. The $500,000 is being used to support a variety of programs
    and projects identified in the U.S. All Islands Coral Reef Initiative
    Strategy (Strategy), updated in October 1999 at the request of the U.S.
    Coral Reef Task Force. The Strategy identifies a broad scope of actions
    to protect and restore coral reefs, from education and outreach to
    establishment of marine protected areas and increased enforcement. Some
    examples of projects OIA's fiscal year 2000 funding will help support
    include: developing a marine park management plan for the Virgin
    Islands; conducting baseline characterizations of coral resources in
    the CNMI to identify areas for ``marine protected area'' designation;
    supporting Guam's public outreach and education program with
    educational materials, including developing a coral reef atlas; and
    conducting two workshops in American Samoa to develop improved
    monitoring protocols and to improve and expand marine protected areas.
    OIA will continue to foster local-Federal partnerships as the Task
    Force works to integrate insular area priorities into the development
    of a national strategy for coral reef protection and management.
        Question. What were the specific accomplishments?
        Answer. Projects for fiscal year 2000 have been identified and
    funds are currently being transferred to the insular areas for
    implementation. Specific accomplishments for the $200,000 provided in
    fiscal year 1999 include a comprehensive revision of the All Islands
    Coral Reef Initiative Strategy as requested by the U.S. Coral Reef Task
    Force; development of a five-year plan for coral reef management in
    American Samoa following several workshops; reef assessment and
    characterization around the U.S. Virgin Islands for inclusion in the
    natural resources and planning database; analysis and site
    identification for creation of the first-ever marine protected area for
    coral reefs in CNMI; creation and installation of interpretive signs
    for marine protected areas and other sensitive habitats; development of
    a coral reef educational CD-rom in Guam; and development of other
    educational materials for school children and the public in several of
    the islands. In addition, OIA helped plan and fund the removal of the
    nine fishing vessels from Pago Pago Harbor in response to Governor
    Sunia's request for assistance from the Coral Reef Task Force.
        Question. What were other agency's contributions to this effort?
        Answer. OIA has worked closely with the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a strategy for long-term
    sustainability of coral reefs in the insular areas. In fiscal year 1999
    and 2000, OIA and NOAA jointly funded several local-level projects in
    the insular areas as part of the coral reef initiative, as identified
    in the preceding answer. OIA has also taken a leadership role on the
    interagency Coral Reef Task Force. The Task Force is co-chaired by the
    Secretaries of Interior and Commerce through the Administrator of NOAA.
    Task Force membership also includes 9 other federal agencies and the
    governors of the U.S.V.I., Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
    Islands, and American Samoa, as well as Hawaii, Florida and Puerto
    Rico. The Task Force is coordinating the federal/state/territorial
    effort to develop and implement the national action plan for long-term
    management and protection of the Nation's coral reefs. Although NOAA
    and the Department of the Interior have been the primary agencies
    contributing to the insular areas, some limited funding has been
    identified for the insular areas by other federal agencies such as the
    Environmental Protection Agency.
        Question. Does the agency propose to allocate funds in the same
    fashion in 2001 as it did in 2000?
        Answer. Yes. OIA will use the funds to support priorities
    identified in the All Islands Coral Reef Initiative Strategy, as well
    as emerging priorities identified by the insular areas as part of the
    Coral Reef Task Force's National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs.

                          COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION

        Question. What is the current status of renegotiation talks on the
    Compact of Free Association?
        Answer. Discussions on the renegotiations of financial provisions
    of the Compact of Free Association have begun in earnest. The first
    major round of discussions with the Federated States of Micronesia
    (FSM) took place the week of April 24 in San Francisco. Talks with the
    Republic of the Marshall Islands, which recently elected a new
    government, are likely to begin in this summer.
        Question. What will be the most difficult issues to resolve?
        Answer. The challenge of the ``second Compact'' will be to plan and
    carry out an aid package that successfully addresses development needs
    and assures accountability over grant funds.
        Question. How, if at all, is the issue of compact/impact aid being
    addressed?
        Answer. Resolving the Compact Impact issue is a high priority. The
    U.S. negotiators have placed on the agenda the immigration provisions
    as they relate to Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marianas.
        Question. When does the agency anticipate a new agreement will be
    finalized?
        Answer. While predicting the course of negotiations is difficult,
    both the FSM and Marshall Islands have indicated their desire to
    complete the negotiations by 2003.

                            PRIOR SERVICE TRUST FUND

        Question. What is the current condition of the Prior Service Trust
    Fund?
        Answer. In a letter dated January 6, 2000, the trust fund
    administrator stated there was a balance in the account of $3 million.
        Question. How much longer will it stay solvent without additional
    capitalization?
        Answer. The $3 million balance is sufficient to cover a little more
    than two years of benefits and administrative costs.

                  COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

        In previous years the CNMI had difficulty in matching its capital
    improvement grants. This created a large amount of unobligated balances
    in this account. During the past year the CNMI government appropriated
    funds to provide the necessary match.
        Question. What is the current amount of unobligated balances for
    capital improvement grants?
        Answer. All appropriations through fiscal year 2000 are obligated
    by the annual grants made to the CNMI. However, not all of the Federal
    and matching funds are currently dedicated to active capital
    improvement projects. A total of $199 million of Federal and local
    matching funds is available to the CNMI for fiscal years 1993-2000. Of
    that amount approximately $99 million has been used for construction
    project contracts. The remaining $100 million will be used for projects
    now in the planning phase.
        Question. What is OIA's long term assessment of the CNMI's ability
    to provide matching funds for this program?
        Answer. The CNMI has used the bond market to obtain the required
    matching funds. We are confident that the CNMI will be able to meet its
    project-by-project matching fund obligations. Even in bleak economic
    times, the CNMI has provided its share of individual project
    expenditures.
        Question. What capital improvement projects will be accomplished in
    the CNMI in fiscal year 2000 and 2001?
        Answer. There are dozens of capital improvement projects currently
    under way, and many more in the planning stages. Completion of the
    Marianas High School Gymnasium, and the Kagman elementary school are
    expected soon. The CNMI is planning the construction of a new multi-
    million dollar prison/detention facility and the opening of a new solid
    waste facility.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

                            LANDS LEGACY INITIATIVE

        In total, an increase of $82 million is requested for the Survey's
    activities in fiscal year 2001. Within this amount, the largest
    proposed increase is $50 million for state planning partnerships in
    support of the Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative. The Survey's
    role in this initiative would be to assist state and local communities
    by providing earth science information and tools.
        Question. What factors led to the decision to place a primary
    emphasis on new or expanded science information programs rather than
    core research and monitoring programs, or a balance of the two?
        Answer. Information dissemination is a vital part of USGS's role as
    the Nation's primary earth science agency. The role of USGS in the
    Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative is consistent with USGS's core
    mission responsibilities; even the most robust program of scientific
    investigations and monitoring must include adequate systems and
    capabilities to ensure that the results of research and monitoring are
    made available to resource managers at the State and local level who
    need to make decisions about their communities' land, water, and
    biological resources, and about the threat of natural hazards such as
    earthquakes and floods. In addition, these scientific results must be
    made available in a manner that is useful to those decisionmakers. We
    believe that this year's budget achieves a balance between our core
    research and monitoring programs, and the expansion of science
    information programs. While a significant portion of our proposed
    increase would be allocated as external competitive grants to local
    communities, an equally significant amount is proposed for work that
    USGS would conduct in-house to develop decision support tools, upgrade
    our real-time hazards monitoring activities, and augment long-term
    research in the areas of water quality and wildlife health.
        Question. Do you foresee the role of the Survey shifting to one
    that is primarily responsible for the provision of science information?
        Answer. The USGS already has primary responsibility for providing
    scientific information on the Nation's natural resources. As stated in
    the USGS GPRA performance plan, USGS ``provides science for a changing
    world by delivering reliable and impartial information that describes
    the Earth, its natural processes, and its natural species.'' As the
    performance plan defines the USGS mission: ``USGS serves the Nation by
    providing reliable scientific information to: describe and understand
    the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters;
    manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance
    and protect our quality of life.'' This responsibility encompasses the
    conduct of research, focused investigations, and inventory and
    monitoring; the development of models and other tools; and a
    comprehensive effort to put the results of all these scientific
    activities into the hands of those who need them. Each of these
    activities is a vital element in carrying out the USGS mission.
                          real-time hazards initiative
        Scientific and technological advances have resulted in the
    development of equipment that can provide accurate information in
    ``real time'' to emergency managers and the public in the event of a
    natural disaster. Last summer, the USGS issued a report outlining the
    feasibility of developing a national real-time hazards program. The
    costs associated with that program are estimated at $150 million spread
    over a three-year period.
        The Survey has a clear need to upgrade much of its equipment in
    order to provide rapid, accurate scientific information to the public.
    Much of the current seismic network, to cite just one example, is
    assembled with equipment that is 15 to 25 years old. The proposed
    funding increase in fiscal year 2001 for real-time hazards work is $7
    million.
        Question. Please explain why this item does not merit a higher
    priority within the Survey's budget proposal.
        Answer. Expanding and modernizing hazards monitoring and
    information networks is a high priority. Given all of the competing
    priorities within limited domestic resources, the Administration
    believes the increase proposed will allow the USGS to begin to address
    the highest priority monitoring needs based on the multi-year plan. The
    Real-Time Hazards proposal includes $4 million in additional funds to
    install or reactivate stream gaging equipment at 50 sites and upgrade
    existing equipment at 100 sites, $2.6 million to upgrade 150 new
    regional/urban seismic stations, and $0.5 million to expand real-time
    volcano monitoring capability. These increases are part of a multi-year
    plan that began in fiscal year 2000.

                                   LANDSAT 7

        The Committee understands that USGS, NOAA, and NASA reached
    agreement last year for the Survey to assume responsibility for the
    management of Landsat 7. In fiscal year 2000, funding associated with
    this work was transferred from NASA to GS. In the fiscal year 2001
    budget proposal, $5,000,000 is requested by GS for activities
    associated with management of the satellite.
        Question. Given that there is a direct impact on this subcommittee,
    why wasn't it involved in discussions prior to final agreement being
    negotiated?
        Answer. Based on the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, Public
    Law 102-555, Presidential Decision Directive NSTC3 (signed May 5, 1994)
    modified a previous arrangement and established NASA, NOAA, and DOI/
    USGS as Landsat Program Management. Over the next 5 years leading up to
    the April 1999 launch of Landsat 7, these agencies worked closely
    together to plan for flight and ground system operations. In 1998,
    Landsat Program Management determined that it was in the best interests
    of the program for NOAA to withdraw and to transfer long-term program
    oversight from NASA to the USGS, which would seek fiscal year 2001
    funding through this committee to provide stable flight operations. The
    subcommittee was not involved in these early negotiations because the
    assumption of operational responsibility by USGS is reliant on an
    increase of funds for USGS. As these discussions were taking place as
    part of negotiations on the 2001 President's Budget, we were not at
    liberty to discuss this.
        Question. How does the Survey propose to fund Landsat 7 activities
    if the subcommittee is unable to provide funds requested?
        Answer. The USGS should assume responsibility for the Landsat 7
    million operation because we are the most appropriate agency to do so
    from a technical and mission-role standpoint. The Department of the
    Interior is the Federal agency that stands to benefit the most from the
    mission. Land remote sensing data are integral to USGS mapping
    responsibilities and are increasingly incorporated into all science
    programs. In addition, land remote sensing data are routinely used by
    Interior's land management bureaus to monitor land conditions and
    improve resource management decisions. Furthermore, USGS is only U.S.
    Government agency that has been continuously involved in the Landsat
    Program since 1966. If the Committee is unable to provide the requested
    funds, the USGS would reluctantly have to consider asking NASA to put
    Landsat 7 into a ``safe-hold'' mode that will maintain the satellite's
    orbit, but will not operate the sensors. Forcing Landsat 7 into this
    non-functional status will be a tremendous waste of an extremely
    important national asset in which the American taxpayers have already
    invested several hundred million dollars (for satellite development,
    sensors, launch and ground systems).''
        Question. What are the projected outyear costs for operation of
    Landsat 7?
        Answer. Projected out-year costs for Landsat 7 flight operations
    are expected to remain at approximately $5,000,000 per year.
    Projections show U.S. ground system data capture, processing, archiving
    and distribution costs of approximately $10,000,000 per year to be
    recovered through data product sales and fees collected by USGS from
    international ground station cooperators.
        Technically speaking, the five-year design lifetime of this
    satellite now allows for four more years of mission operations.
    However, current performance indicators and onboard fuel reserves
    suggest that the satellite could function for a total of seven or more
    years.

                      COMPETITION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR

        The issue of possible competition from the USGS with the private
    sector is one that continues to be brought to the Committee's
    attention. Most recently, those complaints have focused on the Survey's
    management of the Landsat 7 satellite.
        Question. Please explain why the Survey's efforts to make data
    available to the public are not in competition with the private sector.
    What is the data dissemination policy for Landsat 7 products?
        Answer. The Survey's efforts to make data available to the public
    sector are carried out in partnership with commercial resellers and
    value-added processors of Landsat 7 data. The data dissemination policy
    for Landsat 7 products is based on the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act
    of 1992, Public Law 102-555, that calls for the Landsat Program to:
    ``Ensure that unenhanced data are available to all users at the cost of
    fulfilling user requests''; and ``Support the development of the
    commercial market for remote sensing data''; and ``Ensure that the
    provision of value-added services based on remote sensing data remains
    exclusively the function of the private sector.''
        As with other USGS products, we are working to move retail sales
    into the hands of the private sector through USGS Business Partners.
    The Business Partner program includes more than 2,000 authorized
    business partners who sell USGS topographic maps. In the last few
    years, the program has been expanded to include the additional USGS
    product lines of digital cartographic data, aerial photographs, and
    satellite data. Most recently, the data products from the Landsat 7
    satellite have been made available under the terms of the Business
    Partner program. Since January 1, 2000, six satellite data business
    partners have signed into the program. USGS Business Partners for
    satellite data have hailed the availability of affordable, minimally
    processed Landsat 7 data from the USGS as key to the development of the
    commercial remote sensing market.
        It should also be noted that the Landsat 7 satellite was developed
    and built by a commercial aerospace firm under contract to the
    government and launched on a commercially built rocket; the Landsat 7
    ground receiving and data processing systems were developed by
    commercial firms, and all flight and ground systems are now operated by
    the private sector under contract to the government. The $5,000,000 of
    requested funds would be paid to a commercial provider of flight
    operations services.
        The Landsat 7 satellite's sensor acquires moderate-resolution data
    that cover over 10,000 square miles in a single image; a recently
    launched commercial high-resolution satellite covers no more than 47
    square miles per image. Scientists and land managers use Landsat images
    to monitor large-scale land surface phenomena such as near-term
    devastation and long-term recovery from large forest fires. In
    contrast, high-resolution satellite images are used for much more
    specific applications, such as settling insurance claims against
    specific properties or siting rebuilding projects. Because of the
    difference in final products and their usage, the data from the Landsat
    7 environmental satellite are not in competition with commercial data.
                                     ______

                 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

                                  LANDS LEGACY

        Among the major increases you are requesting is $391 million to be
    directed to a variety of land acquisition and grant programs under the
    President's Lands legacy initiative. I am concerned that the Department
    is engaged in a program to increase the inventory of public lands but
    is not doing enough to maintain the land and facilities it manages
    today.
        Question. How much of the Lands Legacy money would go toward
    addressing the maintenance and construction backlogs at our National
    Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Monuments?
        Answer. The Administration's Lands Legacy initiative supports
    preservation of public lands and national treasures and protects open
    spaces and natural resources through partnerships with the States and
    local communities. While the Lands Legacy initiative does not include
    any funds for maintenance and construction backlogs, the Department's
    Safe Visits to Public Lands initiative addresses high priority
    maintenance and construction backlog needs.
        The maintenance and construction backlog is estimated to be well
    over $5 billion. Your request for those priorities is less than $1.2
    billion. At that rate it will take at least 5 years just to catch up
    with today's backlog, not counting any additions to the backlog in the
    intervening years.
        Question. With such an enormous backlog, why do you propose to
    increase land acquisition spending to $320 million in fiscal year 2001.
        Answer. The Department is committed to both taking care of its
    infrastructure and acquiring lands critical to the missions of the
    Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park
    Service. Since 1993, we have increased the operating accounts of BLM,
    FWS, and NPS by $851.1 million, or 43 percent. This compares to the 19
    percent overall growth rate for appropriations for the Department of
    the Interior for the same period. The Department has increased its
    maintenance and construction funding by $120 million between 1998 and
    2000 as a part of its Safe Visits to Public Lands initiative and
    continues to emphasize the importance of this issue. With the
    development of the Five-Year plans for each bureau's deferred
    maintenance projects, we are able to assure that highest priority needs
    are being met. The protection of lands through land acquisition is an
    important and timely issue. Acquisition will protect resources from
    threats at prices that will only continue to rise. Where these lands
    are under threat, it is typically from external sources or invasive
    species. The Department is also keenly aware of unique parcels and
    areas of lands threatened by urban sprawl and other development
    pressures. We believe now is the time to purchase these lands, before
    opportunities are lost forever.
        The budget request proposes to fund the State Conservation Grant
    programs with Land and Water Conservation Fund monies.
        Question. What legal authority is there to use the LWCF to finance
    conservation grants?
        Answer. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act's (Public Law 88-
    578) general purposes, found at section 460l-4, provide that the LWCF
    is to assist in preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to
    all U.S. citizens to outdoor recreation resources by (1) providing
    funds for Federal assistance to States for planning, acquisition, and
    development of land and water areas and facilities, and (2) providing
    funds for the Federal acquisition and development of certain lands and
    other areas. Section 460l-6 also provides the authority for financial
    assistance to states through the LWCF for the purposes of: planning;
    acquisition of land, waters, or interest in lands or waters; or
    development. The conservation grants program is consistent with these
    purposes.

                                LAW ENFORCEMENT

        Question. One of the highest priorities for the Department in 2001
    is law enforcement. The President's budget includes significant
    increase requests for the Bureau of Indian Affairs--up $18.8 million,
    the Fish and Wildlife Service--up $12.6 million, the National Park
    Service--up $5.7 million (pp. 90 & 112). I share your concerns about
    law enforcement--not only its effectiveness against crime but also the
    safety of our law enforcement officers. What are the major problems you
    would address if Congress appropriates these funds?
        Answer. For the National Park Service the $5.7 million cited in the
    question apparently is derived by adding the total increase of $3.5
    million in the Law Enforcement/Visitor Services subactivity to the $2.2
    million programmatic increase in the United States Park Police
    subactivity. The NPS request for increased law enforcement actually
    totals $6.8 million when the uncontrollable increase (primarily a cost
    of living pay adjustment) for the Park Police is added to the
    calculation. Should the request be enacted, the NPS would be able to
    address a series of high priority, law enforcement concerns at parks,
    including Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Boston National Historical
    Park, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Coronado National Monument,
    Badlands National Park, Natchez Trace Parkway, and Organ Pipe Cactus
    National Monument.
        In addition, the increase would provide for pay simplification for
    the United States Park Police (to support a legislative proposal), as
    well as operational enhancements for the Park Police and one-time costs
    associated with the 2001 Presidential Inaugural.
        For the Fish and Wildlife Service the proposed increase in funding
    would permit the Service to address the most crucial problems currently
    interfering with the enforcement program's ability to carry out its
    responsibilities to the American public. Funding for Service law
    enforcement has not kept pace with increased U.S. wildlife conservation
    responsibilities and increased personnel and operating costs. Budget
    stagnation has seriously eroded the agency's ability to protect
    wildlife resources and respond effectively to the growing complexities
    of wildlife crime. Funding shortfalls have made it impossible to
    replace agents as they retire, creating a staffing shortage that grows
    worse each year. The Service, which now has only 213 of its authorized
    252 special agents on the job, last hired new agents in 1998. Budget
    shortfalls also imperil the health and safety of officers since funds
    are not available to purchase needed safety equipment, pay for
    necessary training, and replace vehicles and other equipment.
        Service law enforcement today confronts increasingly complex and
    potentially devastating threats to wildlife, but does so with a
    declining and under-equipped force. The budget increase requested for
    fiscal year 2001 will allow the agency to begin the process of
    restoring its enforcement capability. The funds will be used to fill 30
    high-priority agent vacancies; meet basic safety, equipment, and
    operational needs of the special agent and wildlife inspector forces;
    and replace obsolete and inoperable scientific equipment at the
    forensics laboratory and 37 aging vehicles used to support law
    enforcement operations.
        For the Bureau of Indian Affairs, according to a February 1999
    Justice Department report on American Indians and crime, the rate of
    violent victimization for American Indians is well above that of other
    racial of ethnic subgroups and is more than twice as high as the
    national average. Such statistics were the impetus behind the creation
    of a joint Department of Justice/BIA effort to address the public
    safety crisis in Indian Country. The Bureau of Indian Affairs fiscal
    year 2001 budget request includes an $18.8 million increase for the
    third year of the joint Department of Justice/BIA initiative to make
    long-term improvements in law enforcement services in Indian Country.
    This additional funding is needed to strengthen core law enforcement
    functions, such as increasing the number of criminal investigators and
    uniformed police on reservations, upgrading radio systems, and
    strengthening basic detention services by hiring additional staff.
    BIA's strategic goal is to improve public safety for citizens in Indian
    Country through a seven- percent reduction in crime rates by 2005.
    Continued commitments to BIA's law enforcement programs are needed to
    reduce the high crime rate on Indian reservations.
                              payments to counties
        When land is purchased by the Federal government it has an economic
    impact on the counties. The land is unavailable for development or
    other purposes once it is removed from the county's tax base and most
    of these counties are rural counties with small tax bases to begin
    with. The government is obligated to make payments to counties to
    partially offset the negative impact on local economies. In spite of
    this obligation, the Department of the Interior has once again proposed
    a budget that fails to fully honor that responsibility.
        The Bureau of Land Management proposes to make payments in lieu of
    taxes to counties of $135 million, $186 million less than the $321
    million the Payment In Lieu of Taxes Act provides. Similarly, the Fish
    and Wildlife Service request actually proposes a decrease in its
    payments required by the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act. Now you are asking
    the Congress for funding to buy more land.
        Question. Please explain why you have not included adequate funding
    for payments to counties in this request?
        Answer. PILT payments are among the many priorities for BLM that
    must be balanced in the face of competing funding needs. The PILT
    program is funded through direct annual appropriation, and the BLM will
    continue to make the authorized payments to each eligible unit of
    government within the annual appropriated amount.. A request for the
    fully authorized level of funding would have increased PILT funding by
    approximately 138 percent over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
    Funding requests above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level have to be
    carefully balanced against existing and new priorities and needs.
        Question. Why does your budget place higher priority on buying more
    Federal lands and a new state grants program than fulfilling your
    obligations for payments to counties?
        Answer. Land Acquisition funds provide the BLM with the opportunity
    to fulfil its primary mission to improve the health of the public lands
    by protecting threatened natural and cultural resource values, critical
    habitat and ecosystems, historic and cultural sites, and that also
    benefit the public's need for outdoor recreation and open space.
        Although BLM is requesting largest increases for land acquisition
    than for PILT, BLM allocates more of its funds to PILT than to land
    acquisition. The BLM's fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $60.9
    million for land acquisition, which represents 4 percent of the BLM's
    total budget request of $1.489 billion. Funding for PILT in the fiscal
    year 2001 budget makes up 9 percent of the BLM's total budget request.
    The BLM's budget request also includes several permanent payment
    appropriations that provide over $83 million in payments to counties
    and states. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes a provision to make
    permanent the authorization and funding for payments to Western Oregon
    counties. This would result in increased payments to these counties
    over current statutory payment schedules.
        Most of the acquisition projects in the BLM's fiscal year 2001
    budget request are to acquire inholdings in congressionally designated
    areas that would meet the intent of the congressional designation to
    protect and enhance the unique and critical values of these areas. Key
    acquisitions will occur in the congressionally designated California
    Desert National Conservation Area (NCA), the Upper Missouri Wild &
    Scenic River, in Montana, the Snake River Birds of Prey NCA, in Idaho,
    and land adjacent to the San Pedro NCA, in Arizona. Other acquisitions
    would protect critical resource values or provide watershed restoration
    in highly sensitive or threatened areas.

                             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        The Lands Legacy proposal for the National Park Service includes a
    $150 million increase for state conservation grants.
        Question. How did you decide that $58 million would be divided
    equally among the states and territories and that $87 million would be
    awarded by the Park Service on a competitive basis?
        Answer. The proposed distribution of State Conservation grants is
    based on the formula described in the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    act (Public Law 88-578). Section 6(b)(1) requires that the first 40
    percent of the $145 million requested for grants ($58 million) be
    shared equally among the States, with the remaining 60 percent ($87
    million) apportioned to the States by the Secretary on the basis of
    need ``which in his judgment will best accomplish the purposes of the
    Act.''
        The budget request proposes that $72.5 million of this $87.0
    million be distributed to the States as part of the formula
    apportionment, based on relative population of the State. The remaining
    $72.5 million would be distributed on a competitive, demonstrated needs
    basis through the Secretary's contingency reserve. The net result would
    be that half of the $145 million requested for grants would be
    allocated by formula and half would be allocated to critically needed
    projects through the contingency reserve.
        Contingency projects will allow the States, in partnership with the
    National Park Service, to target critically needed projects. The set-
    aside was based on the lack of a National assistance program for over
    five years and the need to target funds in critical areas which could
    easily exceed the amount available to a State through the regular
    formula distribution. Final criteria for the Secretary's contingency
    reserve are currently being developed, and we will look for input from
    the public. The final criteria may include emphasis on the protection
    of open space and the preservation of resources while increasing public
    outdoor recreation opportunities.
        This proposal includes $5 million and 62 full-time staff to
    administer the program. That seems like a large new bureaucracy to
    manage a grants program of $87 million. Your budget justification
    states, ``Through this partnership with States and local governments,
    providing recreation opportunity while preserving these areas for
    future generation can often be accomplished in a more timely and cost
    effective way through Federal action.''
        Question. Why then, do you not propose to award all of the funds to
    the States and let them decide the best uses for the funds?
        Answer. The entire $145 million proposed for grants in the fiscal
    year 2001 budget request, not just $87 million, will be made available
    to the States through the stateside grants program and will be
    administered by the National Park Service. One-half will be available
    to States and local governments through a formula distribution as
    described in the previous answer. The other half will be available to
    States and local governments through a competition that will allow the
    Administration and the States to work together to target critical areas
    of need which are consistent with a State's planning efforts and where
    such need exceeds the dollars allocated through the formula
    distribution. The same requirements must be met for apportionment of
    contingency reserve projects as those projects chosen under the
    formula.
        Funding requested in the President's Budget for administration is
    needed to provide the resources necessary to administer the entire
    amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001 through the regular
    apportionment, and the Secretary's contingency reserve. In addition, it
    would allow the Department to continue its mandated stewardship
    responsibility over every site which has received assistance under
    current and prior appropriations (over 37,0000 projects) and ensure
    each site remains available for public use and enjoyment in perpetuity.
        Question. The American people, actually people from all over the
    world, love our national parks. Their visits are not as enjoyable as
    they could be--and should be--because we have allowed them to fall into
    states of disrepair. Your own budget highlights some of the problems
    facing the national parks--unsafe and outdated visitor facilities,
    inadequate water systems, deteriorating historic buildings, soil
    erosion--and the list goes on. I would like to know the current size of
    the Park Service's maintenance backlog. I have been hearing that it is
    quite large, perhaps in the billions of dollars. Is that correct?
        Answer. As a result, in part, of the need to be more responsive to
    Congressional concerns regarding agency maintenance ``backlogs,'' the
    Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) promulgated its
    Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards #6, Accounting for
    Property, Plant and Equipment. This standard, which became effective in
    fiscal year 1998, requires agencies to disclose the estimated cost to
    remedy ``deferred maintenance'' of property, plant and equipment as a
    footnote presented in the annual audited financial statements required
    by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. National Park Service
    ``deferred maintenance'' as reported in that footnote provides
    essentially the total identified inventory of the ``maintenance
    backlog'' of NPS. We should note, however, that these estimates will be
    provided as supplementary information, which is not subject to the same
    analytical procedures for auditing as the basic information in the
    balance sheet and statement of net cost. In some cases, these estimates
    may differ from facilities guidance on estimating deferred maintenance
    costs.
        In line with the FASAB reporting requirement, the Service's current
    maintenance backlog estimates are based on the amounts required for the
    correction of facility deficiencies resulting from ``deferred
    maintenance.'' The National Park Service defines deferred maintenance,
    or ``backlog'' as maintenance that could not be performed when
    scheduled or planned. This definition comes from the U.S. Department of
    the Interior Facilities Maintenance Assessment and Recommendations,
    February 1998. Continued deferral of routine required maintenance items
    will result, over time, in facility deficiencies that must be corrected
    in order to keep the facility open, often at a higher cost than the
    original planned or scheduled maintenance cost.
        The Service has acquired a huge inventory of built-facility assets
    over its 84-year history. These include roads, trails, camping and
    recreational structures, buildings and houses, utility systems, marine
    and dock structures, signs and information structures, and special
    features or Stewardship assets such as historic buildings, monuments,
    statues, memorials, fortifications and other structures. Various
    factors have contributed to a backlog of maintenance tasks and
    significant deterioration of facility conditions as a result of that
    backlog. One cause stems from limited operational funding for
    facilities acquired through donation, acquisition or transfer.
    Additionally, aging facilities have created increased costs for day-to-
    day NPS operations, eating into the limited funds available for
    maintenance of facilities. Increasing visitation and addition of new
    park sites and facilities have also added to operational costs at the
    expense of maintenance activities.
        The backlog estimates were compiled from several sources, dependent
    on the asset type. These include all repair-rehabilitation and line-
    item construction deferred maintenance projects currently contained in
    the National Park Service's Project Management Information System
    (PMIS) database, which includes all facility maintenance projects for
    which the Service has identified a current need, exclusive of housing,
    dams, and Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) eligible road and bridge
    repairs. The total PMIS estimate includes items such as planning,
    design, and construction contingency costs for the specific repair-
    rehabilitation projects in the PMIS database, but does not distinguish
    between high and low priorities. It is also based on an evaluation of
    needs without an in-depth, continuous, systematic program for assessing
    facility conditions.
        The estimated figure for employee housing deferred maintenance is
    based on the Service's Quarters Management Information System data
    collected during 1999, and further refined based on the detailed,
    professional housing condition assessments completed in some park
    areas.
        The estimate for Paved Roads and Bridge deferred maintenance needs
    comes from a just completed 3-year cycle (FY 1997-1999) of road and
    bridge inspections under the NPS Roads Inventory Program and NPS Bridge
    Inventory Program performed for the Service by the Federal Highway
    Administration, which inventories the Service's Federal Lands Highway
    Program eligible deferred maintenance.
        The estimated deferred maintenance need for dams comes from the
    current Dams Inventory, prepared by NPS in concert with the Bureau of
    Reclamation (BOR) and updated as inspections and surveys of the most
    critical dams performed for NPS by the BOR.
        The estimates from those four sources compiled into the total for
    NPS are as follows:

    Project Management Information System (PMIS) Deferred
        Maintenance Projects (based on DOI guidance,
        excluding housing, road, bridge & dam projects).....  $1,450,000,000
    Deferred Maintenance Housing Projects...................      80,000,000
    FHWA Identified Road and Bridge Needs...................   2,707,000,000
    Dams Projects from NPS/BOR Survey.......................     102,000,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................   4,339,000,000

        Although the estimates for roads, bridges and dams, and a portion
    of the total housing estimate, are based on actual condition
    inspections, the $1.450 billion in the PMIS category is generally only
    a conceptual cost estimate based on costs for similar work accomplished
    by the construction industry and past National Park Service estimates,
    and without a complete inventory and condition assessment. Since the
    actual cost of correcting deferred maintenance will not be known until
    a comprehensive inventory and condition assessment of the facilities
    managed by the National Park Service has been completed, and until
    fully defined scopes of work have been developed, this amount is by
    necessity a very general, or Class C, estimate. These figures will be
    adjusted annually, and will likely increase, as the Service compiles
    better information, and as they are refined based on more fully defined
    scopes of work.
        A system to more fully document a more accurate inventory and
    condition assessment of National Park Service facilities needs to be
    established so the Service can more precisely identify the total
    deferred maintenance needs in National Park areas. The President's
    Budget requests $1 Million in fiscal year 2001 in the Facility
    Operations and Maintenance sub-activity to Conduct Comprehensive
    Facility Condition Assessments, which will enable the Service to begin
    a multi-year cycle for inventory and condition assessment of all
    facilities. In the meantime, the bureau is relying on a Service-wide
    desk audit compiled by park facility managers in 1997, to estimate
    inventory and condition of facilities of the PMIS category of
    facilities listed above.
        Also, the total PMIS estimate is for maintenance repairs to
    existing structures as a ``snapshot'' of their current condition. It is
    important to recognize that deferred maintenance ``backlogs'' are
    dynamic, not static. Facilities not adequately funded for required
    maintenance on a routine, recurring basis generally deteriorate on an
    increasingly exponential cost curve. The Service's backlog estimates
    also do not include the increased annual operational funding level
    needed in order to maintain those facilities at an acceptable level
    once their condition has been restored.
        The National Park Service began utilizing a new set of budget sub-
    activities and accounting codes in fiscal year 1999, which separate
    operations costs from maintenance costs. This, in conjunction with our
    proposed inventory condition assessment process, when fully
    implemented, will allow for collection of more accurate data on which
    to base future facility maintenance and operations funding requests.
        Question. The Park Service budget request for construction and
    major maintenance is $43 million less than last year's appropriation.
    How do you intend to ever eliminate the backlog by reducing the
    resources you devote to the effort?
        Answer. While the fiscal year 2001 Construction Appropriation
    request is 43 million less than the enacted fiscal year 2000
    appropriation, it is only $14 million less in total than the fiscal
    year 2000 President's request and only $10 million less in the line-
    item construction program. In developing this budget request, we have
    had to make tough choices. We believe the reduction in budget resources
    proposed for construction is will not affect the ability to reach our
    goals over the long haul. Indeed, the NPS, like other bureaus in the
    Department, has developed a Five-Year Maintenance and Capital
    Improvement Plan to apply a systematic approach in accomplishing our
    highest priority requirements, focusing on the areas of health and
    safety and critical resource protection.
        Question. Is it not a fact that the Park Service requested
    considerably more than the amount included in the President's budget?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2001, the NPS requested $308 million for
    the construction and major maintenance appropriation.
        Question. Would it be a problem for the Park Service and the Fish
    and Wildlife Service if Congress decides to shift funding from land
    acquisition to maintenance?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget strikes a balance between the
    needs identified in the President's Lands Legacy and Safe Visits to
    Parks initiatives. The NPS supports the balance represented in the
    President's request. This request, however, reflects the interests of
    an agency responsible for one or a few programs, whereas the
    President's Budget reflects the needs and priorities of the entire
    Federal Government. These estimates are pre-decisional in nature and do
    not reflect final overall Administration priorities, given the
    resources available.
        Question. The Recreational Fee Demonstration Program appears to
    have become a major source of funding for the 100 participating
    national parks. The Park Service anticipates over $140 million in fee
    collections in fiscal year 2001. Is the Park Service using the
    authority Congress granted for parks to collect and retain recreational
    fees as a way to reduce the maintenance backlog?
        Answer. Under the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, Congress
    authorized the National Park Service to implement and test 100 new fee
    collection programs, and allowing participating parks to retain 80
    percent of the revenues at the sites where they are collected. The
    revenues yield substantial benefits by providing park managers the
    opportunity to address the backlog of facility deficiencies that have
    accumulated as a result of having deferred regularly scheduled
    maintenance. The program is also used by the National Park Service, as
    specified in the authorization, as a means to address resource
    management, visitor service, and museum and exhibit projects that might
    not otherwise be accomplished within appropriated funding levels.
    However the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program does emphasize
    maintenance as a primary focus. Examples of these types of maintenance
    projects are:
      --Repair of park roads in Yellowstone National Park.
      --Rehabilitation of Watchman campground at Zion National Park.
      --Refurbishment of trails in Haleakala National Park
      --Rehabilitation of comfort stations in Shenandoah National Park.
        Question. Do the other 279 parks benefit from this program?
        Answer. All parks are eligible to benefit from the Recreational Fee
    Demonstration Program. The National Park Service is authorized to
    retain 20 percent of the Fee Demonstration Program revenues for
    projects to be determined at the discretion of the NPS Director.
    Through this authority, any park is eligible to submit requests for
    project funding. In fiscal year 1999, approximately $30 million in
    projects were funded through the use of the 20 percent portion of the
    program. In executing this portion of the Fee Program, the NPS has
    given preference to projects at parks that are not Fee Demonstration
    Program sites. Examples of 20 percent projects at non-demonstration
    parks that are being addressed through the use of Recreational Fee
    Demonstration Program revenues are:
      --Rehabilitation of Charit Creek visitor area at Big South Fork
            National River and Recreation Area.
      --Relocation of parking area to eliminate safety hazards at Big
            Thicket National Preserve.
      --Rehabilitation of cave access trails to improve safety at Wind Cave
            National Park.
      --Removal of structures at Malvern Hill at Richmond National
            Battlefield.
        Question. Based on your experience with the fee program and the
    public's reaction to it, would you support expansion of the program to
    all national parks, wildlife refuges, and other locations managed by
    the Department of the Interior?
        Answer. The National Park Service would support the ability for all
    national park units to be included within the authorities provided by
    the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. This would allow the NPS to
    examine each park to determine the appropriateness of a fee program and
    to retain the receipts for use by the parks. The National Park Service
    would also support giving each agency within the Department the ability
    to determine which sites should be included. For all agencies, the
    decision to collect fees should be based on proper planning, public
    review and appropriateness of type and amount of fees collected.

                       STATE GRANTS FOR NON-GAME WILDLIFE

        Question. The budget for the Fish and Wildlife Service includes a
    new $100 million grants to states program for non-game wildlife. You
    are certainly aware of the abundance of wildlife in West Virginia and
    of the state's vast natural habitats for all kinds of wildlife. The
    Service has determined that West Virginia would only qualify for the
    minimum state grant amount, the same level that is proposed for Rhode
    Island and only one fifth as much as New York. The Formula they used
    considered human population but did not consider the wildlife and
    wildlife habitat occurring in the states. There is much room for
    improvement in the way the Fish and Wildlife Service wants to
    distribute these funds. I strongly urge the Fish and Wildlife Service
    to refine the formula to recognize the opportunities for wildlife
    viewing, education, habitat restoration, and other non-consumptive
    activities that each state can provide. Will you give me your assurance
    that the Fish and Wildlife Service will work with this subcommittee to
    improve the proposed distribution formula, should the Senate agree to
    support this new program?
        Answer. Yes. The Department has already expressed a willingness to
    work with the Congress, the States, and other interested parties to
    discuss ways to improve and implement the Administration's proposal.
        The proposed State Non-game Wildlife Grants Fund will provide
    grants to states, tribes and U.S. territories for planning,
    inventorying, monitoring and conducting research related to non-game
    species, as well as the restoration of their habitat. Conservation
    education and non-game wildlife related recreation projects and land
    acquisition would also be funded.
        This component of the Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative
    would be a strong tool to help prevent non-game fish and wildlife
    populations from declining to the point where the potential regulatory
    protections of Federal statutes such as the Endangered Species Act
    would have to be implemented. It would also benefit the estimated 62.9
    million people who participate annually in some form of wildlife
    watching such as observing, feeding or photographing wildlife while
    spending over $29.2 billion a year in pursuit of these activities.
        The Administration designed the distribution formula to address the
    greatest threats to non-game wildlife; to enhance non-consumptive
    recreational enjoyment of wildlife; and to fairly allocate available
    resources to the states, tribes and territories.
        Under the Administration's proposal, states would receive ninety
    and one-third of one percent of the available funds. The distribution
    formula for the state share would allocate one-third of these funds
    based on the area of the state and two-thirds of the funds based on the
    population of the state. Population estimates would be derived from
    Census Bureau data. A ``ceiling'' of five-percent maximum state share
    and a ``floor'' of one-percent minimum state share would ensure that
    equitable resources would be available for all fifty states.
        Tribes would receive three percent of the available funds; Puerto
    Rico would receive one percent of the available funds. Guam, the Virgin
    Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the District
    of Columbia each would receive one-third of one percent of the
    available funds.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service plans to deduct up to four percent
    from available funds for administration before making apportionments to
    the states, territories, and tribes. The Service requests 10 FTE for
    the administration of this program at the headquarters and regional
    office levels.

                            OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING

        The Office of Surface Mining is prevented from granting more than
    25 percent of its Abandoned Mine Lands State Emergency Reclamation
    Program Grants to any one state, no matter what the needs. In recent
    years, West Virginia has not received adequate relief from damages
    caused by heavy rainfalls in coalfield communities.
        Question. What do you intend to do to ensure that states can
    receive all the reclamation relief they need when sufficient funds are
    in the account to do so?
        Answer. OSM supports ending the 25 percent limitation. It has
    caused administrative difficulties, although we have been successful in
    eventually providing from prior year recoveries all of the emergency
    funds that a State believed it would need. This has been the case even
    when increased funds became necessary due to unanticipated weather
    events. As shown in the following chart, West Virginia has received the
    funding it requested in recent years. In fiscal year 1996 and 1997,
    when additional funds seemed to be necessary due to heavy rainfalls, we
    were able to provide the State with recovered unused emergency funds.
    In the last three closed grants, the State had unused fund balances
    which were deobligated. We remain concerned, however, that the 25
    percent limitation could at a future point present a funding problem
    that we might not be able to resolve as we have been able to do so far.

                   WEST VIRGINIA AML EMERGENCY PROGRAM FUNDING
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Original      Total
               Fiscal year               funding       funds        Funds
                                         request      awarded    deobligated
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1996.............................   $3,020,737   $4,350,000   $2,490,656
    1997.............................    5,437,575    6,437,575    1,479,855
    1998.............................    3,699,962    3,699,962      834,776
    1999.............................    3,680,807    3,680,807  ...........
    2000.............................    3,000,000    3,000,000  ...........
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. The OSM is requesting a $2 million increase for the
    Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative which will bring the number of
    projects up to 46. Can you provide a project list associated with the
    $2 million increase, including the amounts and locations for the
    projects?
        Answer. States and OSM evaluate projects for Clean Streams funds
    after funds are appropriated, so OSM does not have a list yet. Of the
    requested increase, $1 million is for supplemental grants to eligible
    States. After grant funds are appropriated for the program, we provide
    them to the eligible States who actually select the specific projects.
    Each State must decide which of the potential projects is to the point
    where providing the supplemental Clean Streams funds will result in
    viable partnerships in order to raise the entire amount of funds
    necessary to begin construction.
        The other $1 million of the requested increase is for the Watershed
    Cooperative Agreements that are directly administered by OSM. Once
    funds are appropriated, we place a notice in the Federal Register and
    contact the known watershed organizations in eligible States to make
    them aware of the appropriation and to request applications from those
    interested in receiving funds for particular projects. We evaluate the
    received applications and make funding decisions throughout the fiscal
    year.
        Question. Why is the administration asking for $12 million for
    abandoned mine lands grants when the States need more funding for their
    regulatory programs?
        Answer. Both reclamation and regulation are important priorities
    for OSM, which must balance these priorities in the face of competing
    funding needs. One of OSM's priorities for the past three years has
    been increasing funding for AML reclamation projects through increases
    in environmental restoration grants to states. These activities are
    narrowly focused on reclaiming all SMCRA priority 1 and 2 sites as soon
    as possible. These projects directly address health and safety hazards
    from abandoned mines, and have additional positive effects as they
    abate economically and environmentally damaging acid mine drainage.
        OSM has been closely monitoring state regulatory activities and
    funding over the last several years. As the improving economy has
    improved State financial situations, it has made it possible for states
    to make more State matching share monies available for their programs,
    for instance, to make previously withheld pay raises. When States and
    Tribes submitted their fiscal year 2001 estimates in May of 1999, they
    asked for a total of $61 million. OSM reviews several factors in making
    decisions regarding the level of funding for the regulatory grant
    program, including historical obligation rates, anticipated State and
    tribal expenditure levels, and State and tribal budget target levels.
    The fiscal year 2001 request was OSM's best estimate of the funding
    that states would require.
        OSM is aware of State and Tribal concerns about funding for their
    regulatory programs and plans to review the funding for regulatory
    grants in this light when it prepares its fiscal year 2002 budget
    request. In the meantime, while the primacy states as a group do say
    they are receiving less than what was in the estimates they submitted,
    OSM will work with individual States and Tribes to minimize the effects
    of any funding issues on these important regulatory programs.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        Question. BLM is requesting to purchase 1,000 Potomac River
    watershed acres in Charles County, Maryland for $3 million. The area
    has wetland and woodland habit suitable for many wildlife species,
    contains Native American and other archeological sites, and was the
    site of a Civil War encampment. The Fish and Wildlife Service and
    National Park Service are both well-equipped to manage additional lands
    in the eastern states. Why did you decide BLM should be the bureau to
    acquire and manage this land?
        Answer. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) provides
    the BLM with the authority to acquire land anywhere in the nation. The
    BLM is prepared to take a leadership role in the protection of green
    space and critical conservation areas in the states that are contiguous
    and east of the Mississippi River. By closely working with land and
    resource conservation organizations, local and State governments, and
    other Federal agencies, the BLM can play a key role in ensuring there
    are public recreation opportunities, open spaces, protection and
    interpretation for watersheds, unique geological, historical, and
    critical habitat areas that are threatened by urban sprawl and
    development.
        The BLM has the expertise in managing public lands for competing
    uses and making resource allocation decisions with open public
    involvement that is considered an integral part of effective
    management. The BLM has a reputation for working closely with other
    organizations, local and State governments, and other agencies. This is
    particularly true in the East, where the BLM was a charter affiliate of
    the Eastern Lands and Resources Council, and has successfully managed
    lands and resources in a cooperative and consensual manner for more
    than 50 years. This proposal would also increase national public
    visibility of the agency to the eastern part of the country. In order
    to maximize funding and benefits to the public, the State of Maryland
    is committing $3,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 toward this acquisition,
    and would be primarily responsible for managing the properties, in
    partnership with the BLM.
        The BLM has several examples of special areas that are actively
    managed by the BLM Eastern States (ES) Office. These areas have either
    unique characteristics or are Congressionally withdrawn from transfer,
    including the Jupiter Inlet area in Florida, and the Lake Vermilion
    area in Minnesota. The BLM has also transferred lands to State, local
    or non-profit organizations for recreation and public purposes as well
    as identified land for acquisition and active management based on
    society's changing needs for open space, habitat protection, greenways/
    trails, etc.
        The key to active land management in the ES Office has been the
    development of partnerships to maximize the available funding, involve
    other agencies/groups, and attain local and community support for the
    daily oversight of these public lands. This approach has been critical
    to the successful management of these land resources.
        Approximately 3,400 acres of surface in the East are managed this
    way. These areas include:
    Jupiter Inlet
        Management Goals.--Management as ACEC for habitat protection/
    improvement for 18 special status species (N. End of parcel); R&PP Act
    lease for intensive recreation and restoration/maintenance of natural
    and cultural values (S. End of parcel); and environmental education.
        Partners.--Palm Beach County, South Florida Water Management
    District, Fish & Wildlife Foundation; Town of Jupiter; Village of
    Tequesta, U.S. Coast Guard, and Florida History Center and Museum.
        Accomplishments.--Major wetland construction project completed with
    funding from South Florida Water Management District and Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation in support of regional Indian River Lagoon
    Restoration program, first prescribed burn in the BLM Eastern States
    completed in partnership with Palm Beach County, pre-historic midden
    stabilization project co-funded with the Town of Jupiter, fencing,
    exotic plant removal, and signing completed cooperatively with Palm
    Beach County, and three successive National Public Lands Day events
    sponsored by the BLM, Palm Beach County, local municipalities, and the
    U.S. Coast Guard. In addition, an interpretive nature trail co-funded
    by the BLM and the Town of Jupiter is under construction, and is
    expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2000. In all cases,
    implementation funding has been matched by local agencies/groups.
        Acreage.--86 acres.
    Lake Vermilion Islands
        Management Goals.--Complement water-based recreation, protect
    wildlife habitat, protect island shoreline and maintain natural
    character of lands in Lake Vermilion area.
        Partners.--Minnesota DNR-Divisions of Parks, Forestry and Trails &
    Waterways, City of Tower, USFS, Raps Road Association., and Elbow Lake
    Association.
        Accomplishments.--Development of universal boat access for Lake
    Vermilion (Wakemup Bay) using Challenge Cost-Share (CCS) funding;
    Development of universal access fishing pier for Lake Vermilion (HooDoo
    Point) using CCS funding; partnership with MN DNR for island monitoring
    (E. End of lake) during high recreation-use periods; partnerships with
    Raps Road (W. End of lake) and Elbow Lake Assns. for island monitoring/
    cleanup; and elimination of trespass.
        Acreage.--12 acres.
    Big Saline Bayou tract, Rapides Parish, Louisiana
        Management Goals.--Working with partners in the local area to
    develop the tract for fishing access and environmental education and
    protect wildlife and their habitat found in the area.
        Partners.--Natural Resource Conservation Service, Central Louisiana
    Pride (a Keep America Beautiful affiliated volunteer group in
    Alexandria, LA).
        Accomplishments.--A proposed land use plan covers the 160-acre Big
    Saline Bayou tract, as well as three other tracts in Louisiana. The
    site has had a history of illegal dumping. A contract to remove
    accumulated waste such as old refrigerators, 55 gallon drums, etc. was
    completed in fiscal year 1999. The BLM boundary sign and no dumping
    signs will be installed soon. Development of a cooperative management
    plan will be initiated in fiscal year 2000.
        Acreage.--160 acres.

                               AMPHIBIAN RESEARCH

        Question. The U.S. Geological Survey has a budget request of $2
    million for research and monitoring of frogs, toads, and salamanders.
    What do you hope to accomplish with this research?
        Answer. With the additional funds requested in fiscal year 2001,
    USGS will expand monitoring surveys to all major regions of the United
    States, including the Northeast, and the Upper and Lower Mississippi
    River Basins. Amphibian declines and deformities have been observed/
    reported in these regions. If funded, this initiative would also
    increase research on disease, parasites, and contaminant effects on
    amphibians. Research would also be undertaken to characterize
    hydrological conditions, describe the basic water quality (water
    chemistry and water-borne toxics, etc.) at monitoring sites, and
    generally assess past and present habit conditions at many of these
    same sites. Cartographers and geographers in the bureau will provide
    high resolution maps of survey sites, and developing novel approaches
    to analyze land-use, land-cover, and other geospatial information to
    correlate habitat change with amphibian declines. Data storage,
    analytical, and reporting capability would be increased, and the
    structure of standardized databases would be enhanced to accommodate
    data from other Federal, State, and private amphibian monitoring
    programs. A partnership program would be initiated with matching funds
    to encourage critical state and other stakeholder participation in the
    Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative.
        Question. Do you intend for the amphibian research to be an ongoing
    program or do you expect to need this funding on a one-time basis to
    pay for all of the necessary research?
        Answer. The amphibian research increase is needed to fund critical
    gaps in USGS' permanent, ongoing amphibian research and monitoring
    initiative. Whereas a small portion of the requested funds would be
    used for short-term (3-5 years) research projects, the majority of
    these funds would support ongoing, continuous monitoring programs
    necessary for obtaining status and long-term trend information for
    amphibian populations.

                          ACROSS-THE-BOARD RESCISSION

        Question. The appropriations bill we passed this year included an
    across-the-board rescission of 0.38 percent. We have since learned that
    you reduced Congressional projects, including the repairs to the Canaan
    Valley National Wildlife Refuge, by 7.5 percent. Why did you decide to
    take a disproportionate share of the rescission from Congressional
    priorities?
        Answer. The application of a 7.5 percent reduction from line item
    construction projects that were not requested in the President's budget
    was consistent with the Administration's approach throughout the
    agencies funded in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Act. The Department's protection of programs that were Presidential
    Priorities during the negotiations process was also consistent with the
    Administration's approach to the rescission. Additionally, the
    Department protected funding appropriated to the Office of Special
    Trustee because of the high priority of trust reform activities.
    Generally, aside from these exclusions, the rescission was applied
    proportionately to all bureaus and programs throughout the Department.

                              WORKING CAPITAL FUND

        Question. The bureaus in your Department are requesting increases
    for Departmental working capital fund charges exceeding $4 million for
    2001. Are all of these working capital fund costs uncontrollable as
    they are presented in the budget, or are some of these costs generated
    by management decisions?
        Answer. Most of the increase in the 2001 consolidated billing or
    ``uncontrollable'' segment of the Departmental working capital fund
    (WCF) provides for the same uncontrollable increases that are requested
    by the Department's bureaus in their respective budget requests,
    namely, pay raises, rent increases, and the like. Part of the 2001 WCF
    increase is offset by a reduction in Departmental Management
    reimbursable work. Financing the Office that provides GPRA assistance
    to bureaus is being switched from a reimbursable to the Departmental
    Management appropriation to the working capital fund. With respect to
    funding levels this change has little effect on the cost to bureaus.
    Two items that are included in the 2001 estimate could be interpreted
    as management decisions.
        Late in 1999, the Department realized that in order to conform to
    the provisions of the Clinger-Cohen Act the Department needed to
    develop a Department-wide Information Technology Architecture. This
    effort was initiated with credit card rebate funds; however, a more
    structured source of revenue was needed to ensure stable, uninterrupted
    development. It was therefore added to the working capital fund in
    2001.
        The second management decision was to bolster DOI University
    offerings, which provide training nationwide for all DOI bureaus and
    offices.
        In both cases input from high-level bureau officials weighed into
    the management decisions. Once agreed upon, the decisions became
    binding or ``uncontrollable'' to individual bureaus.
                                     ______

                QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

                   NATIONAL PARK SERVICE--PETROGLYPH MONUMENT

        Secretary Babbitt, under current practice, tracts of high value
    that have the support of both the administration and the Congressional
    delegation usually have a relatively good chance of being selected for
    acquisition through the appropriations process. Some larger tracts tend
    to motivate a great deal of public sentiment, sometimes both pro and
    con, and therefore are raised to a higher level of awareness within the
    Congress and the Administration.
        Let me give you a frustrating example on an acquisition that should
    have been completed in New Mexico. In 1990, Congress passed legislation
    to establish the Petroglyph National Monument in Albuquerque. With that
    legislation, we committed to acquire all of the privately held land
    within the area to be administered by the National Park Service.
        The following are the requests of the Administration to fund land
    acquisition at the monument:

                              [In millions dollars]

    Fiscal year:
        1992 (Bush)...................................................   8.0
        1993 (Bush)...................................................   8.0
        1994 (Bush/Clinton)...........................................   4.3
        1995 (Clinton)................................................   1.8
        1996 (Clinton)......................................................
        1997 (Clinton)......................................................
        1998 (Clinton)......................................................
        1999 (Clinton)................................................   1.0
        2000 (Clinton.......................................................

        Facing having waited 10 years to have been bought out, I must only
    assume that the Administration considers these to be low priority
    tracts that don't have exceptional resource values. But the current
    owners cannot do anything with the land, and continue to pay taxes, and
    want out. The problem is that it takes a non-related issue, on which
    the Administration wants my support for me, or Congresswoman Wilson, or
    former Congressman Schiff to get the Administration and the agency to
    pay any attention to this commitment. I'm speaking of a high priority
    acquisition elsewhere in New Mexico, that gave us the leverage to get
    the Administration to request additional funding in fiscal year 1999.
        For this reason, I am hoping that Title II of S. 1892 will help
    remedy this situation. I appreciate the Administration's favorable
    testimony of that legislative initiative.
        Question. However, I would like to know how much funding is needed
    to complete Federal acquisition at the Petroglyph National Monument?
        Answer. After fiscal year 2000, fifty-one privately owned tracts
    containing a total of 20 acres will remain to be acquired at Petroglyph
    National Monument. Additional funds in the amount of $2,700,000 would
    be needed to complete the acquisition of the privately owned tracts at
    the national monument.

               BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT--GRAZING PERMIT RENEWALS

        Question. As you may know, I have worked diligently to protect
    permitees while BLM completes NEPA compliance. You will also recall
    that language in the fiscal year 2000 Interior Appropriations bill does
    not in any way effect BLM's authority to change permit terms when
    damage to the land is occurring, or in any other way avoid
    environmental law compliance. It has recently come to my attention that
    despite my efforts in the passage of law to protect permitees rights,
    the BLM in New Mexico may have other interpretations of the law's
    requirements.
        I understand that over 350 grazing permits in New Mexico that
    expired in 1999 have yet to be renewed under their existing terms and
    conditions until the NEPA process is complete. Could you please verify
    the status of permit renewals in my home state, and justify any
    avoidance of the law that may be occurring?
        Answer. According to a report from the New Mexico State Director
    dated April 24, 2000, proposed decisions for all 364 fiscal year 1999
    expired permits and leases will be issued by mid-July so that final
    decisions can be issued by September 30, 2000.
        All 371 permits and leases expiring in fiscal year 2000 will be
    renewed in accordance with the language of Public Law 106-113, and
    about half will have NEPA compliance completed by September 30, 2000.
    The remainder will be processed in accordance with NEPA by September
    30, 2001.
                                     ______

                QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

                         PARTNERS FOR WILDLIFE PROGRAM

        Question. There is a critical need in Vermont to restore waterways
    and create sustainable, healthy ecosystems for aquatic life and public
    health. Increasingly, our waters are being threatened by urban
    development and contaminated run-off and Vermonters want a long-term
    plan to safeguard this precious resource. Your Department's Fish and
    Wildlife Service has played a key role in confronting, and solving,
    state water quality issues and I believe they need even more support in
    fiscal year 2001, not to mention 2002 and beyond. One particularly
    important Fish and Wildlife Service program is completely voluntary and
    extremely popular--Partners for Wildlife program. In 1999, the Partners
    for Wildlife program helped Vermont complete 31 habitat restoration
    projects, most of which directly addressed water quality. These
    projects included installing fencing to keep livestock out of streams,
    stabilizing streambanks, and creating instream habitat in the Lake
    Champlain watershed. Nationally, the Partners for Wildlife program has
    had wait-lists of over 2000 private landowners. In Vermont, there are
    already several hundred landowners in line. I was pleased to see a
    modest increase in this program (Partners for Fish and Wildlife) in
    your fiscal year 2001 budget. However, I believe this important program
    can be even further expanded. I would like to know the long-term plans
    of your Department to increase funding and access to this key,
    voluntary conservation program so that it may best serve all of those
    who wish to take part.
        Answer. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has been a very
    successful and well received program. The program works voluntarily
    with private landowners to restore fish and wildlife habitats. With
    over 70 percent of the nations land in private ownership, there are
    many opportunities for collaborative efforts. With over 22,000
    landowner agreements across the county, this small program has made
    significant progress providing landowners with biological and technical
    expertise, as well as cost-sharing, for habitat improvements on their
    lands. A healthy environment is necessary for economic and social
    prosperity. The Partners program focuses on providing landowners and
    communities with the tools and the means to achieve a healthy
    environment. Due to these factors, the 2001 President's budget request
    includes an increase of $2.5 million to attack invasive species (+$2
    million) and implement additional fish passage projects (+$500,000).
        The program has become more diverse and habitat restoration efforts
    more complex. As the program moves into additional watersheds, the
    demand from communities and landowners for technical assistance
    increases. As a result, the need for additional capabilities has become
    critical to the continued success of the program and its ability to
    participate in many ongoing and new partnership efforts in a meaningful
    way. As with all priorities in the Service, the Partners Program will
    compete annually with other equally vital Service programs within the
    constraints of limited budgets.
        The Partners program will continue to emphasize the restoration of
    aquatic and terrestrial habitats and ecological communities for the
    benefit of fish and wildlife, in concert with the needs and desires of
    private landowners. It will focus on modifying land use practices that
    imperil watersheds and landscapes, supporting locally-led initiatives,
    and empowering communities and landowners to become actively involved
    in habitat conservation efforts. It will also continue to focus on
    developing partnerships with Federal, State, local governments, tribes,
    NGO's, communities and individuals.
        The Partners Program will also continue to provide habitat
    conservation and restoration expertise to landowners involved in other
    Federal conservation programs. The addition of the Service's expertise
    to the collaborative process ensures that habitat restoration plans and
    implementation meet the needs of Federal trust species including
    migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and anadromous fish
    (e.g., salmon). As experts in current restoration techniques the
    Partners program representatives provide important information
    regarding a site's restoration potential, planting and seeding mixes
    and rates, optimal hydrological regimes (e.g., when to flood and when
    to draw down), stream restoration techniques, specific target species
    habitat needs, and other biological and construction information that
    will result in the best restoration possible.

                      CONNECTICUT RIVER JOINT COMMISSIONS

        Question. For several years, the National Park Service provided
    some financial assistance to the Vermont-New Hampshire Connecticut
    River Joint Commissions through the Rivers and Trail program. This
    funding, if small, was used to leverage important private fund raising
    and has encouraged conservation, cultural heritage, and recreational
    work throughout the Connecticut River watershed. However, in recent
    years the National Park Service has suggested that the Rivers and
    Trails program is not suited to provide ongoing support for these
    efforts. Given that the Connecticut River was named an American
    Heritage River in 1999 and deserves federal attention, please outline
    how the National Park Service can best support these coalitions if not
    through Rivers and Trails program.
        Answer. Over the past 9 fiscal years, the NPS, through its Rivers
    and Trails Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program has provided a total
    of $1.473 million to support the Joint Commissions for the Connecticut
    River. The fiscal year 2000 Interior Appropriations Conference Report
    provided specific direction to the NPS regarding long-term financial
    support to RTCA projects. It stated, ``the managers emphasize that this
    [the RTCA Program] is a technical assistance program and therefore it
    is not meant to provide for annual operating expenses or technical
    assistance beyond 2 years.'' This direction was an affirmation of the
    existing NPS policy, that is in place to equitably respond to the
    demand for assistance from localities in all 50 States.
        The NPS is pleased to participate in the Federal agency-working
    group that was set up as part of the designation of the Connecticut
    River as an American Heritage River. The Environmental Protection
    Agency plays the lead role as River Navigator for the Connecticut River
    and may have the broadest perspective on programs capable of providing
    continuing support to the Joint Commissions. In the past, we have also
    suggested that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, through its Silvio
    Conte National Wildlife Refuge, should be a strong partner.
        Ultimately, the Joint Commissions need to establish a broad
    spectrum of funding to support their work to include state and local
    governments, and corporate and foundation partners.
        The NPS has no authority for long-term financial support for
    organizations like the Joint Commissions for the Connecticut River. The
    National Park Service will continue as an enthusiastic supporter and
    strong reference for the Joint Commission.

                LAKE CHAMPLAIN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE OFFICE

        Question. Considerable pressure is growing in Vermont to speed up
    the time line for restoration of Lake Champlain. In particular, the
    sportfishing community is pushing to prioritize the recovery of lake
    sturgeon and landlocked salmon. Fisheries Resource Office funding is
    greatly needed as this facility has had a consistently declining budget
    since 1993. Level, or increased funding is needed in fiscal year 2001.
    When we passed the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1992, one
    of the most important issues was restoration of native fish and
    wildlife habitat and the Fish and Wildlife Service made a commitment to
    be a lead federal partner in the Lake Champlain Basin Program.
    Secretary Babbitt, please explain how this declining budget rationale
    has been made each year, given this prior commitment. Also, I would
    like to know what the Service will do to meet the commitments made to
    the Lake Champlain Action Plan.
        Answer. Since passage of the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act
    of 1990, the Service's Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resource Office
    has represented the Service on several committees and working groups
    within the Lake Champlain Basin Program. As part of the Service's
    commitment to participate on high priority actions items identified in
    the Lake Champlain Management Plan (Opportunities for Action) finalized
    in 1996, the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources Office is
    working with numerous federal, state, local government and non-
    government partners on a variety of initiatives directed at restoring
    Lake Champlain.
        The Service remains committed to the Lake Champlain Basin Program
    as the lead federal agency in the restoration of native fish and
    wildlife species and their habitats within the watershed. Priority
    activities include sea lamprey management, landlocked salmon and lake
    sturgeon restoration and forage fish stock assessments. All of these
    activities are in cooperation with our state and local partners.
        While the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources Office
    fisheries' budget has declined from $622,000 in fiscal year 1993 to
    $514,000 in fiscal year 2000, as shown in the following table, the
    Service has concurrently increased the office's Partners for Fish and
    Wildlife Program (habitat restoration) budget from $5,000 to $199,000.
    Within the Lake Champlain watershed, this highly successful program has
    led to the restoration of more than 600 acres of wetland, 59 miles of
    riparian (streambank), and 450 acres of adjacent upland habitats since
    1993. If enacted, the Service estimates that the 2001 Budget Request
    would provide $791,000 for the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife
    Resources Office, an increase of $77,000 over 2000 enacted.

                   LAKE CHAMPLAIN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES OFFICE (BUDGET: FISCAL YEARS 1993-2001)
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1993   1994   1995   1996   1997   1998   1999   2000   2001
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fisheries Program................................    622    607    596    578    578    588    554    514    591
    Partners for Fish & Wildlife.....................      5     15    100    196    192    198    198    199    200
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------
          Total......................................    627    627    696    774    770    786    752    713    791
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              MARSH-BILLINGS-ROCKEFELLER NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

        Question. During its first summer of operation, the Marsh-Billings-
    Rockefeller National Historical Park received almost 30,000 visitors.
    This is the only national park in Vermont and is not only extremely
    popular, but has also become a unique education and outreach center for
    sustainable forestry practices at the National Park Service
    Conservation Study Institute. Additional funding is needed to meet both
    the increasing visitation to the park and to maintain the now
    nationally recognized Conservation Study Institute for sustainable
    forestry. I would like to know how the National Park Service will
    support and encourage this type of community educational partnership as
    it continues to grow in popularity.
        Answer. Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller NHP opened to the public in June
    1998 and had 21,000 visitors that first year. In August 1999, the park
    opened the newly rehabilitated 10,000 square-foot Carriage Barn Visitor
    Center. The new facility includes exhibits on conservation history and
    stewardship, conferencing and educational spaces, and museum storage.
    Visitation to the park increased 61 percent in 1999 to 34,000. The park
    anticipates a 25 percent increase in visitors in 2000 and also
    associated increased demand for park programs at the new Carriage Barn
    Visitor Center.
        Demand for stewardship education programs is increasing as more and
    more people learn about the park and in light of the innovative
    conservation measures being undertaken in the Northern Forest by the
    Conservation Fund and other organizations. There is particular interest
    in sustainable forestry and responsible stewardship from the general
    public and the conservation community. Nonprofit organizations, state
    and local agencies, and academic institutions are approaching the park
    indicating a desire to partner in public programs and services which is
    a goal of the NPS and will serve as a means of meeting increased
    requirements in these areas.
        The Conservation Study Institute, based at the park, was
    established by the National Park Service to develop model conservation
    education programs and to provide technical assistance on best
    practices for resource stewardship and environmental leadership. These
    programs fill a critical need for maintaining and enhancing effective
    stewardship of national parks that relies upon leadership, an informed
    public, and collaboration through partnerships. The Institute works in
    partnership with the park, the University of Vermont, Shelburne Farms,
    and others to develop conservation education curricula focused on
    natural resources, cultural heritage, and sustainable practices, with
    an emphasis on forest stewardship. Programs developed and conducted by
    the Institute to date have been very successful. Demand for programs
    offered by the Institute is expected to double by fiscal year 2002.
        The NPS has gradually built the park operating base for the
    Historical Park and the Conservation Study Institute since the park's
    establishment. Beginning in fiscal year 1997 and in the three
    subsequent budgets, the NPS requested operating increases each year for
    the Park and Institute. Increases of $340,000, $400,000, $244,000, and
    $270,000 were approved for fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998, fiscal
    year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 respectively.
        The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request of $1.299 million
    for Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller NHP maintains level funding for the
    Conservation Study Institute programs and for park operations. Funding
    needs for Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller NHP and all other NPS units will
    continue to be addressed as funding is available and priorities
    dictate.

                        SILVIO O. CONTE EDUCATION CENTER

        Question. The nationally-recognized Montshire Museum of Science in
    Norwich, Vermont has developed a cooperative agreement with the Fish
    and Wildlife Service to construct a new wing dedicated to public
    education about the Silvio O. Conte Refuge lands, and specifically the
    Nulhegan Basin lands of the Connecticut River watershed. With $1.3
    million in federal funds allocated to this project last year, the
    partnership was forged and architectural design was completed. The
    project continues to need federal funds this year to complete
    construction and become one of the four designated public education
    centers in New England states with refuge lands (Vermont, Connecticut,
    New Hampshire, and Massachusetts). May I have a commitment from you,
    Secretary Babbitt, to fully fund and complete construction of this
    extremely important ecosystem and conservation education center along
    the Vermont bank of the Connecticut River.
        Answer. This project is a 10,000 square-foot addition to the
    existing Montshire Museum of Science, Inc., a private non-profit
    corporation that is designated a Conte Education Center as defined by
    the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act. The fiscal
    year 2000 appropriation directed that the Federal commitment for the
    project shall not exceed $2,900,000. The Service's cost estimate for
    the project is now $3,426,000. The additional cost of $526,000 is due
    to phasing. In fiscal year 2000 $1,387,000 was appropriated for the
    first phase of the project. As such, $2,039,000 is needed to complete
    the project. However, this project was not included in the President's
    Budget and is not in the Service's five-year construction plan.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings

                      NPS FORT SUMTER TOURS FRANCHISE FEES

        As you know, the Department of the Interior has been in a dispute
    with Fort Sumter Tours (FST) for some 8 years over an increase in FST's
    franchise fee. In 1992, NPS unilaterally increased FST's franchise fee
    from 4.25 percent to 12 percent. In a hearing before the House Resource
    Committee on July 1, 1999, Mr. Robert Stanton (NPS Director) admitted
    that there was a technical error in the original financial analysis.
        Question. Now, if errors were made, don't you think that it is only
    appropriate to correct them?
        Answer. As the attached letter to Chairman Hansen dated July 26,
    1999, more fully describes, the technical error acknowledged by the NPS
    at the July 1, 1999, hearing had no impact on the final franchise fee
    determination. This technical error was not in the franchise fee
    calculation which appropriately calculated the probable value to the
    concessioner of the privileges granted by the concession contract.

                       U.S. Department of the Interior,
                                         National Park Service,
                                          Washington, DC, July 26 1999.

    Hon. James V. Hansen,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, Committee on
            Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    the Committee on July 1, 1999, to discuss the National Park Service
    (NPS) franchise fee reconsideration for Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. (FST).
    For inclusion in the record, I would like to address a few issues that
    were raised at the hearing.
        At the hearing, the NPS stated, as we had in our letter of December
    5, 1998, that on page 2 of the 1992 NPS franchise fee analysis for FST,
    non-concession income was included in the initial determinations of the
    minimum and maximum franchise fee. However, I would like to emphasize
    again, as I did at the hearing, that this inclusion was a harmless
    oversight that had no impact on the final franchise fee determination.
    The final calculation of the 12 percent franchise fee did not take into
    account the $195,603 of non-concession income. The error was not in the
    franchise fee calculation which appropriately calculated the probable
    value to the concessioner of the privileges granted by the concession
    contract.
        I would like to clarify another point made at the hearing. When
    narrowly asked if the maximum franchise fee would have been 8.7 percent
    if the non-concession income were not included in this initial
    determination of the maximum and minimum franchise fee, the NPS
    acknowledged that the preliminary determination of the maximum fee,
    consistent with the spreadsheet, would have been 8.7 percent. However,
    the NPS was not asked, and was not given an opportunity to explain,
    that, in addition to the inclusion of non-concession income, the
    spreadsheet included non-concession expenses. If the non-concession
    income is excluded from the spreadsheet, then the non-concession
    expenses must also be excluded from the spreadsheet. If non-concession
    expenses were excluded from the calculation, then the maximum franchise
    fee would rise to approximately 12 percent to 14 percent, depending on
    how the expenses are addressed. Furthermore, I would like to state that
    the process of determining the initial maximum franchise fee as part of
    the franchise fee analysis is no longer the policy of the department.
    On July 20, 1995, after notice and public comment, the Director amended
    the NPS policy for determination of franchise fees. The Director
    eliminated that portion of the process that established the maximum
    franchise fee, as was utilized in the initial spreadsheet for FST.
    While the policy was originally intended to be used as a guideline to
    aid in the setting of franchise fees, it has often been interpreted by
    various parties involved in the fee setting process as a firm cap. This
    view has led to confusion and the setting of fees below the probable
    value of the authorizations involved. The elimination of this policy
    will end this confusion.
        In these circumstances, it is the position of the NPS that the
    determination of the 12 percent franchise fee for FST was and still is
    an appropriate determination under law, guidelines and contractual
    rights of the parties. As we discussed at the hearing, franchise fee
    analyses are performed to establish the probable value to the
    concessioner of the privileges granted by the concession contract.
        Next, I would like to note that there appeared to be some confusion
    about the process of fee reconsideration itself. As I stated at the
    hearing, the requirement to reconsider franchise fees every 5 years was
    mandated by Congress in the Concessions Policy Act of 1965, and was
    implemented through a specific provision of the FST concession
    contract. The process of reconsideration is a process of negotiation.
    If the NPS and the concessioner cannot agree upon an adjusted franchise
    fee within a specified period, the concessioner may choose to invoke
    advisory arbitration proceedings to determine the appropriate franchise
    fee. The process is one involving communication and negotiation by both
    parties. Unfortunately, FST chose not to avail itself of this
    arbitration process and pursued litigation instead.
        Finally, I would like to address the suggestion that the National
    Park Service was reluctant to provide information to FST as part of the
    reconsideration process. It certainly is the intention of the National
    Park Service to provide information to concessioners as part of the
    standard franchise fee reconsideration process. It is my understanding
    that all documents that were requested by FST were provided to FST,
    with the exception of certain copyrighted documents that are available
    from the organizations which issue them and in the public library. Of
    course, once a lawsuit is initiated, the process of providing documents
    is necessarily constrained by the litigation. I note again that the 4th
    Circuit found the actions of the National Park Service with respect to
    the production of documents to be proper and appropriate.
        As I stated in my testimony, this letter does not constitute a
    review of, a reconsideration of, or new decision of any nature
    regarding the established franchise fee. Furthermore, the fact that a
    particular calculation could be done another way does not in any manner
    suggest, admit or otherwise imply that the decisions made by the NPS
    were arbitrary, capricious or otherwise unlawful.
        I am pleased to inform you that the United States Attorney's office
    has set a time and a place to sit down with FST to discuss settlement
    of this ongoing litigation. We remain hopeful of a resolution and thank
    you for your interest in this matter.
                Sincerely,
                                                Robert Stanton,
                                                              Director.

        Question. Why has it been so hard for FST and the NPS to come
    together and sit down and negotiate an equitable settlement for
    everyone involved?
        Answer. Despite Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. preferring to litigate this
    matter and losing five court decisions, the NPS has attempted to settle
    this dispute with Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. on several occasions, most
    recently in the mediation program at the D.C. Court of Appeals. The NPS
    remains open to any reasonable settlement offer by Fort Sumter Tours,
    Inc.
        Question. NPS has stated that FST does a great job in their
    concessionaire duties. Isn't that correct?
        Answer. Fort Sumter Tours, Inc., has received satisfactory annual
    evaluations from the NPS.
        Question. You have asked for increased funding for Park Base
    Operations within the National Park Service. In the Budget
    Justification for NPS, it is stated that these increases are for 97
    increases for 71 park units. The Congaree Swamp National Monument
    located in SC will be opening the doors to a brand new, state-of-the-
    art, visitor/education center later this year, which this Subcommittee
    has been very instrumental in funding, and I thank the Chair and
    Ranking Member for that. The problem with this park, as well as others
    within the NPS, is lack of funding for increased operations. Do you
    think the Department of the Interior is asking for enough funding for
    base operations?
        Answer. The National Park Service is requesting an increase in
    fiscal year 2001 of over $90 million for the Operation of the National
    Park System appropriation--the source of funding for park operations.
    Within that amount, the NPS is proposing an increase of over $71
    million for direct park base operations, including $27,631,000 for
    programmatic park increases. The Department's fiscal year 2001 budget
    request attempts to strike a balance between the myriad of requirements
    in all programs while adhering to the budget allowances dictated by the
    need to stay within governmentwide funding constraints.
        Congaree Swamp National Monument received a recurring operating
    increase of $120,000 in fiscal year 2000 to operate and maintain the
    new facility. The park's budget has grown from $343,000 in fiscal year
    1997 to a proposed $735,000 for fiscal year 2001. Future base increases
    will be weighed against needs at other parks throughout the System and
    provided as priorities and budget allowances dictate.
        Question. How is it determined which parks will receive increased
    funding?
        Answer. The park base increases chosen for inclusion in the fiscal
    year 2001 budget submission reflect the highest priority needs as
    identified by park managers, and subsequently prioritized at the
    regional level through the use of the Service's Operations Formulation
    System (OFS). OFS is designed to allow the parks to identify and
    prioritize all unfunded operational requirements.
        Based on the immediacy of need and the priorities articulated by
    the NPS Director, Regional Offices band the increases into ``high
    priority'' or ``lower priority'' segments, with subsets of ``current''
    and ``future'' requirements. Individual Regional priorities are then
    set based on the priorities established by the NPS National Leadership
    Council (NLC) in conversations at the beginning of the budget cycle.
    For fiscal year 2001, special emphasis areas defined by the National
    Park Service were taken into consideration, as regional priorities were
    set.
        The next step in the process is a Servicewide review, in which all
    requests are examined for accuracy, validity, and conformance with
    policy. At this stage of the process interagency initiatives are
    overlaid on the NPS priority system and examined in light of
    anticipated performance results, based on established goals from the
    NPS Strategic Plan.
        The final priority listing was consolidated into a Servicewide
    request through a pro-ration among the Regions of the amount available
    based on a combination of historical funding levels and emphasis areas
    as directed by the various initiatives. As the allowance level was
    adjusted at each stage of the budget process, the list was adjusted to
    reflect the amount of budgetary allowance available and the commitment
    of the Department and the National Park Service to selected areas of
    emphasis.

                       FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CONCERNS

        Question. As you know, the GAO released a report on July 20, 1999,
    entitled Fish and Wildlife Service: Management and Oversight of the
    Federal Aid Program Needs Attention. On page 5 of this report, it is
    stated ``the Office has no idea of how much revenue is being generated
    or what is being done with these funds. In our opinion [GAO], the lack
    of concern exhibited by the agency officials about these kinds of
    issues is indicative of the weak oversight of this program.'' What, if
    anything, has been done to correct the mistakes that the GAO pointed
    out about the mishandling of funds.
        Answer. While the Service agrees with many of the concerns
    expressed by the General Accounting Office in their July 1999
    testimony, this is an area in which the Service disagrees with GAO's
    findings.
        In this case, GAO concluded that a particular contract was not
    clear with regard to the disposition of income authorized in the
    contract. Additionally, GAO concluded that there were other grants that
    were generating revenue. The Service does not believe there are other
    revenue-generating grants.
        The Service has thoroughly reviewed the contract in question and
    finds no ambiguity regarding the revenue generated under this contract.
    The contract specifically states that the Government pays to the
    contractor the costs of providing services to cooperators (fish and
    wildlife professionals). These costs are to cover copying, compiling,
    and mailing requested information. Cooperators are allowed up to 100
    free copies per request and the number of requests per cooperator is
    unlimited. In addition, the contractor is allowed to charge non-
    cooperators (all others, primarily non-government organizations and
    private researchers) costs for copying, compiling, and mailing
    information they request since these operations are not covered by the
    Service contract. Thus, ``generated funds'' are not ``profits'' to the
    contractor, but are fees the contractor collects to offset its costs.
    As such, the Service does not believe these are disposable revenues
    which are subject to return to the Service; rather they are necessary
    costs of providing services in excess of the amounts the Service
    subsidizes.
        Secretary Babbitt, the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget
    justification for fiscal year 2001 states that the Department, through
    the National Refuge System, owns and manages over 300,000 acres of
    coral reefs on eight refuges in the South Pacific. In the next
    sentence, the document claims that three million unmanaged acres occur
    in the immediate vicinity of these refuges.
        Question. Are these 3 million acres of coral reefs located in
    federal or state waters?
        Answer. All of these waters are federal waters. The approximately 3
    million acres of unmanaged waters adjacent to national wildlife refuges
    are certain waters in the Central Pacific that are not currently
    covered by an approved Fishery Management Plan for reef-associated
    organisms (e.g., bottomfish and crustaceans) under the authority of the
    National Marine Fisheries Service and the Western Pacific Regional
    Fishery Management Council. While there are limited entry fisheries
    established through federal Fishery Management Plans for some areas
    (e.g, Hawaiian Islands), there are none for a number of U.S. flag
    holdings in the Central Pacific Ocean, hence the reference to
    ``unmanaged acres.''
        Question. Does the Department have the legal authority to manage
    them? If so, which legislation or other authority provides the
    Department with such jurisdiction?
        Answer. While the Service has some authorities that apply within
    these federal waters, such as under the Endangered Species Act with
    respect to some species, the only waters that the Service has
    comprehensive management authority for are waters within national
    wildlife refuges. None of these waters are in a national wildlife
    refuge.
        Question. I am hearing that the Department of the Interior believes
    it has the authority to manage marine fish and other marine life
    (including corals) in federal waters--and even close down fisheries in
    state waters! This is contrary to President Nixon's Reorganization Plan
    No. 4 and subsequent legislation, including the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
    which gave the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    in the Department of Commerce the authority to manage living marine
    resources in federal waters. I even hear that the Department is
    interested in utilizing the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act as a
    justification to regulate fisheries in federal waters. It is my hope
    that this is not true! Do you care to comment?
        Answer. The authority of the Service to manage fish in national
    wildlife refuges is stated in the National Wildlife Refuge System
    Administration Act of 1966, as amended (including by the National
    Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997), whose provisions
    include:

        ``The mission of the System is to administer a national network of
    lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where
    appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and
    their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
    future generations of Americans.'' (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2))
        ``No person shall . . . take or possess any fish . . . within any
    such area . . . unless such activities are permitted either under
    subsection (d) of this section or by express provision of the law,
    proclamation, Executive order, or public land order establishing the
    area, or amendment thereof . . .'' (16 U.S.C. 668dd(c))
        ``The Secretary is authorized, under such regulations as he may
    prescribe, to--
              (A) permit the use of any area within the System for any
            purpose, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, public
            recreation and accommodations, and access whenever he
            determines that such uses are compatible with the major
            purposes for which such areas were established . . . (16 U.S.C.
            668dd(d)(1))

        This authority applies only in national wildlife refuges, not in
    all federal waters, and was not affected by President Nixon's
    Reorganization Plan No. 4, nor amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns

                                 UPPER MISSOURI

        Question. Secretary Babbitt, we have exchanged a number of letters
    and calls regarding the BLM's management of the Upper Missouri and
    possible changes in how the area [is] designated. Recently, you had to
    postpone a trip due to poor planning and little understanding of the
    Montana open meeting law. Are you planning on rescheduling this
    meeting? If so, when can we expect your visit? Will you be holding
    meetings open to the public, or just small closed door meetings?
        Answer. During a video conference call with the Resource Advisory
    Council in January, I promised to visit the area again in the spring.
    Following through on that commitment, I returned to Montana on May 2
    and 3, 2000, to discuss the management of the area further and explore
    the impacts on local communities. I held a large public meeting in
    Great Falls that was attended by more than 500 people, and two smaller
    public meetings in Fort Benton and Lewistown. All meetings were open to
    the press in accordance with Montana open meeting laws.
        Question. Can you assure the Committee that the administration has
    no plans to designate this area without the express consent of the RAC?
        Answer. No decision has been made about designation of the Upper
    Missouri River and Breaks area, and the Resource Advisory Council did
    not directly address designation in their recommendations to me on
    future management of the area. In general, I support the
    recommendations of the RAC.
        Question. Recently you have said that without legislative movement
    on new designations, without regard for whether new designations are
    the best way to manage all these areas, you have said you would not
    recommend that the President move forward on these designations, but
    implore him to do so. Considering your supposed commitment to the RAC
    process, can we assume your comments did not include the Upper
    Missouri?
        Answer. I have been very straightforward about my intent as it
    relates to possible national monument designations. I have said that my
    current focus will be on known land protection measures, specifically
    those now before the Congress, and I am encouraging everyone to make as
    much progress as possible in the remaining weeks of the session. If
    there is still important, undone business at that time, then I will
    consider possible next steps. Given the lengthy public process in
    Montana on the Upper Missouri and the discussions I have had with the
    Montana delegation, I have not excluded the Upper Missouri from further
    consideration for monument designation.
        I have also made clear that for any recommendations I make, I will
    continue to follow a ``no surprises'' policy. This means that I will
    give all sides the opportunity to be heard, and I will take that input
    seriously before making recommendations.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, there is a very strong locally lead push
    to start new stewardship initiatives on the Upper Missouri. There is
    also a RAC request for more money to dedicate to actual land management
    goals. Do you support funding these initiatives?
        Answer. The Central Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC)
    identified critical needs in managing the Upper Missouri River Breaks
    country, including conservation easements, cottonwood restoration
    activities, and visitor management. I support these findings of the RAC
    and understand that such activities require additional funding.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, I recently saw an internal memo from the
    BLM dated January 11, 2000. It sets forth interim management policy for
    newly created monuments. Would this document apply to National
    Conservation Areas as well?
        Answer. The Bureau of Land Management's interim management policy
    for newly created national monuments is aimed at protecting the objects
    for which the area has been designated. It does not apply to National
    Conservation Areas and has no current effect on the Upper Missouri
    River and Breaks area.
        Question. In principle, does it apply to any possible future
    designation for the Upper Missouri area?
        Answer. If the President should choose to create a monument in the
    Upper Missouri area under the Antiquities Act, then the BLM would issue
    an Interim Management Policy.
        Question. Can I get a full explanation of each management ``bullet
    point'' forwarded to my office. For example, it modifies predator
    control. Would this stop trapping? Would it require confirmation of
    individual kills to initiate control of individual predators?
    Essentially this would move all predator populations, including
    coyotes, into a protected status much like wolves in the Yellowstone
    region, correct?
        Answer. Each Interim Management Plan is specially tailored to each
    designated monument. Given the fact that the President has not
    designated the Upper Missouri area as a monument, and no recommendation
    has been made by me to do so, it would be premature to speculate about
    the details of an Interim Management Policy for this area.
        Question. On the section describing activities on Non-Monument
    lands, does this include private land?
        Answer. The section of the internal memorandum that addresses Non-
    Monument Lands applies exclusively to Federal lands that are adjacent
    to lands within the boundaries of the monument. It does not apply to
    private lands that are adjacent to the monument.
        Question. What is considered ``appropriate action?''
        Answer. Defining what constitutes ``appropriate action'' as that
    term is used in the internal memorandum is difficult because such
    action must, of necessity, be specific to the particular problem that
    is being be addressed.
        Question. Finally, the Governor has offered the river control plans
    already enacted in Montana as a model for what could be done on the
    Upper Missouri. Have you read his letter and what is your response to
    using a proven model rather than an arbitrary designation to address
    the needs of this area.
        Answer. Governor Racicot's February 7, 2000, letter refers to
    ``similar issues [being addressed] on the Beaverhead, Big Hole,
    Blackfoot, Big Horn and upper Missouri rivers.'' He suggests that
    ``these efforts take time for local groups to work with government
    agencies to assess the situation and to develop thoughtful plans to
    solve identified problems.'' I have been committed to an open public
    process since my initial visit to the Upper Missouri River and Breaks
    area in May 1999. The Central Montana Resource Advisory Council spent
    five months holding public meetings and engaging stakeholders as they
    developed their recommendations. I remain committed to continuing this
    process.

                            YELLOWSTONE SNOWMOBILING

        Mr. Secretary, my next concern is the recent action by the EPA
    regarding snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park.
        Question. Have you read the comments of the EPA that attack
    virtually the entire 350 page Winter Use EIS? What is your response?
        Answer. The December 15, 1999, letter you are referring to was a
    response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on Winter
    Use for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John D.
    Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway. The letter was written in
    accordance with EPA's mandated duty to comment on environmental impact
    statements under the Clean Air Act. The EPA letter compliments the work
    done on the DEIS, stating that, `` We would like to point out that this
    DEIS includes among the most thorough and substantial science base that
    we have seen supporting a NEPA document''.
        The letter is critical in a constructive way. For example, the
    letter states that Alternatives A-F do not assure compliance with NAAQS
    standards; Natioal Park Service's (NPS) adaptive management procedures
    are not well defined; and the DEIS analysis convincingly demonstrates
    that current snowmobile use is adversely affecting Park values in the
    context of Executive Order (EO) 11644 as amended. These criticisms
    provide us with opportunities to enhance the disclosure of impacts in
    the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to clarify procedures,
    and generally to improve the document in accordance with the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
        Question. Do you or the National Park Service plan on incorporating
    the comments into the EIS?
        Answer. In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality
    regulations (40 CFR 1503.4), NPS will assess and consider comments both
    individually and collectively, and will respond by one or more of the
    following means: (1) modify alternatives, (2) develop and evaluate
    alternatives not previously given serious consideration by the agency,
    (3) supplement, improve or modify its analyses, (4) make factual
    corrections, and (5) explain why the comment does not warrant agency
    response. EPA's letter is being considered and will be responded to as
    appropriate. EPA comments will be used to improve the analysis and
    disclosure of impacts and to develop mitigation within the full range
    of alternatives to be considered by the decision-maker. Also, EPA,
    along with numerous other organizations and individuals, has presented
    in their comments a compelling argument that, based on the DEIS,
    Alternative G best meets the purpose and need for action in regard to
    NPS mandates, Executive Orders, and current policy.
        Question. Is it your intention to weigh in from the Secretary of
    the Interior position on this issue? If so, what will your
    recommendation be?
        Answer. The delegated authority for this project lies with the
    Regional Director for the Intermountain Region of the National Park
    Service. However, the Secretary is in regular communication with the
    National Park Service on this issue and will be consulted before any
    decision is made.
        Question. Do you have any autonomy from the EPA, or does the EPA
    have full veto authority on everything the Department of the Interior
    and the National Park Service plans to do?
        Answer. NPS has the authority to make this particular decision. EPA
    conducted its review of the DEIS in accordance with its
    responsibilities under NEPA, and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, as
    amended. EPA is delegated a broad review and comment authority under
    Section 309. But NPS has decision-making authority for actions on
    public lands administered by the Service, after considering
    recommendations or permit requirements of other federal or state
    agencies having jurisdiction in law or special expertise relative to
    the impacts of a proposed action.
        Question. The National Park Service has consistently said that
    four-stroke machines would answer the problems of pollution and noise.
    Of course this was when the technology seemed impossible. Now, the
    manufacturers and the local businesses surrounding the park have met
    the challenge and are poised to begin phasing in the new four-stroke
    machines. However, the National Park Service has said publicly that it
    is ``too late'' in an effort to move the goal posts. Is it your
    position that it is ``too late'' to phase in these clean machines and
    meet the demands of the EPA?
        Answer. NPS has long advocated that the two-stroke machines need to
    be improved in these respects if they are to be allowed to continue to
    operate in most units of the National Park System. A few test four-
    stroke snowmobiles have been operated in and near Yellowstone National
    Park with some success. However, full production of this type of
    machine for use in Yellowstone Park is far from assured. Further, the
    emissions from these machines, even with quieter and cleaner
    technology, still emit polluting chemicals and noise. Therefore, NPS
    must continue to evaluate the overall volume of chemical and noise
    emissions. In addition, there are adverse effects NPS will consider,
    such as those on wildlife that will not be resolved by cleaner and
    quieter snowmobiles.
        Again, the NEPA process is still ongoing. NPS is producing a final
    EIS that will contain a full range of options that must be considered
    by the decision-maker (40 CFR Sec. 1505.1 and Sec. 1505.2). There is no
    decision under NEPA until the final EIS and Record of Decision are
    published.
        Question. From your recollection, when the EPA began requiring
    catalytic converters did they kick all the vehicles off the road or did
    they require a phase-in approach?
        Answer. Automobiles without catalytic converters were not
    prohibited from being on the roads.
        Question. A phase-in does seem appropriate, doesn't it? Would a
    phase-in of four-stroke technology seem appropriate in Yellowstone
    National Park?
        Answer. Five of seven alternatives in the DEIS contain provisions
    that would phase in clean and quiet snowmobile technology. Alternative
    B, the DEIS preferred alternative, allows a phase-in period of eight
    years following implementation of the decision. A sixth alternative,
    Alternative A, is ``no action'' which reflects current management and
    an alternative required by NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14 (d)). The seventh is
    Alternative G, which allows for motorized access via mass-transit
    snowcoach only, and which is phased in over three years. Again, NPS has
    not fully analyzed and arrived at a final preferred alternative.
        Question. Throughout the process the National Park Service has
    continued to release skewed information and partial facts regarding
    scientific findings in the National Parks in relations to this issue.
    Do you feel it is ethical to release half truths and biased press
    releases while conducting a NEPA document that focus on one aspect or
    alternative in the process?
        Answer. A review of the record of information and documents related
    to the development of the DEIS does not support the allegation that NPS
    has continually released skewed information or partial facts regarding
    scientific findings on this issue.
        It is true that NPS made computational errors in one summary of
    emissions data. The NPS, independent of the EIS process, released an
    Air Resource Division summary report, ``Air Quality Concerns Related to
    Snowmobile Usage in National Parks,'' that contained arithmetical
    mistakes. NPS has corrected the errors and re-released the report. Note
    that the summary report was not used in the writing of the DEIS.
    Rather, the DEIS used the independently prepared and reviewed research
    papers on air quality underlying the summary report. Data in the
    corrected report is available to the NPS planning team for
    consideration in the final EIS.
        Regardless of the computational errors in the original summary, the
    fact remains that the essence and import of the data remain essentially
    unchanged. The mandated comment and review period for a DEIS is
    expressly for the purpose of seeking better information and improving
    environmental analysis in the final document, thereby producing a good
    decision.
        Question. In the past few weeks, senior staff from Yellowstone
    National Park have told state and local officials from the three states
    surrounding the park that they intend to recommend to national
    headquarters that snowmobiles be banned from the park in the next two
    years. Is this a normal course of action under the NEPA process?
        Answer. The NPS wished to give the five counties, three states, and
    the U.S. Forest Service, who are cooperating agencies, as much notice
    as possible as to the possible direction the winter use plan might
    take. That is why in mid-March, we took the opportunity to provide them
    with this information. The NPS wanted to give the cooperating agencies
    as much time as possible so that they would be able to provide any
    additional information within their areas of expertise that would help
    the NPS in analyzing the effects of such a recommendation.
        Question. Is it normal to identify the preferred alternative prior
    to the formal release of the decision?
        Answer. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations suggest
    identifying the agency's preferred alternative in the draft
    environmental impact statement and require such an identification in
    the final environmental impact statement. These occur before a formal
    decision is reached, which occurs when the Record of Decision is
    signed. Specific guidance on the timing of such an announcement prior
    to release of the environmental impact statement is not provided in the
    regulations. The NPS often provides an early indication as to the
    direction of a preferred alternative so that the public and other
    agencies can have a sense of the agency's position. In simpler
    projects, that may actually occur during the scoping process in which
    we solicit ideas from the public on issues and alternatives. In more
    complex projects, such an indication may not occur until the EIS is
    released for public and agency review.
        In the case of the Winter Use Plan, we emphasized to the
    cooperating agencies that this identification of a preferred
    alternative was not a decision, rather an indication of our direction.
    A decision would come in the Record of Decision, which is slated for
    approval in early November, after the final EIS is released. The actual
    decision can adopt another alternative or elements of other
    alternatives as presented in the final EIS.
        Question. Has the National Park Service conducted any surveys or
    done any formal economic impact analysis to determine what effect the
    snowmobile ban would have on nearby communities and businesses? If so,
    can you provide that information to the Committee?
        Answer. Many surveys have occurred and a formal economic impact
    analysis of the effects of each of the alternatives was completed and
    is contained in the DEIS. The DEIS contains a summary of the results
    these surveys and the analysis for all the alternatives, including
    Alternative G.
        At the request of the cooperating counties, the NPS has agreed to
    include a more focused economic impact analysis in the final EIS that
    will just look at the effects on the five cooperating counties. Both
    the initial analysis of a 17-county area and the additional analysis
    are being conducted by a contractor, not by the NPS. In addition, the
    NPS has requested additional economic information from the cooperating
    agencies, especially the five counties, to assist in understanding the
    effects of the alternatives. The final EIS will include this additional
    analysis, additional information from the counties, and additional
    survey results that have been completed since release of the DEIS.
        Question. Is the Park Service willing to suspend action on the
    Winter Use EIS until it can provide the finding of such an economic
    impact study by an independent and objective outside source and report
    the results to Congress?
        Answer. The economic analysis for the winter use plan is being
    conducted by an independent, objective, and outside source. A Montana
    company, Bioeconomics, Inc., is conducting the work under contract to
    the NPS. In their analysis for the DEIS, Bioeconomics, Inc. reviewed
    all the economic information from the cooperators and used it to the
    extent possible in their analysis. Although the comments on the DEIS
    regarding economics criticized the analysis and conclusions, the
    comments did not provide alternative methodologies or compelling
    reasons why the conclusions were inaccurate. The cooperating agencies
    did ask for a more focused analysis and that additional information
    from the agencies is incorporated. The NPS has agreed to these
    requests, and directed Bioeconomics, Inc. to do so for the final EIS.

                               YELLOWSTONE BISON

        Question. Following court ordered mediation, is the NPS finally
    willing to work in good faith and realize they can not ignore the state
    in bison management decisions?
        Answer. The National Park Service has continuously tried to work in
    good faith with the State of Montana. NPS, as well as other federal
    agencies, agreed to participate in mediation in a good faith attempt to
    resolve the situation and bring to a close the legal action brought by
    Montana.
        Question. The BLM budget includes $3.7 million to buy out existing
    grazing leases on Church land adjacent to land purchased from the Royal
    Teton Ranch. How many years does this grazing right purchase cover?
        Answer. Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) are routinely used
    to acquire conservation easements from property owners rather than
    purchasing the property fee simple. These easements are property rights
    that would be acquired by the Federal government and held in
    perpetuity; the landowner would retain all other property rights. The
    conservation easement in this circumstance would permanently acquire
    grazing rights (a property right) on the Royal Teton Ranch, with the
    intention of resolving a livestock/wildlife conflict within the
    Yellowstone River corridor that involves the Ranch property. This
    proposal does not involve buying ``grazing leases''.
        Question. When did BLM get into the habit of using LWCF money to
    buy out cattle producer's existing leases? This is a very direct hit on
    the local economy.
        Answer. A portion of the Royal Teton Ranch was cooperatively
    purchased by the BLM and the US Forest Service in 1999, as part of an
    effort to protect key winter range and migration corridors for species
    of wildlife passing in and out of Yellowstone National Park. The 6,000
    acre easement proposal included in the fiscal year 2001 budget would
    acquire grazing rights from the Church Universal and Triumphant, the
    current land owner and a willing seller. Continued acquisitions of the
    Royal Teton Ranch are intended to help prevent potential brucellosis
    outbreaks in the State.
        This was not an attempt to purchase grazing leases. These are
    private lands where the intent was to purchase the property rights for
    grazing these lands. Negotiations with the land owner on this
    acquisition have stalled and the Department is no longer pursuing this
    acquisition project
        Question. Current correspondence to my office indicates that this
    is not a ``willing seller'' arrangement. Is this your understanding?
        Answer. Negotiations to purchase a grazing easement from the Church
    Universal and Triumphant (CUT), owners of Royal Teton Ranch, have
    recently stalled over appraisal and value issues. It is our intent to
    maintain contact with the CUT in hopes of resolving these differences
    and resume negotiations.
               upper missouri land and water conservation dollars
        Question. In the BLM LWCF account for the Upper Missouri they are
    asking for $3 million to purchase land in an overall $78 million dollar
    acquisition strategy in the area over the next ten years. What are the
    details of this $78 million dollar buy-out? Have the local counties
    been consulted and what has been the response of the county
    commissioners?
        Answer. In April 1999, American Rivers ranked the Missouri River
    second on its list of ``Most Endangered Rivers'' due to threats from
    development. The acquisitions along the Upper Missouri River involve
    inholdings and parcels within and contiguous to the Upper Missouri
    National Wild and Scenic River corridor, which was designated by
    Congress in 1976. The BLM follows the authorities contained within the
    Act which established this wild and scenic river and the authorities
    within the Federal Land Policy and Management Act as a guide to
    acquiring lands critical to the diversity and health of the natural and
    cultural resources within the river corridor. A management plan was
    prepared for the wild and scenic corridor in 1993 which addressed the
    opportunities for land acquisitions from willing sellers within the
    river corridor. That plan underwent extensive public involvement which
    included review by local county commissioners.
        The total acquisition cost associated with inholdings of the BLM's
    Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River (UMNWSR) project
    represents the cost of acquiring entire parcels, which may include
    lands within and outside of the UMNWSR boundary. Many willing sellers
    are only interested in the sale of their entire property and are
    unwilling to subdivide their ownership, based on the UMNWSR designated
    boundary. The designated UMNWSR boundary did not coincide with private
    property boundaries. As a result, many available parcels included
    acreage on both ``sides'' of the UMNWSR boundary. Once acquired,
    properties that extend outside the designated boundary are primarily
    used for land exchange purposes. Acquisition includes a combination of
    conservation easement, fee purchase and land exchange. These multiple
    methods of acquisition may be utilized to acquire individual tracts,
    reducing Federal ownership and retaining as many acres as possible in
    private ownership and on local tax roles. Inholdings of the State of
    Montana (10,163 acres) would be acquired through a land exchange.
        Meetings have been held with local community and business leaders
    in the past. Most all have expressed support for the project, including
    the county commissioners. No serious concerns have been raised.

                         GUN RESTRICTIONS ON BLM LANDS

        Question. In October of 1999, BLM published a notice in the Federal
    Register asserting a ban on the ``use and discharge'' of firearms on
    about 20,000 acres of public land in Phillips County, Montana. Please
    state the specific language in an Act of Congress that gives BLM the
    authority to infringe upon the constitutional rights of the people of
    Montana?
        Answer. The BLM Malta Montana Field Office issued a notice of
    closure of public lands that describes an area ``closed to the
    discharge or use of firearms'' (see FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 64, No. 200,
    Monday, October 18, 1999). The authority for this closure is found in
    43 CFR 8364.1, Closure and Restriction Orders. Specifically, 43 CFR
    8364.1(a) provides, ``To protect persons, property, and public lands
    and resources, the authorized officer may issue an order to close or
    restrict use of designated public lands.'' These regulations were
    promulgated under the authority of the Federal Lands Policy Management
    Act in Section 303(a) (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)), which provides: ``The
    Secretary shall issue regulations necessary to implement the provisions
    of this Act with respect to the management, use, and the protection of
    the public lands, including the property located thereon.''
        The BLM does not believe the closing of a designated area of public
    lands to the discharge or use of firearms infringes upon the
    constitutional rights of the people to keep and bear arms as provided
    for in the Second Amendment.
        Question. If the claimed authority for this gun ban is the
    Endangered Species Act and the Public Lands Policy Management Act,
    please give the specific wording in those acts that you believe offers
    BLM the congressionally-approved authority to restrict firearms on
    lands in Montana?
        Answer. The BLM did not claim authority for the closure based on
    the provisions of either the Public Lands Policy Management Act or the
    Endangered Species Act (see response to the previous question).
        Question. If the claimed language for such authority is in FLPMA,
    and it is wording given BLM the broad mission to ``manage public
    lands'', please be more exact and specific about exact language whereby
    Congress has given BLM specific authority or limit the use of firearms
    by the general public on public lands?
        Answer. Language in the FLPMA provides the authority to manage the
    public lands by regulation or otherwise is provided in sections 302(b)
    and 303(a). Section 302(b) (43 U.S.C. 1732(b)) provides: ``In managing
    the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take
    any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the
    lands.'' The BLM has regulations which allow this type of action as was
    taken in Phillips County.
        ``Managing the public lands'' is a broad authority to take
    appropriate actions to protect the public lands and resources and the
    provisions of this Act are extensive and numerous. There are many
    resources located on the public lands to manage and protect.
        Question. What specific authority is claimed by the BLM, please
    relate that authority to circumstances in Phillips County that motivate
    BLM to impose the gun ban there?
        Answer. The specific authorities claimed by the BLM are provided in
    the previous answers. The closure is intended to allow prairie dog
    numbers in the area to rebound following an outbreak of sylvatic plague
    a few years ago. The black tailed prairie dog is a species of concern
    for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is a candidate for listing
    by that agency. We believe this closure order may help reduce the need
    for listing the prairie dog.
        Question. Has the BLM consulted other law enforcement agencies to
    determine whether this restriction is legal?
        Answer. Determining whether a BLM restriction is legal is subject
    only to consultation with the Department of the Interior, Office of the
    Solicitor (SOL). The BLM Montana State Office has stated that they
    consulted not only with SOL but also with the U.S. Attorney's Office.
    Other state and local law enforcement agencies were not asked to
    provide a legal opinion on the legality of the closure order. However,
    the BLM Montana State Office consulted with the Montana Department of
    Fish, Wildlife and Parks in accordance with the FLPMA.
        Question. In a hearing before the Senate Energy Committee about a
    month ago, I asked you about this problem. You responded that you would
    ``fix'' the problem, yet nothing has been done, and there has been no
    withdrawal of the ban published in the Federal Register. New
    information has come available on this issue, and it seems we are now
    in debate over semantics between carrying firearms and discharging
    firearms. It is my understanding that you have requested an
    investigation of the policy. What have you found and what action do you
    expect to take?
        Answer. The notice of closure was issued under the authority of 43
    CFR 8364.1 for closure and restriction authorities. The intent of this
    authority is to enable BLM managers to protect lands and resources in
    issues that require immediate and/or emergency protection. Normally, in
    accordance with section 310 of the FLPMA, all BLM rulemakings are done
    in the context of the Administrative Procedures Act requirements for
    public participation. The only statutory exception to this is ``when
    the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and brief
    statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and
    public procedures thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
    to the public interest.'' Any potential loss of threatened or
    endangered species due to harassment or harm can be ``contrary to the
    public interest.'' Often, immediate action is necessary to mitigate
    these circumstances and taking the time for a long public participation
    process may ultimately result in further harassment or harm to the
    wildlife resources.
        Question. Within the last two weeks, BLM has distributed new maps
    in Phillips County reasserting this ban and another gun ban covering a
    similar and nearby area. It is obvious that the problem has not been
    ``fixed'' and the BLM is actually expanding the scope of this decision
    despite your testimony before the Energy Committee. Can you provide a
    detailed explanation why this has happened and what new areas are
    affected?
        Answer. The BLM Malta Field Office has replenished their supply of
    closure maps at key locations in both Malta and Zortman, Montana. The
    replenished maps are the same maps that were distributed earlier and
    they contain the same closure information. No additional areas have
    been closed.
        Question. The BLM field office in Billings, Montana was approached
    with a hypothetical question regarding the current restrictions. They
    were asked if a woman was to be attacked by a mountain lion or attacker
    while hiking on the public lands covered by this gun ban, and she fired
    a firearm in self defense, would she be subject to a federal criminal
    charge under the ban. The BLM manager answered, ``yes.'' Is this
    correct, and doesn't this scenario make it clear that this ban is both
    overreaching and not very well thought out?
        Answer. Prior to rendering an answer to this scenario, it is vital
    to understand exactly what behavior is being prohibited and what are
    the conditions necessary to impose a criminal charging. The notice of
    closure provides that the area described ``is closed to the discharge
    or use of firearms.'' Discharge of a firearm is intended to mean the
    shooting a bullet, projectile, cartridge, etc. Specifically the notice
    of closure is meant to address ``recreational shooting'' while
    legitimate and licensed hunting is exempt. The possession of a legal
    firearm is not prohibited by the notice of closure. Furthermore, all
    BLM regulations and closures lawfully issued under the authority of the
    FLPMA must be ``knowingly and willfully'' violated (see 43 U.S.C.
    1733(a)) before a violator is subject to criminal penalties.
        ``Knowingly and willfully'' implies that the person knew that the
    behavior was prohibited and performed the behavior with the intent to
    violate the prohibition. Further, because the criminal penalties for
    the FLPMA related regulations and closures constitute only a
    misdemeanor level offense, it is discretionary on the part of a law
    enforcement officer whether or not to initiate criminal proceedings
    (normally a citation) even if there has been a technical violation.
        Therefore, under the above-mentioned scenario, the woman would not
    be charged under the notice of closure since the described woman is in
    lawful possession of a firearm and discharges it with the intent of
    defending herself. This would not meet a probable cause test of a
    knowing and willful violation nor would it constitute a deliberate
    violation of the closure that would warrant initiation of criminal
    proceedings.

                                     CITES

        Question. The Glendive Montana Chamber of Commerce has a program
    that allows them to harvest paddlefish roe from fish that are legally
    harvested. They, in turn, sell this as processed caviar. A portion of
    the proceeds from this sale comes back to the community and the money
    is given out to nonprofit organizations in the form of grants. Mr.
    Secretary, you must understand the economy of this area to know exactly
    how important this grant money is. Eastern Montana is suffering from an
    economic downturn in agricultural prices and the stability the former
    gas and oil production offered. The grants that are derived from this
    money are not only noteworthy but offer the only source of assistance
    for non-essential services to the community. How do you suggest I reply
    to my constituents in Glendive when they ask me why the Fish and
    Wildlife Service killed $75,000 worth of grant money to Eastern Montana
    by their ineptness in handling a simple permit request?
        Answer. The Service was also concerned that the application for the
    Convention In Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) export permit was
    processed more slowly than desirable. However, the application was
    missing information or documentation required to make the necessary
    CITES findings. The processing of the application also took slightly
    longer than the normal processing time, which is estimated to be 30 to
    60 days. After receiving the additional information the regulatory
    findings were made and a CITES export permit was issued on January 21,
    2000. The Service has now taken steps to ensure that such delays are
    minimized.
        The Service understands that the States of Montana and North Dakota
    collect paddlefish roe, sell it to the Glendive Paddlefish Caviar
    Project Yellowstone Caviar of Glendive, Montana or Goldstar Caviar of
    Williston, North Dakota, which in turn sell it to the caviar dealers.
    The caviar dealers then apply for the export permit. Paddlefish is
    listed as an Appendix-II species under CITES and therefore, requires an
    export permit prior to shipping the species, or its parts and products
    from the United States.
        The Service is using increased funding in fiscal year 2000 to
    improve the permit process. With regard to this case, the Service is
    developing a general finding on the export of paddlefish roe,
    specifically for roe obtained from the Glendive Paddlefish Caviar
    Project Yellowstone Caviar of Glendive, Montana and Goldstar Caviar of
    Williston, North Dakota. This general finding is based on the unique
    features of the Glendive and Goldstar paddlefish conservation programs,
    and will speed processing for applicants who can now verify that the
    caviar they are seeking to export was obtained from either of these two
    State programs. The Service is requesting an additional $1,750,000 in
    fiscal year 2001 for our International Wildlife Trade program to
    enhance our procedures to protect CITES listed species and further
    streamline the permit process.
        In any event, if the length of time to acquire a CITES export
    permit causes the applicant to lose its contract with the foreign
    buyer, the applicant still may sell the caviar domestically without a
    permit. Otherwise, the applicant could locate another foreigner buyer,
    amend the consignee information provided in their application, and
    continue with the processing of their application.

                    BITTERROOT/SELWAY GRIZZLY REINTRODUCTION

        Question. Does the fiscal year 2001 budget for USFWS include
    funding for the physical reintroduction of grizzly bears in to the
    Bitterroot/Selway ecosystem?
        Answer. No, the fiscal year 2001 budget for the FWS does not
    include funding for the physical reintroduction of grizzly bears into
    the Bitterroot/Selway ecosystem.
        Question. Do any of the Department of Interior Accounts include
    funding for the reintroduction of the grizzly to this area?
        Answer. No, none of the Department Accounts include funding for the
    grizzly reintroduction for fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Do any of the Department of Interior's agencies plan on
    fulfilling this effort in fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. No, none of the Department's Agencies plan to physically
    reintroduce grizzy bears in 2001. It is important to note that several
    actions are required before we can reintroduce any grizzly bears into
    the Selway/Bitterroot ecosystem. These actions involve formulation of
    the Citizens Management Committee, cleaning trash sites in the recovery
    area and installing bear-proof containers to reduce the availability of
    garbage to bears, and public education. The Fish and Wildlife Service
    intends to proceed with implementation of these actions in fiscal year
    2001. The Service anticipates that it will take one year or more to
    complete these actions.

                          BLM EMPLOYEE DISSATISFACTION

        Mr. Secretary, the BLM employees in Montana are just that to you,
    employees. To me they are my friends and neighbors. I have some serious
    concerns about the morale of the people I consider my friends. The 1998
    BLM Employee Survey illustrated a high level of unhappiness. It is my
    understanding that the 2000 BLM Employee Survey was just completed and
    a briefing was provided to some top level BLM employees. I have been
    told that once again, the employees of the BLM in Montana showed an
    even lower morale in the sense of unhappiness with their employment. I
    believe this is being reflected by a series of EEO complaints by
    Montana BLM employees over the last few years. To me, this would be a
    red flag and cause me great concern. The Director of the BLM had been
    informed about these problems in 1998 and I was under the impression he
    had been tasked with correcting it via the State Directors.
        Question. First, I would like you to provide me with a copy of the
    2000 survey as soon as possible.
        Answer. A copy of the survey results showing Bureau results as well
    as the Montana/Dakotas specific results is enclosed. Results show that
    over the past two years the BLM improved in 7 of 9 categories. Over the
    last year, employee job satisfaction increased 7 percentage points to
    52. percent. However, as you have correctly observed, the Montana/
    Dakotas organization has declined in all of the categories and we are
    very concerned about that trend.
        Question. Second, what will be done to correct this problem that
    the employees are apparently facing?
        Answer. We will study the results in order to pinpoint the precise
    problem areas and will then promptly begin working on solutions (with
    input from employees as to what solutions will have the greatest
    effect). The new Montana State Director is extremely concerned about
    addressing employee concerns, and has, in fact, included in his three-
    point platform a goal specific to employees. It reads, ``To respect our
    colleagues within the BLM; value their diverse backgrounds; use their
    skills to build a strong organization that benefits our Nation.'' The
    BLM Director plans to stay informed as the process of addressing
    employee concerns evolves to ensure that not only Montana, but the
    entire BLM does the very best we can to address and remedy the employee
    morale situation.
        The concerns you have regarding the EEO program in Montana have not
    gone unnoticed in Washington. When the Washington Office became aware
    of these concerns, a review of the Support Services Division was
    conducted in January. The review resulted in a series of
    recommendations for changes and improvements. We are taking the review
    very seriously and in fact have already begun implementing some of the
    recommendations. On March 12, 2000, an organizational change was
    implemented resulting in the EEO manager now reporting directly to the
    State Director. We believe that reporting arrangement will resolve some
    of the issues in the EEO program .
        Question. Why would State Directors be mandated to correct a
    problem that appears to be an outgrowth of their management style?
        Answer. BLM leadership in Montana is in transition. A new State
    Director and Associate State Director took their post in early April.
    The two new leaders have already been apprised of the Employee Survey
    concerns. The new BLM Director has placed a very high priority on
    addressing employee concerns, and has directed the incoming leadership
    team to take the necessary actions to bring about improvement. The BLM
    Director plans to monitor progress to ensure that things are headed in
    the right direction.
        Question. What is going to be done to correct this problem?
        Answer. As mentioned above, a new leadership team is beginning to
    lead the Montana/Dakotas office. They will identify problem areas and
    will promptly begin working on solutions with input from employees as
    to what solutions will have to greatest effect. We recognize we still
    have much more work to do. Insufficient resources was a major issue
    identified in our 1998 survey. Our fiscal year 2001 budget proposal
    begins to address the funding needs and work imbalances of concern to
    employees. The lines of communication between employees and management
    remain open and the new leadership will be implementing any new
    measures that will serve to increase employee satisfaction.

                      BLM/FS OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE PROPOSAL

        Question. Director Tom Fry has said in at least one meeting that he
    expects the Montana/Dakotas interagency OHV plan to be suspended until
    the national plan is formulated. Can you confirm that the plan from our
    region will not be finalized prior to the implementation of a final
    national rule?
        Answer. The Final Montana/Dakotas BLM/FS OHV EIS is expected to be
    issued shortly after the release of BLM's National OHV Strategy. The
    National OHV Strategy is scheduled to be released in late November,
    2000.
        Question. Can we be assured that the comments submitted by
    Montanans during the regional OHV comment period will be incorporated
    into the national policy, or must we reinvent the wheel and submit
    comments once again?
        Answer. The BLM and FS have sponsored over 70 public meetings and
    open houses on the Montana/Dakotas OHV EIS process and our publics have
    provided an overwhelming response. Over 2300 comments have been
    received and are being analyzed in the content analysis process. A full
    copy of the Content Analysis Report will be provided to BLM's National
    Strategy Team so that the Montana/Dakotas public input can be factored
    in to that national process. Montanans will also be invited to comment
    separately on the National Strategy if they wish; however, their
    existing input to the regional process will be used in developing the
    National Strategy. It is important to note that the National Strategy
    will cover all aspects of the OHV program, not only designations as in
    the Montana OHV EIS. This approach will ensure that Montanans have an
    equal opportunity to comment on the overall OHV program at the national
    level.

                        INVESTIGATIONS OF DOI EMPLOYEES

        Mr. Secretary, as you know the misdeeds of employees working for
    agencies under your watch have received a lot of attention over the
    past few years. Senator Murkowski is investigating the POGO violations,
    Congressman Young has produced legislation to address the misuse of
    conservation funds by United States Fish and Wildlife employees, the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs is wrapped up in a scandal involving the
    misuse of credit cards, and the Policy Director of the Office of
    Insular Affairs has been accused of using government resources to
    attack Republican Members of Congress in violation of the Hatch Act. To
    name but a few. Each of these scandals is being investigated by the
    Office of the Special Counsel, the Inspector General of the Interior
    Department and Congressional Committees in one form or another.
    Secretary Babbitt, what is happening here? It seems as though scandal
    has become a way of business under your watch.
        Question. Can you assure the Subcommittee that in each of these
    cases the agencies are no longer engaging in improper activity?
        Answer. We have taken steps in each of these cases to make sure
    that the activities you mention have ceased.
        Question. Do you support reprimanding these employees?
        Answer. Yes, to the extent that these employees are found in
    violation of statute or regulation the appropriate remedial or
    disciplinary action should be taken.
        Question. Do you support legislative remedies to prevent these
    types of problems from occurring again?
        Answer. There is legislation already in place that addresses these
    types of issues. We do not think that in all cases additional
    legislation will necessarily prevent abuses from occurring. Violations
    by individuals often are made irrespective of the laws, regulations,
    and practices that exist. Increased support for training of employees
    concerning activities that are permitted and prohibited is probably a
    better approach to prevent these types of problems from occurring
    again.
        Question. Do you support Congressman Young's legislation as an
    example?
        Answer. We appreciate the efforts that Chairman Young and the House
    Resources Committee made to address the concerns we have about this
    legislation, H.R. 3671. We believe our combined efforts will result in
    many valuable improvements to the Federal Aid program and ensure that
    the taxes paid by America's sportsmen are used for their intended
    purpose. However, we remain concerned that the bill does not provide
    sufficient funding to effectively administer the program, that it
    reduces program flexibility, and that it concentrates program
    management in Washington rather than the field. We are working with the
    Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and ultimately the
    Senate as a whole, to resolve these concerns.
        Question. Are there other examples similar to the POGO
    investigations or the political activities of the OIA that are being
    examined within the Department that have not yet been brought to the
    attention of Congress?
        Answer. There are no cases currently pending that Congress is not
    already aware of.
        Question. Can you assure that the improper activities at the OIA
    are no longer occurring and what steps have you taken to stop these
    types of abuses from occurring?
        Answer. To our knowledge improper activities of this type are no
    longer occurring at the OIA. The Departmental Ethics Office has
    conducted individualized training for OIA to ensure that all employees
    are aware of the applicable restrictions under the Hatch Act.
        Question. Some have argued that the activism in the OIA tainted
    Interior reports to Congress. As a result the GAO has raised specific
    questions regarding the validity of the Interior's position. Has
    Interior reevaluated their analysis to address the GAO's report that
    the Interior Department's own analyses of these questions were
    ``methodologically flawed'' and ``questionable.''
        Answer. The recommendations of the Administration with regard to
    the immigration and labor system in the Northern Mariana Islands are
    exactly that: recommendations of the Administration. Numerous
    departments and agencies (including Justice, Labor, Commerce, NLRB, and
    Interior) have been involved since the Congress first noted the CNMI
    immigration and labor problems and appropriated funds for their
    remediation in 1994.
        For two years, Federal agencies worked closely with and praised the
    actions of the CNMI government and Governor Froilan Tenorio. A reversal
    of policy by Governor Tenorio, however, brought the publication of the
    1997 and 1998 reports that condemned CNMI immigration, labor, and law
    enforcement, and brought proposals for Federal legislation. It was only
    after the Administration's proposals were presented to the Congress
    that labor unions became interested in the CNMI issues and one employee
    at Interior became overzealous. This employee's improper actions had no
    effect on Administration policy and no effect on the facts included in
    published reports on CNMI immigration, labor and law enforcement
    issues.
        The Administration has consistently maintained that the immigration
    and labor problems in the CNMI are Federal issues susceptible to
    solution only at the Federal level with Federal legislation.
        Question. In regards to the BIA's problems with credit card abuse,
    have you spoken with Kevin Grover on how to remedy this problem? What
    solutions do you propose?
        Answer. The Department's OIG will be conducting a Department-wide
    audit of the credit card program.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Gorton. So the subcommittee will stand in recess
    until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, April 11, when we will receive
    testimony from the Honorable William Richardson, Secretary of
    Energy.
        [Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., Wednesday, April 5, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday,
    April 11.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2000

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gorton, Stevens, and Byrd .

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM RICHARDSON, SECRETARY OF
                ENERGY

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON

        Senator Gorton. The subcommittee hearing will come to
    order.
        I recognize, Mr. Secretary, that you are due at another
    subcommittee hearing in a relatively short period of time. So
    my opening statement will be short. I will have a few
    questions. If only Senator Byrd is here, we may have a little
    bit more leisure. But we do welcome you once again.
        The last time you were before this subcommittee was in
    support of your budget request for the current fiscal year. And
    I think that may have been your first appearance before
    Congress as Secretary of Energy. It was very short. Due to the
    present Senate business, I am afraid this may be as well.
        But I am anxious to learn what you have learned in the
    course of the last year, and to know what you regard as the
    highlights of the administration's 2001 budget request.
        I also suspect we will want to discuss a different, but
    related, topic that has been on everyone's mind across the
    country. By that I mean the recent increase in the price of oil
    and what the federal response to this increase should be.
        I must say, Mr. Secretary, that I know more about what this
    administration is against than what it is for. I know the
    administration is against repeal or suspension of the gasoline
    tax. I know the administration is against increasing domestic
    oil production in many of the most promising areas for
    exploration. I know that the administration is against, or at
    least is not supporting in any meaningful way, a modification
    or tightening of CAFE standards.
        And finally, I note that one of the few decreases included
    in your budget request is in research and development programs
    designed to enhance domestic oil production and to maintain
    production from marginal wells. I would like to hear your
    comments on how this relates to the current increase in oil
    prices.
        This subcommittee will face a difficult challenge in trying
    to formulate a fiscal year 2001 spending bill. We must not only
    provide adequate funding for the highest priority programs, but
    also contribute to an overall budget strategy that maintains
    fiscal discipline, reduces the national debt, protects social
    security and provides for sensible tax relief.
        In order to accomplish these goals, we will need your help
    in setting priorities. I hope we can count on your help in this
    regard, both in today's hearing and as the process goes on.
        With that, I am going to yield to Senator Byrd and say that
    the full text of your statement, Mr. Secretary, will be
    included in the record. So to the extent you can summarize,
    there will be more time for dialogue and questions.
        Senator Byrd.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I thank you for coming here today to discuss
    that portion of the Energy Department's fiscal year 2001 budget
    request that will be funded through the Interior and Related
    Agencies Appropriations bill. While I look forward to hearing
    your opening statement, I will tell you right up front that I
    am disappointed, deeply disappointed, with the priorities laid
    out in this proposal.
        As I look at this budget, I question whether or not the
    administration takes seriously the fossil energy needs of this
    nation. The reduction of more than $28 million in the fossil
    energy research and development budget, coupled with the $105
    million rescission and the $221 million deferral in the clean
    coal technology program does not, in my opinion, bode well for
    our efforts to develop a comprehensive national energy
    strategy.
        Certainly I understand the administration's emphasis on
    energy conservation and energy efficiency. And indeed, this
    budget proposes to increase funding for those programs by more
    than $91 million. But conservation and efficiency are only half
    the battle, and they should not be advanced at the expense of
    programs that have already proven to be worthwhile.
        If this Nation ever hopes to become more energy
    independent, and if we ever hope to put an end to the spectacle
    of Government officials kowtowing to the major oil-producing
    nations, then we are going to have to come to grips with the
    fact that fossil fuels used in an environmentally sound manner
    are central to our future.
        Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the Secretary, I will not
    belabor this point before he has had an opportunity to offer
    his perspective on these issues.
        Thank you.

                  SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM RICHARDSON

        Senator Gorton. So now it is his turn.
        Mr. Secretary.

                                   oil prices

        Secretary Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Byrd. First of all, thank you for the graciousness and the
    excellent relationship, despite obviously some differences that
    we have on policy, that you have had with me and our
    Department. I mean that very sincerely.
        Let me, Mr. Chairman, report on a little bit of good news
    in terms of oil prices that I know have been on everybody's
    mind. A few days before OPEC met on their decision to increase
    production, the high prices per barrel were $35 per barrel.
    Yesterday they closed at about $24 a barrel. That is a decrease
    of $11 since the administration's energy diplomacy, I believe,
    succeeded along with the leadership of some OPEC nations in
    increasing production.
        Gasoline prices at the pump since the days before the OPEC
    meeting, the high was at about $1.53 a gallon. Yesterday it
    closed at about $1.48 a gallon, almost a 5-cent drop. And the
    Energy Information Administration is looking at prices on the
    average of $1.39 a gallon by the end of the summer.
        So this is good news. We will continue to monitor the
    situation. But I wanted to, I think at the earliest, find ways
    to put this good news in context. Our hope is that together we
    come out of this hearing and this whole process with some
    bipartisan energy initiatives that I will outline shortly.

                                 ENERGY POLICY

        Mr. Chairman, our energy policy is based on market forces,
    not artificial pricing. It is based on the diversity of supply
    and strong diplomatic relations with energy-producing
    countries. It is based on improving the production and use of
    traditional fuels with new technology development.
        It is based on diversity of energy sources with long-term
    investment in alternative fuels and energy sources. It is based
    on increasing efficiency in the way we use energy. And it is
    based on maintaining and strengthening our insurance policy
    against supply disruptions, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
        Over the long term, these principles work to provide the
    country with secure supplies of energy. They apply to all of
    our work. Our budget for fiscal year 2001 is proof of our
    enduring belief in these principles.
        Our budget, Mr. Chairman, is $18.9 billion. This is
    approximately $1.6 billion over this year's appropriation, a
    10-percent increase. Our budget for programs under this
    subcommittee is $1.3 billion, an increase of $84.7 million over
    last year, almost 7-percent higher.

                                 BUDGET REQUEST

        Let me go through the highlights of our budget with your
    subcommittee.
        Our request for Fossil Energy Research and Development
    supports a $385 million program level. In Coal and Power
    Systems, we are looking to develop, one, cleaner, more
    efficient coal and electric power generating technologies,
    including our Vision 21 Energy Plan of the Future; two,
    exploratory research into carbon sequestration technology to
    capture and permanently store greenhouse gases; and three, our
    gas turbine program.
        Earlier this year I witnessed General Electric's newest H
    System gas turbine, the most advanced combustion turbine in the
    world. It is ready to cross the commercial threshold. And it is
    a superb choice for the next wave of power plant construction.
        The H System will help us maintain a cleaner environment,
    help our growing economy, help keep electric bills low in homes
    and businesses across the country.
        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. In our petroleum program, we are
    continuing our work to develop ultra-clean transportation
    fuels, which will help refiners deal with the new EPA Tier II
    rules; we are continuing to investigate our Reservoir Class
    Revisit program, a government-industry effort, providing cost
    sharing to domestic producers willing to try new methods and
    keeping the Nation's oil fields producing.
        And we kicked off our new Preferred Upstream Management
    Practices program. This is an intensive effort to convey best
    business practices to U.S. producers over the next 5 years, so
    they can benefit from the successful experiences of others in
    the industry.
        In Natural Gas Technologies, we are looking to fund in
    advanced gas research, a new initiative to develop technologies
    to improve the reliability of the Nation's gas pipeline and
    storage infrastructure. These endeavors demonstrate that there
    are many opportunities for high-tech advances in our
    traditional fuels as in any other energy resource.
        To further glean this promise, in December I elevated our
    Fossil Energy Technology Center to the status of a national
    laboratory. The National Energy Technology Laboratory in
    Morgantown, WV, and Pittsburgh, PA, will accommodate several
    strategic centers of excellence. This would not have happened
    without the leadership of Senator Byrd.
        And I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that I tried to name
    the facility after Senator Byrd, and I failed because
    everything else in the town and State was already named after
    him. So I thought I would mention that.
        For example, I have directed that a Center for Advanced
    Natural Gas Studies be established at the laboratory. In the
    fiscal year 2001 budget, we have also included funding to
    upgrade the laboratory's computer simulation capabilities and
    to establish a world-class center for carbon sequestration
    research.

                               ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        We also have extensive opportunities in our energy
    conservation programs. While we now know that our quiet energy
    diplomacy worked, that consumers will begin seeing more relief
    at the gas pump, the recent energy situation still validates
    our pursuit of energy efficiency.
        Let me outline just a few examples. Among the most
    promising is the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
    designed to develop an 80-mile-per-gallon automobile that is
    comfortable, safe and affordable as our traditional vehicles.
        It behooves us to be able to squeeze the most value from
    our driving dollars. The recent peak pump prices were all too
    clear reminders. So in order to make vehicles with high miles
    per gallon yields possible, we are taking fuel cell technology
    from the aerospace industry and applying it to the automotive
    industry.
        SUVs are a potent battleground in today's climate of high
    gasoline prices, therefore the Department of Energy has been
    working to develop a new sport utility vehicles that will be 30
    to 40 percent more efficient than those currently on the road.
    Detroit is on board.
        Last Thursday, Ford Motor Company announced a new hybrid
    SUV they have planned, which will get 40 miles per gallon. It
    will be called the Escape, and I think that is apropos for our
    quest to break from our reliance on imported oil. It will join
    other auto makers' projects on hybrid cars, including Daimler
    Chrysler's ESX 3, which is slated to ring up 72 miles per
    gallon, and a number of projects from General Motors.
        We are also working on improving efficiency in tractor-
    trailers. The big rigs now get 5 to 7 miles per gallon. They
    may soon achieve up to 10 miles per gallon, a big difference in
    rigs with 300-gallon tanks. There are other engines of
    discovery, fueling our options for the future.
        Weatherization is one of our most potent weapons against
    problems like the heating oil shortfall that New England
    recently faced. I was in Rhode Island on Friday, and folks are
    still stunned by it. Weatherization will allow us to reduce our
    demand for heating oil, because we are making homes more energy
    efficient and less wasteful.
        Under the fiscal year 2001 budget, we will be able to
    weatherize 76,000 low income homes to save money on utility
    bills, conserve fuel and provide warmth in winter and cool air
    in summer.
        We are also improving efficiencies in buildings, pursuing
    opportunities in efficient and affordable building design and
    construction R&D. We are also advancing our Industries of the
    Future Program, bringing new efficiencies to industries like
    steel and chemicals.
        Our budget also will allow us to continue our 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. We are looking to
    save the taxpayer money by helping all Federal agencies
    identify, finance and implement energy efficiency improvements
    for their facilities.

                       ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Chairman, I know you have been very generous to the
    independent Energy Information Administration. That money is
    worth it.
        In fact, the superb EIA data I brought on my trips to the
    OPEC countries and other producing nations served as a kind of
    trump card. As you know, some did not believe our claims of
    dramatically low stocks. But EIA's research bore out our
    arguments, and the result is clear. OPEC and the other
    producing nations have increased their production.
        Our fiscal year 2001 budget requests $75 million for
    ongoing EIA data and analysis and provides for needed data
    quality enhancements.
        Mr. Chairman, the Department is intensely focused to ensure
    that we have the most energy resource pallete from which we can
    then choose. Still, the recent energy pricing situation made
    very clear that we need to pursue energy options outside of
    oil. I believe our budget offers occasion to do so.
        Mr. Chairman, we are specifically proposing energy
    legislation, not necessarily all of it in the purview of your
    committee, besides the good budget decisions that I think we
    have been able to make jointly with you. We would ask that the
    Senate consider a package that includes our tax incentives for
    domestic oil and gas production, namely G&G expensing, delayed
    rentals, some assistance to marginal well producers, coupled
    with some tax credits for energy efficiency, fuel efficient
    vehicles, and other measures for energy conservation and
    alternative energy that we have before you.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We think that this package could be a good short-term
    bipartisan energy policy that would move in the right direction
    and we can look to do, so that we do not have as much reliance
    on imported oil.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Richardson

        Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, it's my pleasure to
    discuss the Department of Energy's budget request for fiscal year 2001.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this subcommittee's efforts to ensure
    that the Department continues to effectively deliver its energy
    mission. You have recognized the importance of a strong energy policy
    not only to the day-to-day functioning of our society, but to the
    continued improvement of our standard of living. This budget includes
    $1.3 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the Interior
    Subcommittee, an $84.7 million increase or 6.8 percent above the fiscal
    year 2000 comparable level.
        The budget I'm here to discuss was prepared to address the changing
    energy scenario. In fiscal year 2001, we propose to expand energy
    supply options and promote greater efficiency in the major energy use
    sectors, with the need to protect the environment foremost in mind. As
    part of this strategy, the budget features several initiatives which
    cut across traditional program areas to maintain U.S. strength in the
    evolving global energy market.

                      FISCAL YEAR 2001 ENERGY INITIATIVES

        International Clean Energy Initiative.--A conclusion reached in a
    recent President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology
    (PCAST) report is that current energy R&D investments, while generally
    effective, are not adequate in scale to address world energy,
    environmental, and market demands. The report found that the most
    conspicuous gap was in the demonstration and cost buy-down areas, a
    crucial link in the chain from basic research to commercial deployment.
        Our overall budget request includes $46 million in fiscal year 2001
    to support the PCAST recommendations to identify, develop, and
    demonstrate pre-commercial energy technologies, identify markets for
    their deployment, and promote efficient and environmentally sound
    energy production, generation, and end use. By encouraging
    international markets for these technologies, their cost will go down
    and new, clean, and affordable energy options for America will be
    created. The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation request for
    this initiative is $20 million (Fossil Energy $13 million and Energy
    Efficiency $7 million). The remaining $26 million is requested in the
    Energy and Water Development Appropriation.
        Energy Grid Reliability Initiative.--By 2015, the United States
    will likely add 250,000 megawatts of new power generation to today's
    grid, at the same time the grid is responding to the demands of
    evolving competitive electricity markets. Measures required to limit
    transmission loading and preserve system reliability were contributing
    factors to the shortages of power in mid-western wholesale markets in
    the summer of 1998. In addition, the natural gas and electricity
    industries and their supporting infrastructures are merging, creating a
    set of new reliability issues.
        In this continuing transition from regulated to restructured
    electricity and natural gas markets, the need to ensure the reliability
    and security of energy delivery systems is an increasingly important
    priority for the federal government and for the heart of our national
    security. Energy policies and technologies must support the
    ``Intergrid''--the increasingly inter-connected energy delivery system
    of the 21st century.
        In partnership with the private sector, we propose a $36.1 million
    multi-program initiative to focus on the development of the policies
    and technologies (e.g., system simulation, energy storage, real-time
    sensors and controls, and new distributed power options) that will help
    protect against potential new market failures and promote reliability
    through system flexibility, efficiency, and security. The Interior and
    Related Agencies Appropriation request for this initiative, in the
    Fossil Energy budget, is $7 million, $5 million for Infrastructure
    Technology and $2 million for Storage Technology. The remaining $29.1
    million is funded in the Energy and Water Development appropriation.
        Fossil Energy Infrastructure Technology efforts include initiating
    research directed to ensure the reliability of the gas transmission and
    distribution network; increasing the efficiency of the pipeline system;
    advancing development of longer life, high-strength, non-corrosive
    pipeline materials; developing a smart automated inside pipeline
    inspection sensor systems and repair technology; developing portable
    real-time video imaging technology to detect natural gas leaks; and
    developing a gas system reliability analysis and distributed resource
    system integration model.
        Fossil Energy Storage Technology efforts include continuing support
    to industry for deliverability enhancement reservoir management; gas
    metering and measurement; and advancing storage concepts engineering
    studies. We will also accelerate development of short-term, high
    deliverability storage systems to serve future distributed power
    systems and develop a high deliverability gas storage system model to
    serve the power generation market place.
        Carbon Control Through Separation and Sequestration Initiative
    (CCSS).--Fossil energy will continue to provide a significant and
    growing fraction of world energy supplies well into the next century.
    As demand continues to grow, world carbon emissions are expected to
    increase by 3.5 billion metric tons over current levels by 2015.
    Following ``business as usual'' greenhouse gas emissions may lead to a
    significant elevation of average global temperatures, shift patterns of
    world agricultural production, and impact human health.
        DOE's Fossil Energy and Science programs are developing an
    ``Evolving Science and Technology Roadmap for Carbon Sequestration'' to
    identify ways to mitigate the impacts of carbon emissions. The roadmap
    has pin-pointed specific scientific/technical focus areas for R&D
    including: separation and capture; sequestration in geological
    formations; ocean sequestration; terrestrial ecosystem sequestration;
    and advanced concepts (e.g., chemical and biological).
        In addition to modeling and assessment techniques, these areas will
    form the central elements of DOE's CCSS initiative. This program totals
    $42.6 million in fiscal year 2001 of which $19.5 million is requested
    in the Fossil Energy budget, a $10.3 million increase above the fiscal
    year 2000 level. The CCSS Initiative is designed to: (1) establish the
    technical and economic feasibility of sequestration; (2) drive down the
    cost of CO2 separation; (3) determine the environmental
    consequences of large- scale CO2 storage; (4) integrate
    sequestration technologies with natural sinks; (5) develop innovative
    technologies to produce marketable commodities from CO2; and
    (6) incorporate carbon sequestration processes into advanced energy
    production and utilization systems.
        Enhanced Ultra Clean Transportation Fuels Initiative.--For the
    foreseeable future, the nation's vehicles will be powered mostly with
    petroleum-based fuels. The prototype next-generation vehicle, being
    developed through the Administration's Partnership for a New Generation
    of Vehicles (PNGV) program, must have the cleanest possible fuels. Both
    gasoline and diesel fuels will have to comply with strict EPA
    regulations (e.g., sulfur, nitrogen oxide, and particulate emissions
    reductions and possible restrictions on oxygenate additives).
        There are environmental, regulatory, and technological drivers
    which point to the need for a significant and focused effort to develop
    super-clean petroleum-based transportation fuels. The $27 million
    multi-program Enhanced Ultra Clean Fuels Initiative targets government
    and industry resources to develop a portfolio of market-viable,
    advanced petroleum-based transportation fuels and fuels utilization
    technologies, that are responsive to the near to mid-term
    environmental, technical, and regulatory challenges. This will
    significantly enhance U.S. energy security, environmental quality, and
    industrial competitiveness. Funding for this initiative is requested in
    the Interior and Related Agencies appropriation (Energy Conservation
    $17 million and Fossil Energy $10 million).
        Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative.--I am pleased to report that on
    August 12, 1999, the President signed Executive Order 13134, Developing
    and Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy. The Order will guide
    coordination of Federal efforts to accelerate the development of 21st
    century biobased industries that use trees, crops, agricultural,
    forest, and aquatic resources to make an array of commercial products.
    In an Executive Memorandum on these same issues, the President set a
    goal of tripling United States use of biobased products and bioenergy
    by 2010. In the President's remarks at the signing ceremony, he stated
    that reaching the tripling goal ``would generate as much as $20 billion
    a year in new income for farmers and rural communities, while reducing
    greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 100 million tons a year-the
    equivalent of taking more than 70 million cars of the road.'' As a
    result of the Executive Order, existing research, development, and
    demonstration (RD&D) programs of DOE, USDA, and other agencies will be
    better coordinated to achieve common goals.
        DOE has increased funding for bioenergy and bioproducts activities
    by $49 million in fiscal year 2001 to accelerate work in this important
    area. A total of $173.7 million is included for this initiative, of
    which $43.8 million is within the Energy Conservation request. The goal
    is to help make biomass a viable competitor as an energy source or
    chemical feedstock. Work will concentrate on developing
    ``biorefineries''--integrated systems for processing feedstocks
    simultaneously into a variety of products such as fuels, chemicals, and
    electricity. This will require increased collaboration among industry,
    DOE programs, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
        DOE will work to develop inexpensive cellulase systems to break
    down cellulose into low-cost sugars for the production of bio-based
    chemicals and bioenergy. This will allow woody and grassy crops and
    agricultural waste such as corn stalks to take the place of high-value
    grain and food crops as biofuel feedstocks.
        Research will be conducted in renewable bioproducts, using multi-
    disciplinary and cross-industry partnerships to develop and accelerate
    adoption of possible ``leap-frog'' technologies for converting crops,
    trees, and residues into chemical feedstocks and consumer products.
    Another part of the initiative will focus on DOE's work in biopower to
    promote the integration of biomass gasification systems with modern
    generation systems, and co-firing of biomass with coal.

                      THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        The Department's fiscal year 2001 budget request, before the
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, proposes
    funding of $1.3 billion, a 6.8 percent, or $84.7 million increase above
    the comparable fiscal year 2000 appropriation. A total of $384.6
    million is requested for Fossil Energy R&D, which includes the use of
    $9 million in prior year balances. We propose $850.5 million for Energy
    Conservation, a 12.1 percent increase; $158 million for the Strategic
    Petroleum Reserve; and $2 million for Economic Regulation activities.
    The request for the Energy Information Administration rises by 3.6
    percent to $75 million. Following are highlights of some of the
    specific activities we are proposing for fiscal year 2001.

                               ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        The Energy Efficiency programs funded by this Subcommittee improve
    the fuel economy of automobiles and other vehicles, increase the
    productivity of the nation's most energy-intensive and polluting
    industries, and improve the energy efficiency of buildings and
    appliances. The fiscal year 2001 budget requests $850.5 million for the
    Department's Energy Conservation programs, an increase of $91.8 million
    over the comparable fiscal year 2000 level.
        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. 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 2001 PNGV request of $142.5 million, a $13.4
    million increase over fiscal year 2000, will continue efforts in the
    areas of fuel cells, advanced direct-injection engines, exhaust
    control, advanced batteries and electronic power controllers. An
    increase of $2.3 million in the Clean Cities program, providing $10
    million for fiscal year 2001, 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 United States 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 $184 million for all Industrial sector programs, of which
    $174.7 million is for the Industries of the Future program. In fiscal
    year 2001, Industries of the Future--Specific will concentrate on
    bioenergy initiatives with the forest products, agriculture, and
    supporting industries. The Crosscut program fiscal year 2001 efforts
    will focus on the development of gasification technology, reciprocating
    engines, low emission technologies, controls, and components for
    industrial scale advanced turbines.
        Improved energy efficiency for building technologies.--America's
    homes and offices consume more than $232 billion worth of energy each
    year. Heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and equipment account
    for over one-third of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. In fiscal year
    2001, the Department is requesting $339.8 million for the Office of
    Building Technology, State and Community Programs (BTS), including
    $100.1 million for Building Research and Standards, $34 million for
    Building Technology Assistance--non grants, and $154 million for the
    Weatherization Assistance Program to weatherize 74,806 low-income
    homes, and $37 million for the State Energy Program. In fiscal year
    2000, approximately $135 million was provided for weatherization
    assistance grants to states to weatherize 67,340 low-income homes. In
    the fiscal year 2000 Supplemental, the Administration is requesting an
    additional $19 million for Weatherization Assistance which would allow
    approximately 9,000 to 9,5000 additional homes to be improved across
    the nation. The fiscal year 2001 budget request allows the Department
    to implement technology roadmaps and provide the next generation of
    energy-efficient, environment-friendly technologies required for the
    buildings industry.
        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 2001 is $29.5 million, an increase of $5.6
    million over fiscal year 2000.
        Management Improvements.--During the past year, the Office of
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) has made management
    reform a major priority with significant results. They have
    strengthened their management capabilities and processes in the
    following ways:
      --Hired new, key staff in the areas of management, budget, and
            analysis, including a new Chief Operating Officer position at
            the Deputy Assistant Secretary level;
      --Created a comprehensive and integrated approach to planning,
            budget, program execution, and program evaluation through a new
            Strategic Management System;
      --Developed improved business management systems that greatly enhance
            the office's ability to track technical progress, integrated
            with cost and schedule baselines;
      --Increased competition in discretionary financial assistance to
            approximately 90 percent of fiscal year 1999 funding for new
            awards from a level of 24 percent in fiscal year 1996.
        These management initiatives have greatly improved EERE's
    accountability and ability to deliver results. Through a commitment to
    management improvement, and the recommendations expected from the
    review by the National Academy of Public Administration, EERE well make
    continue to make improvements in management.

                     FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        The fiscal year 2001 request for Fossil Energy Research and
    Development is $384.6 million, including $9 million from prior year
    balances for a net fiscal year 2001 request of $375.6 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.
        Coal and Power Systems.--The fiscal year 2001 request to develop
    cleaner, more energy efficient coal and electric power generating
    technologies is $193.8 million, $18.7 million below the comparable
    fiscal year 2000 level. The centerpiece of this program is the Vision
    21 energy plant of the future, a revolutionary new concept that,
    coupled with carbon sequestration, could virtually eliminate
    environmental concerns over the future use of fossil fuels. The goal of
    the Vision 21 program is to develop a set of advanced technology
    modules that could be configured into a new class of multi-product
    facilities for both central and distributed energy production in the
    2010-2030 time frame. A total of $41.2 million is included in the
    fiscal year 2001 budget request for Vision 21 development efforts.
        The request also includes a major expansion of the department's
    exploratory research into carbon sequestration technology to capture
    and permanently store greenhouse gases. We are requesting $19.5 million
    for carbon sequestration research in fiscal year 2001, more than double
    the level for fiscal year 2000. An extraordinary private sector
    response to a recent department solicitation (more than 60 proposals
    with cost-sharing averaging more than 40 percent) has increased our
    confidence that industry is prepared to join us in pursuing this
    exciting future possibility for low-cost greenhouse gas control.
        The major reason for the decrease in the Coal and Power Systems
    budget is a transition taking place in our advanced gas turbine
    program. We are approaching the successful completion of an 8-year
    effort to develop a breakthrough utility-scale, 400-megawatt gas
    turbine. In fiscal year 2001, our turbine program ($26 million) begins
    to shift to the development of a similarly-advanced mid-size turbine.
    We are also requesting $42.2 million to continue developing advanced
    fuel cells with a goal of ultimately cutting costs to $400 per
    kilowatt, one-third of the projected costs for today's advanced
    systems. At these costs, ultra-clean fuel cells--which produce electric
    power using an electrochemical reaction, rather than combustion--could
    become a preferred energy source especially in environmentally-
    constrained regions.
        Petroleum.--The fiscal year 2001 request for Oil Technology is
    $52.6 million, which includes the $10 million cited previously for a
    new initiative to develop ultra-clean transportation fuels. In
    addition, this program continues to provide technology advances that
    can keep oil flowing from many of our nation's most endangered
    reservoirs, most of which are now operated by small, independent
    producers. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes the last increment of
    funding for the Reservoir Class Revisit Program, a joint government-
    industry effort restarted during last year's unprecedented oil price
    plunge to provide cost-sharing to domestic producers willing to try new
    methods for keeping the nation's oil fields in production. Funding is
    also included to continue the ``Petroleum Upstream Management
    Practices'' (PUMP) program which will provide producers with ``best
    practices'' that can solve regional production problems.
        Natural Gas Technologies.--The fiscal year 2001 request for natural
    gas technology R&D is $38.8 million, which includes funding for both
    advanced gas recovery research and a new initiative to develop
    technologies to improve the reliability of the nation's gas pipeline
    and storage infrastructure. The exploration and production portion of
    the budget ($12.4 million) will continue to focus on advanced
    technologies that can locate and produce gas from reservoirs that are
    not producible using current technology. A $2 million R&D program in
    methane hydrates will concentrate on studies and resource
    characterization. An $8.5 million request for emerging processing
    technologies will be used, in part, to scale up a promising new
    membrane technology that could be used one day to convert remote
    sources of natural gas into liquid fuels and chemicals. The new
    initiative to improve natural gas infrastructure reliability ($13.2
    million) will focus on the development of new tools, piping materials,
    sensors, and gas storage technologies that will be needed to meet the
    anticipated growth in natural gas demand, and address the increasing
    interface with the electric utility industry. Another infrastructure
    initiative, focused on International Clean Energy ($6 million) will
    apply best practices and DOE-developed technologies to reduce leakage
    from natural gas pipelines. This could be especially beneficial in
    reducing the nearly 20 percent of gas throughput that may be escaping
    from the Russian gas pipeline system.

                          STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

        The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) remains a crucial element of
    our national energy security policy. The fiscal year 2001 budget
    request for SPR operations and maintenance is $158 million, a 0.3
    percent reduction from the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. The fiscal
    year 2001 request also includes a rescission of $7 million from prior
    year balances in the SPR Petroleum Account. In fiscal year 1999 we
    began a Royalty-In-Kind cooperative program with the Department of the
    Interior to allow the use of 28 million barrels off-shore Gulf Coast
    royalty oil to fill SPR.
        We will be submitting a supplemental fiscal year 2000 budget
    request to rescind $12 million from the SPR Petroleum Account. The
    proposed fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 rescissions will leave
    approximately $14 million remaining in the SPR Petroleum Account. These
    funds are being held to support the Royalty-in- Kind program and to
    support the start up incremental costs of an energy supply drawdown.

                             CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

        The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes that $221 million be deferred
    until fiscal year 2002 and that an additional $105 million be
    rescinded. The proposed deferral reflects schedule delays from project
    restructuring activities. The proposed rescission reflects savings from
    restructuring of the Clean Energy project. There are 40 active projects
    with a total cost of $5.4 billion, of which DOE has committed $1.8
    billion. At the close of fiscal year 2001, 32 projects are expected to
    be completed; one additional project is expected to complete operation
    and begin preparing final reports; two projects are expected to be in
    operation; three projects in construction; and two projects in design.
    At the end of fiscal year 2001, two projects are expected to have
    outstanding obligation commitments. In fiscal year 2001, the Clean Coal
    Program will complete the operating phase of the Liquid Phase Methanol
    project demonstrating the production of clean-burning methanol from
    coal-derived synthesis gas, and approach the completion of the Tampa
    Electric IGCC project that is establishing the engineering foundation
    leading to a new generation of 60 percent efficient powerplants.

                NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

        No new funds are requested for fiscal year 2001 for the Naval
    Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves. 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 when the field was sold. Fiscal year 2001 activities include the
    continued operation and environmental remediation activities of the
    Teapot Dome oil field; the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center;
    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.
        In January 2000, DOE, together with the Department of the Interior,
    the State of Utah, and the Ute Tribe agreed to support legislation that
    would transfer 84,000 acres of the 89,000 acre Naval Oil Shale Reserve
    No. 2 to the Northern Ute Tribe. Under the agreement, a portion of any
    royalties from future energy production on the lands would go into a
    fund to help clean up and remove 10.5 million tons of radioactive mill
    tailings near Moab, Utah. Another provision would put into place
    additional environmental protections for a 75-mile stretch of the Green
    River, and the Ute Tribe would establish a one-quarter mile land
    corridor along this section of the river and protect it as an
    environmentally sensitive area. If enacted by the congress, the
    transfer of this land would become the largest voluntary return of land
    to Native Americans in the lower 48 states in more than a century.
        Elk Hills School Lands Fund.--The National Defense Authorization
    Act for fiscal year 1996, Public Law 104-106, authorized the settlement
    of longstanding ``school lands'' claims to certain Elk Hills lands by
    the State of California. The Settlement Agreement between the
    Department and the State, dated October 11, 1996, provides for payment
    of nine percent of the net sales proceeds generated from the divestment
    of the government's interest in Elk Hills, subject to the appropriation
    of funds. Under the terms of the Act, a contingency fund containing
    nine percent of the net proceeds of sale has been established in the
    U.S. Treasury and is reserved for payment to the State, subject to the
    appropriation of funds. The first installment payment was appropriated
    in fiscal year 1999. No appropriation was provided in fiscal year 2000,
    however, the fiscal year 2000 Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act provided an advance appropriation of $36 million to
    become available in fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2001 budget
    requests an advance appropriation for payments to the State for the
    fiscal years 2002-2006 to be made available on October 1 of each fiscal
    year, as follows: for fiscal year 2002, $36 million; for fiscal year
    2002, $36 million; for fiscal year 2003, $36 million; for fiscal year
    2004, $36 million; for fiscal year 2005, $60 million; and for fiscal
    year 2006, $60 million.
        National Energy Technology Laboratory.--Fossil Energy's Federal
    Energy Technology Center became the Department's 15th national
    laboratory, renamed the National Energy Technology Laboratory in
    December 1999. The two research facilities that comprise the newest
    national laboratory, are located in Morgantown, West Virginia and
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, but are operated as a single entity. The
    National Energy Technology Laboratory's core capabilities will be
    strengthened with the creation of a Center for Advanced Natural Gas
    Studies. The new center will coordinate development of innovative
    technologies to improve the way gas is found and produced, as well as
    new ways to make the future use of natural gas cleaner and more
    efficient. It will also identify gaps in DOE's natural gas portfolio
    and recommend new efforts to ensure that future gas supplies remain
    abundant and affordable.

                       ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

        The fiscal year 2001 budget request is $75 million for ongoing
    Energy Information Administration (EIA) data and analysis activities
    related to energy use and provides for essential data quality
    enhancements. EIA's base program encompasses the maintenance of a
    comprehensive energy database, the dissemination of energy data and
    analyses to a wide variety of customers in the public and private
    sectors; the maintenance of the National Energy Modeling System for
    mid-term energy markets analysis and forecasting; the maintenance of
    the Short-Term Integrated Forecasting System for near-term energy
    market analysis and forecasting; customer forums and surveys to
    maintain an up-to-date product and service mix; and the maintenance of
    systems supporting the electronic dissemination of energy data through
    the EIA Internet home page and CD-ROM.
        In fiscal year 2001, EIA will focus on five initiatives: (1)
    Continuing the redesign of the energy consumption surveys to update the
    survey frames, sampling design, and data systems, and realign with the
    information on residential and commercial buildings populations
    resulting from the 2000 census; (2) Continue the overhaul EIA's
    electricity surveys and data systems to reflect changes in the nation's
    restructured electricity generation and distribution systems; (3)
    Continue the overhaul of the natural gas surveys and data systems to
    reflect changes in the restructured natural gas industry; (4) Continue
    the work to enhance international energy analysis and projections'
    capabilities to address increasing demands for assessing the impact of
    carbon mitigation strategies; and (5) Correcting critical petroleum,
    and natural gas data quality issues to continue EIA's ability to
    collect and disseminate the reliable and accurate energy data needed to
    assist Congress in making informed policy decisions.

                              ECONOMIC REGULATION

        The fiscal year 2001 budget request of $2 million is for refund
    application processing and for related activities arising from the
    regulatory program initiated under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation
    Act of 1973. Excess monies from refund processing are transferred to
    the Treasury Department for debt reduction.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Department of Energy's proposed budget for fiscal year 2001
    will provide the tools, facilities and processes to help lead this
    nation through a changing world energy market. The technological
    breakthroughs which lie ahead will improve the quality of life of all
    Americans. With your continued support, the Department of Energy will
    produce the science to prepare better energy options for a stronger
    America.
        Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, that concludes my
    prepared statement. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have
    at this time.

        Senator Gorton. A new set of CAFE standards will not be
    included in that package.
        Secretary Richardson. I should have had my CAFE experts
    here with me. Senator, the answer is I do not know.
        Senator Gorton. OK. As you know, the chairman is quite
    interested in that subject----
        Secretary Richardson. I know.
        Senator Gorton [continuing]. And has felt that it would be
    one that would be logical for you and the EPA administrator.
        I would like to ask questions on just two subjects and then
    defer to Senator Byrd. We do realize that you have another
    appearance.
        On pricing and on your trips overseas, the agreement was to
    increase oil production by 1.7 million barrels a day, somewhat
    short of the 2.5 million barrels that was your obvious goal. In
    addition, apparently there was a good deal of cheating going on
    as it was above the old quota.
        You mentioned in passing what your prediction was for gas
    prices by the end of the summer. Do you expect that the same
    amount of fudging or cheating will go on, so that the net
    increase really will be 1.7? And do you think that 1.7 is long
    term or is sufficient to meet your goals?
        That is several questions in one, but I will just let you
    answer in general terms.

                                 OIL PRODUCTION

        Secretary Richardson. Senator, they are excellent
    questions, and let me take each one.
        I was asking OPEC countries for 2 million barrels. The 2.5
    million was a press figure, but we asked them for 2. It was
    based on the fact that the world is consuming 75 million
    dollars per day and only producing 73 million.
        Senator Gorton. 75 million gallons. You said dollars.
        Secretary Richardson. What did I say?
        Senator Gorton. You said dollars.
        Secretary Richardson. I apologize. Barrels.
        I was asking for 2 million barrels. We got, Senator, 1.7
    barrels from OPEC countries. You add to that--and this is as of
    April 1, 400,000 barrels from non-OPEC countries, Mexico,
    Norway, Oman, and Russia. On the cheating issue, we
    anticipate--we do not call it cheating. We call it leakage. It
    is a little more diplomatic.
        Senator Gorton. All right.
        Secretary Richardson. We are estimating, and OPEC, I think,
    is estimating about 400,000 in going beyond the quotas. Then if
    you add Iraq to that, an estimate made by OPEC of 300,000
    barrels per day, we are at about 2.8 million barrels per day.
        Now, we believe that that is a good number. And it is
    already yielding results. OPEC will meet again in June 2000.
    Our view is that the market forces should dictate prices. We
    believe that the market is responding well to this increase in
    production. In fact, the news is better sooner than we thought.
        Nonetheless, that still means, Senator, we should approach
    these other initiatives that I mentioned on a bipartisan basis,
    working with you and others, to see how we can reduce that
    dependence on our imports.
        Senator Gorton. The $1.39 per gallon that you estimated by
    the end of the summer, what was the figure a year ago at the
    end of the summer, the end of summer 1999?
        Secretary Richardson. I will get you that. It was less. But
    you remember, Senator, a year ago prices were about $12 a
    barrel. I will get you those figures.
        But the best we have right now from the Energy Information
    Administration, which I thank you for funding so generously,
    are conservative estimates. They are at about $1.39 by the end
    of September. It could be a little more.
        The futures market is predicting more by the end of July,
    in fact, 14 cents below the $1.53 top. The point is that I
    think we have reached the zenith, and it is now going down. We
    have topped off, and that is the good news.
        But I will get you that data Mr. Chairman.
        [The information follows:]

                    PRICE PER GALLON OF GASOLINE LAST SUMMER

        At the end of the summer of 1999, the U.S. average price of
    regular gasoline was about $1.25 per gallon. By December 1999,
    the monthly national average had risen to $1.27.

        Secretary Richardson. I want to, if I could, ask Mr. Hakes,
    the Administrator of our Energy Information Administration, to
    the table.
        Senator Gorton. Sure.
        Secretary Richardson. I really mean it when I said the
    Energy Information Administration throughout my trip was key in
    giving concrete data about low inventories and projections that
    were very useful.

                                   GAS PRICES

        Mr. Hakes. Mr. Chairman, as the Secretary suggested, this
    summer we would project that prices would be 25 percent higher
    than last summer. But the consumer would be seeing a rather
    steady drop in prices throughout the summer. We have already
    seen a 5-cent drop from the peak on gasoline.
        Also, it is interesting, if you look at the New England
    diesel prices that truckers have been paying, those prices have
    actually dropped 65 cents from the peak. So the trend seems to
    be in the right direction, although it would not likely get us
    back to where we were last summer.
        Now, as the Secretary suggested, the futures market has
    been moving more rapidly than we anticipated. And prices have
    been coming down, crude prices have been coming down, more
    rapidly than we anticipated. So there may be more good news
    than we thought.

                                    EARMARKS

        Senator Gorton. OK. Thank you.
        My other set of questions is on a different subject, Mr.
    Secretary, and one that is greatly disturbing to not only this
    subcommittee but to others. As you know, every appropriations
    bill that goes through Congress is accompanied by one or more
    committee reports that clarify, direct and provide additional
    guidance with respect to those funds.
        These items are included in committee reports rather than
    in formal statutory language in large part to provide a degree
    of flexibility to you and to your department. Usually it works
    pretty well. Departments tend to follow these programming and
    reprogramming guidelines. And I do not think we have gotten any
    complaints from you that this subcommittee's reports have been
    overly restrictive or onerous.
        But we receive a huge number of complaints from our
    members, who are angry, frustrated, that you have taken it on
    yourself to review personally each and every one of these
    earmarks or directives and have thus delayed many of these
    instructions.
        I understand that there are still fiscal year 1999
    appropriations that at your direction have not been released,
    even though they were fully in line with the Department's
    research programs. I pass this on to you as an extremely
    serious matter. I want to know what your motivations are in
    this connection.
        Are you designing it so that Senator Byrd and I and our
    colleagues are simply going to have to put all of these things
    in the statutory language so that you do not have any
    discretion? I do not think that is going to serve you well.
        But the committee and the Members of Congress are certainly
    serious about these directions and earmarks. Would you comment
    on that?
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, I want to be sure that the
    earmarks are well spent and fit within the mission of the
    Department. Some do not. I have been trying to shift them in
    the direction of fitting within the mission of the Department.
        Am I reviewing each personally? Yes. I review every single
    spending decision. I take your Congressional reports, your
    statutory language very seriously. There have been some delays.
    But I believe in many cases we have actually improved some of
    these earmarks.
        I will continue to do that. I believe that it is important
    that we get the full scientific and budgetary and positive
    contribution out of these earmarks. If they are delayed, it is
    because I have been moving around and trying to do other
    things. But I do want to review them, to make sure they fit
    within the mission of the Department. I think you would want
    that.
        Senator Gorton. Well, we certainly want to see that it is
    well spent. We also want to see to it that the intention, the
    specific intentions, that are actions of Congress are carried
    out. We would appreciate you providing us with a list of items
    both on fiscal 1999 and 2000 that are still under review, and
    for anything that has not been reviewed, the reasons for doing
    so.
        This is a serious matter. And Members are telling us that
    if they cannot get items about which they felt very strongly
    and have been included in committee reports accomplished, they
    are simply going to ask that we put them in the bill. Can you
    get us such a list as to where you are?
        Secretary Richardson. Yes. I will get you such a list.
        [The information follows:]

                    FISCAL YEAR 2000 DOE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION EARMARK LIST \1\
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Activity                  Amount             Description                       Status
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fossil Energy--Building Fuel Cells.......    $750  Continue partnership w/Materials  Approved.
                                                        and Electrochemical Research     ($490)
                                                        Corp. to work on PEM fuel in
                                                        collaboration with ORNL.
    Energy Efficiency--Buildings Fuel  Cells.     750  Continue partnership with Avista  Approved.
                                                        Corp. to demonstrate fuel cell   ($540)
                                                        cells at DOE sites.
    Energy Efficiency--Industries of the        2,000  Characterization of oxidation     Approved.
     Future Crosscutting.                               behavior for rig testing in the
                                                        turbine program, ORNL.
    Energy Efficiency--Transportation........   3,000  Northwest Alliance for            Approved.
                                                        Transportation Technologies.
    Energy Efficiency--Precision Forging.....     500  Precision Forging Phase II R&D,   Approved.
                                                        Ann Arbor, MI.
    Fossil Energy--Advanced Clean Fuels           300  West Virginia University--coal    Approved.
     Research.                                          extraction studies.
    Fossil Energy--Natural Gas Research......   6,700  Steelmaking Feedstock program--   Approved.
                                                        Calderon.
    Fossil Energy--Natural Gas Research......     375  Arctic Research.................  Approved.
    Fossil Energy--Natural Gas Research......   2,500  Ramgen Technology...............  Approved.
    Fossil Energy--Fuel Cells................   2,000  Multi-layer Ceramic Technology..  Approved.
    Fossil Energy--Oil Technology............     375  Arctic Research.................  Approved.
    Fossil Energy--Oil Technology............   3,200  Biodesulfurization in Alaska....  Approved.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Fiscal year 1999 Earmark List to be provided separately.

        Senator Gorton. Senator Byrd, I am going to defer to you
    now. I have some more, but we do not have the Secretary for
    much longer. So I want to give you a chance to ask questions.
        Senator Byrd. Is he going to come back?
        Senator Gorton. He is also due today, because of these
    hearings, before the Full Energy Committee for some of the same
    things. So go ahead.
        Senator Byrd. I hope you will call him back, if we need
    him.

                             CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

        Senator Gorton. Well, if necessary, we can have another
    hearing. But today he has to go to that one.
        Senator Byrd. Well, I wish to begin this morning by
    focusing on the Clean Coal Technology program, Mr. Secretary,
    which your Department characterizes as ``one of the most
    successful government-industry partnerships ever implemented.''
        In looking back at your testimony before this subcommittee
    on March 18, 1999, in which you were responding to my questions
    regarding the Clean Coal Technology program, you said, among
    other things--and I will read what you said, page 54 of the
    testimony--``I want you to know''--you are addressing your
    response to me, ``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.''
        And then shortly thereafter you go on to say, Mr.
    Secretary, ``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.''
    Well, I have. I have looked at it.
        Now you continue, ``I came in September, and I think you
    will be pleased.'' Well, I am not.
        But we will work with you to keep the monies in there. Let
    me say that again. We will work with you to keep the monies in
    there, the projects going and recognize the importance of coal
    in our future.
        Well, having now looked at the Department's coal research
    budget for the upcoming fiscal year, I can assure you, Mr.
    Secretary, that you were mistaken in your prediction. I am not
    pleased. I have good reason to not be pleased.
        A $105 million rescission and a $221 million deferral in
    the Clean Coal Technology program, along with a $28 million cut
    in fossil energy research and development, does not, in my
    opinion, constitute a recognition of the importance of coal to
    this nation, and particularly at this time, may I say.
        Given the fact that you and I both know that coal is a
    major source, and will remain a major source, of energy in the
    United States for many years to come, how can this
    administration seriously justify a $105 million rescission in
    the Clean Coal program, especially coming on top, as it does,
    of the rescissions in the last 4 fiscal years?
        Over the past 4 fiscal years, $224 million has been
    rescinded from the Clean Coal Technology program and $196
    million has been deferred.
        That means that nearly half a billion dollars, $224 million
    in Federal, $224 million in private, has not gone into the
    necessary research and development of future technology. So how
    can the administration seriously justify this year, again, a
    $105 million rescission in the clean coal program?

                                 FOSSIL ENERGY

        Secretary Richardson. Senator, let me start with Fossil
    Energy and then go onto the Clean Coal Technology Program. Let
    me say that I stand behind what I said before, that I think
    policy-wise I am trying to give coal and clean coal a greater
    emphasis.
        Funding-wise, there are some numbers issues being raised
    that I would like to try to deal with. First, there are some
    small adjustments throughout the fossil energy budget; the
    major change is the decrease of $18 million in the advanced gas
    turbine budget, because we have had a major success. I just saw
    that success in Greenville, SC, with a GE project of new large-
    scaled turbines.
        I also want to point out there are several important
    increases in the fossil energy budget, increased funding for
    the Vision 21 Energy Plan of the Future. That is something that
    I know is important to you.
        We have more than doubled the funding for carbon
    sequestration, because we may be on the verge of real
    breakthroughs in developing more affordable ways to address
    global climate change. I know that you have landmark
    legislation on that with developing countries.
        We have added a new $13 million initiative in gas
    infrastructure. We have included $10 million for a new effort
    to develop ultra-clean transportation fuels. Our coal research,
    the Clean Coal Technology program, is a 15-year success story
    with a lot of projects completed and new technologies in use by
    industry.
        We are trying in our R&D to have more effective and cheaper
    technologies to reduce air and solid waste emissions from
    existing coal plants. We have some low-cost sulphur scrubbers,
    low-cost nitrogen-oxide controls from some of our technologies.
        On the rescission and deferral of Clean Coal funds, my
    understanding, Senator, is that the rescission and deferral
    will not affect and delay ongoing activities for projects in
    the CCT program. The Department remains fully supportive of the
    successful completion of the CCT programs. I know that you will
    review our proposals and develop a very thoughtful
    counterproposal.
        Senator, we have right now 38 active projects in 18 States.
    Twenty-six have completed test runs. I am talking about clean
    coal. Five are operating. Two are in construction. Five are
    being designed.
        Industry has provided 66 percent of the total cost. The DOE
    share for 38 projects is $1.7 billion. The industry share is
    $3.45 billion.
        You know, I was with you when we started that lab, gave it
    major lab status to give clean coal and natural gas the
    visibility they deserve. I am trying, Senator. I think that
    with your help and with this subcommittee's help maybe some
    adjustments can be made.
        But, believe me, this is a big priority of mine. And I
    would ask that you not look at all the results just in the
    funding request. We have actually accomplished a lot of good
    partnerships, a lot of new technology, and this new lab which I
    think will be a major focus for the future in terms of success.
        So I do not apologize for what I said to you. I think our
    record is good. Numbers-wise, I wish we had done a little
    better.
        Senator Byrd. Well, Mr. Secretary, I have not gotten the
    answer to my question. I listen very carefully always. The
    message I get from this proposed rescission is that the
    administration thinks that the program has reached the end of
    the technological line; that no further efficiency or
    environmental improvements in coal fire generation is possible.
        What bothers me even more, though, is that the Department
    of Energy also seems to think that the program is effectively
    over. I note that the program update released in March 1999
    states that, and I quote, ``The future direction of the Clean
    Coal Technology program focuses on completing the existing
    projects as promptly as possible.''
        Let me read that again. ``The future direction of the CCT
    program focuses on completing the existing projects as promptly
    as possible.'' Not one mention there of potential new projects
    or new technologies that might be developed by pressing ahead.
        Since there is nothing in the original authorizing
    legislation that would mandate a shutdown of the clean coal
    program by a date certain, can you tell the committee what the
    Department's position is with respect to continuation of the
    program? Do you have any long-term plans that would allow for
    additional project solicitations? And if not, why not?

                             CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

        Secretary Richardson. Senator, let me say that on the
    numbers, we had to meet some budget targets. I wish our numbers
    would have been stronger, but I still think they are strong.
        Let me just answer your question on clean coal technology.
    I do not think we need the money in fiscal year 2001. I do not
    think we are going to need the $105 million rescission in
    fiscal year 2002. But if we do, I want to pledge to you that we
    will look at it again when we formulate the 2002 budget next
    fall. I am committed to clean coal technology. There will be
    more projects.
        I think we had some tough budget targets to make. But
    again, I want to stress to you we were very much committed to
    this.
        Senator Byrd. Well, all that is very good, Mr. Secretary. I
    know that you are not completely responsible for the figures as
    they finally arrive here. I understand that.
        But we need this technology. We need to sell it to China,
    to India, to Mexico, to Brazil, and to these other nations that
    are developing, but which are emitting enormous amounts,
    increasingly enormous amounts, of gases into the atmosphere.
        Now is the time we ought to be moving forward on clean coal
    technology, not just for our sake but also from the standpoint
    of helping the developing nations to clean up their own
    powerplants. I think the administration has a very shabby
    record in this area.
        I am particularly concerned with the issue of global
    climate change. Now the Vice President ought to know this. He
    ought to hear this. He ought to be concerned about this.
        I am particularly concerned with the issue of global
    climate change. And I fear that cuts in the clean coal program
    will have serious consequences in that area. On this score
    alone, there seems to be a very real disconnect, a very real
    disconnect, between what the administration is saying on the
    one hand and what it is doing.
        I believe you will find in the Book of Corinthians, Mr.
    Secretary, verbiage which says, ``If the trumpet make an
    uncertain sound, who will prepare to the battle?''
        Now the trumpet here is making an uncertain sound. The
    administration says, on one hand, this. On the other hand, we
    see it is cutting the monies for a very vital program.
        This must reflect the mindset on the administration's part
    that we have gone far enough on clean coal technology, and what
    we need to do is clean up the projects that are already in the
    pipeline and then forget about it.
        Well, I do not believe that the Members of Congress think
    that way. And I do not think the American people would think
    that way, if they really knew the facts.
        So there seems to be a very real disconnect between what
    the administration is saying on the one hand--it is the voice
    of Jacob, but it is the hairy hand of Esau--what the
    administration is saying on the one hand and what it is doing
    on the other.
        Since exports of this technology to developing countries
    would contribute greatly, greatly, to reductions in greenhouse
    gas emissions, which the administration supposedly supports, I
    think it is somewhat disingenuous for the administration to
    propose these cuts.
        Do you want to respond to that, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, the Clean Coal Technology
    program has been a success. It is nearing completion. It set up
    a new suite of technologies to help existing powerplants to
    meet tough environmental standards. Now we can do better.
        What we have done is taken the new technologies
    demonstrated under the Clean Coal program and pursued even
    greater energy efficiency. Our goal is near zero, emissions for
    fossil plants, which has been your goal in terms of developing
    countries. Our partnership with the private sector is working.
    Rapid commercialization is taking place. So we are succeeding
    in this program.
        You passed your resolution with Senator Hagel that
    developing countries, if there is going to be a Kyoto treaty,
    have to participate. They have not been participating.
        We have had conferences with energy ministers from Latin
    America, from Africa; we are going to have them from Asia in
    San Diego next month. We have said to them, ``We want to sell
    you clean coal technology, energy renewable technology, from
    the United States, so that with the private sector, with market
    forces, you can meet those Kyoto goals,'' which is exactly what
    you have wanted us to do.
        And we have had some success. We have certainly helped
    American business, American coal companies. Clean coal people
    have participated. But we need to do more.
        But, Senator, I just do not want you to judge the success
    of the program simply on the appropriation that we have
    requested. Granted, I did not get everything I wanted. But
    nonetheless, we have had some successes, some partnerships that
    are working.
        And this is technology that we are going to continue doing.
    We are going to do some more of these projects. But I can
    assure you, our commitment is there.
        Senator Byrd. Well, ``by their fruits, ye shall know
    them.'' And I am looking at the fruits here. I started this
    program in 1985 with an initial authorization of $750 million,
    one of the most successful programs we have ever seen in which
    the Federal Government and industry participated and shared the
    cost.
        And industry has been sharing that, by your own testimony
    this morning, 66 percent of the cost of these projects, which
    shows it is an important project, and it is a successful one
    insofar as industry is concerned.
        And yet I hear you say just now, ``We are nearing
    completion.'' Do you really mean that? How do you get to near
    zero emissions, if the program is nearing completion?
        Secretary Richardson. Well, what I meant by that, and I
    stand by what I said, is that we are having success in this
    program when we are developing the kind of technologies that we
    are able to demonstrate will improve the environment and get
    some of these power plants to meet tough environmental
    standards and produce power more efficiently and competitively.
        So my main message, Senator, is: The program you started is
    succeeding. It is working.
        Senator Byrd. And it ought to continue.
        Secretary Richardson. Yes.
        Senator Byrd. And we have to have money to continue it. And
    if we are really concerned about global, this global problem--
    --
        Secretary Richardson. I agree.

                     NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY

        Senator Byrd [continuing]. We need to do more of this.
        Now you spoke of the energy technology laboratory in
    Morgantown. I am concerned about how this budget proposal
    treats the newly established National Energy Technology
    Laboratory in Morgantown.
        When you and I were at that facility last December, you
    told the assembled audience that you intended for the lab to
    ``have the full status of a national lab, the full rank and
    prestige.''
        You also said you wanted the lab to ``become the center of
    the universe.'' When you said that over there, I just swelled.
    I thought, ``We are on the way now; the center of the universe
    for fossil energy and environmental technology.''
        But despite your statements, which I am sure were well
    intentioned, I fear that the administration is not following
    through on your commitment, and that the national laboratory
    designation is proving to be more cosmetic than substance.
        For example, the fiscal year 2001 budget request would cut
    the lab's basic operating budget by more than $1 million from
    fiscal year 2000 levels. I realize a $1 million cut may seem
    trivial, but I would like to know how such a cut symbolically
    squares with your intention of ensuring that the NETL will have
    the ``full status of a national lab'' and that it would be the
    center of the universe for fossil energy and environmental
    technology.
        Secretary Richardson. Well, Senator, we did rename that lab
    in December. And we have proposed several new in-house
    capabilities at the lab, for example, the strategic natural gas
    center, which will deal with technology portfolio and natural
    gas research and analysis; and super computing, which puts in
    place an alliance with West Virginia University and Carnegie
    Mellon--we put $3 million in the fiscal year 2001 budget for
    that--another $3 million for carbon sequestration to study the
    capture and permanent storage of greenhouse gases.
        And what we are doing, Senator, is wanting to make sure
    that that lab gets the proper funding, designation and
    prestige. I am the one that moved this lab to that designation
    because of my commitment to coal research, natural gas
    research, the kind of research that you are doing. It has only
    been 3 months. You need to give me a little more time to do the
    right things for it. And I need your help there.
        Senator Byrd. You have my help in any way you ask for it.
    You want me to come downtown and talk to the President or Vice
    President or whomever? I can do that.
        So call on me, if I can help you. Come to see me. Pick up
    the telephone. Come to see me. If we have some problems, let me
    know about them.
        Well, I just have one follow-up question. In your statement
    last December, you also said that the lab would house a new
    center for advanced natural gas studies. What is being done on
    that front with respect to assigning or transferring additional
    natural gas research programs to NETL?
        Secretary Richardson. I know I have designated the lab as
    our center for natural gas. Let me ask my----
        Senator Byrd. OK.
        Secretary Richardson. I will be reviewing a plan to
    increase that responsibility. It is at the Under Secretary
    level. He has a plan to do that.
        Senator Byrd. Will you let me know when you have completed
    your review?
        Secretary Richardson. Yes.
        Senator Byrd. I thank you for your appearance here, Mr.
    Secretary. I do not mean to be discourteous, but I am mystified
    by what is happening to our Clean Coal Technology program and
    what I think is not sufficient continuing interest in the
    National Energy Technology Lab in Morgantown.
        That is all I will have for now. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

                                    EARMARKS

        Senator Gorton. Senator Stevens.
        Senator Stevens. Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Richardson. Good morning, Senator.
        Senator Stevens. I am thinking about offering an amendment
    to this bill that will prevent you from using any funds that
    are in your request, the President's request, until you have
    released the funds for the congressional priorities.
        Let me tell you, I just found out that last week your
    Department released a fiscal year 1999 coal bed methane project
    for Alaska that Congress funded for Alaska 18 months ago.
        I am told that the funds that are coming under the Indian
    energy grants for this current year have been delayed for Sitka
    and Nome. Those are Indian allocations set aside. And when we
    inquired, your staff had told us that you must personally
    approve all congressional priorities before they are released.
    By what right do you impound congressional priorities, Mr.
    Secretary?
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, this question came up
    earlier. I want every spending dollar that we take to be
    consistent with the mission of the Department. What I am
    doing----
        Senator Stevens. The President signed those grants. You
    have authority to set aside. You have no authority to determine
    whether they are consistent with the President's program. By
    definition, they are consistent when he signed the law.
        Now I am serious. We are going to hold up your money until
    you stop holding up congressional priorities. We get a budget.
    We take out some of the things you want, and we decide some
    other things of higher priority. The President agrees with us
    when he signs them. You are a Cabinet officer, and we expect
    you to follow the law.
        This really irritates me to think that for 18 months this
    little village waited for that money from fiscal year 1999. Now
    that is just preposterous. Congressional priorities are still
    part of the law. By what right do you decide whether they are
    consistent with your program?
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, I am reviewing these
    projects. I am looking at them. The fiscal year 2000----
        Senator Stevens. By what right? Are you a Member of
    Congress again, Mr. Richardson? These are law. This is in the
    law. Now you do not have the right to determine they are not
    consistent with your program.
        And I am serious. I think this is an absolute revolt on
    your part against the concept of Congress having the right to
    redetermine some of the priorities of the United States.
        I am serious. I hope the Congress will support this. You
    have no right to determine that they are not consistent with
    your program and, therefore, not to release them. A fellow
    named Nixon learned that. You are impounding money.
        Gentlemen, I am really disturbed. This money was
    appropriated 18 months ago and was just released. And it took
    that long to determine it was consistent with the Secretary's
    idea of what the program of the Department should be.
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, these were funds that are
    discretionary. They are discretionary in terms of my authority.
        Senator Stevens. They are not discretionary. They are
    earmarked in the law.
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, I do not believe they were.
    The statutory language we always obey. These are report
    language----
        Senator Stevens. Oh, you are not going to recognize what is
    in the report, the earmarking in the report?
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, all I am saying is that I am
    looking at everything in the report. I have been a little busy
    lately.
        Senator Stevens. Well, let us get one thing straight, Mr.
    Secretary. Are you not going to be guided by report language?
    Should we put the whole report in the law?
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, all I want to do is to make
    these projects consistent with the mission of the Department.
    Some have fallen outside of our jurisdiction.
        Senator Stevens. If the Congress puts them there, they are
    for you to do. Now, you were up here, Bill. And I remember you
    were here during the Republican administration. And I know you
    earmarked. And you expected the administration to follow that.
        The shoe is on the other foot now. And you are telling us
    you are going to determine whether an earmarking of Congress of
    specific monies for a specific project is consistent with your
    desires of how to be the Secretary of Energy.
        I tell you, gentlemen. We will have to write long bills for
    your Department, if that is the case. These are not the only
    ones. These are just the ones that have come to my attention so
    far. Or have you just done the ones the chairman earmarked?
        Secretary Richardson. No. I have done a whole series of
    them, Senator. I have approved many projects.
        Senator Stevens. I am going to ask the GAO to find out what
    you have not honored in terms of earmarking in the reports
    because in the time I have been in the Congress, I do not know
    of a Secretary that has decided that every congressional
    earmark had to be reviewed to see if it was consistent with his
    interpretation of the mission of the Department.
        I am told that Senator Shelby's project that was earmarked
    was disapproved, formally disapproved.
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, I have had a lot of things
    to do lately. I have pledged that I wanted to look at every
    spending dollar the Department has. I have not reviewed the
    fiscal year 2000 earmarks. You mentioned the one that I
    approved last week, 1999----
        Senator Stevens. That is 1999. That stopped. That ended
    last October 1.
        Secretary Richardson. That is correct.
        Senator Stevens. People up there in my State expect to see
    the money, if we tell them it has been earmarked. It is in the
    report of Congress. We tell them, ``Yes, we have received the
    approval of Congress to earmark part of the funding that goes
    to the Department of Energy, and you will receive `X'
    dollars.''
        Now, Mr. Secretary, it is not fair to us at all, and you
    know it. I am going to find some way. You are the only
    Secretary I know that is doing this so far. And I spent 8 years
    in one administration and 5 years as legislative counsel and
    solicitor. I know what goes on in departments, just as you do.
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, all I know is I looked at
    your project and I approved it.
        Senator Stevens. 18 months? It took 18 months to move that
    paper across your desk?
        Secretary Richardson. Apparently. And there was nothing----
        Senator Stevens. We have done this before. We will just
    put--it only takes one sentence in the report. It says you
    cannot release any of this money until you release the monies
    as earmarked in this section.
        Secretary Richardson. But, Senator, these are discretionary
    projects.
        Senator Stevens. They are not discretionary, if we earmark
    the money. It never has been. When you were up here, it was
    not. And it is not now.
        Secretary Richardson. When it is earmarked----
        Senator Stevens. When the Senator from West Virginia
    earmarks, do you think that is discretionary?
        Secretary Richardson. No. When it is earmarked and
    statutory, no. But these are report language projects.
        Senator Stevens. No, that is not--if it is going to be
    statutory, we will get to the statutory language.
        Senator Byrd. Will the Senator yield?
        Senator Stevens. If you want to do it that way, we will do
    it.
        Senator Byrd. Will the Senator yield?
        Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, from time immemorial, language
    in committee reports is there to guide the Department. And they
    are expected to follow that language. There might be reasons in
    an instance or so here and there, but that is not discretionary
    with you down there. I do not mean to say you personally, but
    any secretary. It is not discretionary whether or not you
    follow those.
        We need to get back to the old time religion here. We need
    to get back to some old time thinking. You are not going to get
    by with that before this subcommittee, to say it is
    discretionary. Well, why put it in? Why do we not just write
    you a letter and ask for it? It is not discretionary.
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, I am a Cabinet officer. I
    review all spending. That does not mean I disapprove it or I
    cast negative judgment. I just want to see what we are
    spending. I want to know what your interests are. I want to
    know how I can make some of these projects consistent with what
    we are doing.
        I am not doing anything that I think is nefarious here. I
    think you want me to know how we are spending our money. This
    is a department that needs to be managed better, and that is
    all I am doing.
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, we have a responsibility,
    also. We are elected by the people. You are not. No Secretary
    of any Department is elected by the people of the United States
    or of a State. You know that. You have been a Member of the
    House.
        And when you say it is discretionary, I will join with the
    Senator in putting it in law, if that is what it takes to get
    your attention.
        Now let me mention the Positron Emissions Tomography Center
    of West Virginia University. You released the funding there,
    but it was fiscal year 1999 funding, after I asked you to do
    that in Morgantown. And I thanked you then, and I thank you
    now. That should have been done.
        So I am going to pay more attention to this, as well as Mr.
    Stevens. You are not the only one who has a responsibility to
    know whether or not these items--whether or not money is well
    spent. We have that responsibility, also. And we take it into
    consideration when we earmark it.
        So I hope you will do a little thinking about this. You may
    not be coming back before this committee again. Maybe that does
    not make a difference. But we are not going to sit here and
    take that kind of language from any secretary, that it is
    discretionary.
        If it is in the committee report, you should have very good
    reasons other than, ``I am just looking them over. That is
    discretionary with me. I may or I may not.''
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
        I will just say one more thing, Mr. Secretary. You are a
    friend. I admire what you have been doing and have followed
    your career. And I think you have been very fortunate in having
    some very interesting assignments.
        But when we go over these bills, we determine how much
    money there is. And we are earmarking somewhat less than 10
    percent of the money that is available to these departments. We
    are approving basically the projects that you have set up and
    not putting restrictions on them for the most part. We have
    sometimes fenced them, ``You cannot do this until we receive
    some proof,'' or something.
        But we do have a right to redetermine some of the
    priorities of the United States. For instance, we earmarked in
    the law a certain portion of the funds that you get for Indian
    projects. The three that disturb me most are the three Indian
    projects that have been delayed. And I am told they have been
    sitting in your office for some time, by your own staff.
        Now is that for you to determine, if it is consistent for
    us to earmark within Indian reservation, money set aside for
    Indian projects, where they go? I tell you, I find that very
    hard to believe that you would question Congress in determining
    how a small portion of a large fund, just a small portion that
    is set aside for Indians throughout the country. And we have
    sort of a pecking order here of who is going to get what and
    how soon one tribe is going to get eligible over another. And
    we finally determine, yes, it is Alaska's time to get three.
    Three of those were earmarked, I think, probably for the first
    time to Alaska.
        And we are to wait for you to determine if that is
    consistent with your program? Mr. Secretary, that disturbs me
    greatly.
        And somehow I am going to join with my colleague and find a
    way that the discretionary part will come out. That is not
    discretionary at all. We have reserved a portion of the fund
    that is discretionary and said it can be used only for Indian
    projects. I think we told you what projects to put it to. And
    these people have a right to be disturbed, because they have
    been misled by me. I told them a year ago, 18 months ago, they
    would get the money.
        That is--you leave us in a very difficult position with our
    people. You were elected once. You know that is not fair. I am
    very disturbed, Mr. Secretary, that this has taken place.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Mr. Secretary, you see how gentle the
    Chairman was with you on this subject. But you also see what
    the Chairman gets from other members of the committee in this
    connection.
        And I greatly prefer not to write all of these things in a
    bill itself, because there is at least a degree more
    flexibility in committee reports. And if there is some serious
    objection on the part of the Secretary and you come to us, we
    are usually going to be understanding of it.
        But I hope you will lower that stack that is on your desk
    right now as rapidly as you possibly can and obviate this kind
    of commentary.
        Senator Richardson. Senator, I will review these. I have
    gotten the message. Let me also say to you that sometimes it is
    difficult for me, when I have a $50 million science budget,
    that one project comes in at $11 million that is not consistent
    with the mission of the Department.
        What I try to do, in respecting congressional wishes many
    times, is to adjust these programs or these earmarks to some
    mission consistent with the Department, so that we can use
    them.
        And that is what I am simply trying to do with some of
    these. And, quite frankly, in the last 3 months I have been
    occupied on other things. But my responsibility is also to the
    American taxpayer to see that our money is well spent. I know
    you want me to do that.
        I approved his project. I have approved fiscal year 1999
    projects. We are looking at the fiscal year 2000 projects. We
    just want to spend the money right, Senator. That is all I am
    trying to do.

                           COORDINATION WITH THE EPA

        Senator Gorton. Well, get these done fast. You will be much
    worse off if you end up having the committee direct everything
    as a statutory matter.
        I have only one more subject. I have a lot more subjects,
    but I will submit them to you in writing.
        The National Research Council recently reviewed the
    Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. It recommended
    closer coordination between DOE and EPA with regard to the
    relationship in emissions standards and research on emissions
    reductions. I think this is a very important recommendation.
        And it stems from the fact that on several occasions the
    Environmental Protection Administration standards have made
    advance technology, developed through the support of your
    Department, irrelevant or at least much less relevant.
        And it collectively made the private sector reluctant to
    invest in research and development for fear that standards are
    going to be changed out from under them.
        I would like to know what your personal commitment is to
    ensure that there is adequate coordination between your
    Department and EPA, what the administration's views on this
    coordination subject are. And one very specific question: Given
    that most emission sources produced more than one undesirable
    pollutant, does it strike you, as an individual and the
    Secretary, as sensible that our regulatory regime is centered
    on a seemingly endless series of single purpose rule-makings on
    individual emissions?
        Secretary Richardson. Senator the Department of Energy's
    Fossil Energy Research, we want to have full input into any
    type of EPA policy. We see our role as being threefold in that
    direction.
        One, we want to be able to provide scientifically credible
    data to EPA. Specifically in one instance, we tested power
    plant emissions of air toxic substances. EPA was able to avoid
    imposing the unnecessary regulations. We are currently studying
    microscopic airborne particles.
        Our second initiative has been to develop lower cost, more
    effective technology to meet EPA regulations. Our joint low
    NOX burner effort with industry was used by EPA to
    set emissions limits.
        We need a new effort to develop better technologies to
    reduce mercury. We need--we have been able to develop with EPA
    lower cost scrubbers that have helped utilities meet EPA
    regulations. We have participated in interagency reviews of EPA
    regulations, providing information on the expected performance
    of technologies.
        So we have this partnership with EPA. I would like to
    really have EPA recognize that when it comes to energy demands,
    energy supply and industry impacts, that we are an important
    source of information. We have taken a more aggressive role if
    we feel that an EPA regulation has energy impact. Many times we
    are proactive in terms of expressing our views, sometimes
    disagreeing with EPA.
        Let me give you some examples. Adding cobalt and vanadium
    to the toxic release inventory, caps on NOX. I know
    you are a scientist. I am not exactly, but some of these----
        Senator Gorton. We are in the same boat, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Richardson. [continuing]. Tier II and low sulphur
    automotive fuel, particulate and ozone standards, refinery
    emissions caps. We are contributing to their efforts to reach
    sound decisions.
        Senator Gorton. Well, I want to say that I hope so. If you
    will remember, just recently they backed away from this MTBE, a
    classic example of a single purpose rule directed at air
    pollution that ends up polluting the water.
        You did not answer the last of my questions. It is not your
    Department, but should you not be encouraging EPA not to go
    after these emissions just simply one at a time, but to look at
    the broader picture?
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, can I get back to you on
    that?
        Senator Gorton. Yes, you can. You certainly may.
        [The information follows:]
                 Coordination With EPA on Emissions Rule Making
        The Department of Energy does encourage the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt a more integrated approach in its
    rule-makings regarding the control of pollutants. DOE also works
    closely with EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, as well as the
    commissioners of state environmental programs, on non-regulatory
    opportunities to approach energy and environmental issues on this
    broader basis, such as by encouraging development of State
    Implementation Plans that use energy efficiency as a strategy of choice
    in efforts to achieve clean air goals.
        The Department's efforts to encourage comprehensively integrated
    approaches were strengthened by the National Research Council (NRC)
    with its recommendation for closer coordination between the Department
    of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency--with regard to the
    relationship between emission standards and research on emission
    reductions. This recommendation descends directly from the NRC report,
    Review of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)
    program, 1999.
        As an example of this type of coordination with the Environmental
    Protection Agency on the PNGV program, PNGV, EPA and DOE jointly
    participate as members of the PNGV Steering Group. Each agency is
    represented on various PNGV technical teams. DOE shares its emission-
    related research with EPA, and reviews EPA's vehicle and vehicle-fuel-
    related rule-makings. In the PNGV program, the Federal Government is
    represented by the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and
    Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science
    Foundation. Additionally, the Department provided comments in response
    to EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Clean Air Act ``Tier 2''
    vehicle emission standards and standards for low sulfur gasoline. That
    letter discusses regulatory uncertainties and their impact on
    investment decisions.
        To broaden our understanding of energy and environmental
    interactions, DOE recently asked the National Petroleum Council (NPC),
    a federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy, to examine
    issues related to environmental issues and petroleum product markets.
    NPC is finishing a study which addresses the cumulative impacts of
    several product quality regulations, including changing the role of
    oxygenates in reformulated gasoline, on refinery viability and product
    deliverability. A Draft Report, dated March 30, 2000, assesses
    Government policies and actions that will affect both the petroleum
    product supply and the continuing viability of U.S. refineries.
    Secretary of Energy Federico Pena requested this study in a letter to
    the NPC dated June 30, 1998, as a means of obtaining a clearer picture
    of the refining landscape and the systems context in which the refiners
    operate.

                            TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

        Senator Gorton. One other related subject, transportation
    research. The Department is investing a very significant amount
    of money in promising clean diesel technologies for light
    trucks and suburban utility vehicles.
        At the same time, many of the national environmental
    organizations to which this administration pays a great deal of
    attention do not give the slightest indication that they will
    do anything but lie down on the tracks against any
    reintroduction of diesel under any set of circumstances.
        Is this a concern of yours? Do you think you can persuade
    these organizations to go along, or are we on a dead-end street
    in going after new diesel technologies?
        Secretary Richardson. Senator, we are committed to going
    after new diesel technology. I think we have had some good
    breakthroughs there. If I may----
        Senator Gorton. OK.
        Secretary Richardson. David Leiter is the Principal Deputy
    Assistant Secretary for EERE programs, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. OK.
        Mr. Leiter. Mr. Chairman, we are continuing work on these
    technologies related to diesel fuel, particularly in our larger
    vehicles such as light trucks. We make an all-out commitment on
    the research.
        We have recently made some grants to manufacturers to do
    more research jointly with the Department. So there is a
    continuing effort to do that. And the technology is there. We
    believe that the environmental----
        Senator Gorton. Well, I know that. But can you persuade
    very powerful organizations in this country that we are ever
    going to be able to use the technologies you develop?
        Mr. Leiter. I believe that if the technology is developed
    and we can make the case that they are as clean as we hope they
    can be, and consistent with the aims of the research, they will
    be agreeable to that.
        Senator Gorton. I mean, I certainly approve the research
    and what you are doing on it. But we do want to have a
    reasonable degree of assurance that if it is going to work, it
    can be used in the real world.
        Mr. Leiter. I think the important point is that they are
    not opposing that research. They are allowing us to go through
    and prove that it can work, and are open minded on that point.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Secretary. I know you have somewhere
    else to go. You have certainly been responsive to me during the
    time that you have been in this office. But you have also been
    given a very real warning shot across the bow in connection
    with the serious way in which members of this committee and
    Congress as a whole take committee reports.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        You have said you would respond to me on some of these
    specifics. And prompt and affirmative answers will, I think, do
    the Department a great deal of good as we go through this
    year's appropriations process.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequest to the
    hearing:]

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SLADE GORTON
                                RECENT SUCCESSES

        Question. For the past several years I have asked witnesses
    testifying in support of the DOE budget request to cite a few examples
    of recent successes within programs under this subcommittee's
    jurisdiction. You mentioned a few of these in your opening statement.
    Can you expand on some of these examples?
        Answer. We have had many successes, some of which I will explain by
    major organization:

                       ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

        One of the recent Department successes we can point to is the
    result of our negotiations with the OPEC and Non-OPEC oil producing
    countries regarding increases of their oil production. The success was
    possible because of the excellent and timely data and analysis of the
    Energy Information Administration. We were able to show the OPEC
    ministers and non-OPEC representatives what impact the lower oil
    production quotas were having on the United States in a clear and
    convincing manner. We were able to leverage this information and gain
    the oil producing countries' agreement to increase their production.

                               ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has had many
    successes in the program offices. A recent publication entitled, Clean
    Energy Partnerships: A Decade of Success, summarizes twenty of these
    accomplishments and includes a summary analysis of quantified benefits
    for EERE-supported products and technologies installed to date. A list
    of the twenty projects, and a brief description of each follows:
        Hazardous, energy-intensive halogen torchieres are being replaced
    by safe and efficient compact-fluorescent torchieres developed by
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in collaboration with lighting
    industry partners. Energy cost savings from the sale of the 200,000
    compact fluorescent bulbs sold in 1998 will be $41 million over the 7-
    year life of the bulbs.
        DOE's leadership and research in collaboration with industry, Oak
    Ridge National Laboratory, and the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology accelerated the development of ozone-safe refrigerants by an
    estimated two years and averted a $16 billion energy penalty.
        Spectrally selective glazings developed by Lawrence Berkeley
    National Laboratory in collaboration with manufacturers and the
    National Fenestration Rating Council can cut cooling costs by 10-25
    percent in hot climates. These cuts in cooling costs could result in
    savings of $1.3 billion per year from lowered electricity bills by
    2010.
        Working with industrial partners the Office of Industrial
    Technologies funded R&D on oxygen-fueled glass furnace technologies,
    technologies used to manufacture 30 percent of all glass in 1999.
    Cumulative energy savings through 1997 totaled $28 million, with over
    $7 million in energy costs being saved annually by U.S. manufacturers.
        The Inventions and Innovations Program has provided small grants to
    more than 500 inventors; 25 percent of these grantees have produced
    commercialized technologies, and the sales of these products exceed
    $700 million ($1995) through 1996. Energy cost savings attributable to
    these grant-funded inventions were over $190 million.
        DOE's efforts to develop lightweight materials for manufacturing
    auto parts have saved more than 6 billion gallons of motor fuel and
    reduced carbon emissions by approximately 15 million metric tons
    through 1997. The dollars saved in oil-based fuels over the period from
    1978 to 1997 is estimated at about $7 billion.
        DOE, in cooperation with industry partners, has developed diesel
    engine technologies that are both cleaner and more energy efficient,
    saving approximately 16 billion gallons of motor fuel and reducing
    carbon emissions by about 38 million metric tons through 1997. The
    cumulative economic value of increased efficiency is estimated at about
    $17 billion.
        Improvements in parabolic trough technology have reduced the O&M
    costs of parabolic trough plants by 30 percent, saving $4 million per
    year and $42 million over the lifetime of the trough. These
    improvements have also increased the performance of the world's largest
    solar plant to record levels.
        DOE's research partnerships with U.S. industry have led to wind
    turbine advances that are helping the United States be a leader in
    technology for the world's fastest growing energy source. Over their
    lifetimes turbines produced and installed by just one U.S. company will
    displace 110 trillion Btu of primary energy, save $246 million in
    energy costs, and reduce carbon emissions by 2.1 million metric tons.
        Advances in geothermal heat pumps have substantially reduced the
    heating and cooling loads of hundreds of thousands of residential,
    commercial, and institutional buildings across the United States. Over
    their lifetimes, the pumps installed between 1995 and 1998 are
    estimated to save $980 million in energy costs and reduce carbon
    emissions by 1.7 million metric tons.
        The development of 80 percent efficient transpired solar collectors
    have provided commercial and industrial facilities with a cost-
    effective means for preheating ventilation air. Over their lifetimes
    the 52 systems installed as of 1999 will save $10 million in avoided
    fuel costs. DOE and its partner agencies retrofit 167,000 homes in 1998
    under the Weatherization Program, which will save 108 trillion Btu and
    save occupants $550 million in utility bills over the 20-year life of
    installed energy-conservation measures.
        DOE has successfully used building energy codes and standards,
    supported by technical assistance and outreach efforts, to transform
    markets, resulting in energy cost savings of $1.1 billion in 1998.
        Two hundred and fifty Rebuild America partnerships are pursuing
    energy-efficient retrofits of 800 million square feet of commercial
    floor space. Estimates of energy cost savings from these retrofits in
    1999 are $162 million, showing the energy-efficiency payback that
    results when community networks are catalyzed.
        FEMP's innovative Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) can
    now be used by federal agencies to contract with energy services
    companies to install energy-efficient systems and components, and pay
    for these improvements from the energy cost savings generated by the
    new systems. Since 1998, total contractor investment in the federal
    government is $405 million.
        Working in cooperation with Bethlehem Steel, the DOE Office of
    Industrial Technologies demonstrated a number of energy-saving and
    environmentally sound technologies and processes at the Burns Harbor
    plant that may be replicated throughout the steel industry and are
    saving the company over $8 million per year while reducing pollutant
    emissions.
        DOE's Industrial Assessment Centers, working through 30
    universities, have provided over 7,600 energy and industrial process
    audits as of 1998 to small and mid-size manufacturing firms, generating
    recommendations that could save participating firms $300 million by the
    year 2000.
        Six recent demonstration projects where the DOE Motor Challenge
    Program provided technical assistance or advanced motor selection
    software to industry helped the firms install energy-saving motors in
    place of older, more energy-intensive units, thereby saving nearly $2
    million per year and paying for the changes in just over a year.
        The Clean Cities Program is a voluntary, locally based government/
    industry partnership to reduce the use of gasoline by accelerating the
    deployment of alternatively fueled vehicles. The 139,000 alternatively
    fueled vehicles that have been deployed over the past five years
    reduced gasoline and diesel fuel use by an estimated 380 million
    gallons through 1998, and reduced carbon emissions by an estimated
    400,000 metric tons. Over the life of the program, approximately $900
    million worth of fuel has been saved.
        The National Biomass Ethanol Program has broken ground on the first
    commercial biomass-to-ethanol plant in October 1998 in Jennings, LA.
    This is part of a DOE effort to expand the domestic ethanol industry
    and production of a low polluting alternative to gasoline by developing
    and demonstrating new conversion technologies using agricultural
    residues and energy crops. The use of ethanol blends in gasoline has
    displaced $12 billion worth of oil-based fuels through 1998.

                                 FOSSIL ENERGY

        In the opening statement, the world's most advanced gas turbine was
    mentioned. The H system gas turbine is jointly funded by the Department
    of Energy and GE Power Systems, and is ready to cross the commercial
    threshold. The H System power generation system will be the first gas
    turbine to top the 60 percent efficiency threshold. (When FE began its
    advanced turbine development program in the early 1990s, the best
    turbines had efficiencies of about 50 percent.) Because fuel represents
    the largest single cost of running a power plant, an increase of 10
    percentage points in efficiency can reduce operating costs by as much
    as $200 million over the life of a typical gas-fired 400-500 megawatt
    combined cycle plant. Natural gas turbines, the technology likely to
    dominate the growing market of new electric power generation, are
    expected to make up more that 80 percent of the power generating
    capacity to be added in the United States over the next 10 to 15 years.
    Of the more than 200 new power plant projects announced recently in the
    United States, 96 percent plan to use natural gas, and most will employ
    gas turbines.
        Independent producers now drill 80 percent of all new wells in this
    country. They account for almost half of the crude oil produced in the
    lower 48 States and two-thirds of the natural gas. Increasingly, they
    are the stewards of the nation's oil resource, the ones that can
    benefit most from new technology, but the ones least able to afford is
    development.
        The Fossil Energy program has played a role in the advancement of
    oil field technology-from mudpulse telemetry in the 1970s, to
    polycrystalline diamond drill bits and horizontal drilling in the
    1980s, to 3- and 4-dimensional seismic imaging in the 1990s. It has
    been the steady pace of technology that has helped keep this industry
    viable. In the 1970s, and exploratory well had about a 14 percent
    chance of finding producible hydrocarbons. Today, those odds have more
    than doubled. An exploratory well in the 1970s, on average, added about
    10,000 barrels of oil in new reserves. Today, an exploratory well adds
    more than 40,000 barrels in new reserves.
        Transferring technological gains from the demonstration phase to
    industry practice continues to be a priority for the program. One
    approach, mentioned by the Secretary in his opening statement, is the
    Preferred Upstream Management Practices (PUMP) program. PUMP aims to
    stop the decline in domestic oil production by 2005, an objective of
    the Comprehensive National Energy Strategy. The program will focus on
    projects that promote an expedited application of technologies or
    approaches through field demonstration, develop best practices
    databases, and use existing technology transfer mechanisms to address a
    regional need or issue.
        Question. What are some specific successes from the past year in
    some of the different program areas?
        Answer. Specifics by program areas are as follows:

                       ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

        Because of the outstanding and timely information on petroleum
    production, stocks and usage continually provided by the Energy
    Information Administration, an accurate picture of this country's oil
    situation was presented. In addition, such information proved to be
    critical in providing OPEC and other producing nations with information
    used to increase their oil production.
        EIA's information and analyses are often sought prior to
    legislative action. For example, EIA's Administrator was asked to
    testify before Congress on several occasions, covering a number of
    diverse energy issues, such as crude oil prices, petroleum corporation
    mergers, natural gas demand, supply and transportation, carbon
    emissions and the impact of the Kyoto Treaty, greenhouse gas reporting,
    fuels for the future, and the potential impact on electricity
    consumption resulting from the explosive growth of personnel computers
    and Intranet usage.
        In the petroleum area, EIA prepared testimonies for the Senate and
    House dealing with the low prices of crude oil and petroleum products,
    as well as the impacts of corporate mergers which occurred during 1998
    and 1999. For example, testimony was prepared and given to the Senate
    Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Ways and Means
    Committee on low crude oil prices. Later, testimony was provided on the
    impacts of mergers between Exxon and Mobil, as well as BP-Amoco PLC and
    the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) to the House Committee on
    Commerce (Subcommittee on Energy and Power), and the Senate Energy and
    Natural Resources Committee.
        EIA prepared briefings and reports for the White House,
    Congressional staff and the Secretary of Energy. EIA prepared materials
    which were employed by the Secretary of Energy for his attendance at
    the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. EIA staff were involved
    in making presentations at conferences and meetings outlining the
    availability of petroleum data, the quality of the data, changes in
    petroleum market trends, and the outlook of heating fuels for the
    upcoming heating season. EIA worked closely with agencies such as the
    General Accounting Office and the International Energy Agency in
    addressing the ``Missing Barrels'' issues. EIA staff also participated
    in National Petroleum Council studies covering product inventories and
    deliverability, including the impact of pending environmental
    regulations, and the potential for a nearly 50 percent expansion of the
    natural gas market by 2015.
        In May 1999, EIA signed a cooperative agreement with the National
    Association of State Energy Officials to further encourage data
    exchange and information sharing with State agencies. As a result, two
    data workshops were held in Chicago, IL and San Francisco, CA on the
    use and interpretation of EIA data and how to better access the data
    from EIA's Web site. In addition to the workshops, EIA sponsored the
    State Heating Oil and Propane Conference and the Winter Fuels
    Conference.
        In addition in 1999, EIA presented testimony before the Federal
    Energy Regulatory Commission on anticipated demand for natural gas in
    the Northeastern United States as part of their fact finding into the
    need for additional pipeline capacity into the Northeast States. EIA
    completed a major study of developments in the natural gas industry,
    presented in ``Natural Gas 1998: Issues and Trends.'' The separate
    chapters of this document, containing in-depth analysis of developments
    in the industry and updates on major trends, were posted on the EIA Web
    site promoting the availability of timely and up-to-date information.
        EIA completed an Information Requirements Report for natural gas, a
    summary of requirements developed in discussions with users and
    providers of natural gas information to address changing data needs
    associated with deregulation and unbundling of services. This document
    will be used throughout the process of redesigning natural gas survey
    and information products and will be further refined in continuing
    discussions with users and respondents.
        EIA now has a Web page dedicated to providing the specific
    information on State programs. As more States move toward or examine
    ``retail choice'' for natural gas residential and commercial consumers,
    information on these State programs and the impact of the programs is
    needed by consumers and the industry to understand the changes in the
    market and how it will affect them.
        During 1999, EIA initiated its Electricity 2002 Project to redesign
    the electric power data collection forms to reflect the restructuring
    of the industry. The project has included consultation with over a
    dozen stakeholder organizations to obtain their views and data
    requirement needs. Once new forms are designed in 2000, further
    consultations will take place with the industry to ensure that the
    appropriate information can and will be supplied.
        EIA published two reports entitled ``The Changing Structure of the
    Electric Power Industry: Selected Issues, 1998'' and ``The Changing
    Structure of the Electric Power Industry, 1999: Mergers and Other
    Corporate Combinations'' in additional efforts to provide the Congress,
    the Executive Branch and industry with information about how and why
    the electric power industry is evolving. On a monthly basis EIA has
    updated our Intranet site with information on electric industry
    restructuring taking placed in each State. This State information is
    supplemented with additional material in State Electricity Profiles,
    which contains graphics, tables and text explaining how each State's
    electric power industry has evolved over time.
        EIA continued to prepare reports and briefings on issues related to
    climate change. On March 25, 1999, the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources held a hearing on the Kyoto Treaty during which EIA
    testified on our analysis of the impacts of the treaty on U.S. energy
    markets and economic activity. The Chairman and ranking minority
    members of the House Committee on Science requested two service reports
    related to climate change. The first was an analysis of the Climate
    Change Technology Initiative, released at a hearing of the Committee on
    April 14, 1999. The second report presented an analysis of an early
    start date to the Kyoto Protocol, and was released in July. On July 15,
    1999, EIA testified on its Voluntary Reporting Program for Greenhouse
    Gases before the House Government Reform Committee, providing
    background on the program and discussing emissions accounting issues.
        At the request of the Department's Policy Office, EIA updated its
    1992 study on Federal energy subsidies using a definition that the
    subsidy must result in a financial benefit and be specific to energy.
    This request, the first of two, covered primary energy only. In
    September, EIA released the report entitled, ``Federal Financial
    Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 1999: Primary Energy,''
    which show that subsidies for primary energy have declined since 1992.
        Of special note, EIA's Web site has won several awards for quality
    and content. Most recently, EIA's Web site was selected by Government
    Executive magazine as one of the best sixteen Federal Web sites for
    1999, from 120 nominated Federal web sites. In the announcement of the
    winners, Government Executive stated, ``EIA is a tiny agency, so the
    comprehensiveness of its site--and its ease of navigation--amazed the
    judges. Everyone who works in the energy industry is well-served by
    this site.'' EIA also was commended for making full use of the power of
    e-mail by featuring e-mail notification lists for more than 30
    different energy subjects.

                               ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        The Energy Policy Act and Executive Order 13123 requires the
    federal government to reduce energy consumption per gross square foot
    of its federal buildings by 20 percent during fiscal year 2000 compared
    to fiscal year 1985. The goal was met in 1999 through FEMP's varied
    technical and finance assistance programs that aid agencies in
    identifying, financing and implementing projects that cost-effectively
    incorporate energy efficiency, water conservation, and renewable energy
    technologies into federal facilities.
        The Office of Transportation Technologies' Partnership for a New
    Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) achieved a key milestone early this year
    when Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler each displayed their
    concept vehicles. These three vehicles demonstrated the technical
    viability of achieving 80 miles per gallon in a 5-6 passenger family
    sedan. They employ many technologies funded by DOE, including the
    hybrid-electric vehicle drive. Some of the technologies developed under
    this program will be introduced in near-term or next-generation
    vehicles. For example, the DaimlerChrysler ESX3 concept vehicle
    includes technologies which are being incorporated into some of its
    next-generation vehicle platforms, such as air-conditioning systems
    which incorporate low heat capacity and low heat transfer materials;
    lightweight heated and cooled seats; solar reflective glass; automatic
    ventilation systems; and low rolling resistance and run flat tires. A
    future platform will include the E-MAT transmission which has the
    efficiency of a manual transmission, while operating like an automatic.
    Ford Motor Company has announced its intention to market hybrid-
    electric vehicles in model year 2003; specifically, the Ford Escape
    will be a hybrid electric SUV and achieve a 40 percent improvement in
    fuel economy. The potential impact of the PNGV program generally is the
    future availability of highly efficient vehicles; all automakers have
    stated that they will market highly efficient technologies in vehicles
    as they become economical.
        With support from the Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies,
    researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology developed a
    very compact, plasma-boosted reformer (the size of a bottle of soda)
    that can convert any liquid hydrocarbon fuel into hydrogen gas. This
    plasma-boosted micro-reformer is compact, rugged and can provide rapid
    response. If hydrogen could supplement the main fuel onboard, spark-
    ignition engines could operate in a very efficient, clean manner and
    result in a large reduction in emissions of nitrogen oxides without a
    catalytic converter. Recent engine tests with the plasmatron reformer,
    performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest
    National Laboratory, have shown that a factor of 10 reductions in
    nitrous oxides can be achieved. This spring (2000) tests on diesel
    engines will be performed. The Department of Energy supports this work
    because it is directly related to the achievement of fuel-efficient
    engines having ultra low emissions. The Plasmatron invention received a
    1999 Discover Award.
        The frostless heat pump, developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory
    with funding from the Department, received a ``1999 R&D 100 Award.''
    The frostless heat pump features a new design that greatly reduces (by
    a factor of 5) frost formation on the outdoor coil and eliminates the
    need for most defrosting sequences; thus, improving efficiency and heat
    pump reliability. In addition, the comfort of occupants is improved
    because the average heating air supply temperature is increased by
    4 deg. as a result of the heating capacity increase of 21 percent. Test
    data show that frostless technology could eliminate 80 percent of
    potential heat pump cycle reversing. Departmental support initiated the
    genesis of the idea that led to the demonstration of the frostless heat
    pump. With industry support, the concept led to the building of a
    prototype and its initial field testing in 1999. Laboratory testing to
    demonstrate improved energy efficiency of the frostless features for
    heat pump is underway this year at ORNL with Departmental funding. Two
    heat pump manufacturers have expressed interest in the device, which
    could be the first heat pump to provide a consistently warm supply of
    air to houses in winter. Further application of the frostless feature
    to such applications as self-contained display cases for frozen food
    will also be investigated this year with Departmental funding.
        Malden Mills Industries is a textile plant in Lawrence,
    Massachusetts and is the sole producer of PolartecTM, an
    engineered high-performance polyester fleece made from recycled
    beverage bottles. In 1999, Malden Mills, in partnership with the Office
    of Industrial Technologies, Solar Turbines and AlliedSignal Composites
    demonstrated the first commercial Solar Turbines Centaur Engines with
    continuous fiber ceramic composite combustor liners. These 4.3 mW
    combined heat and power systems have an electrical simple-cycle
    efficiency slightly higher than that of delivered electricity.
    Emissions levels are guaranteed at less than 15 ppm NOX and
    10 ppm CO. An analysis by Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc.
    estimates that compared to the pre-1995 system, this highly efficient,
    three-turbine system, combined with the pollution-preventing advanced
    combustion system will virtually eliminate SO2 emissions,
    reduce NOX emissions by three quarters, and carbon dioxide
    emissions by one quarter.

                                 FOSSIL ENERGY

        Fossil Energy has had many successes over the course of the
    program. Following are three of our most recent.
        In February 2000, DOE and General Electric Power Systems unveiled
    the world's most advanced combustion turbine. The turbine incorporates
    breakthroughs that were barely imagined a decade ago. Among them, the
    turbine employs the world's largest single crystal airfoils, making the
    turbine blades much more resistant to high-temperature cracking. This,
    and other technological advances, allow the turbine to top the 60
    percent efficiency barrier. When FE began its advanced turbine
    development program in the early 1990s, the best turbines had
    efficiencies of about 50 percent.
        In April 2000, DOE announced the world's first hybrid fuel cell-
    turbine. This revolutionary new type of fuel cell combines a state-of-
    the-art fuel cell with a gas turbine to create one of the cleanest and
    most efficient ways to produce electricity. The new power plant, which
    just began a year of testing, is made of 1,152 individual tubular
    ceramic cells which give it the capability to generate about 200
    kilowatts of electricity. It is the world's first to operate the cells
    under high pressures and to use the hot, pressurized exhaust gases to
    drive a microturbine generator which will generate an additional 20
    kilowatts at full power. Nitrogen oxide emissions, and air pollutant,
    are likely to be nearly 50 times less than today's average gas
    turbines. Siemens Westinghouse expects that electrical efficiencies of
    more than 70 percent can be achieved as its hybrid technology improves.
        In December 1999, the Department announced the success of a FE R&D
    sponsored horizontal well drilled three miles deep into a dense
    sandstone formation in southwestern Wyoming. This success has led to
    additional commercial drilling that could open a potentially huge
    supply of ``nonconventional'' natural gas in the Rocky Mountain region.
    The Union Pacific Resources Company (UPR) used fracture imaging and
    advanced drilling technologies developed by the Energy Department and
    the Gas Research Instate to drill a 17,000-foot deep well with a 1,700-
    foot horizontal section. Prior to the Department's work in this area,
    very little had been done to define the geologic and production
    characteristics of the tight, fractured Frontier Formation in the
    Greater Green River Basin. The gas-bearing play covers 900 square miles
    and is checkerboarded with Federal and State acreage. If UPR's current
    and planned wells achieve comparable production levels as with their
    test well, they could generate almost $10 million in Federal and State
    royalties, almost double the Energy Department's investment.
        Question. What has been achieved?
        Answer. Achievements by major organization are as follows:

                       ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

        The petroleum data and analysis provided by the Energy Information
    Administration was leveraged during the negotiations with the oil
    producing nations of OPEC and Non-OPEC nations regarding an increase in
    their oil production. It is of note that the representative from Kuwait
    cited EIA data and mentioned that his country sees EIA as the best
    source of timely energy information.
        The 1999 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey is
    currently in the field. This cycle of the Survey incorporates two major
    changes in methods from previous cycles. First, data collection of
    building characteristics is by Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing
    with a sample of previously-surveyed buildings, using the Blaise
    computer data collection/editing/case management software package which
    was used very successfully on the 1997 Residential Energy Consumption
    Survey. Second, for the first time, energy consumption and expenditures
    data are being collected from building respondents wherever possible,
    rather than their energy suppliers. This latter change is a first
    attempt to respond to complications in energy data collection that are
    resulting from the restructuring and resultant diversification of the
    natural gas and electricity industries.
        Fieldwork is complete and data processing is underway for the 1998
    Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey. Cognitive research, both pre-
    and post-fieldwork, indicate the new questionnaire design was received
    quite favorably by respondents. Industry coverage for the 1998 survey
    has also been redesigned so data can be produced for industries in both
    the Standard Industrial Classification and the new North American
    Industry Classification systems.
        The Short-Term Energy Model was successfully updated and posted to
    EIA's Web site on schedule each month in 1999. This model has become an
    increasingly important tool in the monthly analysis of energy markets.
    The model grew in popularity in 1999; visits to the model download page
    increased from 350 to 800 per month between 1997 and 1998, and above
    860 per month in 1999.
        EIA continues to accelerate the release of energy information. For
    example, the reference case forecast for the Annual Energy Outlook 2000
    was released on November 9, 1999, a week earlier than last year and the
    International Energy Outlook 1999 reference case was released on EIA's
    Web site on March 31, 1999, 3 weeks earlier than the previous year.
    Operationally, EIA reduced its cycle time for the release of the data
    base for the Voluntary Report of Greenhouse Gases by 7 months by
    screening and processing two years of voluntary reporting data for
    greenhouse gas emissions while increasing the number of reporters to
    the voluntary program by 32 percent.
        In the area of electric power, ``Electric Sales and Revenue, 1998''
    was published 18 days earlier than the previous year and 68 days (20
    percent) earlier than two years ago. The ``Inventory of Electric
    Utility Power Plants, 1998'' was published 67 days earlier than 1997
    data and 109 days (26 percent) earlier than the 1996 edition. The
    ``Electric Power Annual Volume I, 1998'' was redesigned and released 37
    days (16 percent) earlier than the 1997 publication. The ``Electric
    Power Annual Volume II, 1998'' was published 72 days (17 percent)
    earlier than the 1996 edition. The ``Financial Statistics of Major U.S.
    Publicly Owned Electric Utilities, 1998'' was released 103 days (23
    percent) sooner that the 1996 edition. Overall, over the past two
    years, the average cycle time for annual electric power data report has
    been reduced from 367 days to 311 days, a 15 percent improvement.
        In 1999 EIA conducted its 5th annual telephone customers'
    satisfaction survey, asking customers to rate their overall
    satisfaction with five attributes of customer service (courtesy,
    promptness, accessibility, knowledge of the material, and ability to
    understand customer needs) and on five attributes of product quality
    (availability, relevance, accuracy, comprehensiveness, and timeliness).
    As in previous years, customer satisfaction was very high (86 percent
    or above, and in many cases in the mid-90 percent). Customers continued
    to tell EIA that accuracy is the most important attribute. Fully 92
    percent of the telephone customers also used EIA's Web site in the past
    year.
        During 1999 EIA undertook a major effort to redesign its Web site
    to be more user-friendly. While our site has won many awards and has a
    growing number of users, our customer calls and e-mails tell us where
    we have room to improve. In summer 1999, EIA staff trained in cognitive
    interviewing techniques conducted a series of intensive one-on-one
    tests with Web site users to determine how easy it was to find
    information on our site and how we could make our information more
    accessible.
        EIA opened a children's Web site in the spring of 1999. As an
    initiative of the Energy Industry Studies Program, the site profiles
    the major energy resource in words, numbers, and pictures and offers
    virtual visits to energy installations and an energy quiz. The site has
    become a popular source of energy information, as witnessed by more
    than 7000 visitors from across the country each month.
        During 1997, EIA set a goal to increase the average number of
    unique monthly users of its Web site by 20 percent annually, from a
    baseline of 37,000 users sessions. Between 1996 and 1997 the growth in
    usage was 180 percent. By the end of 1997, EIA exceeded the goal with
    an average of 71,500 user sessions. By the end of 1998, EIA averaged
    87,000 user sessions, again exceeding the goal. For 1999, EIA averaged
    163,600 monthly user sessions, an increase of more than 64.7 percent
    over the 1998 average. By the end of January 2000, EIA saw nearly 244
    thousand unique user sessions.
        For 1999, information downloaded from the EIA Web site averaged 94
    gigabytes per month, or about 1.13 terabytes (that's 1,000 gigabytes)
    of energy information for the year. For December 1999, 1.4 million
    files were downloaded. This represents a 76 percent increase when
    compared to December 1998. In perspective, EIA witnessed a 363 percent
    increase in its Web site usage between the first quarter of 1997 and
    the last quarter of 1999. These Web site usage data evidence how EIA
    energy information and analyses are reaching a much larger audience.
        One result of the increase in the electronic availability of our
    information has been a dramatic increase in the number of customers
    contacting the National Energy Information Center for on-line support.
    For example, e-mail traffic is up nearly 114 percent for the period
    between 1998 and 1999. Another result of our expanded use of electronic
    dissemination is a 35 percent reduction in the number of paper
    publications and a 50 percent reduction in publication printing costs
    since 1994.
        EIA has dramatically increased the distribution of its information
    by becoming the dependable source of objective energy information for
    the news media. This has enabled our energy data to be widely use by
    the general public with minimal cost to the agency. In addition to the
    steady growth in media use of EIA information, public concerns about
    price volatility in the gasoline and heating oil markets led to the
    increases in media citations in the spring of 1996, the winter of 1997,
    and the fall and winter of 1998-1999. In perspective, in 1991 EIA
    averaged just under 100 media citations per quarter. For 1999, EIA
    averaged just under 800 media citations per month, an 800 percent
    increase.
        Another example of outcomes and impact is the number of copies of
    EIA's recent brochure ``Why Do Natural Gas Prices Fluctuate So Much?''
    being requested by natural gas companies for distribution to their
    customers. These natural gas companies see this brochure as an
    excellent way to explain to their customers why natural gas prices
    fluctuate. In addition, natural gas companies can note that this
    information was prepared by a non-biased source.
        Of special note, EIA's ``Survey of Publication Subscribers'' and
    the accompanying cover letter were printed in their entirety as
    examples of excellence in survey practices in the recently published
    book, ``Mail and Intranet Surveys,'' by Dr. Don Dillman, a leading
    expert in the survey field. Being recognized in a book of this caliber,
    by an author who has been a survey consultant to the highest levels of
    government and private industry for more than 20 years, reflects the
    high quality of EIA's customer survey work.

                               ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        Throughout the decade of the 1990s, the Office of Energy Efficiency
    and Renewable Energy (EERE) invested $712 million in projects described
    in the success stories document. Additional costs have been incurred by
    the numerous industrial, university, utility, and public-sector
    collaborators that have also invested in the commercialization and
    deployment of these technologies.
        More than 5,500 trillion Btu of energy has been saved from
    equipment implemented to date as a result of these activities. Of this
    total, 5,050 trillion Btu of savings is from EERE R&D successes, and
    almost 500 trillion Btu is from EERE field verification, deployment,
    and outreach successes. These savings are enough to meet the energy
    needs of all of the citizens, businesses, and industries located in the
    states of New York, Connecticut, and New Mexico, for one year.
        EERE R&D and field verification, deployment, and outreach programs
    have also replaced another 1,700 trillion Btu of fossil fuels with
    renewable alternatives. This is equivalent to running all of the cars
    registered in the states of California, Florida, Mississippi, and West
    Virginia on ethanol rather than gasoline, for one year. Significant
    reductions in carbon emissions from these activities, 102 million
    metric tons, have resulted from these reductions in burning fossil
    fuels.

                                 FOSSIL ENERGY

        In the Coal and Power Systems area, the Fossil Energy R&D program
    has significantly contributed to expanding the menu of clean power
    options and lower operating costs by focusing on developing more
    efficient power generating technologies that also emit few pollutants.
    Fifteen years ago, the only options to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions
    from power plants cost $3,000 per ton and the choice of technologies
    was limited. Today, because of FE R&D activities, nitrogen oxide
    controls cost less than $200 per ton, and 75 percent of the U.S. coal
    capacity now uses low emission boilers. In the power industry,
    efficiency gains of even a few percentage points can make a major
    economic difference over the life of a generating system. Eight years
    ago, gas turbines had essentially reached their predicted efficiency
    limits (around 50 percent). Now, revolutionary turbine breakthroughs
    are boosting efficiencies to 60 percent and above. Ten years ago, the
    only way to use coal to generated electricity was to burn it. Now we
    have full-scale, pioneering coal gasification power plants in the U.S.
    that change coal into a gas and remove more than 95 percent of its
    pollutants. These are the most efficient coal plants in the world with
    efficiencies of 40-45 percent.
        With respect to oil and natural gas, the Fossil Energy R&D program
    has directly contributed to the development of today's, lower cost and
    more reliable exploration and production tools. For example, DOE helped
    solve the problem of binding diamonds to a drill bit. Now
    polycrystalline diamond drill bits are an industry standard. Downhole
    telemetry, the ``measurement-while-drilling'' technology, is a major
    improvement over the ``start-and-stop'' way of gathering downhole
    information. This technology had its origins in DOE's research program.
    4-D seismic surveying, in which time now included with length, width,
    and height, was pioneered by DOE's field demonstration program. It is
    now a $500 million industry in the Gulf of Mexico. Other
    accomplishments, which are now industry norms, include carbon dioxide
    flooding of production reservoirs, water flooding, secondary gas
    recovery, and horizontal drilling, all of which FE R&D played a role in
    developing or demonstrating.
        Question. What are the impacts of these achievements?
        Answer. Impacts of these achievements by organization are:

                       ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

        With EIA data in hand, our negotiators were able to show the OPEC
    ministers, and other producing nations representatives, increase oil
    production. Such increases have led to an easing in supply and
    associated heating oil and gasoline prices. This is witnessed by a drop
    in gasoline prices from a high of $1.53 a gallon prior to the OPEC
    meeting, to $1.48 a gallon on April 10, 2000. During the same time
    period, retail diesel fuel prices have dropped almost 8 cents from a
    peak of $1.50 per gallon.
        With all of the EIA initiatives to improve the accuracy, timeliness
    and customer outreach, there has been and continues to be an explosive
    growth in the use and requests for EIA's energy data, analyses and
    forecasts. EIA continues to be ``world class'' and the ``world leader''
    for energy information, analysis and forecasting.

                               ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        The cost saving impacts, to the Nation, of the activities are
    estimated to be $30 billion ($1998). This is based on the 5,500
    trillion Btu of energy savings and the cost to consumers of an average
    Btu of energy consumed in 1998. In 1996, the General Accounting Office
    reviewed the success of five similarly situated technologies developed
    in the 1980s, and found a cumulative energy savings from all
    installations through 1996 to be $28 billion, or over $3 billion per
    year.

                                 FOSSIL ENERGY

        DOE-supported research has achieved substantial benefits for
    consumers, taxpayers and the environment: technologies that are less
    polluting; lower energy costs, reduced risks of energy supply
    disruption, and improvements to our balance of trade as these
    technologies are exported to developing countries. The potential for
    future returns is even greater as technologies that are nearly through
    the research and demonstration phase enter the marketplace.
        Energy to fuel continued global growth will come primarily from
    fossil fuels, particularly in rapidly-developing nations such as China
    and India that are rich in coal reserves. Exporting cleaner, more
    efficient energy technologies will not only benefit the U.S. economy,
    but will help satisfy growing global energy demand and improve living
    standards, while controlling greenhouse gas emissions and preventing
    pollution.
        Question. Why was DOE support needed to make these achievements
    possible?
        Answer. DOE support was needed as follows:

                       ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

        Without the Energy Information Administration, the timely
    information on the status of petroleum supply, demand, and stocks would
    not have been available during briefings of OPEC nations. Without this
    leverage, there is a question of the ability of the U.S. diplomatic
    efforts to approach OPEC and to experience an increase in oil
    production which relieves the energy crisis the U.S. and its allies
    were facing.
        The data collection, analysis and forecasting programs of EIA are
    essential, providing Congress, the Administration, States, the private
    sector, and the public with reliable, accurate, and timely energy
    information critical to sound policy decisions. For the next several
    years, EIA is engaged in overhauling its aging energy information
    systems and surveys. These systems and surveys are at the very core of
    EIA's ability to provide credible data and analyses on the country's
    energy status and outlook. With the replaced and overhauled systems and
    surveys in place, EIA will have the capability to continue to be ``the
    first place to go for the last word in energy information.''

                               ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        DOE works closely with industry and others to identify areas of
    opportunity for energy efficiency improvements. ``Roadmapping'' has
    helped formalize this process and provide a longer-term perspective on
    savings opportunities and on strategies for achieving these savings.
    Identified strategies can take many forms, from private sector
    initiatives, to information- development and dissemination, to public-
    private research partnerships when needed. Economists note that, in
    general, private sector R&D is likely to be sub-optimal because of the
    fact that in competitive markets individual companies cannot reap the
    full benefits of their efforts. In general, public participation in R&D
    can help fill this gap. Public-private R&D partnerships can be a strong
    strategy for pursuing energy savings technology development when (1)
    the relevant industries are small and relatively young, therefore
    lacking the financial where-with-all to undertake major research
    efforts on their own; (2) when there are major public benefits beyond
    the private benefits that individual companies might expect to obtain
    from the research (such as large emissions reductions); or (3) when a
    relatively small government role can be the catalyst for significant
    private sector cooperative R&D.

                                 FOSSIL ENERGY

        The need for government supported R&D is greater now than ever
    before. The availability of affordable energy will be essential to our
    nation's economic strength in the coming decades, and major energy
    forecasts agree that fossil fuels will be the dominant energy source
    for the foreseeable future. The Department, in partnership with the
    private sector, supports the development of economically viable and
    environmentally compliant technologies that would otherwise emerge far
    more slowly, if at all. This support focuses on areas where there are
    large potential public sector benefits, but rewards, given the risks,
    are not adequate to attract high levels of private sector investment.
    While Americans want to continue to enjoy the economic benefits of
    lower-cost energy, they also want reliable energy supplies that do not
    harm the environment. Advances in fossil fuel technology coupled with
    the continued readiness of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, our
    emergency oil stockpile, are key to accomplishing this.

                      CONGRESSIONAL GUIDANCE AND EARMARKS

        Question. Mr. Secretary, each and every appropriations bill that
    passes through the Congress is accompanied by one or more committee
    reports that clarify, direct or provide additional guidance with regard
    to the funding totals included in the underlying bill. The information
    is included in the committee reports--rather than in the bill--in large
    part to reserve some flexibility for the Department in the execution of
    its mission. The system generally works well provided the agencies
    adhere to the report language and associated reprogramming guidelines.
    I'm certainly no aware of any complaints from you that guidance
    contained in this subcommittee's reports has been overly restrictive or
    onerous. I am receiving a lot of complaints, however, from my
    colleagues, who are increasingly frustrated and angry that you have
    taken it upon yourself to review personally each and every committee
    directive or earmark. This has caused unacceptable delays in the
    allocation of funds appropriated by the Congress. There are still
    fiscal year 1999 appropriations that at your direction have not been
    released, even though these appropriations are fully in line with the
    Department's research program. What is your motivation for undertaking
    this personal review?
        Answer. I am asking my program offices to review the earmarks to
    make sure the funds are well spent and fit within the mission of the
    Department of Energy. The review requires cooperation between the
    program office and the entity to which the funds are proposed to be
    released. A detailed scope of work must be developed that may take
    several weeks or months. In addition, the Department must make a
    determination of competitive or non-competitive financial assistance
    that requires review by legal counsel. Once this review process is
    completed, each proposal is submitted to me for final approval.
        Question. Is it your intent to provoke this Committee into writing
    virtually all program direction into bill language, such that we might
    relieve you of the burden of reviewing each individual Congressional
    directive or earmark?
        Answer. I want to ensure that the funds are well spent and fit
    within the mission of the Department.
        Question. Do you think this change in practice would enhance your
    Department's ability to carry out its mission?
        Answer. I believe the best way to ensure that the Department is
    allowed to carry out its mission is to continue a cooperative
    relationship between the Department, Congress and the entities for
    which the funds are earmarked.
        Question. How do you expect this Committee to take your priorities
    seriously if you do not take seriously the priorities of the members of
    this Committee?
        Answer. I take the priorities of the members of the Committee very
    seriously. I personally review each of the earmarks so that they get
    the highest level of attention at the Department. This helps ensure
    that any earmarked funds released are spent appropriately which
    benefits the Department, the Congress and the entity which receives the
    funding.
        Question. If your concern is whether Committee directives are
    consistent with the Department's authorities and mission, why don't you
    personally review each and every contract or allocation of the
    Departmental discretionary funds to ensure that they, too, are
    authorized and consistent with the departmental mission?
        Answer. I do, in fact, review and approve every major contract that
    the Department enters into. I frequently make recommendations or
    modifications to these contracts to ensure they are clearly oriented to
    meet the mission of the Department. It is not feasible, however, for me
    to review every subcontract and allocation.
        Question. Can you provide me with a list of the items from the
    fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 cycles that you are reviewing,
    indicating for each item whether or not you have ``approved'' the
    allocation of funding for that item? For any item that has not been
    ``approved,'' the list should indicate the reason.
        Answer. The fiscal year 1999 earmark list will be provided
    separately. The following is the fiscal year 2000 earmark list:

                      FISCAL YEAR 2000 DOE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION EARMARK LIST
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Activity                  Amount             Description                       Status
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fossil Energy--Building Fuel Cells.......    $750  Continue partnership w/           Approved.
                                                        Materialsand Electrochemical     ($490)
                                                        Research Corp.to work on PEM
                                                        fuel incollaboration with ORNL.
    Energy Efficiency--Buildings Fuel  Cells.     750  Continue partnership with Avista  Approved.
                                                        Corp. to demonstrate fuel cell   ($540)
                                                        cells at DOE sites.
    Energy Efficiency--Industries of the        2,000  Characterization of oxidation     Approved.
     Future Crosscutting.                               behavior for rig testing in the
                                                        turbine program, ORNL.
    Energy Efficiency--Transportation........   3,000  Northwest Alliance for            Approved.
                                                        Transportation Technologies.
    Energy Efficiency--Precision Forging.....     500  Precision Forging Phase II R&D,   Approved.
                                                        Ann Arbor, MI.
    Fossil Energy--Advanced Clean Fuels           300  West Virginia University--coal    Approved.
     Research.                                          extraction studies.
    Fossil Energy--Natural Gas Research......   6,700  Steelmaking Feedstock program--   Approved.
                                                        Calderon.
    Fossil Energy--Natural Gas Research......     375  Arctic Research.................  Approved.
    Fossil Energy--Natural Gas Research......   2,500  Ramgen Technology...............  Approved.
    Fossil Energy--Fuel Cells................   2,000  Multi-layer Ceramic Technology..  Approved.
    Fossil Energy--Oil Technology............     375  Arctic Research.................  Approved.
    Fossil Energy--Oil Technology............   3,200  Biodesulfurization in Alaska....  Approved.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

        Question. The budget request includes $100 million in increases for
    international energy programs. This initiative responds to a report
    issued by the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
    Technology (PCAST). Examples of activities to be funded are development
    and transfer of technology to stem oil and gas leaks in Russia, and
    transferring U.S. whole building design technologies to architects in
    five countries. The President's budget includes over $100 million in
    increases for international programs, including nearly $20 million for
    international programs under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. Why is
    this such a high priority for the Administration?
        Answer. The primary driver for DOE energy activities has
    traditionally been the economic, environmental and security benefits
    that would accrue based on the impact of these activities on domestic
    energy supply and use. However, markets have become more globalized,
    and energy use has resulted in increasingly greater current and
    projected regional and global environmental impacts. As a result, a
    number of opportunities exist for U.S. energy cooperation with other
    countries that could result in enormous economic, environmental and
    security benefits for both the U.S. and these countries. The PCAST
    report cited in the question addresses these benefits and outlines many
    potential U.S. responses, some of which are included in the
    Department's fiscal year 2001 budget request.
        Question. Are these requested increases such a high priority that
    you would want us, if necessary, to reduce your core R&D programs to
    support them?
        Answer. The increases for international activities are considered
    to be high priority, as are the activities in the core R&D programs. It
    would be difficult to prioritize these new international activities
    relative to ongoing ones because the outcomes associated with the
    international activities include a great deal of risk and uncertainty.
    High risk, uncertainty and potentially high payoff are desirable
    attributes for government-supported activities. Regarding high payoff,
    a recent study of the global energy future, conducted by the
    International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the
    World Energy Council (WEC), estimated worldwide capital investments in
    energy supply to be in the range of $12 to $19 trillion (1997$) for the
    period 1990-2020, and $17-$34 trillion (1997$) for the period 2021-
    2050. About half of the total investments would be required in
    developing countries. If U.S.-based energy companies are to capture a
    significant share of this energy supply market, we must start creating
    ongoing relationships now.

                           INTER-AGENCY COORDINATION

        Question. In its review of the Partnership for an New Generation of
    Vehicles (PNGV) program, the National Research Council recommended
    closer coordination between the Department of Energy and the
    Environmental Protection Agency with regard to the relationship between
    emission standards and research on emission reductions. This
    recommendation strikes me as extremely important, and not just with
    regard to the PNGV program. It seems that on several occasions shifting
    EPA standards have made advanced technology developed with DOE support
    irrelevant, or at least less relevant, and have collectively made the
    private sector reluctant to invest in research and development for fear
    the standards might suddenly change. What are you doing personally to
    ensure that there is adequate coordination between the EPA and DOE?
        Answer. DOE and EPA jointly participate as members of the PNGV
    Steering Group. Each agency is represented on various PNGV technical
    teams. DOE shares its emission-related research with EPA. DOE reviews
    and comments on EPA's vehicle and vehicle-fuel-related rulemakings.
        Question. What is the Administration as a whole doing to coordinate
    its environmental and energy policies?
        Answer. Several fora promote ongoing interagency coordination of
    environmental and energy policies, including White House task forces
    (such as the White House Climate Change Task Force) and interagency
    working groups. In each case, representatives from all of the relevant
    agencies are included along with White House representatives. Multi-
    agency budget crosscuts (such as for the Bioenergy and Bioproducts
    Initiative) are prepared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
    with each relevant agency to establish the overall funding for multi-
    agency efforts.
        Periodic, but nonetheless important, forms of multi-agency
    cooperation are also prevalent, including consultation during the
    rulemaking process (such as the consultation with EPA in the
    development of the commercial and residential building codes for
    Federal buildings [10 CFR 434 and 435] and joint sponsorship of studies
    or conferences exploring particularly complex energy-environmental
    interactions. Agencies may, of course, formally comment to one another
    on particular policies or rulemakings of interest and key policy-
    related documents go through a formal interagency review process. In
    the case of the budget and rulemakings, OMB reviews agency proposals,
    providing an additional level of coordination.
        Energy and environmental issues interact in complex, and sometimes
    surprising ways. While these mechanisms provide opportunities to
    coordinate energy and environmental policies, they will not always work
    perfectly, especially where important connections between the two are
    not well understood scientifically or where interactions may be
    indirect and therefore the need for coordination may not be immediately
    evident.
        Question. Given that most emissions sources produce more than one
    undesirable pollutant, does it strike you as sensible that our
    regulatory regime is centered upon a seemingly endless series of
    single-purpose rulemakings on individual emissions (Sox, sulfur,
    particulates)?
        Answer. The Department of Energy does encourage the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt a more integrated approach in its
    rule-makings regarding the control of pollutants. DOE also works
    closely with EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, as well as the
    commissioners of state environmental programs, on non-regulatory
    opportunities to approach energy and environmental issues on this
    broader basis, such as by encouraging development of State
    Implementation Plans that use energy efficiency as a strategy of choice
    in efforts to achieve clean air goals.
        The Department's efforts to encourage comprehensively integrated
    approaches were strengthened by the National Research Council (NRC)
    with its recommendation for closer coordination between the Department
    of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency--with regard to the
    relationship between emission standards and research on emission
    reductions. This recommendation descends directly from the NRC report,
    Review of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)
    program, 1999.
        As an example of this type of coordination with the Environmental
    Protection Agency on the PNGV program, PNGV, EPA and DOE jointly
    participate as members of the PNGV Steering Group. Each agency is
    represented on various PNGV technical teams. DOE shares its emission-
    related research with EPA, and reviews EPA's vehicle and vehicle-fuel-
    related rule-makings. In the PNGV program, the Federal Government is
    represented by the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and
    Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science
    Foundation. Additionally, the Department provided comments in response
    to EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Clean Air Act ``Tier 2''
    vehicle emission standards and standards for low sulfur gasoline. That
    letter discusses regulatory uncertainties and their impact on
    investment decisions.
        To broaden our understanding of energy and environmental
    interactions, DOE recently asked the National Petroleum Council (NPC),
    a federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy, to examine
    issues related to environmental issues and petroleum product markets.
    NPC is finishing a study which addresses the cumulative impacts of
    several product quality regulations, including changing the role of
    oxygenates in reformulated gasoline, on refinery viability and product
    deliverability. A Draft Report, dated March 30, 2000, assesses
    Government policies and actions that will affect both the petroleum
    product supply and the continuing viability of U.S. refineries.
    Secretary of Energy Federico Pena requested this study in a letter to
    the NPC dated June 30, 1998, as a means of obtaining a clearer picture
    of the refining landscape and the systems context in which the refiners
    operate.

                            TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

        Question. In this vein, I want to ask about the transportation
    research program. The Department is investing large amounts in
    promising clean diesel technologies for light trucks and SUVs. At the
    same time, many of the environmental groups to which this
    administration is beholden give no indication they will ever allow
    diesels of any sort to re-enter the passenger car market. Does this
    concern you? Do you think you can convince these groups, and the public
    as a whole, to accept the new diesel technologies?
        Answer. This issue does concern us; however, we feel that the new
    clean diesel engine technologies will be accepted by the public. The
    light truck and sport utility vehicle (SUV) market segment has
    experienced explosive growth in recent years. By replacing the current
    gasoline engine in light trucks and SUVs with a modern diesel engine, a
    35 to 50 percent increase in fuel economy can be realized. These diesel
    engines have performance and noise characteristics similar to gasoline
    engines, and tests on a diesel laboratory vehicle have demonstrated
    that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 2 emissions can be
    met. When the public is offered a vehicle that provides 35-50 percent
    better fuel economy with no sacrifice in performance, and can meet the
    lower Tier 2 EPA emission standards, we feel the public will readily
    accept the new clean diesel engines, as has been the experience in
    Europe.
        Critical to actual use of diesel engines in cars, of course, is
    successful achievement of our research goals related to emissions,
    which will be necessary to certify diesel-powered vehicles at the more
    stringent standards.

                                  OIL RESEARCH

        Question. The sharpest reductions in your fossil energy budget
    request come in the area that is of most current concern to Americans--
    and to this Congress--namely, in the way we find and produce oil in
    this country. Can we ever hope to turn our reliance on imported oil
    around if we continue to cut domestic exploration and production
    research by 23 percent, as this budget does?
        Answer. The combined R&D budget request for Oil and Gas
    Technologies is 3 percent higher than the fiscal year 2000 adjusted
    appropriations for these accounts, and 20 percent higher than last
    year's request, so we certainly do not believe that this vital portion
    of our energy portfolio has been ignored. While there have been
    adjustments in the relative levels of different activities within these
    accounts, these changes have been made in response to an in depth
    portfolio review. (Available as Vol. 2 of DOE Research and Development
    Portfolio). Our fiscal year 2001 budget request increases emphasis on
    natural gas research, a fuel from overwhelmingly domestic sources, and
    our program on Ultra Clean Fuels which will help the oil industry
    develop the technologies to cope with higher sulfur crudes and the
    demand for lower sulfur fuels.
        Because the United States has been well explored for oil and is a
    mature development area, the Energy Information Administration projects
    that imports of crude will continue to increase even if the Department
    has pursued a policy of broad-based research in fossil energy,
    renewables, energy efficiency, nuclear and basic energy sciences, as
    well as promoting incentives to improve both energy efficiency and
    production. These efforts have been accomplished in the context of
    balanced budgets and extensive review by stakeholders and the
    scientific community, and the Department feels that budget request
    presents a balanced approach to meeting the long term energy needs of
    our nation.
        Question. In light of recent events, would you have requested a
    different amount for domestic oil and gas exploration research if you
    were putting this budget together today?
        Answer. The Department's R&D budget request is the product of
    rigorous evaluation and comment from numerous stakeholder groups,
    including the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
    Technology (PCAST) and the National Petroleum Council, as well as an
    overall research portfolio plan. The energy R&D portfolio is balanced
    and geared toward the long term, and it would be inappropriate to make
    the short-term adjustments. The Administration has responded to recent
    events through the release of LIHEAP contingency funds, the endorsement
    of a heating oil reserve in the Northeast, and a series of steps to
    promote domestic production through the expensing of Geological and
    Geophysical Expenses and Delay Rental Payments. In addition, we have
    worked with OPEC to secure an increase in production.
        Question. If so, would you provide a recommendation to this
    committee on what that amount would be?
        Answer. The Department continues to support the President's Budget
    request as submitted.
        Question. Would you reprioritize programs within the total DOE
    request level to increase oil production research?
        Answer. The Department continues to support the President's Budget
    request as submitted.

                          REGIONAL HEATING OIL RESERVE

        Question. I understand the Administration is considering a
    supplemental budget request to establish a regional heating oil reserve
    in the Northeast. Can you provide us some insight as to what exactly
    the Administration is considering?
        Answer. The Administration is considering a two million barrel
    distillate reserve to be located in the Northeast in commercial
    facilities that are currently active and in compliance with all
    licensing and permitting requirements.
        Question. How much would such a reserve cost to establish?
        Answer. We estimate that renting storage and administering the
    program will cost about $8 million per year. We anticipate exchanging
    crude oil for distillate to avoid any cash outlays associated with
    acquisition of the refined products.
        Question. How would a reserve program function?
        Answer. The Department would contract for storage services,
    exchange crude oil for products to be delivered to the storage site,
    and when oil was sold, title would transfer at the storage facility.
    The buyers of the oil would arrange for pickup of the oil according to
    standard commercial practices. Subsequently, replacement products could
    be purchased with the receipts from the previous sale.
        Question. Who would determine the amount of heating oil to be
    acquired?
        Answer. The Administration is considering a reserve size of two
    million barrels. H.R. 2884, which has been passed by the House, limits
    the size of a Home Heating Oil Reserve to two million barrels.
    Implementation of the program would be assigned to the Petroleum
    Reserve Office and the timing and quantity of acquisition solicitations
    would be determined by that office.
        Question. Who would determine when and at what price oil from the
    reserves would be sold?
        Answer. The determination to trigger a sale from the Reserve would
    be vested with the President either in a simple extension of the Energy
    Policy and Conservation Act or in an amendment to it which has passed
    the House of Representatives. The selling price methodology would be
    described in a plan or Plan Amendment.
        Question. Who would determine whether any reserve at all would be
    necessary going into a given winter season?
        Answer. Implementation of the plan for a Heating Oil Reserve will
    be assigned to the Petroleum Reserves Office. That Office would seek
    advice from the Energy Information Administration regarding the outlook
    for supply, demand, inventories, and available storage capacity prior
    to each winter and recommend to the Secretary of Energy any changes to
    the status of a Reserve.
        Question. What is the fundamental market dynamic that seemingly
    deters private markets from providing supplies of heating oil
    sufficient to keep prices in a reasonable range?
        Answer. Oil prices are volatile relative to other commodities
    because of the ability of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
    Countries to control supply. Whenever oil prices appear to be
    historically too high and oil buyers expect prices to fall, they will
    deplete inventories and that can lead to spot shortages and price
    spikes, particularly when cold weather occurs unexpectedly.
           strategic petroleum reserve--filling spr with royalty oil
        Question. The Department has experimented with acquiring oil for
    the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by directly taking Federal royalty oil
    from offshore development. How much oil has been acquired for the
    Reserve in this fashion, both in volume and approximate dollar value?
        Answer. By December 2000, the SPR will add 28 million barrels of
    oil to the Reserve. At this point, the Department has accepted
    approximately 9.8 million barrels in exchange for the royalty oil
    delivered. While contractors are accepting the royalty oil on a daily
    basis, the next deliveries are scheduled for June, and the majority of
    the remaining oil due to the Government will come late in the year. The
    Department accounts for the value of the oil at the time deliveries are
    made to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The value of the 9.8 million
    barrels of oil received to date is $203 million. Since deliveries to
    the SPR occur later than acceptance of the royalty oil by our
    contractors, the DOE valuation will differ from the calculation of
    foregone income made by the Department of Interior.
        Question. Does the Department plan on continuing this activity? If
    so, when?
        Answer. The Department has indicated its desire to continue this
    program, and Secretary of the Interior Babbit has indicated that he is
    not opposed. The Administration continues to assess its desirability.
    If the program were to be continued, we would hope to make its
    continuation seamless by starting the next phase upon the expiration of
    the current 28 million barrel program. The last transfer of royalty-in-
    kind oil is schedule to occur in October 2000.
        Question. Does the President's budget assume the reduction in OCS
    revenues that would be associated with any further deposits of royalty
    oil into the Reserve?
        Answer. The President's budget for fiscal year 2001, assumes the
    royalty transfer will occur through October 2000, and the revenue
    impact is limited to that one month.
        Question. Have you set a limit on the total amount of oil you
    intend to acquire in this fashion?
        Answer. Since the Administration has not yet announced a policy to
    continue filling the SPR with royalty oil, it has not set any limits on
    the rate or total amount to be transferred.
        Question. What are the additional incremental operating costs for
    the Reserve, if any associated with filling the Reserve in this
    fashion?
        Answer. Filling the Reserve has minor incremental costs for
    electricity, oil quality assurance inspections, operational overtime,
    and laboratory expenses that total about $0.05 per barrel. However, the
    cost of terminalling services is not a current expense because the
    Department has fill credits with one of its major terminal operations.
    Once those credits are exhausted, the marginal terminal cost will be
    approximately $0.26 per barrel.
              strategic petroleum reserve--oil swapps to fill spr
        Question. In reviewing ways in which to respond to the recent
    increase in oil prices, I understand the Administration has considered
    ``swapping'' oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in exchange for
    deposits of oil to be made at a future date. Can you describe this
    mechanism for the Committee?
        Answer. Time exchanges or swaps are a common industry practice that
    reflects different values for the same oil at different times. During
    the last quarter of 1999 and the first quarter of 2000, the market
    value for prompt delivery of oil considerably exceeded the value of the
    same oil for delivery in the future. As an example of the opportunity
    presented by this market condition, if the price premium for current
    delivery is 20 percent for current delivery relative to one year later,
    the SPR should be able to exchange a volume of oil today for a 120
    percent of that volume to be delivered a year later. The SPR would be
    acquiring oil by exchange and fulfilling its mandate to minimize the
    cost since the added oil would not have associated outlays. The
    feasibility of conducting time exchanges depends on market conditions.
        Question. Is there any appreciable risk to the Federal Government
    associated with this strategy? What occurs if the future price of oil
    is higher than the amount contemplated at the time of the swap?
        Answer. There is no risk to the Government of a time exchange,
    provided that the contractor provides a financial guaranty of
    performance. If the future price of oil were higher than the current
    price there would be no incentive for contractors to bid for an
    exchange, and no swap would occur. In that case, the higher future
    price would provide an incentive to build inventories rather than
    drawing down inventories for prompt delivery.
        Question. Would the Department still take delivery of the oil?
        Answer. If the price of oil had risen by the time the contractor
    was due to perform on the contract and deliver oil to the SPR, the
    Government would have the choice of accepting delivery or renegotiating
    the delivery for a later date, in which case the Government would
    require an additional amount of oil. This is exactly what the SPR
    Office did in February 2000, when it renegotiated the delivery dates
    for 5 million barrels of oil from Spring 2000 until December 2000 and
    received as consideration the promise of an additional 600,000 barrels
    of oil.
        Question. What occurs if the future price of oil is lower than the
    amount contemplated at the time of the swap?
        Answer. The exchange contract will be written in terms of barrels
    of oil, not in terms of dollar values. For example, the SPR may deliver
    1 million barrels of oil and the contractor will be obligated to
    deliver 1.2 million barrels of oil one year later. The contract is
    indifferent to the value of the oil a year later, and since the
    Government's interest is in acquiring oil without making financial
    outlays, it is also indifferent to the price at the time of delivery.
        Question. Are there incremental operating costs to the Reserve
    associated with such oil swaps?
        Answer. There are minor costs associated with the electricity to
    move fluids at the SPR sites, cleaning equipment after use, and extra
    manpower during oil movements. Those costs are less than $0.10 per
    barrel. At this time DOE has credits at commercial terminals that would
    allow us to move oil without cash outlays. However, when those credits
    are exhausted oil movements will cost approximately $0.26 per barrel in
    each direction.
        Question. Why has the Administration not chosen to employ this
    mechanism in recent months?
        Answer. The authority to use time exchanges is solely for the
    purpose of acquiring oil for the Reserve, however, one known side
    effect would be to lower current prices. Since the Administration
    determined to solve the recent problem of high prices via diplomatic
    channels, taking an action that would be highly visible and have the
    impact of lowering prices would have complicated the diplomacy and
    potentially could have had a negative effect on the successful outcome
    that was higher production agreed to by OPEC at its March 28, 2000
    meeting.
        Question. Is this still on the table as a possible tool in the
    event that oil prices remain high?
        Answer. This method of oil acquisition is always available to us
    when market conditions are favorable. Due to increased OPEC oil
    production, the price premium for prompt delivery has dropped
    substantially from its peak in March, and the opportunity to exchange
    oil is marginal. If prices should rise again relative to future prices
    we may use the opportunity to acquire oil by exchange.

                               BUDGET PRIORITIES

        Question. As I look over the Department's budget request, I see
    that funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy goes up 18
    percent--including 12 percent for the energy conservation programs that
    are under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. I also see that funding for
    Nuclear Energy Science & Technology increases by 7.4 percent. The only
    major energy area where the Administration's funding request declines
    is for Fossil Energy programs. Given that 85 percent of the energy
    Americans consume comes from fossil fuels, why did you single these
    programs out for reductions?
        Answer. Several relatively small adjustments throughout the Fossil
    Energy budget have been made, the net effect being an overall 2.3
    percent decrease from last year's appropriations.
        The major change is a decrease of $18 million in the Advanced Gas
    Turbine budget. The reduction is because of a major success: We are
    successfully concluding our development of a revolutionary new large-
    scale turbine; and in fiscal year 2001, we will begin the early (and
    less expensive) development of smaller-scale turbines for a different
    segment of market.
        There have also been several important increases in the Fossil
    budget. They include:
      --Increased funding for the Vision 21 energy plant of the future--a
            long-range concept that can eliminate pollution from the use of
            coal, natural gas or other fuels.
      --We have more than doubled funding for carbon sequestration--because
            we may be on the verge of real breakthroughs in developing more
            affordable ways to address global climate change.
      --We have included $10 million for a new effort to develop ultra-
            clean transportation fuels to meet EPA's tighter standards for
            gasoline and diesel fuels.
      --We have added a new $13 million initiative in gas infrastructure--
            one of our efforts to improve the reliability of the energy
            grid in the U.S. and in eastern Europe.
      --Some of the new work in gas infrastructure is part of a larger $13
            million international initiative recommended by President's
            Committee of Advisors on Science & Technology (PCAST) to
            develop U.S.-made clean energy technologies for deployment
            overseas.

                            COAL RESEARCH--VISION 21

        Question. It seems that much of your coal research budget is
    oriented toward making the use of coal cleaner and more efficient. In
    fact, your Vision 21 program has a goal of completely eliminating
    environmental pollution from future coal plants. Would you characterize
    your coal research program as primarily an environmental program?
        Answer. Yes, not only is Vision 21 very much an environmental
    program, it is also a potential path to carbon sequestration, which
    would address the global climate change challenge. To sustain the
    economic viability of and quality of life in the United States, we must
    have affordable electricity to meet the growing future demand. Thus, we
    must have a portfolio of technologies that use all the available fuels,
    especially coal, our most abundant resource, more cleanly, efficiently,
    and cheaply.
        Question. Doesn't the coal research program fit very appropriately
    into the need to continue investing in cleaner energy technology?
        Answer. Yes. For the next 20 years, coal will still account for
    over 50 percent of the electricity generated in the United States and
    according to EIA, coal consumption will increase by 25 percent in that
    same time period. To meet both the demand for more electricity and a
    cleaner environment, we must invest in power generation technologies,
    like Vision 21, that use coal and other fuels more efficiently and
    cleanly. By meeting the goals of Vision 21, we will be able to remove
    essentially all environmental concerns regarding fossil fuels when
    coupled with cost-effective carbon sequestration.

                  PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES

        Question. The Administration is requesting $143 million for the
    Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles Program- otherwise known
    as PNGV. Where do we stand currently in the PNGV program? How close are
    we to meeting program goals?
        Answer. On September 23, 1993, President Clinton announced an
    unprecedented collaboration between the United States Council for
    Automotive Research (USCAR), which represents DaimlerChrysler, Ford,
    and General Motors, and the Federal Government (represented by the
    Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and Transportation, the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation
    (NSF)). The PNGV is aimed at strengthening U.S. industries by
    developing technologies for a new generation of energy efficient and
    environmentally friendly vehicles. Specifically, the PNGV pursues three
    mutually-supportive goals:
        Goal 1: Improve the productivity of the U.S. manufacturing base.
        Goal 2: Pursue technology advances that can lead to fuel efficiency
    improvements and emission reductions in the current generation of
    vehicle designs.
        Goal 3: Increase vehicle fuel efficiency to up to three times that
    of the average 1994 Concorde/Taurus/Lumina automobiles with equivalent
    cost of ownership adjusted for economics.
        Technologies developed in the pursuit of Goals 1 and 2 are
    incorporated into the vehicle as they become economically feasible. At
    the outset of the PNGV an aggressive timetable was developed for
    achieving Goal 3, the most ambitious of the goals. This timetable
    included three major milestones: (1) by the end of 1997, identify the
    most promising technologies for meeting PNGV goals and focus continued
    research on these technologies, (2) develop concept vehicles employing
    combinations of the most promising technologies by the end of 2000, and
    (3) develop production prototype vehicles by the end of 2004.
        The first of these milestones was completed on schedule with the
    selection of the most promising technologies for meeting the PNGV
    goals. With the recent introductions of the PNGV concept cars (Ford's
    Prodigy, DaimlerChrysler's ESX 3, and General Motor's Precept), the
    second milestone has been achieved as well. The three PNGV concept cars
    were displayed for the first time together at an event held on March
    30, 2000, with Vice President Gore and representatives of each of the
    three companies. Work is ongoing to develop production prototype
    vehicles by the end of 2004.
        Question. How does progress to date compare to the program goals
    originally laid out for the program?
        Answer. A number of Goal 1 and Goal 2 technologies have already
    been incorporated into vehicle production. Intelligent induction
    hardening of suspension parts, reduced rolling resistance tires and
    single-piece composite truck beds are examples. More are in the
    pipeline. With the display of Ford's Prodigy, DaimlerChrysler's ESX 3,
    and General Motor's Precept, PNGV Goal 3 progress is also on schedule.
    These vehicles achieve fuel economy of between 72 and 80 miles per
    gallon, gasoline equivalent. A brief discussion of each of the vehicles
    is provided below.
        The Prodigy was displayed by Ford at the 2000 Detroit North
    American International Automobile show. It is a diesel-electric hybrid
    family sedan capable of getting 72 mpg (gasoline equivalent) [80 mpg
    diesel] while retaining performance levels expected by the consumer.
    Its body is made of aluminum and the vehicle weighs 2,387 pounds. The
    battery uses nickel-metal hydride technology, assisted over the years
    by DOE efforts.
        The ESX3 Prototype was unveiled on February 22nd. This is
    DaimlerChrysler's PNGV concept vehicle. It is a mild hybrid electric
    vehicle (a ``mybrid'') and it consists of a 3-cylinder, 1.5-liter all-
    aluminum direct-injected diesel engine (55 kW peak power) with an
    electric motor (15 kW peak power), and a lithium-ion battery. The
    vehicle is designed to use low-sulfur diesel fuel. The body is made of
    low-cost, low-weight thermoplastic body panels. The entire vehicle
    weighs 2,250 lbs, is 80 percent recyclable, and meets all federal
    safety standards. Another innovation incorporated in this vehicle is
    the electro-mechanical automatic transmission (EMAT) which provides the
    fuel efficiency of a manual transmission and the convenience of an
    automatic transmission.
        GM's hybrid electric vehicle, the Precept, achieves 80 mpg
    (gasoline equivalent) and utilizes a 35 kW three-phase electric motor
    that powers the front wheels, and a lean-burn compression-ignition,
    direct-injection (CIDI) heat engine driving the rear wheels. It can use
    either nickel metal hydride batteries or lithium polymer batteries. The
    Precept concept vehicle features numerous innovations, including an
    aluminum alloy frame; spun disk lightweight aluminum wheels; all-LED
    signal and interior lighting; polymeric roof panel, fascia and rockers;
    and open-mesh seats. The Precept has a 0.163 coefficient of drag, which
    is the lowest ever achieved on a 5-passenger sedan (world record) and
    less than half that of a typical family sedan. The weight of this
    hybrid vehicle is 2,875 pounds
        Question. What are the major barriers remaining to the achievement
    of PNGV goals?
        Answer. While the PNGV has made tremendous progress in the past
    seven years, major technology barriers remain, including the size,
    weight, and cost of individual components. In addition to these
    barriers, the reliability of these technologies, both individually and
    in the context of a system, needs to be demonstrated. Thus, the PNGV
    continues to pursue an aggressive research and development program to
    address these technical barriers and to demonstrate reliability in the
    technology areas of fuel cells, advanced combustion and exhaust
    aftertreatment, lightweight materials, advanced petroleum based fuels,
    and hybrid vehicle systems. At the same time, some PNGV-related
    technologies and methods are already being applied to today's mass
    production vehicles.
        Considering fuel cells as one example, major barriers include cost,
    durability and demonstration of integrated systems running on common
    transportation fuels, such as gasoline. Durability to 1,400 hours has
    been demonstrated at the cell level, but much work remains to
    demonstrate integrated systems durability to the PNGV year 2004 goal of
    5,000 hours. Also, recently demonstrated was the ability to cold start
    a fuel cell at -4 deg.F (-20 deg.C). The fiscal year 2000 demonstration
    of integrated systems running on gasoline is expected to be successful.
    The technical targets for power density and specific power (250 W/l,
    250 W/kg) are projected to be met, but start-up time and transient
    response will likely fall short of targets. System cost for mass
    production of today's technology is estimated to be approximately $300/
    kW, six times the PNGV 2004 goal of $50/kW, a substantial improvement
    from the 1999 estimated cost of $500/kw. Supportive policies, such as
    tax credits, may be necessary to overcome initial cost premiums for
    advanced technologies.

                FEDERAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CENTER AS NATIONAL LAB

        Question. I commend your action this past December to establish the
    Department's newest National Laboratory at what was formerly the
    Federal Energy Technology Center. I'm certain Sen. Byrd will agree that
    it is time that fossil fuel research was carried out at a center with
    national laboratory status. But again, we are concerned that at the
    same time you have elevated the status of fossil fuel research you have
    decreased its budget. What do you see as the future of funding at the
    new National Energy Technology Laboratory in West Virginia and
    Pennsylvania?
        Answer. Since the work at NETL will be based on the long tradition
    of FETC and its predecessor organizations, it is expected that the
    existing model for funding will remain largely unchanged. That is, the
    bulk of NETL's work will be in support of the Office of Fossil Energy.
    Also, an increasing portion of NETL's work is provided in support of
    the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Since NETL
    specializes in fossil fuel research, future funding will continue to
    depend upon the funding provided largely through the Office of Fossil
    Energy and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
        Question. Are there new initiatives that accompany the new national
    lab designation?
        Answer. Since NETL's designation as a national laboratory is
    heavily dependent on the quality of on-site research, NETL's on-site
    research program is being restructured to focus intense efforts in
    several areas viewed as key in the development of advanced fossil
    energy systems. One such area is computational science. Computational
    science activities will support advanced research for clean, highly
    efficient fossil energy plants of the future by developing and using
    computational tools, such as mathematical models, to provide science-
    based predictive simulations and related information that will allow
    faster technology development. Another area, carbon sequestration, will
    address scientific issues with potential capture of carbon emissions
    from fossil fueled energy plants.
        The Strategic Center for Natural Gas is also being established at
    NETL. One function of the center will be to perform studies on the
    impact of various policy actions and thereby support the development of
    more effective natural gas policy within DOE. Another key function will
    be providing a coordination role for all gas related activity within
    DOE, and identifying gaps in existing R&D programs as well as newly
    developing research needs. The details of operation of the Strategic
    Center for Natural Gas are still being resolved within the Department.
    It is anticipated that implementation of existing fossil energy gas
    programs will be accomplished by the Strategic Center. For fiscal year
    2001 a new program in Gas Infrastructure Reliability has been proposed
    that will be implemented through NETL.
        NETL will also continue to conduct research in areas such as clean
    fuels for transportation applications, advanced clean and efficient
    energy plants using fossil fuels, and environmental issues related to
    fossil energy use. The transition to a national laboratory will take
    several years, and it is anticipated that additional focus areas will
    be established in future years.

                       LOW EMISSION BOILER SYSTEM (LEBS)

        Question. This Committee has appropriated $27 million in support of
    the LEBS program that has not yet been spent due to challenges in
    siting the demonstration plant. What is the current status of the LEBS
    program?
        Answer. Although the original plans for the LEBS project has been
    on hold, Corn Belt Energy recently expressed an interest in the project
    to D.B. Reilly (the plant developer) and is performing due diligence
    before committing to the project. Corn Belt Energy, an electric
    cooperative, is interested in being a plant operator with a long-term
    fuel contract. The site in Elkhart, Illinois, is in their territory and
    assuming the bus bar cost meets their target, Corn Belt Energy has
    indicated it would be interested in purchasing power and owning the
    LEBS proof-of-concept plant. A decision by Corn Belt Energy on whether
    to go forward is expected early this summer pending the outcome of the
    due diligence analysis.
        Question. Is a suitable site likely to be found for the proposed
    demonstration plant?
        Answer. Yes. Currently, Corn Belt Energy is considering a suitable
    site to be located in Elkhart, Illinois (near a mine of Turris Coal
    Company). Corn Belt Energy has hired an engineering firm to review the
    engineering, procurement, and combustion bids received and to advise
    them on the feasibility, both economic and technical, of the LEBS
    proof-of-concept plant.
        Question. Does the Department have any plans for reallocating funds
    that have been appropriated for LEBS if a suitable site cannot be
    found?
        Answer. If a firm commitment for the proof-of-concept plant located
    in Elkhart, Illinois, is not forthcoming by the end of the third
    quarter of this fiscal year, then the Department will recommend to
    Congress a reallocation of the funds for other fossil research areas.
    The funds reallocated would be those remaining after mutually agreeing
    to a scope of work to conclude Phase IV of the existing contract.

                                   FUEL CELLS

        Question. There has been a lot of interest recently in fuel cells-
    which this Subcommittee has supported, both for stationary power
    applications and for transportation. Would you comment on your views of
    fuel cell technology?
        Answer. Fuel cell technology is extremely important. Fuel cells
    have the potential to revolutionize power generation and open new
    frontiers in transportation applications because of their inherently
    clean and efficient service. Fuel cells systems have few moving parts,
    making them reliable and quiet as well. No solid wastes are produced
    and the emissions of pollutants are negligible. Fuel cells technology
    can be expected to contribute substantially to the reduction of
    greenhouse gas emissions, provide low-cost reliable energy, enhance
    productivity, and establish new domestic industries worth billions in
    sales and providing hundreds of thousands of jobs. If the Office of
    Fossil Energy is successful in achieving its $400/kW goal in its 21st
    Century Fuel Cell Program, fuel cells are likely to take over a very
    large share of the power generation market.
        Question. Are we getting closer to seeing fuel cells enter the
    market for stationary power applications? For transportation markets?
        Answer. The emergence of fuel cells comes at an opportune time. An
    unprecedented expansion in electricity need is forecasted, retail
    electric deregulation is underway, and public environmental policy is
    placing a premium on efficiency and environmental performance.
        The first commercial fuel cell on the market, the phosphoric acid
    fuel cell, proved that early entry markets exist to sustain their
    relatively high initial costs. More than 200 of these 200-kilowatt
    units have been manufactured for sale in the U.S., Japan, and Europe.
    Thirty units have been successfully demonstrated by the DOD in combined
    heat and power applications, where the economic criteria was for each
    application to generate $25,000 per year in energy savings which would
    cover annual maintenance costs. The premium power market in the U.S.
    alone is conservatively estimated at $1 billion per year. The U.S. EPA
    estimates that the current global market opportunity for fuel cells is
    40-50 gigawatts.
        The next generation of advanced fuel cells, comprised of high-
    temperature natural gas-fueled molten carbonate and solid oxide fuel
    cells is nearing commercial introduction. Tests are underway at Fuel
    Cell Energy that should enable commercial prototype molten carbonate
    fuel cell systems to be demonstrated and ensure market entry for DG
    applications in the 250 kW-2 MW range by 2003. Successful test of the
    Siemens Westinghouse 100 kilowatt solid oxide fuel cell systems have
    validated the building block element for a multi-megawatt size combined
    heat and power systems, providing a foundation for future commercial
    sales in the 2003 timeframe. The world's first fuel cell/turbine hybrid
    system will begin testing in May 2000 at the National Fuel Cell
    Research Center. This effort is expected to conclude in 2003 with fuel
    cell/gas turbine combined cycle field test in multi-megawatt size for
    distributed generation applications.
        During the past 2 years, automobile manufacturers throughout the
    world have announced or demonstrated fuel cell concept vehicles--
    evidence that the auto industry is seriously considering the
    introduction of fuel cell vehicles into the future market. Interest in
    automotive fuel cells has been sparked by the tremendous progress made
    in the development of proton-exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells over
    the past 7 years--primarily through the DOE Transportation Fuel Cell
    Program. However, significant performance improvements and cost
    reduction are necessary before automotive fuel cell power systems will
    be competitive with internal-combustion engines. Development of
    compact, quick-start, on-board fuel processors are required to utilize
    the existing petroleum-based fuel infrastructure for early introduction
    of fuel cell vehicles. Research and development of low-cost, high-
    volume fabrication processes for fuel cell components is necessary to
    reduce the cost of fuel cells from the current high-volume projected
    cost of $300/kW to $30/kW. In addition, durability of 5,000 hours
    (comparable to 100,000 miles) must be demonstrated. At the current
    Government and industry level of activity, technical progress will lead
    to automotive market introduction in the 2010-2015 time frame.

                                    TURBINES

        Question. We saw the Department's announcement recently that
    General Electric had unveiled its advanced gas turbine-which it
    developed in partnership with the Energy Department. We understand that
    this turbine is unsurpassed in its efficiency and environmental
    performance. I believe you were present in Greenville, South Carolina,
    when GE announced the new turbine. Isn't this one of the Department's
    best ``success stories?''
        Answer. Yes, this is one of our best success stories both in terms
    of technology breakthroughs and as a great example of a very effective
    government/industry partnership. The turbine is the culminating
    achievement of the Department of Energy research and development effort
    that began in the early 1990s when GE was one of six developers
    selected to begin designing concepts for a breakthrough turbine system.
    The development effort received a major boost in 1993 when it was
    included in President Clinton's Economic Stimulus Program.
        Designed to work in a ``combined cycle'' power plant-a plant that
    combines gas turbines and steam turbines to product electricity-the H
    System will be the most efficient power generation system in the world.
    It will be the first gas turbine to top the 60 percent efficiency
    threshold-the ``4-minute mile'' of the turbine technology. When the
    Energy Department began its advanced turbine development program in the
    early 1990s, the best turbines available had efficiencies of about 50
    percent.
        Because fuel represents the largest single cost of running a power
    plant, an increase of 10 percentage points in efficiency can reduce
    operating costs by as much as $200 million over the life of a typical
    gas-fired 400-500 megawatt combined cycle plant.
        The turbine also operates cleaner than any of today's utility gas
    turbines. Its nitrogen oxide emission levels of 9 parts-per-million
    will be half the average of the turbines now in use, making the new
    technology suitable for siting in the Nation's most environmentally
    constrained areas.
        In addition, the H System turbine will produce the fewest tons of
    carbon dioxide per kilowatt of electricity of any gas turbine available
    today. When deployed commercially, it can make a significant
    contribution toward reducing greenhouse gases that can cause global
    warming.
        Natural gas turbines are expected to make up more than 80 percent
    of the power generating capacity to be added in the United States over
    the next 10 to 15 years. Of the more than 200 new power plant projects
    announced recently in the United States, 96 percent plan to use natural
    gas and most will employ gas turbines. Globally, the turbine market
    also promises to be huge with worldwide power generation perhaps
    approaching $100 billion over the next decade.
        Question. What will the cumulative impacts of this new technology
    be over time in terms of energy savings, emissions reductions, and
    other program goals?
        Answer. Compared to an existing coal-fired power plant, the ATS
    combined cycle gas turbine plant will produce 65 percent less
    CO2 and 96 percent less NOX. The cumulative
    impacts of the ATS have been estimated by the Windsor Group in the
    Economic Impact Assessment of DOE Fossil Energy's ATS program. They
    projected cumulative savings of emissions, fuels during the period of
    2000-2010 as follows: 620 million tons of NOX, and 120
    million BTU of energy savings, expanding to a 20-year horizon, the
    total net present value of fuel savings equals $3.5 billion.
        Question. Your testimony indicates that the Department proposes to
    shift focus in the turbines program to mid-size turbines. What unique
    challenges are presented by mid-size turbines that require an
    additional Federal investment?
        Answer. The Natural Gas Turbine (NGT) Program will be comprised of
    three major elements: (1) systems development, (2) supporting research
    and development, and (3) Vision 21 integration.
        Systems development will support the development of intermediate
    size turbine systems for the new, emerging deregulated power generation
    markets in the United States. The product would be designed to serve a
    market for mid-range power (4000-6000 hours per year). In order to do
    this, the gas turbine needs to achieve efficiency improvements of at
    least 15 percent (LHV) on natural gas and needs to have a cost in $/kW
    close to a large, simple cycle gas turbine.
        Supporting research and development will broadly support all gas
    turbine development and operation and will be conducted by university/
    industry consortiums, national labs, research institutes, and NETL.
    Technology development needs include high temperature materials and
    coatings, integration of aircraft technology into industrial designs,
    robust combustion systems, advanced cooling schemes, advanced systems
    operation, and life cycle cost reduction.
        Vision 21 integration focuses on very high efficiency hybrid
    turbine/fuel cell systems and advanced cycles for central station and
    other large power plants. DOE's Office of Fossil Energy will conduct
    hybrid activities in collaboration with DOE's Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy and with Fossil Energy's Fuel Cell and
    Vision 21 Programs.
        Question. Can't the technologies developed in the industrial
    turbine program simply be adapted by the private sector for use in a
    mid-size product?
        Answer. No, the mid-size turbine systems have unique challenges
    such as intercooling, can combustion systems rather than annular
    systems, pressure ratios which are up to five times higher than the ATS
    industrial systems, and often operate in combined cycles utilizing coal
    or other syngases. NETL is also jointly planning with the Navy for
    future electric ships to enable the Navy to utilize the commercial
    technologies resulting from the mid-size turbine program. The Navy
    requires that future technology be commercially available. This
    coordination will enable both the U.S. power generation industry and
    the Defense Department to leverage technology developments in this
    turbine system size range. Both the Navy and the deregulated power
    industry require similar operating characteristics for future turbine
    systems.
        Question. In terms of priorities for Federal spending, how does the
    Department view further development of mid-size turbines vs.
    microturbines?
        Answer. Mid-size turbines (30-150 MW) and microturbines (20-1000
    kW) fill very different needs for the U.S. power system and its energy
    consumers. Mid-size turbines will serve a market for mid-range power
    (4000-6000 hours/year) providing new capacity and also enabling
    retrofit and repowering for civilian and military applications. Because
    mid-size turbines will be fuel flexible, they will expand the options
    for high-efficiency conversion of domestic fuels into electric power.
    In the near term, mid-sized turbines will be suitable for new capacity,
    repowering of older fossil units, combined heat and power applications,
    and as efficiency enhancement units for existing fossil-fueled steam
    plants. In the long term, they will be adapted and integrated into
    Vision 21 fossil-fueled plants. Microturbines are part of the
    Department's distributed energy resources portfolio that addresses
    smaller-scale power generation technologies that are located at or near
    the point of use. This includes use in the industrial, commercial,
    institutional, and residential sectors of the economy. These
    technologies are controlled locally to optimize performance and satisfy
    needs for electricity and thermal energy and can also be used with
    desiccant systems to improve indoor air quality of buildings. Other
    applications include in remote locations too far from existing power
    grids to justify a line extension, including village power and
    applications are for consumers connected to a power grid, but for whom
    power supply problems are extremely detrimental to their business,
    quality of life or economic health.
        Both mid-size turbines and microturbines merit the Department's
    investment to ensure that the technology be the most fuel efficient,
    fuel flexible with high reliability, availability, maintainability and
    durability, low emissions and low cost of power.
        Question. Does one area of research of larger potential payoffs
    than the other in terms of emissions reductions, energy savings, and
    other such broad departmental goals?
        Answer. Both mid-size gas turbines and microturbines support the
    Department's Comprehensive National Energy Strategy to improve the
    efficiency of the energy system, ensure against energy supply
    disruptions, expand future energy choices, and promote energy
    production and use in ways that respect health and environmental
    values. Additionally, they support the Department's Six Point Plan
    announced by the Secretary to address power outages. In that plan, the
    sixth point is concerned with easing generation and transmission
    capacity shortages by developing both advanced generation and
    transmission technologies, which would include both mid-size turbines
    and microturbines. Recently in a report released by the Secretary's
    Power Outage Study Team (POST), the recommendations recognized the need
    for removing barriers to distributed energy resources and engaging the
    participation of energy providers and end-use customers in the
    competitive market. Uncertainty of the restructuring electricity
    marketplace requires a suite of technologies that have the ability to
    be quickly implemented based on the market conditions. A 1999 A.D.
    Little report concluded that a large market and substantial public
    benefits will accrue from the development of flexible mid-sized
    turbines. Likewise, market studies by EPRI and GRI predict a
    substantial market and accrued public benefits from the deployment of
    distributed energy resources, including microturbines. By addressing
    both microturbines and mid-size turbines, the United States and its
    energy consumers will both benefit from an electric power system that
    is reliable, secure, and environmentally friendly.
        Question. Does one area of research require Federal involvement
    more than the other?
        Answer. Although the budget requests are not identical, both
    programs are high priority items in the Administration's proposal.

                              CARBON SEQUESTRATION

        Question. One of the areas of the Fossil Energy budget where you
    have increased funding is for research into capturing and sequestering
    greenhouse gases. In a speech you gave to a Clean Coal Technology
    conference in Tennessee last summer, you called carbon sequestration
    the world's ``3rd option'' for greenhouse gas control--joining energy
    efficiency and the greater use of low- or no-carbon fuels like natural
    gas and renewable energy. Can we expect to see the Department continue
    to elevate this research as one of the primary options for greenhouse
    gas controls if it turns out these controls are needed?
        Answer. Yes. The Fossil Energy budget for sequestration has grown
    from $1.5 million in fiscal year 1998, to $5.8 million in fiscal year
    1999, to $9.2 million in fiscal year 2000, to a request for $19.5
    million in fiscal year 2001. That rapid scaleup reflects the level of
    importance we place on this program. In order to achieve our program
    goals for this family of technologies, we would expect funding to
    continue to grow over the next few years. Given the potential
    consequences of a continuation in the increase of concentrations of
    greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, this level of research seems like a
    very cost-effective insurance policy.
        Question. Isn't carbon sequestration especially important as a
    global greenhouse gas control option since it is the only option that
    doesn't require wholesale changes in the energy infrastructure of
    countries like China or India?
        Answer. One of the more attractive attributes of carbon
    sequestration is that it works well with the energy infrastructure that
    we have, and with the low-cost energy resources which exist in rapidly
    expanding economies like China's and India's. In reality, the
    flexibility of sequestration goes beyond infrastructure. For new power
    stations and other major emission points of carbon dioxide,
    sequestration options can be designed into the technology, to maximize
    efficiency and minimize cost. For carbon dioxide already in the
    atmosphere, or released from sources which are difficult to retrofit,
    indirect sequestration has the potential to extract carbon dioxide
    directly from the atmosphere and store it in an environmentally benign
    manner for very long periods of time, or even permanently. Also, if our
    current development cost goal of $10/ton of carbon is achieved (which
    translates to a two tenths of a cent per kWh), it may be deployable
    without regulatory incentives.

                               PM 2.5 MONITORING

        Question. The Statement of Managers accompanying the fiscal year
    2000 bill urged the Department to coordinate its activities on PM 2.5
    monitoring with industry, state and university research efforts to
    ``clarify the uncertainties in the current understanding of fine
    particulate matter concentration, chemical composition and the
    relationship between personal exposure and ambient air quality.'' What
    is the Department's level of spending to date, and its requested level
    in fiscal year 2001, on its PM 2.5 monitoring efforts?
        Answer. The total expenditures for fiscal year 1998-fiscal year
    2001 have been $5.053M and the fiscal year 2001 request is for
    $500,000.
        Question. What are the Department's plans for coordinating its
    efforts with industry, state, and university research in this area to
    comply with the language in the Statement of Managers? Answer. DOE is
    coordinating its PM2.5 ambient monitoring efforts in the Steubenville
    area with an industry-sponsored study that seeks to compare indoor/
    outdoor PM concentrations with personal exposure measurements. This
    industrial study is a cooperative agreement with the Nation's leading
    coal producer (CONSOL, Inc). Co-sponsors of this effort are the Ohio
    Coal Development Office, Electric Power Research Institute, National
    Mining Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, and American
    Petroleum Institute. Harvard University is a major subcontractor to
    CONSOL, Inc.
        DOE participates in the PM Research Coordination Working Group of
    the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Air Quality
    Research Subcommittee. The purpose of the group is to foster
    coordination of the resources of the federal government on airborne
    particulate matter research. DOE is coordinating its PM2.5 monitoring
    activities with those of EPA's university-based Eastern United States
    Supersites, and State and local agencies operating EPA's network of
    PM2.5 chemical speciation sites.
        DOE is a member of the Executive Assembly of NARSTO (North American
    Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone) and coordinates its PM
    research efforts with those of other NARSTO members. DOE is a member of
    the Advisory Committee for NARSTO's Northeast Ozone and Particulate
    Research Study. DOE coordinates its PM research activities with State
    and local air quality agencies via participation in technical meetings
    of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA).
        DOE regularly hosts meetings at its National Energy Technology
    Laboratory to provide a forum for discussion of how the various PM2.5
    monitoring and analysis efforts can work together to enhance the
    overall scientific quality of the work, and to make the results as
    useful as possible to other researchers and users of air quality data.

                            ENERGY EFFICIENCY--21-CR

        Question. Since late 1997, DOE has worked with industry to develop
    a technology roadmap to develop improvements in the heating,
    ventilation, air-conditioning and refrigeration (HVAC&R) sector--a
    sector that represents nearly 30 percent of energy usage in U.S.
    buildings. In 1998, DOE accepted the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
    Technology Institute's (ARTI) initiative entitled HVAC&R Research for
    the 21st Century (21-CR) as one of its four technology roadmaps.
    Throughout 1998 and 1999 DOE has voiced support, through public
    comments and budgeting documents, for 21-CR. Last year this committee
    provided $4 million for refrigeration technologies. The committee
    indicated its support for 21-CR and urged the DOE to continue and to
    increase its support for the 21-CR program. How is the Department
    implementing this report language?
        Answer. When the Department accepted 21-CR as its HVAC&R road map,
    it was with the clear understanding that the process be genuinely
    inclusive. ARI was known as a traditional refrigeration and heating
    organization with little tie to natural gas or other promising heating
    and cooling technologies. As the 21-CR process evolved, it became more
    evident that ARI was not successful in engaging the natural gas or
    other industries and that the vast majority of projects were for just a
    part of the HVAC&R universe. However, the Department accepts 21-CR for
    what it is: a good effort to advance that part of the HVAC&R research
    agenda.
        In fiscal year 2000, we increased our support for 21-CR by 50
    percent to $1.5 million. This increase is a prudent approach as 21-CR
    is in the startup phase and has not developed a robust project
    evaluation and selection methodology. Further, the industry cost share
    in fiscal year 2000 is very modest compared to the public sector
    funding.
        Question. At what funding level has the Department budgeted for 21-
    CR for fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Consistent with the level funding requested for
    Refrigeration in fiscal year 2001, the Department is planning to
    continue funding for 21-CR at a comparable fiscal year 2000 funding
    level. While the Department supports the work of the Air Conditioning
    and Refrigeration Technology Institute (ARTI) and believes it can
    advance the efficiency of air conditioning and heating equipment, we
    have several concerns that we have shared with the leaders of ARTI.
    First, we have expressed concern about industry's commitment to cost
    sharing. Industry cost-sharing was 39 percent in fiscal year 1999, the
    first year of operation for the ARTI 21-CR program, and is expected to
    decline to 22 percent in fiscal year 2000. Furthermore, ARTI's
    application for fiscal year 2000 funding only contained about 10
    percent in industry cost share. This level does not meet the minimum 20
    percent cost share as required by EPAct and codified in CFR 600.
    Second, the Department is working with ARTI to develop a more rigorous
    project selection process and is working with them to ensure an
    appropriate research portfolio is maintained consistent with the road
    map process.
        Question. Would the Department object to a $3.5 million earmarking
    for the 21-CR effort for fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The Department feels a $3.5 million earmark for the 21-CR
    would be inappropriate. We support the activities at ARTI, but are very
    concerned about the effect this would have on other ongoing
    refrigeration R&D. This is nearly 83 percent of our $4,230 request for
    Refrigeration in fiscal year 2001 and would preclude other ongoing
    projects that are part of a balanced portfolio of HVAC&R research,
    development and deployment. As well as a continuation of the work with
    ARTI described above, the Department's request for fiscal year 2001
    includes ongoing research in supermarket refrigeration, and residential
    applications for air conditioners, heat pumps, and heat pump water
    heaters at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and improved thermal
    distribution systems at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The impacts of
    the suggested earmark would eliminate all but one of these areas of
    investigations, with the commensurate loss of established expertise. In
    terms of cost sharing, we do believe that industry is in a position to
    provide appropriate cost-sharing for that level of funding.
        Question. What does the Department expect to budget for the ARTI
    program in fiscal year 2002?
        Answer. The Department is currently engaged in its planning process
    for the 2002 budget request and a role for ARTI is being considered as
    part of this process. Such a role is being considered in the context of
    funding requirements to complete work in supermarket refrigeration and
    thermal distribution systems, continuing other areas of the base
    program, and the need to cover ``mortgages'' on competitively-selected
    projects initially funded from Technology Road Maps and Competitive R&D
    in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.

                                ASHRAE STANDARDS

        Question. What have you done to ensure that the ASHRAE rulemaking
    complies with the Committee's directive and the terms of Executive
    Order 13123?
        Answer. ASHRAE (the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
    Air-Conditioning Engineers) is a private, voluntary professional
    organization that produces industry consensus standards related to
    buildings and their equipment. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is the current
    version of their professional standard addressing energy consumption in
    commercial buildings (such as office buildings). It is under the ASHRAE
    Standard 90.1 that the issue of site vs. source and the Executive Order
    13123 have been most relevant to DOE. DOE is authorized and encouraged
    to participate in the ASHRAE process by OMB Circular 119 and the
    subsequent legislation ``Technology Transfer Act of 1995.'' In brief,
    these documents authorize and encourage DOE and other federal agencies
    to participate in the industry consensus process, in lieu of federal
    agencies setting separate standards. In no way, however, do these
    documents or any other federal authorization allow DOE to dictate the
    standards process of a private sector organization. Nonetheless, we can
    report that there is consistency between the ASHRAE Standard 90.1, the
    Executive Order, and the related DOE programs.
        ASHRAE guidelines are voluntary for builders and contractors and do
    not, in and of themselves, have any legal authority. Section 304(b) of
    the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA), as amended by the
    Energy Policy Act (EPACT), requires states to certify that they have
    reviewed and updated their commercial building energy code to meet or
    exceed ASHRAE Standard 90.1. Most states have adopted a version of
    ASHRAE Standard 90.1 written in code-enforceable language, or some
    version thereof. Several states (such as California) have chosen to use
    source-based energy (or total energy consumed over the full energy
    cycle) in their commercial building energy codes, although most states
    use the site-based language found in ASHRAE 90.1.

                       FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

        Question. This subcommittee has been very supportive of the Federal
    Energy Management Program (FEMP) in recent years, and the Department
    itself has made the program a high priority. The Department has also
    made bold predictions with regard to the savings that could accrue to
    the Federal Government from the FEMP Program. Please provide for the
    record a summary of FEMP's performance over the past three years, and
    an analysis of how that performance has measured against departmental
    forecasts.
        Answer. FEMP predicted that the market for Super ESPC Delivery
    Orders would significantly increase following establishment of the
    regional IDIQ (Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quality) process. FEMP
    has seen a notable increase in ESPC projects across the country at a
    wide variety of agencies. In fiscal year 1998 there were 5 SuperESPC
    projects with an investment value of $6.7 million, and in fiscal year
    1999 there were 16 projects with $40.3 million of investments. FEMP did
    expect to complete a higher number of projects through the SuperESPC
    project and projections for delivery order investments were based on
    the assumption that all alternative financing would be done through
    FEMP's ESPC program. In the meantime, both the Army and Air Force have
    implemented their own SuperESPC program and utilities have also
    provided public sector financing for agency energy conservation
    projects. The investment value of all these alternative financing tools
    is about the same as our early predictions.
        Question. Assuming FEMP receives the amount requested for fiscal
    year 2001, what does the program expect to achieve in the next two
    fiscal years?
        Answer. FEMP's goals in fiscal year 2001 is to award 42 delivery
    orders, assist agencies with alternatively financed projects and green
    power purchases, conduct workshops on utility restructuring, provide 55
    energy audits, provide 40 design assistance projects, provide 25
    renewable projects, train 6,000 personnel and develop 30 technical
    transfer products and 3 new technology demonstrations. FEMP will also
    collect data, consolidate federal reports, and publish the Annual
    Report to Congress and the President.
        Question. How would these predictions be affected if program
    funding remained at the fiscal year 2001 level?
        Answer. FEMP would have to provide a lower level of assistance if
    the funding remained at the fiscal year 2000 level. For example, we
    could assist with fewer delivery orders, we would provide fewer energy
    audits, etc.
        Question. Are there statutory or regulatory barriers that exist
    which hinder further progress in the FEMP program?
        Answer. FEMP is working to provide through the budget
    appropriations process language that would allow for expansion of ESPC
    authority to include water conservation and to raise the congressional
    notification ceiling. Eventually, to help the Alternative Financing
    Program, FEMP would like to see statutory changes in the area of
    mobility, new construction, and leased buildings also.

                     GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

        Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
    the agency's mission strategic goals, and program activities in its
    budget request?
        Answer. The annual performance goals are organized and listed under
    the decision units that support them and the performance goals
    themselves identify the strategic goals they support. The decision
    units are aggregations, disaggregations, or both aggregation and
    disaggregation or combinations of program activities lines in DOE's
    budget request.
        Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
    performance goals to your budget activities?
        Answer. The performance goals were established by the budget
    activities and are presented with their decision unit.
        Question. What difficulties, if any did you encounter, and what
    lessons did you learn?
        Answer. The difficulties we encounter are developing performance
    goals that appropriately represent the funded program activity and are
    outcome based. The measures are getting better with use. The lesson is
    that good performance goals are developed through experience.
        Question. Does the agency's Performance plan link performance
    measures to it's budget?
        Answer. Yes. Performance measures are organized and presented with
    the budget's decision units.
        Question. Does each account have performance measures?
        Answer. In some areas, the program's direction is a separate
    account from the technical program accounts and in some cases the
    account is too small to have a performance measure that is appropriate
    for the overall Departmental-level performance plan. These program
    direction accounts support the management of technical programs and the
    salaries and benefits of the Federal staff and therefore, do not have
    performance goals separate from the performance goals of the technical
    programs are proposed for this function.
        Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
    differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
    justification?
        Answer. At the beginning of each section of the Annual Performance
    Plan is a table that maps the Presidential Budget's Program and
    Financing (P&F) accounts and program activities to the Department of
    Energy's offices and decision units. Many of the P&F accounts are the
    same as the DOE decision units but other alignments include
    aggregation, disaggregation, or both aggregation and disaggregation and
    consolidation.
        Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
    structure for fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. No account structure changes are planed.
        Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
    described under that account structure?
        Answer. No changes to the program activities are planned.
        Question. How were performance measures chosen?
        Answer. The majority of performance measures evolved from the
    performance measures the Department has developed and used in the
    Secretary's Performance Agreement with the President each year since
    fiscal year 1995. Modifications, additions, and deletions were proposed
    by the program offices. The set of criteria for acceptable performance
    measures that we developed through experience with the Performance
    Agreements is included in the back of annual performance plans. The
    criteria that guide the development of performance measures describe
    how we want the measures to be presidential, specific, quantified,
    meaningful, stretching, concise, written for taxpayers, covering, and
    auditable.
        Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
    and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance plan?
        Answer. The Department relied on program managers to use their
    judgement in the development of the data collection and verification
    needs based on several years of using performance measures and having
    them meet the auditable criteria. Since fiscal year 1996, the results
    against the performance measures in the Secretary's Performance
    Agreement with the President have been the basis of the overview of the
    Department's audited financial statements and therefore subject to
    audit. Our program managers generally understand the need for reliable
    data to both manage and report performance of the Department's
    programs.
        Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
    reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
    performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. Yes, it did. There were 4 measures out of the 211 for which
    data was not available by the time of the annual report. However, they
    were not material to evaluating the performance for any program
    activity
        Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
    1999 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
    to track program results?
        Answer. Key performance goals for fiscal year 1999, fiscal year
    2000 and fiscal year 2001 are provided side by side in the fiscal year
    2001 Annual Performance Plan. We recommend that the subcommittee use
    the group of measures under each fiscal year to track and assess the
    program results.
        Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
    it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
    well'').
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2001 Annual Performance Plan we have
    presented the outcome based measures where they have been developed in
    the introductory portion for the decision unit. The output measures are
    contained in the three-column tables. To the extent we can, we include
    the planned outcome within the statement of the output measures.
        Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003 general goal and
    objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
    linked.
        Answer. Each annual goal identifies the general goal of the
    Strategic Plan that it is linked to.
        Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
    did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
    a significant number of outcome measures?
        Answer. We believe every output measure contributes to an outcome.
    To the extent we can, we include the planned outcome within the
    statement of the output measures.
        Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
    differences between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
    measure effectiveness (outcome)?
        Answer. Yes. We believe they do.
        Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
    that you intend to use (please include examples of both internal and
    external customers)?
        Answer. Customer satisfaction measures from our fiscal year 1999
    Performance Plan were the following:
        Conduct self assessments to measure organizational performance in
    the areas of Customer Satisfaction, Employee Satisfaction and the
    achievement of Business Results using the Malcolm Baldrige, President's
    or Energy Quality Award Criteria.
        Improve the quality and volume of information on the DOE's World
    Wide Web site and demonstrate user-interest through a higher number of
    home page visits (hits) per year.
        Conduct stakeholder meetings to increase public involvement in
    crosscutting environmental quality issues. The meeting participants
    will include advisory board members, state and local governments,
    Native American Tribes, and other stakeholders across the country.
        Conduct ``Communicating with the Public'' training sessions for DOE
    managers.
        Respond to an estimated total of 500,000 public requests for
    information and documents from the Center for Environmental Management
    Information within an average of two business days per request.
        Issue an initial status report on the development of a public
    health agenda by December 31, 1998; and a final public health agenda
    for each site, which reflects customer and stakeholder input, shall be
    issued by September 30, 1999; and.
        Expand the use of Alternate Dispute Resolution by 20 percent over
    the fiscal year 1998 use to mediate workplace disputes such as Equal
    Employment Opportunity complaints and grievances.
        Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 1999
    Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 1999 budget?
        Answer. In general our emphasis has been to establish performance
    goals for budget decision units (Results for Resources). We do however
    make budget decisions at decrement, base and increment level based on
    proposed levels of performance. We are hoping that plans and goals will
    mature at some point in time and sufficient detail will become
    available, along with methodologies to support budget decisions at a
    broader level.
        Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
    this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
    the change would have on the level of program performance and the
    achievement of various goals?
        Answer. Yes. Budget development within each major program is based
    on performance. Based on the set of priorities the program will adjust
    the performance targets up or down consistent with the budget changes.
    The Department will prepare a ``revised final'' performance plan based
    on the finally appropriated funding.
        Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
    reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
    so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
    results?
        Answer. Yes. The Department tracks progress on key performance
    goals in our revised final performance plan using the ``SOLOMON''
    system a password protected web based reporting system. We collect
    progress information at mid-year and at end of year. Program offices
    maintain additional information systems at lower levels to monitor
    progress more frequently as needed.
        Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
    management only, or mid- and lower-level program manager, too?
        Answer. We make the mid-year and end of year information on our key
    performance goals available to everyone on the worldwide web. Day to
    day progress is managed within each program and shared with employees
    and senior management on regular basis through weekly reports and
    monthly management meetings.
        Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
    performance-related data located throughout your various information
    systems?
        Answer. At the Departmental level of reporting, we rely on program
    offices to provide performance-related data from their various
    information systems and do not attempt to gain access to their
    information systems directly. Program offices have not reported
    difficulty obtaining the necessary information.
        Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
    your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
    define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
    set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
    present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
    results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you such difficulty?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2001 Annual Performance Plan we have for
    the first time organized our performance goals by budget decision
    units. Only in a few cases we had to aggregate, disaggregate, or both
    aggregate and disaggregate in order to relate performance goals to
    resources. This is useful from the management view point of what we get
    for the money, but makes it less transparent the relationship of the
    plan to resources--what does it cost to do what needs to be done.
        Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
    structure were modified? If so, how would you propose to modify it and
    why do you believe such modification would be more useful both to your
    agency and to this committee than the present structure?
        Answer. As long as there is flexibility provided to aggregate and/
    or disagregate budget account structures, it is not necessary to change
    budget structures for DOE's accounts. Programs will propose revisions
    to budget structures based on major changes to program strategies as
    appropriate.
        Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
    program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
        Answer. As long as there is flexibility provided to aggregate and/
    or disagregate budget account structures, it is not necessary to change
    budget structures for DOE's accounts to establish clear accountability
    with the structure in place.
        Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
    systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
    linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
    government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
    perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
    accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
        Answer. Our expectation is that over time the planning process,
    budget process, and accounting process will be fully linked over time.
    At the first stage of GPRA implementation the emphasis has been to
    establish strategic and annual plans defining the purpose and specific
    performance goals. The next stage and we believe we are now in that
    stage is integrating the development of budgets and performance plans.
    The third stage will be to integrate performance measurement with cost
    accounting. DOE has a pilot effort underway to develop and test an
    integrated Business Management Information System (BMIS) which will
    provide the tools to determine far more precise estimates of the actual
    costs associated with achieving performance goals.
        Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
    the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
    OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
    have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
    methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
    know as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is calculated
    for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status of your
    agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting requirement,
    and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
        Answer. Although the Department has implemented Managerial Cost
    Accounting, we are not using Activity-Based Costing.
        Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
    the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
    in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
    and, depreciation?
        Answer. Yes, we believe our integrated Business Management
    Information System (BMIS) will be able to provide these costs.
        Question. By doing so, would we then able to see more precisely the
    relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs of
    the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
    activities?
        Answer. Yes, we believe our integrated Business Management
    Information System (BMIS), when fully implemented will be able to
    provide relation of results to resources more precisely.
        Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
    activity and result?
        Answer. Generally, no. Although we believe integrated Business
    Management Information System (BMIS), when fully implemented will be
    able to provide relation of results to resources more precisely, there
    are fixed costs and other factors that will affect a ``per-unit costs''
    of each activity and result. In cases where unit cost is appropriate we
    will be able to compute it.
        Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
    particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
    activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
    costs fully allocated to goals?
        Answer. We have defined a group of performance goals under each
    budget decision unit. The budget resources for that decision unit do
    reflect the direct costs and some the overhead costs. However, the
    Departmental Administration budget is allocated back to the programs at
    the end of the fiscal year based on accepted accounting practices to
    complete the costs for the set of performance goals.
        Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
    measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
    the development of the agency's performance plan?
        Answer. There are none.
        Question. Does your fiscal year 1999 performance plan-briefly or by
    reference to your strategic plan--identify and external factors that
    could influence goal achievement? If so, what steps have you identified
    to prepare, anticipate and plan for such influences?
        Answer. Our fiscal year 1999 performance plan included a discussion
    on resource requirements, that described the requirement of financial,
    human, infrastructure and technical resources as the key external
    factor. Once the budgets have been appropriated external factors that
    could influence annual performance goal achievement are unpredictable.
    We intended to cover such issues when explaining results. We have in
    the fiscal year 2001 performance plan explicitly included a discussion
    of external factors with each program decision unit.
        Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
    estimates?
        Answer. Impacts of external factors would be addressed in a
    supplemental budget request, if appropriate.
        Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
    agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication? If so,
    does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or duplication?
        Answer. We did not identify overlapping functions or program
    duplications through the development of the Performance Plan.
        Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
    potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
    and if so, how?
        Answer. Actions by agencies to address management challenges should
    be included in Annual Performance Plans and Strategic Plans as
    appropriate. Potential duplication or overlapping functions within an
    agency should also be addressed. Potential duplication or overlapping
    functions among agencies are not easily available to an agency and may
    be an appropriate oversight role for OMB or Congress.
        Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
    guide decision making? Will this use increase in the future and if so
    what ways?
        Answer. GPRA has had a significant effect on the leadership's
    decision making. The strategic plan of 1997 initiated several strategic
    planning activities within the programs which then significantly
    effected later decision making. Examples are the Accelerating Cleanup:
    Pathways to Closure, the Office of Science's Strategic Plan, the
    Comprehensive National Energy Strategy, and the Stockpile Stewardship
    Plan. GPRA also supports the continued use of a Performance Agreement
    between the Secretary and the President, i.e., the ``revised final''
    annual performance plan. Prepared after Congressional appropriations,
    it continues agency attention to performance management decision making
    between the initial proposal of performance goals in the Annual
    Performance Plan and the reporting of performance in annual performance
    reports.
        Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
    actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
    that. To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
    to allow for these kinds of uses?
        Answer. The Department has been developing and using these
    performance measures since fiscal year 1995. They should be mature
    enough to support future funding decisions based on actual performance
    compared to expected or target performance.
        Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
    estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
    accuracy of resource estimates?
        Answer. The are no remaining significant factors effecting the
    accuracy of resource planning. The Department has been developing
    performance measures for the Secretary's Performance Agreement with the
    President since fiscal year 1995. Through that experience, we generally
    have gotten past most factors that might affect the accuracy of
    resource estimates.
        Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
    administration requirements? Specifically, are you requesting any
    relaxation of transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
    accountability comments?
        Answer. On page vi of the Plan we state that we are part of the
    Office of Management and Budget's pilot program using an
    ``Accountability Report'' to consolidate annual reporting of financial
    information as allowed by the Government Management Reform Act of 1994.
    No other request for waivers were made.
        Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
    see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
    issued on September 30, 1997?
        Answer. No. We have used the option to make minor changes to the
    Strategic Plan with subsequent Performance Plans, but the fiscal year
    1999 Performance Plan followed closely the September 30, 1997 Strategic
    Plan.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

                   RADIOACTIVELY CONTAMINATED SCRAP MATERIALS

        Question. It is my understanding that the Department of Energy is
    in the process of cleaning up a number of nuclear weapons laboratories
    and other DOE facilities. During the process of cleanup, the Government
    has been releasing large quantities of radioactively contaminated scrap
    materials for recycling. It is also my understanding that the Secretary
    had some concerns about the release of certain ``volumetrically
    contaminated'' scrap metals such as nickel and copper, and that he
    placed a moratorium on these releases in February 2000. In conjunction
    with this moratorium, the Secretary appointed an internal DOE task
    force to review the Department's policies with respect to this issue.
    Why did the Secretary not include radioactively contaminated scrap
    materials such as steel, aluminum, and concrete in that moratorium?
        Answer. The DOE moratorium I imposed applies to all volumetrically
    contaminated metals in the Department's inventory. Under an existing
    DOE Order (5400.5), there are no DOE-wide standards applicable to
    release volumetrically contaminated materials. Instead, decisions are
    made on a case-by-case basis, with approval of the Assistant Secretary
    for Environment, Safety and Health.
        However, for materials with surface contamination, DOE Order 5400.5
    contains national standards based on Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    guidance (NUREG 1.86). Scrap materials may be freely released under
    this order following appropriate monitoring and, when necessary,
    decontamination.
        Question. Is the Task Force set up by the Secretary authorized to
    formulate a range of options, including recommendation an extension of
    a moratorium to all contaminated scrap materials?
        Answer. Yes, the task force I established has been charged to look
    at a broad range of options and provide me with recommendations this
    summer.
        Question. Is the Secretary not concerned about releasing these
    radioactively contaminated materials into commerce?
        Answer. Analyses conducted by DOE, the Environmental Protection
    Agency, the NRC, the National Council of Radiation Protection, the
    International Council on Radiation Protection, the International Atomic
    Energy Agency, and the European Union have concluded that the properly
    regulated releases of materials from nuclear installations are not a
    threat to the public or the environment. However, there are members of
    the public who oppose this practice or believe that criteria that
    establish cleanup levels and procedures do not afford adequate
    protection. We are concerned with these aspects of the issue and this
    contributed to my decision to establish the moratorium on materials
    with volumetric residual radioactivity.
        The DOE Task Force that I have established will evaluate public and
    stakeholder input, scientific analysis, and cost information in its
    deliberations and make policy recommendations to me this summer. We are
    also committed to working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
    the National Academy of Science in their investigations of this issue.
        Question. Does the Department have clearly established health-based
    guidelines and standards that oversee the release of these
    radioactively contaminated materials?
        Answer. The Department's Order on Radiation Protection of the
    Public and the Environment (DOE Order 5400.5) established the
    Department's requirements, guidelines, standards, and processes for the
    management of both contaminated materials and materials that may be
    released. The Department believes this order to be protective of human
    health and the environment.
        Question. Can you submit for the record the types, quantities, and
    recipients of these contaminated recycled metals and other materials
    that have been released from DOE facilities?
        Answer. The Department has not centralized the collection of this
    data. The authority for most releases of materials has been delegated
    to the DOE Operations Offices in order to streamline the process and
    improve efficiency. The task force I established has begun efforts to
    collect data on materials that have been released. The Department has
    not determined a completion date for this effort, but we should have
    additional information available later this summer.
        Question. What assurances can the Department give Congress that
    these releases of recycled materials are safe and that the consumers
    will not be unknowingly exposed when they buy food containers or drive
    their vehicles.
        Answer. Materials with volumetric contamination are not being
    released. For materials with surface contamination, the material is
    decontaminated and monitored before release, using criteria that are
    consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidance and
    international radiation protection practices.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings

                        ADVANCE GAS TURBINE SYSTEM (ATS)

        Question. Secretary Richardson, thank you for coming before this
    Subcommittee to explain the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2001
    budget request, contained within the Interior Appropriations bill. As
    you know, since 1997, Congress has been working under budget caps and,
    at times, it may seem that we are not developing alternative energy
    sources to the best of our ability, especially in light of what is
    going on with our national gas prices. One of the programs under DOE's
    Fossil Energy Research and Development has come under fire lately. Mr.
    Secretary, as you are aware, the Advance Gas Turbine System (ATS), of
    which DOE has been so instrumental in developing, is running into
    regulatory problems. These problems are not from DOE, but rather EPA.
    When the Energy Policy Act of 1992 was passed, DOE and General Electric
    (GE) entered into an agreement to develop the ATS in order to reduce
    NOX emissions, and this project has been successful. The
    goal of this agreement was to produce a gas turbine that would reduce
    NOX emissions to 9ppmmvd, and this has been achieved. But,
    EPA is now saying that NOX emissions can be below the 9ppmvd
    level if selective catalytic reduction (SCR) add-on controls are used.
    DOE has invested $40 million in this project, while GE has invested
    over $100 million. The successful partnership between GE and DOE has
    created a world class product and given the GE facility a competitive
    advantage over foreign owned manufacturers. It is difficult for me to
    imagine that EPA would initiate a rule undoing the progress we have
    made in developing the next generation of gas turbine systems. Have you
    spoken with EPA regarding their regulatory control over the ATS and if
    so what is their position?
        Answer. At the time, DOE and GE entered into a cooperative
    agreement to develop the ATS turbine, turbine efficiency goals of over
    60 percent and NOX emissions below 10 ppm were extremely
    challenging given that the industry was able to guarantee only 25 ppm
    on NOX emissions. The NOX emissions target for
    the ATS was made an even more formidable challenge due to the higher
    inlet temperature needed to achieve higher efficiency. The higher
    temperature makes it more difficult to reduce NOX levels.
    The development of the ATS turbine represented a major breakthrough in
    turbine technology.
        We have not yet met formally with EPA on the issue of
    NOX reduction to 2.5 ppm as we are in the process of
    assessing the impact that the lower NOX standard would have
    on these advanced turbines. However, we have been advised that industry
    representatives have met with EPA officials and have shared with EPA
    their concerns with regard to the 2.5 ppm NOX restriction.
    The turbine industry is concerned that this more stringent regulation
    could result in additional costs and no net environmental benefits.
    Under the more stringent rules, the use of SCR would require an added
    ammonia management system introducing additional environmental issues.
    If net costs of the turbines were higher, then investments in the new
    turbines might not be made, less efficient existing turbines with
    currently higher NOX output would continue to operate, and
    the full potential of highly efficient clean gas turbine systems might
    not be realized to meet the increased electricity demand. If the cited
    NOX levels (which are based on thermal input into the
    turbine and do not factor in turbine efficiency) were adjusted to take
    into account turbine efficiency (i.e., NOX output per unit
    of electricity output), the 9ppm NOX levels of the ATS
    turbine would be reduced by another 20 percent compared to the 50
    percent efficient turbine.
        Question. If their position is that these turbines should use SCR,
    what is DOE's next step?
        Answer. DOE is conducting an assessment of the net effect of
    incorporating SCR to reduce NOX to 2.5 ppm could have on the
    deployment of these new turbines in the power market due to the added
    cost, and the attendant impact on overall cumulative emission
    reductions. In addition, if EPA maintains their position on lower
    NOX at 2.5 ppm for new turbines, then DOE will evaluate the
    need for pursuing additional R&D to look for cost effective ways, with
    or without SCR, to meet these levels.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Gorton. I thank you very much. The subcommittee
    will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., Tuesday, April 11, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                  ----------

                                           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 ENERGY

       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 supporting 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 is highly supportive and seeks enhancements of the
    Administration's fiscal year 2001 request for energy efficiency and
    alternative energy programs. The BCSE believes that the least intrusive
    and most efficient means of addressing our environmental challenges is
    by promoting 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 focus on several programs that the BCSE believes illustrate
    the value of the Federal Government's energy efficiency effort.

                         DISTRIBUTED POWER TECHNOLOGIES

        The electric and natural gas systems are opening to the competitive
    marketplace, while greater emphasis is being placed on issues such as
    system reliability and power quality. Distributed systems can flourish
    in such a market, and can help advance our national goals of
    environmental improvements, energy security and a high-quality and
    reliable energy system. But the transition to a competitive marketplace
    has the effect of sharply diminishing available private sector research
    initiatives for these promising technologies. This is therefore a
    critical juncture for Federal RD&D support for these technologies.
    Gas Turbine Technologies
        Microturbines are small, 25-300 kilowatt (kW) gas turbines derived
    from automotive and truck turbochargers, aircraft or tanks auxiliary
    power units and small jet engines for drone aircraft. They are designed
    for distributed generation, combined heat and power (CHP) and
    mechanical drive prime mover applications. Technology improvements in
    materials, ceramics 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 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 9-40 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 $3
    million above DOE's current request of $7 million for microturbine
    engine development research.
        Advanced reciprocating engine systems (ARES) are the leading
    customer choice for distributed generation and CHP applications in the
    300-3,000 kW 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 40,000-60,000 tons per year and CO2 emissions reductions
    of 7.6-11.5 million tons.
        Estimated annual savings in unburned natural gas (from improved
    efficiency) are approximately 110-170 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 $8 million for this
    research, $5 million over the DOE request.
    Fuel Cell Technologies
        BCSE member Plug Power, Inc. is developing Proton Exchange Membrane
    (PEM) fuel cells for residential applications. The 7 kW units provide
    enough power to run an average home and are the size of a small
    refrigerator. These units, which run on clean natural gas, are
    currently being field-tested and will be commercially available in
    2001. Meanwhile, R&D efforts continue on units that run on other fuel
    sources and on combined heat and power units that will provide all the
    heat, hot water and electrical needs for America's families. The BCSE
    advocates an increase of $4 million for microcogeneration fuel cell
    research and development in the Office of Building, State and Community
    Programs.
        BCSE board member Ballard Generation Systems recently began field
    trials on 250 kW natural gas PEM fuel cells. 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
    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.
        A key to the successful commercialization of the PEM fuel cell
    vehicle will be the availability of a safe on-board hydrogen storage
    device. BCSE member 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. 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. BCSE believes that the
    proposed DOE budget should be more aggressive in light of these
    benefits and urges the Committee to increase funds targeted to these
    technologies by $3.2 million.
    Heat Pumps, Natural Gas Cooling & Appliances
        Natural gas cooling technologies are especially energy efficient
    when measured on a life-cycle and/or full-cycle basis. In addition, 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, enabling this technology to play a significant role in
    offsetting the costliest electrical energy demand. 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), lower maintenance and use of environmentally-
    friendly refrigerants. DOE is working with industry to develop
    commercially feasible GAX heat pumps for commercialization. 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 is highly supportive of 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.
    In both the desiccant and the natural gas cooling areas, a recent
    roadmapping process has identified the combination of on-site power
    generation with these technologies, (Buildings Combined Cooling Heat
    and Power, or BCHP), to further reduce energy cost and use. The BCSE
    supports an increase of $2 million in the gas cooling area for
    integration of on-site power generation and space conditioning
    equipment.
        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.
        Buildings-related combined cooling, heating and power is a new
    initiative at DOE and fully supported by the BCSE. By integrating the
    various air ventilation, appliance, heating and cooling systems in a
    building with on-site power generation, such as the fuel cells or
    turbines mentioned above, you can improve efficiencies to over 80
    percent and save consumers money on their utility bills.
        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.

                           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
    continued popularity of low fuel economy sport utility vehicles, pickup
    trucks and vans used for personal transportation, coupled with an
    expanding economy, increasing numbers of drivers and increasing miles
    traveled by each vehicle continues to raise overall national fuel
    consumption despite the run up in fuel prices. Spurred by 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. One of its singular
    accomplishments was the Ovonic Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) electric
    vehicle battery developed by Ovonic Battery Co., a subsidiary of BCSE
    member Energy Conversion Devices. The Ovonic EV battery met or exceeded
    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 tests.
    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.
        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. In fact, NGVs can reduce
    carbon monoxide (CO) emissions 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. When the Energy Policy Act was enacted in 1992, no original
    equipment manufacturers offered NGVs for sale and few NGV fueling
    stations were available. Today, over 93 NGV models are available and
    there are over 1,300 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. In fact, Italy has
    four times the number of NGV vehicles on the road compared with the
    U.S. (300,000 versus 75,000), demonstrating that the commitment to this
    technology in Europe is far greater than in the U.S., despite the fact
    that the United States is a leader in the development of these
    technologies. Additional research is required to reduce the initial
    cost of NGVs, which will encourage their widespread acceptance by the
    public.
        DOE 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. The BCSE requests an additional $4.5 million
    appropriation for RD&D activities associated with the Advanced
    Combustion Engine R&D/Health Impacts Program, the Alternative Fuel/
    Environmental Impacts Program, and the Alternative Fuel/Medium and
    Heavy Duty Truck program. These appropriations would enable industry
    and the government to continue necessary toxicology and nanoparticulate
    research and promote the development of advanced NGVs. The BCSE also
    supports an additional $2.5 million for the Lightweight Materials
    Technology/Heavy Vehicle High Strength Weight Reduction Materials
    Program, to develop a prototype low pressure CNG fuel system.
        The Clean Cities program is designed to accelerate the use of AFVs
    throughout the country. In fiscal year 2001, this program will focus on
    proven markets--such as school buses, transit buses, airport shuttles,
    taxis and delivery fleets--while expanding the critical infrastructure.
    Support for Clean Cities coalitions is provided through the DOE's State
    Energy Program (SEP) grants. BCSE supports the Administration's request
    for the Clean Cities program and respectfully requests an additional $5
    million for SEP Special Projects.

                                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 utility 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 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.

                         INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS

        BCSE strongly supports and commends the DOE for its recognition
    that changes in the marketplace are adding new stresses to our energy
    delivery systems. The budget provides modest sums for modeling and
    research on the electric grid, to identify changes being caused by
    deregulation to flows of power. It also recognizes that the growing
    marketplace in the use of natural gas as a fuel will require
    adjustments to that infrastructure. DOE predicts that domestic natural
    gas use will increase by 47 percent by the year 2020. Such increased
    natural gas use would provide myriad benefits, but will also strain the
    existing delivery infrastructure.

                           FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT

        The BCSE is extremely supportive of the Federal Energy Management
    program (FEMP) efforts at reducing Federal energy use through the use
    of energy service performance contracting, reducing energy use while
    minimizing up-front capital outlays. The Federal Government spends
    nearly $4 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, just like those
    occupied by private industry, often can be economically upgraded and
    retrofitted, reducing the energy required to provide essential building
    energy services. We believe every Federal Government agency should
    increase its utilization of energy service performance contracts to
    take advantage of this approach for upgrading facilities and reducing
    energy expenditures. To that end, the BCSE strongly supports the Budget
    Request of $31 million for FEMP activities with Federal agencies.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Council recognizes that this fiscal year 2001 request for
    energy efficiency programs represents an increase over fiscal year
    2000. 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 a variety
    of challenges from climate change to overdependence on imported oil.
                                     ______

            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 the full potential
    of the ``Industries of the Future'' program can only be realized
    through appropriate funding levels deployed in ways that recognize the
    different nature of all the industries involved. 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.
        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 2001 request of $185 million for the Office of Industrial
    Technologies.
        Because of the complexity, size, and diversity of the chemical
    industry (more than 7,300 companies), CCR believes that additional and
    continuing activities to develop and renew the research agenda of
    Vision 2020 should be funded within the fiscal year 2001 request.
    Specific research programs should be funded in areas where technology
    roadmaps have been developed, including polymers and other materials,
    catalysis, separations, bio-processing, 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.
    OIT 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.
        OIT's mission is well-aligned with that of the chemical industry;
    both stress significant reductions in energy, material, and water
    consumption per pound of chemical produced. OIT recognizes that the
    chemical industry faces costly economic cycles, high capital intensity,
    and new global competition that have reduced profit margins. The Office
    knows that the industry needs new technological solutions for its own
    R&D is being sacrificed to pay for high development costs aimed at
    incremental improvements. Despite its modest funding, the ``Industries
    of the Future'' framework plays a key role and exerts high leverage for
    the development of needed technologies.
        The real impetus for economic growth will come from multi-
    disciplinary programs which link such fields as agricultural and forest
    products research with chemicals and petroleum processing technologies.
    To accomplish this, R&D will need to aggressively move into new fields
    like nanotechnology, biotechnology, and microreactors. These types of
    creative solutions require a close partnership among the three
    components of the research enterprise--industry, academia, and
    government. In today's technology-driven, global economy, these
    partnerships are essential. 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. Federal funding of the types of programs administered
    through OIT are the cornerstones for getting technology into the
    marketplace.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of Hydrocarbon Technologies, Inc.

        Hydrocarbon Technologies, Inc., respectfully asks for the
    Subcommittee's consideration when preparing the Interior and Related
    Agencies bill for fiscal year 2001 for the addition of $3 million to
    the Advanced Clean Fuel Research Programs for Coal under the Fossil
    Energy Research and Development Budget, B&R No. AA10200 (AS-89X213.91).
        This additional funding is required to accelerate the development
    of ultra clean fuels utilizing HTI's carbon-coated (carbonous)
    catalysts with syngas. These catalysts will solve the inherent
    technical problems experienced by DOE and others with current iron and
    cobalt based catalysts and processes. This novel carbonous (carbon-
    coated) catalyst can be used in both slurry and fluidized (ebullated-
    bed) reactors using natural gas, oil, coal and/or biomass as the
    feedstock. The carbon-coated catalyst system doubles conversion,
    conserves energy, and will save 30 percent on the cost of producing
    ultra clean, high efficiency fuels versus conventional technology.
    Present stumbling blocks in the DOE-Gas to Liquids GTL) program, i.e.
    separation of the slurry catalyst from wax, excess catalyst attrition
    losses and, high product costs, can be overcome by this carbon-coated
    catalyst approach.
        HTI is presently under contract with the U.S. DOE with a three-year
    ($583,000) contract that started in October, 1999. Our initial test
    results are extremely encouraging; showing a two-fold increase in
    catalyst strength and a 60 percent increase in surface area. With HTI's
    40 years of experience in fluidized bed and supported catalyst
    processes, we believe this technology can and should be leap-frogged by
    a $3 million/year program add-on. This would accelerate the program to
    the point of commercial demonstration within three years.
        We realize the Committee has many competing issues to consider, and
    we appreciate your past consideration and assistance for our energy and
    environmental programs. We are now looking forward to working with the
    Committee to accomplish this technological breakthrough; this is an
    important issue for our nation as evidenced by the decrease in the
    domestic supply of fuels, the price escalation of oil beyond $30/per
    barrel and the new EPA clean fuel initiatives.

     ADVANCED CLEAN FUELS RESEARCH--CARBON COATED (CARBONOUS) CATALYSTS IN
                             EBULLATED BED REACTOR

        The primary objective of this program is to develop and scale-up
    active, attrition-resistant, carbonous catalysts that will be used in
    the application of isothermal ebullated (fluidized) reactors to produce
    ultraclean fuels that are competitive with conventional fuels, and
    specialty chemicals from natural gas, biomass or coal.
    Introduction
        Fischer-Tropsch technology is a proven method to produce ultra-
    clean fuels that are essentially free of sulfur, nitrogen and aromatic
    compounds, which are the major cause of air pollution in the United
    States. Additionally, this process can be utilized to produce various
    chemical feedstocks. Natural gas, oil, biomass and coal can be reformed
    to synthesis gas which is then converted to high value liquid fuels and
    chemical feedstocks using the Fischer-Tropsch technology.
        Historically, iron based catalysts have been the most commonly used
    catalyst in Fischer-Tropsch technology. Iron based catalysts are
    inexpensive and readily available, but are unable to stand up to the
    harsh conditions at which the process operates. Other problems are also
    inherent and have limited the full commercialization of the technology.
    Cobalt-based catalysts are also used, but the high cost of cobalt
    coupled with the inability to recover the cobalt catalyst exasperates
    the problem further by increasing costs.
        HTI has invented and is developing a novel carbonous (carbon-
    coated) catalyst capable of addressing the inherent technical problems
    experienced with current iron and cobalt based catalysts. HTI's novel
    carbonous catalyst can be coupled with both slurry and ebullated-bed
    reactors. HTI presently is under contract with the United States
    Department of Energy (DOE) to further the development of this
    attritionresistant carbonous catalyst. Very positive results have been
    achieved and further work needs to be accelerated to prove the
    technical and economic feasibility of this novel carbonous catalyst and
    to bring this process to market.
    Market/Economics
        The energy market in the United States is growing and will continue
    to grow to meet rising energy demands. The environmental and supply
    impact to meet this energy need is coming under tremendous scrutiny and
    will require innovative technology to ensure that our environment is
    fully protected and that the use of domestic resources is maximized.
    Fischer-Tropsch technology can help to resolve the environmental and
    domestic resource issues in an economical way.
        The products that result from the Fischer-Tropsch Process are clean
    transportation fuels (diesel and gasoline), petrochemical and specialty
    chemicals for consumer goods (coatings, cosmetics, health care
    products, adhesive, etc.) and high purity waxes.
        Based on current economics of gas to liquid (GTL) processes, cost/
    barrel of product will be higher than those derived from petroleum;
    however, the products are cleaner, purer, have desirable diesel fuel
    characteristics and a portion is suitable for higher priced specialty
    markets. The products are also more environmentally friendly and more
    efficient thus would command a higher selling price. Current estimates
    indicate that at a 15 percent return the costs for this premium, high
    mileage fuel are about 1.25 times current crude oil price/barrel, if
    based on natural gas. With coal as the syngas feed, prices can be
    competitive with crude at current prices.
    Environmental Impact/Benefits
        Because of their very low sulfur and nitrogen content the fuels
    (diesel and gasoline) are clean burning. They are free of sulfur,
    nitrogen and other aromatic compounds. The U.S. Department of Energy
    has shown that the diesel fuels produced can yield ``cetane'' numbers
    of over 60 which yield auto transport mileage of up to 80 miles/gallon,
    thus greatly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sulfur dioxide
    emissions can be eliminated and particulates, nitrogen oxides (ozone)
    and carbon monoxide can be reduced by up to 30 percent.
        A process will result that can produce a broad range of
    hydrocarbons safely, and economically since it avoids separation,
    attrition, erosion, and uniformity problems associated with current
    technologies. It will also provide much greater flexibility since
    various catalyst promoters can be applied and operated at steady state.
    Current processes operate as fixed-beds or slurry-beds. The fixed beds
    experience large temperature extremes, hot spots and catalyst
    deactivation and have to be shutdown to replace the catalyst. The
    slurry bed reactors have problems where erosion and separation of the
    catalyst from the waxy products is very difficult.
        The proposed ebullated-bed carbonous catalyst process avoids these
    costly deficiencies. Ebullated-Bed reactor technology is currently
    commercially practiced for heavy-oil and distillate hydrocracking with
    over 12 plants world-wide.
        The process using carbonous catalysts will produce ultra clean,
    high mileage transportation fuels, high value chemicals and wax
    products. It will result in a major improvement in Gas to Liquids (GTL)
    technology and provide us, if the program is accelerated as requested,
    with a domestic and secure fuel source for our transportation needs in
    the first quarter of the new millennium.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Electric Vehicle Association

                           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. A complete
    membership list is attached.
        In 1994, the Association developed a ten-year commercialization
    plan for the development and commercialization of battery electric
    vehicles (BEVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and fuel cell-electric
    vehicles (FCEVs). Phase I of the ten-year plan called for the
    successful entry of battery electric vehicles into limited early
    markets. 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. Some
    automakers also are considering the development of small, neighborhood
    battery electric vehicles (NEVs) which have niche applications in such
    areas as planned communities, college campuses, in station car
    applications and other urban settings where space and travel distances
    are limited and the air quality is poor.
        All of these vehicles continue to be expensive. Until greater
    volumes are achieved, prices are likely to remain high. EVAA urges the
    Congress to assist industry in helping to reduce the cost to the early
    purchasers of EVs. By increasing the number of vehicles sold or used,
    the price of these emission-free modes of transportation will decrease.
        Several automobile manufacturers have offered, or soon will offer,
    hybrid EVs to the market. Honda already is marketing the Insight hybrid
    vehicle into the U.S. and Toyota has announced that it will sell the
    Prius hybrid vehicle in the United States later this year. Other
    automakers have announced plans to bring hybrid electric vehicles to
    market in the near-term.

                      SECONDARY USE OF ADVANCED BATTERIES

        Since the cost of advanced batteries has been, and continues to be,
    a major barrier to the successful commercialization of electric
    vehicles into the marketplace, the Association believes that the
    development of a secondary market to re-use EV batteries after their
    useful life in a vehicle could substantially reduce costs. A battery
    system that has been used in an electric vehicle is projected to retain
    up to 80 percent of its initial capacity after being used in the
    vehicle. The electric utility industry may be in a position to utilize
    these ``used'' batteries for peak shaving, transmission deferral, back-
    up power, and transmission quality improvements. The creation of a
    secondary market able to pay between $100-$200/kWh for EV batteries
    would reduce the net cost of such batteries for installation into
    vehicles to the $100-$150/kWh range if 10,000 such batteries were
    purchased annually in a secondary-use market. (The current price for
    nickel-metal hydride batteries ranges from $800-$1800/kWh.) At lower
    volumes (2000 packs annually) net costs would still be reduced
    dramatically to below $300/kWh. The challenge first is to demonstrate
    on a large scale the applicability of used EV battery packs in
    secondary use applications. The Association urges Congress to consider
    directing and funding the Department of Energy to undertake a multi-
    year program to demonstrate that EV batteries can be successfully used
    in a number of utility, stand-by, peak-shaving and transmission quality
    improvement programs. Initial estimates suggest that a three-year $6 to
    $9 million cost-share program would address the questions about
    secondary uses. The objective of the program would be to gain
    sufficient experience to demonstrate that a secondary market for
    advanced batteries is available while also providing electric utilities
    and others with important information regarding the reliability, uses,
    and cost of EV batteries for these different types of applications.

                              CLEAN CITIES PROGRAM

        The Department of Energy's Clean Cities Program is achieving
    results. This voluntary Federal program is accelerating and expanding
    the use of alternative fuel vehicles in communities across the country
    and providing refueling and maintenance facilities for their operation.
    As of January 2000, seventy-seven communities have joined the Clean
    Cities program. The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $10
    million for the Clean Cities program. The Association believes that, to
    the extent possible, additional funds should be allocated to this
    important program to assure that communities throughout the U.S. have
    the funds available to purchase electric vehicles and supporting
    infrastructure.
        While the Department should be applauded for establishing the Clean
    Cities AFV Rebate Program, which allows Clean Cities to obtain a $2,000
    rebate for each dedicated AFV purchased and/or leased, EVAA would
    encourage the DOE to allow electric ground support equipment,
    neighborhood electric vehicles and electric bikes and scooters to be
    eligible for these rebate funds. Expansion of the rebate program would
    encourage communities to incorporate additional clean, transportation
    alternatives into their transportation plans.

                   UNITED STATES ADVANCED BATTERY CONSORTIUM

        In addition to identifying secondary markets for advanced
    batteries, the Association continues to support funding for the USABC
    and the Exploratory Technology Research Program at the $9.7 million
    level requested by the Administration. The USABC is a battery research
    and development program critical to the advancement of EVs. Through
    USABC's nickel-metal hydride battery development contracts, industry
    and government, working together, have achieved the cost reduction
    targets to meet USABC goals. Nickel-metal hydride batteries are now
    being utilized by many of the automobile manufacturers in their EV
    product offerings which significantly increases vehicle range and
    performance. This year, the program will support research and
    development on long-term advanced lithium-based batteries for EVs. The
    potential of lithium-based technology is to offer even greater range
    and lower cost.

                HYBRID SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND 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 fiscal year 2001 goals include an
    emphasis on power electronics and high power energy storage, two
    critical enablers for hybrid propulsion systems. DOE also intends to
    conduct studies to determine the potential for improving the fuel
    efficiency of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) by combining applicable
    advanced automotive technologies with technology improvements unique to
    SUVs. The Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the
    Hybrid Systems Research and Development Program is $47.8 million.

                   VEHICLE FIELD TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM

        The Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $4
    million for the Vehicle Field Test and Evaluation Program. These funds
    would be used to begin acquisition of light, medium and heavy-duty
    hybrid electric vehicles for performance and emissions testing.
        EVAA believes that this program should be used to help fund the
    increased use of AFVs by the Federal agencies. In fact, EVAA applauds
    DOE for utilizing $2 million in fiscal year 2000 funds to assist the
    United States Postal Service (USPS) with the acquisition of 500
    electric vehicles for use by postal services in Southern California and
    Greater Washington, D.C. Depending on the success of this initial EV
    purchase, it is anticipated that the USPS will issue a solicitation for
    5,500 additional electric vehicles over the next four years.

                OTHER DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAMS OF INTEREST

        In order 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, for two
    other DOE programs: the EPAct Replacement Fuels Program and Fuel Cells
    Research and Development. The Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget
    request includes $2 million for the EPAct Replacement Fuels Program to
    track and improve compliance with EPAct alternative fuel vehicle
    programs. A total of $41.5 million in funding is 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 investments by DOE encourage investment by
    industry and help to build market acceptance for alternative fuel
    vehicles.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The success of electric vehicles in the marketplace continues to
    require industry and government, working together, to bring down the
    costs of these environmentally superior technologies. The Federal
    Government's role should continue to focus on participating with
    industry in efforts to advance electric transportation technologies
    through programs like the USABC; to join industry in the test and
    evaluation of the latest EV/HEV technologies through programs like the
    Vehicle 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 EVs; and, to use the
    purchasing power of the Federal Government to increase the market for
    EVs. 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 National Research Center for Coal and Energy,
                            West Virginia University

        Chairman Gorton and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to offer testimony and make recommendations regarding the
    programs of the U.S. DOE in fossil energy and energy conservation.

               RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAMS

        Forecasts prepared by the Energy Information Administration and
    many other credible organizations predict increased reliance on coal
    for power generation. We are dissatisfied with the Administration's
    budget recommendation that funding for Coal and Power Systems research
    be reduced by almost $19 million from the fiscal year 2000
    appropriations and also with the proposed overall reduction of $28
    million for Fossil Energy Research and Development. For fiscal year
    2001, funding for Fossil Energy R&D should be increased to at least
    $433 million, the level recommended in the 1997 PCAST report on
    Challenges for the 21st Century. Most of these funding increases should
    be allocated for coal research. We will cite specific program elements
    in the remainder of our testimony where increased funding is
    recommended.
        Transportation Fuels and Chemicals.--In addition to coal's
    traditional role in electric power generation, recent economic losses
    associated with the increased price of petroleum mandate expanded use
    of coal in the production of clean transportation fuels and value-added
    chemicals. We recommend that the Transportation Fuels and Chemicals
    line item be increased by $3 million to initiate a partnership program
    with academic and industrial researchers to develop technology for
    producing chemical blending stocks, additives, and lubricants for
    transportation fuels and chemicals. Co-production plants which generate
    electric power along with fuels and chemicals are a vital key to
    deployment of advanced coal technologies under the Vision 21 program.
    We support the new initiative in Ultra Clean Fuels in cooperation with
    the Office of Transportation Technologies. One third of Fossil Energy's
    share of the funding should be used for developing coal-based fuels.
        Advanced Separations.--The Administration has requested only
    $377,000 for a program in Advanced Separations for developing new
    technologies for solid-solid and solid-liquid separations directed
    toward fuels production and use. These technologies will apply for
    transportation fuels and chemicals production, increase the reliability
    of advanced systems such as Vision 21 plants which involve many solids
    handling processes, and increase the efficiency of producing fuels and
    minerals while protecting the environment. We recommend that funding
    for this line item be increased to $3 million.
        Vision 21 and Advanced Energy Systems Programs.--We are concerned
    about the low rate of deployment of new technologies into the power
    generation sector. Federal support is greatly needed to bring the new
    technologies developed over the past decade to market readiness. Power
    generation developers will be making decisions in the near future about
    selecting plants that will last for another fifty years. We need a
    vigorous program of research which will enable rapid commercialization
    of advanced technologies. In some of these advanced technology sectors
    which are integral modules of Vision 21 plants, European countries are
    taking the leadership initiative from us. Unless we can develop our
    technologies to deployment status in the near future, our window of
    opportunity for commercializing new technologies will be missed. We
    support full funding for the carbon sequestration program outlined in
    the Administration's budget and express similar support for other
    elements of the program such as fuel cells, gas turbines, and the
    development of advanced materials and systems.
        Carbon Products and Advanced Fuels Research.--Coal can also be used
    for generating high value products such as carbon fibers and foam. West
    Virginia University is developing innovative ways to generate such
    products based on technologies using advanced processing techniques. We
    request $1.7 million to continue our research program which was
    initiated last year by the Subcommittee at a level of $300,000 in the
    Advanced Fuels Research program.
        Oil and Natural Gas Research Programs.--The methane hydrates
    program offers potential to recover vast amounts of fuel which is low
    in carbon intensity. In support of recent action by the House on H.R.
    1753, we recommend that funding for this program be increased to at
    least a level of $8 million for fiscal year 2001. We also recommend
    support for the Infrastructure Technology initiative to increase the
    reliability of the gas transmission and distribution network. This
    program is necessary to ensure that gas supplies can be delivered when
    needed during critical periods in addition to implementing technologies
    which will reduce the emission of methane, a greenhouse gas, to the
    environment. The National Energy Technology Laboratory will receive
    proposals by April 24, 2000 regarding Phase III of the coal mine
    methane program supported by the Subcommittee last year. We recommend
    continued funding of this program to enable completion of the projects
    to be selected. While we estimate that at least $3 million will be
    needed for fiscal year 2001, we recommend that the Subcommittee request
    a report from NETL regarding funding needs after the proposals are
    received. The Petroleum Technology Transfer Council Resource Center
    program is a valuable asset to our small producers in West Virginia and
    should be continued.
        National Energy Technology Laboratory Initiatives.--We have
    observed that the number of industrial laboratories conducting energy
    research, especially in coal, has decreased over the past decade. There
    is need for a national center which conducts advanced research in
    fossil energy in all areas from extraction to byproduct utilization. We
    recommend that funding for this newest laboratory be enhanced to enable
    it to provide leadership in research and provide opportunities to
    nurture our future energy scientists through enhanced opportunities for
    academic research programs. Three new centers of excellence were
    proposed for NETL for fiscal year 2001 in the areas of Supercomputing,
    Sequestration, and Advanced Natural Gas Studies. We are appreciative of
    NETL involving West Virginia University as a partner in sharing access
    to high speed computing connections into our State to support their
    Morgantown Center. We support full funding for these Centers of
    Excellence as outlined in the Administration's request.

            RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

    Office of Transportation Technologies
        The Administration has requested a funding increase of 12 percent
    for transportation technologies programs for fiscal year 2001. We
    support this request and will address our comments to several aspects
    of the OTT program. The OTT staff are commended for their interaction
    with industry in developing their programs.
        Research is needed to enable deployment of diesel engine technology
    into lighter weight vehicles in addition to improving the performance
    of Class 7 and Class 8 vehicles. Our window of opportunity to develop
    these technologies will likely close by 2004 when manufacturers will
    need to make choices for the future. Funding for engine research should
    be provided to enable an aggressive program to be completed in a
    meaningful time frame for deployment.
        OTT will invest at least $17 million in the Advanced Petroleum-
    Based Fuels and Ultra Clean Fuel initiatives in fiscal year 2001,
    including an emphasis on combustion and after treatment R&D. Cleaner
    fuels with a sulfur content of less than 15 ppm are needed to meet
    proposed EPA mandates for heavy duty diesels. Cars will face similar
    limits in sulfur content for gasoline fuels. The C-1 Chemistry program
    offers opportunities to develop technologies using our indigenous
    resources of natural gas and coal to produce high quality liquid fuels
    which have reduced emissions. We recommend continued support at a level
    $1.2 million for fiscal year 2001 for the C-1 Chemistry program
    conducted by the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science.
        Other areas which should be emphasized include work in developing
    materials for fuel cell systems, performance and life cycle testing of
    advanced lithium-based batteries, and materials development for natural
    gas storage in carbon fiber systems. We recommend emphasis on
    developing effective natural gas systems for vehicle applications. The
    research programs proposed for PNGV applications using hybrid natural
    gas systems will enable new technologies to be developed for
    application to both the automobile and the light truck markets.
        We urge the Department to move more aggressively to meet the
    targets outlined in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 in finding
    alternative fuels to displace petroleum imports and to increase the
    deployment and operation of alternative fueled vehicles. Technology
    Deployment initiatives proposed for fiscal year 2001 will be enhanced
    by cooperation with State governments. Strengthening of the State
    Energy Program (SEP) grant award program will increase opportunities
    for deployment of alternative fueled vehicles at local levels. We
    recommend the funding and deployment of a natural gas cylinder
    inspection program to provide additional support for maintenance and
    infrastructure development in deploying natural gas vehicles.
    Office of Industrial Technologies
        The Administration has recommended an increase of 5 percent for the
    OIT programs for fiscal year 2001. We find these programs to be
    relevant to West Virginia and are supportive of this recommendation.
    For example, 53 percent of the total manufacturing in West Virginia,
    exclusive of the mining sector, occurs in industries in which there are
    IOF programs. Our industries have worked closely with the DOE IOF
    program for many years through the development and implementation of a
    State IOF program. We find the State IOF program to be of value and
    recommend that the Department develop a technical assistance program
    designed to assist other states in integrating more fully with the
    national IOF activities. This technical assistance program should be
    implemented in 2001 at the latest.
        The Mining IOF program is particularly important in view of the
    absence of a federal mining technology laboratory and the continued
    decline in the number of in-house research laboratories supported by
    the mining industry. We recommend continued strengthening of this
    component of the IOF program.
        We commend IOF staff on their interactions with industry in the
    development of research programs.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to
    provide oral testimony. We will be pleased to provide additional
    information at your request.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the National Corn Growers Association

        The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), representing 30,000
    corn growers in 48 States, appreciates the opportunity to provide the
    Subcommittee with our recommendations regarding the fiscal year 2001
    Interior appropriations bill. We, strongly, urge you to provide a
    minimum of $13 million in funding for the Agricultural Vision, the
    Plant/Crop-Based Renewable Resources Vision 2020 program that is funded
    under the Department of Energy's Industries of the Future (specific)
    program within the Energy Conservation budget.
        Since 1996, the U.S. agricultural, forestry, and chemical
    communities have worked with DOE to develop a long-term, strategic
    vision based on increased utilization of renewable inputs for basic,
    chemical building blocks that would be used to produce a wide range of
    everyday consumer goods, such as plastics, paints, carpet fibers,
    adhesives, anti-freeze, and personal care products. The Agricultural
    Vision is for plants, instead of petroleum, to serve as the feedstock
    for 10 percent of the chemical building blocks market by 2020 and 50
    percent 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. If plants were the feedstock for 10 percent
    of this market, farm income would increase by more than $5 billion per
    year, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced, recycling
    opportunities would be increased, and, most importantly, our dependence
    on foreign oil would decrease.
        As we have experienced first hand over the past few months, the
    power of unstable oil exporting countries affects, dramatically, the
    price of gasoline, heating oil, and many consumer goods, such as
    plastics, due to 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 will grow to over 65 percent.
        While we have a finite supply of fossil fuels, we have abundant
    plant/crop-based resources that are renewable over short periods of
    time (e.g., annual and perennial crops). The most significant
    opportunity to help offset the need for imported oil is the use of
    alternative feedstocks that can be derived from renewable plants and
    crops. Renewable materials, from American-grown crops can provide many
    of the same basic, chemical building blocks as petrochemicals, and can
    provide others that petrochemicals cannot.
        Currently, the U.S. chemical industry utilizes about 900 million
    barrels of oil annually (approximately 12-14 percent of total U.S. oil
    consumption) to produce organic chemicals. The carbon contained in 900
    million barrels of oil can be produced from renewable feedstocks on
    about 80 million acres of land, about equal to current corn production.
    Using historical, average prices for corn and oil, the cost of carbon
    from corn approaches the cost of carbon from oil. The recent escalating
    fuel prices should serve as a wake-up call for research that will
    provide us with a secure, long-term supply of durable, high performance
    raw material inputs.
        To achieve the bold vision, we must begin laying the research
    foundation today. If we are to realize, fully, the potential for bio-
    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 Agricultural 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
    Technology 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 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 separation methods--membranes,
            distillation, etc.; and
      --Utilization--understand structure function relationships for plant
            constituents (protein, starch, etc).
        While each of these individual areas of opportunity is important,
    it is critical for us to develop all of the areas simultaneously and to
    develop integrated strategies for chemical production. We need funding
    for projects that will cover the full scope of the R&D needs, from
    basic plant science to utilization. Multi-disciplinary research, along
    several different pathways, will be necessary to improve the
    performance of plant resources as raw materials.
        We are at a unique place in history as the tools that are
    revolutionizing plant-based science and technology are beginning to be
    available. The advantage of modern molecular tools is that we will meet
    future demand with the increasing use of renewable resources as basic,
    chemical building blocks. The disadvantage is that for modern science
    to deliver the ``leap-frog'' technology to achieve our goals, projects
    must be large, multi-institutional including public and private sector
    participants, and multi-disciplinary with emphases on biology,
    chemistry, and engineering. Of necessity, these projects are expensive
    and a significant level of funding must be provided if they are to be
    successful.
        While the Administration requested $13 million for the Agricultural
    Vision, the budget proposes to take $5 million of that amount (almost
    40 percent) and put it into the Administration's Bio-Energy Initiative
    where the funding could also be used for research on power and fuels.
    While we support the bi-partisan, Bio-Energy Initiative, we do not want
    to sacrifice funding for the Agricultural Vision.
        We appreciate that the Administration proposes to increase funding
    for the Agricultural Vision to $8 million; however, funding for the
    Agricultural Vision pales in comparison to the bio-power and bio-fuels
    programs at DOE. As you know, the DOE bio-power and bio-fuels programs
    are both proposed to be funded in the $40-$50 million range. Our
    greatest opportunities over the next few years are in the bio-products
    area and funding in this area is substantially below the level needed
    for multi-disciplinary research that has clear linkages across all of
    the highest priorities in the Roadmap. The Agricultural Vision is the
    only program focused, solely, on increasing the use of renewable
    resources for chemicals (for bio-products) and is the only program
    focused on the R&D agenda outlined in the Agricultural Vision's
    Technology Roadmap. A 50 percent cost-share is required for all of the
    projects funded under the Agricultural Vision program and the projects
    must address the OIT mission of improving energy efficiency and
    environmental performance.
        We will be able to reduce our reliance on imported oil much sooner
    if we focus our efforts towards the ambitious Agricultural Vision and
    act now to fund much needed research. 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 $13 million, devoted
    to R&D needs outlined in the Agricultural Vision's Technology Roadmap,
    funding could be provided for projects that address the highest
    priorities in each of the four major research categories listed in the
    Roadmap.
        We, strongly, urge you to provide a minimum of $13 million for
    fiscal year 2001 for OIT to implement, more fully, the Agricultural
    Vision's Technology Roadmap. This funding will help to decrease our
    dependence on imported oil. We look forward to working with you as we
    lay the foundation for renewable chemical building blocks.
        Thank you, again, for this opportunity to provide you with our
    recommendations for the fiscal year 2001 Interior appropriations bill.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the School of Mineral Engineering, University of
                               Alaska, Fairbanks

        I strongly encourage the Subcommittee to support DOE's fiscal year
    2001 budget request of $8.5 million for the Emerging Processing
    Technology Applications program within the Fossil Energy-Natural Gas
    Research budget. This program includes $4.4 million to continue the
    ceramic membrane-based ITM Syngas project, an 8\1/2\ year, $87 million
    cost-shared project that promises to significantly lower the cost of
    converting natural gas to a liquid fuel, resulting in the use of vast
    domestic remote resources of natural gas that cannot be economically
    delivered via pipeline to market.
        Experts estimate that there is more than 38 TCF of recoverable
    remote gas on the Alaskan North Slope. In a recent circular, the United
    States Geological Survey estimates that there is more than double that
    amount of technically recoverable remote reserves in undiscovered
    fields in Alaska as well as offshore reserves in deep waters in the
    Gulf of Mexico and along the Pacific coast.
        Alaska's challenge for years has been how to economically produce
    and transport its remote natural gas to market in an environmentally
    responsible way within a very competitive international economy.
    Domestic oil production, especially the large fields in Alaska, is on a
    decline, and petroleum imports are projected to exceed 60 percent of
    our national needs by 2010. Already, in Alaska, 4 out of 11 (36
    percent) operating pumping stations for the Trans Alaskan Pipeline
    System (TAPS) have been shut down and placed on standby. As the
    production decline continues, the long-term viability of the TAPS is
    uncertain. Therefore, developing a means to recover and transport
    remote natural gas in Alaska is of vital importance to the Alaskan
    economy, the nation and potentially to the future of the TAPS.
    Unfortunately, current technologies are far too costly for reserve
    owners to bring most of Alaska's gas to market.
        A promising solution is to convert the remote gas to transportable
    liquid products, which could be easily delivered to the market in the
    lower 48 States using the existing petroleum infrastructure in Alaska.
    The University of Alaska, Fairbanks, School of Mineral Engineering, is
    working with the Department of Energy to conduct an evaluation of
    various methods for transporting gas-to-liquid (GTL) products, commonly
    called ``white crude,'' through the existing TAPS. Utilizing the TAPS
    for GTL product transport will significantly increase its operating
    lifetime. In addition, it will further enable the recovery of 1-2
    billion barrels of oil from the North Slope, which would remain
    unrecoverable if the pipeline were to be prematurely shut down.
        However, utilization of gas-to-liquids conversion technology is
    dependent on developing a low-cost alternative for synthesis gas
    production, the first processing step in which natural gas is converted
    to a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide before being processed by
    Fischer-Tropsch (FT) technology to make liquids. Through a team led by
    Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. of Allentown, Pa., the Department of
    Energy's Natural Gas Research Program has been sponsoring a multi-phase
    development of an important new synthesis gas technology--referred to
    as ITM Syngas. This technology is based upon a novel ceramic membrane
    reactor that could significantly reduce the cost of syngas production,
    enabling economic gas-to-liquids conversion. Completed conceptual
    process design and economics for ITM Syngas show a >33 percent capital
    cost savings versus conventional autothermal reforming/cryogenic air
    separation. The University of Alaska, Fairbanks, School of Mineral
    Engineering, is a participant in the ITM Syngas project team, along
    with Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, Ceramatec, Chevron, Norsk
    Hydro, Eltron Research, McDermott International, the University of
    Pennsylvania and Penn State University. When successfully developed,
    this technology will result in a major step change in the conversion of
    natural gas to hydrogen and synthesis gas for liquid fuels, and for
    chemicals.
        Over the past few years, the project team has made significant
    progress at the laboratory scale in the parallel path development of
    new materials, catalysts, seals, reactor designs, ceramic powder and
    membrane fabrication, process design and engineering and economic
    evaluation. The first phase is being successfully completed and the
    project is moving forward into Phase 2 where the technology developed
    in Phase 1 will first be validated in a process development unit
    operating at a nominal scale of 24,000 SCF per day of synthesis gas
    product (equivalent to 0.75 bbl/day of liquid fuel products) and
    scaled-up to an engineering prototype system operating at a nominal
    scale of 500,000 SCF per day (equivalent to 15 bbl/day of liquid fuel
    products).
        The continued development of the ITM Syngas process will require a
    substantial financial investment by both the private and the public
    sector before a commercial technology can be realized. Since initiating
    this project in 1997, in response to a competitive DOE procurement, the
    Air Products-led project team has provided 50 percent cost-share of ITM
    Syngas development and has agreed to full payback of the Federal
    funding contribution should the technology be successfully
    commercialized.
        The FT GTL product is exceptionally clean burning, high cetane
    diesel fuel that is environmentally acceptable. Further, in a climate
    of high gas prices due to world crude supply restrictions, the Alaskan
    North Slope GTL process, made economically feasible by ITM Syngas, will
    reduce the U.S. dependency on oil imports.
        In addition, the ITM Syngas process is ideally suited to generate
    hydrogen in the size ranges required for the distributed hydrogen
    required for future fuel cell powered vehicles and stationary fuel cell
    power generators. Cheaper hydrogen made possible by ITM Syngas will
    also help the petroleum refineries meet increased hydrogen demand for
    Clean Air Act-driven oxygenated gasoline, reformulated gasoline, lower-
    sulfur diesel fuels and upgrading of heavier and high-sulfur crude
    oils.
        A major reduction in the cost of producing synthesis gas via ITM
    Syngas will also have a cross-cutting impact on many U. S. industries
    which depend upon synthesis gas as a raw material in the manufacture of
    commodity chemicals and consumer goods, such as clean-fuel additives,
    rubber, polyester textiles, urethane foam, plastics, paint, detergents,
    and fertilizers.
        Furthermore, the ITM Syngas technology will have a favorable
    environmental impact on the North Slope due to a substantial reduction
    in the emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants (CO2,
    CH4, NOX and SOX). A viable GTL
    technology will virtually eliminate the need for the current practice
    of flaring the associated natural gas and will reduce gas combustion
    requirements for wellhead reinjection, all of which are sources of
    pollutants.
        In conclusion, I would like to restate the importance of the
    Department of Energy's Emerging Processing Technology Applications
    program within the Fossil Energy-Natural Gas Research budget. This
    shared investment by government, industry, universities and national
    laboratories in developing new energy technology to efficiently use our
    natural gas resources is integral to our nation's efforts to protect
    our future economy from escalating energy costs and to improve
    environmental quality. I strongly believe that new gas processing
    technology, such as the ITM Syngas will not only benefit the citizens
    of Alaska, but will also enhance the global competitiveness of our
    nation as we move forward into the 21st century.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the 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 2001 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 and
    the Forest Service.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The NMA has not received a Federal grant, contract, or
    subcontract in fiscal years 2000, 1999, or 1998.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            office of fossil energy
        The Department of Energy's (DOE) 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 fiscal year 2001 budget request for coal and power
    systems shows a decrease of $18 million from fiscal year 2000 levels,
    $212 to $194 million. At a minimum, given the importance of coal to the
    existing generating mix and the need to develop technologies to allow
    the currently operating fleet to meet new environmental and efficiency
    requirements, the fiscal year 2001 budget should be above fiscal year
    2000 levels.
        The Clean Coal Technology Program has been one of the most
    successful cooperative R, D &D efforts between the government and
    industry having demonstrated a number of first of a kind technologies
    to enable coal to meet current environmental and performance standards.
    However, the current program lacks the means to move these emerging
    technologies from demonstration to commercialization. The DOE fiscal
    year 2001 budget request calls for rescinding $105 million from
    appropriations for the Clean Coal Technology Program. NMA opposes this
    rescission. However, if funds are available from this program the NMA
    recommends that they be redirected to address the need for the
    development and commercial application of lower cost retrofit and re-
    powering technologies for existing coal-based generating facilities.
        To address ever expanding environmental requirements, NMA supports
    inclusion of funding for low emission boiler systems and the ongoing
    work on pressurized fluidized bed combustion, primarily at the
    Wilsonville Power System Development plant.
        Vision 21 looks to the future where highly efficient power plants
    will continue to use coal and other fossil fuels to provide Americans
    with low-cost energy and other products. At the same time, air
    emissions will be reduced completely with any remaining carbon offset
    through sequestration. Vision 21 will incorporate and expand many of
    the technologies developed in the Clean Coal programs (e.g., PFBC and
    IGCC). The work that DOE is proposing for fiscal year 2001 is critical
    if Vision 21 technologies are to be demonstrated by 2015. This program
    is of sufficient importance to support funding above the requested
    $41.2 million. The Department's plan to defer needed Coal Technology
    funding should be rejected. We also advocate the Los Alamos National
    Laboratory's research request of $1 million to assist with the
    development of the Zero Emission Coal Alliance project. ZECA will
    improve existing technology to double the net efficiency of coal-based
    generation and produce a concentrated stream of carbon dioxide that can
    be sequestered.
        Carbon Sequestration Methods offer an alternative to emitting
    carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. They will provide an opportunity to
    use the Nation's existing energy infrastructure and the new plants
    developed by Vision 21. Most of these projects will be a longer term,
    with the exception of projects such as the ZECA project described
    above. Research is needed now to determine whether carbon can be
    sequestered safely underground or in the ocean, as well as in greater
    amounts through increased vegetation. NMA supports DOE Fossil Energy's
    request for an increase in carbon sequestration funding to $19.5
    million although this request could certainly be sharply higher. We
    would also encourage additional funding of $3 million to continue Los
    Alamos National Laboratory's promising research in sequestering carbon
    in semiarid lands first utilizing abandoned mine lands.
        Coal Research and Development.--It is important to continue funding
    for coal preparation and liquefaction technologies. Advanced coal
    preparation technologies promise to reduce the cost of continued use of
    coal in traditional applications in large industrial and electric
    utility boilers. It is important to continue the industry cost-shared
    research work on technologies for the manufacturing of carbon products.
    Research in the areas of advanced technologies for solid-solid and
    solid-liquid separations directed toward fuel production and use is
    equally important. DOE has requested $377 thousand for this advanced
    separation technology initiative. NMA requests that the budget
    allocation for this effort be increased to $3 million to support this
    long-term high risk project.
        NMA supports increasing the DOE Fine Particulate and Hazardous
    Pollutants budget by $1.765 million to continue funding the
    Steubenville Comprehensive Air Monitoring Program (SCAMP). SCAMP will
    develop information that is essential for defining the relationship
    between fine particulate matter (PM) concentrations in ambient air and
    the fine PM concentrations to which individuals are exposed. SCAMP is
    co-funded by the Department of Energy, the Ohio Coal Development
    Office, the National Mining Association, the American Petroleum
    Institute, the Electric Power Research Institute, the American Iron and
    Steel Institute, and CONSOL Inc. SCAMP will provide fine particulate
    data to assist State and Federal environmental authorities in assessing
    the relationship between the source and concentrations of fine PM in
    ambient air and personal exposure. DOE initiated the program with
    fiscal year 2000 funds that were used to purchase equipment, prepare
    operating manuals, conduct studies to establish data comparability, and
    begin work by the Harvard School of Public Health, Ohio University,
    Wheeling Jesuit University, St. Vincent College, and Optimal Inc. to
    operate and maintain ambient air sampling and monitoring stations.
        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 option.

                OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

        The Mining Industry of the Future Program.--The research priorities
    developed through this industry/government partnership offer important
    direction to the Department of Energy, industry and Congress as the
    research agenda needed for a sustainable mining industry in the 21st
    Century. In 1999, a technology roadmap was completed which defines
    research requirements that address all aspects of the industry and two
    solicitations for crosscutting technology proposals were issued.
        Ten projects were awarded funding under the first crosscutting
    solicitation although 23 worthwhile proposals were received. Sixty-two
    proposals are being evaluated in response to the second crosscutting
    solicitation. These proposals total about $52 million--at 50 percent,
    DOE's cost share would be about $26 million. The $4 million dollars
    that DOE has requested for mining for fiscal year 2001 is clearly too
    low to meet the needs of the program. NMA respectfully requests that
    the Mining Industry of the Future Program be funded at $8 million in
    fiscal year 2001.

                       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 for the purpose of providing ``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 equal to fee receipts; however, we strongly oppose
    the proposed 10-year extension of the AML tax on coal operators. Any
    change in the AML tax must be closely scrutinized before any proposal
    to change the current scheme is considered. Among the things that
    should be analyzed is the amount of money that is used to administer
    the program and whether the Federal administration is effective in
    light of the maturity and effectiveness of the Federally--approved
    State AML programs.
        NMA has often expressed its concern over the lack of adequate
    funding for States under the Title V grant program. States have long
    ago shown the expertise and the will to manage strong and effective
    surface mining programs. NMA is pleased to note that the Administration
    is seeking an increase in the funding level for State implementation of
    SMCRA. NMA is further encouraged by the agency's proposal to fully-fund
    minimum AML program states in the statutorily authorized amount of $2
    million.

                BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND THE FOREST SERVICE

        For years, NMA has maintained that static funding of the mining,
    minerals and geology functions at the BLM and the Forest Service is
    insufficient to carry out the agencies' mining and minerals function
    effectively. In October 1998, Congress adopted the Interior
    Appropriations for fiscal year 1999 that provided $800,000 for the
    National Academy of Sciences (``NAS'') to conduct a comprehensive study
    to determine the adequacy of the existing Federal surface management
    rules regarding hardrock mining. One important finding of this NAS
    report was that the BLM and the Forest Service should review the
    adequacy of staff and resources devoted to regulating mining
    operations. In light of this finding, NMA is deeply concerned by the
    fact that neither the BLM nor the Forest Service has referenced the
    report or made an attempt to justify existing funding levels or
    increase funding to ensure that the existing array of Federal mining
    regulations (that were found by the NAS to be generally effective in
    protecting the environment) are effectively implemented.
        Instead of proposing to adequately fund its existing hardrock
    regulatory program as recommended by the NAS, the BLM has proposed a
    massive rewrite of its regulations which the agency says will cost an
    additional 25 to 35 percent more than the existing underfunded program
    will (according to its own Draft Environmental Impact Statement.) It
    appears that the Administration has set its mining regulation program
    on self-destruct in order to create the illusion that the existing
    Mining Law must be completely rewritten.
        NMA also questions the reasoning behind the failure of the Forest
    Service to request the necessary funding to maintain the national
    forest transportation system while simultaneously using an $8.4 billion
    backlog of deferred road maintenance and reconstruction as an excuse to
    deny the American public access to its land. This action, combined with
    the actions of the Secretary of the Interior and the President in
    unilaterally withdrawing millions of acres of potentially valuable
    mineral lands from public use, is extremely dangerous for a Nation
    whose citizens consume 47,000 pounds of newly mined minerals each year.

                             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 minerals 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.

                             CROSSCUTTING ACTIVITY

        The NMA, the Interstate Mining Compact Commission and several
    Federal agencies (OSM, BLM, DOE, and USGS) have actively participated
    in the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) since 1995. The ADTI
    is a nationwide technology development program with a guiding principle
    of building a consensus among Federal and State regulatory agencies,
    universities and consulting firms, to predict and remediate acid
    drainage from active and inactive coal and metal mines. It is not a
    regulatory or policy development program.
        This collaborative effort receives funding and other support from
    industry and several Federal agencies for specific projects. For
    example, the Office of Surface Mining has provided the ADTI $200,000
    for the last two fiscal years which has been a consistent source of
    funding for activities related to acid mine drainage from coal mining
    and has been instrumental in accomplishing the ADTI's short-term goals.
    No similar source of funding has been available for activities related
    to acid drainage from metal mining to date. If each of the Federal
    agencies, OSM, BLM, DOE, USGS, and other agencies as appropriate, were
    provided funds to commit $100-200,000 toward ADTI, approximately $1
    million would be available to support the work of this vital
    initiative.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Coal Utilization Research Council

        These written comments are submitted on behalf of the members of
    the 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 and chemical companies. Members of CURC share a common
    vision of the strategic importance for this country's continued
    utilization of coal in a cost-effective and environmentally acceptable
    manner. The CURC membership also believes that coal-based generation
    should be preserved to ensure a diversity of fuel supply, produce
    affordable and reliable electricity, maintain a strong U.S. economy and
    help stabilize the balance of payments.

                  INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

        CURC has developed a strategic R&D program designed to ensure the
    continued use of our Nation's coal resources. The coal-based R&D
    program is described in a CURC technology ``roadmap'' which is an
    essential tool by which the CURC membership judges the adequacy and
    timeliness of R&D programs.
        The roadmap identifies a number of advanced coal-based electricity
    generating systems that, if fully developed, would insure continued
    cost effective, efficient and environmentally acceptable use of coal.
    Because the ultimate economic viability and technical feasibility of
    any single coal utilization technology cannot be assured, CURC strongly
    advocates the development of a portfolio of options. The roadmap
    identifies a number of high-priority, advanced coal-based power systems
    as well as the timeframes and performance requirements of the
    components for those systems. If critical components of a particular
    system are not developed in a timely manner, a promising technology may
    not materialize.
        CURC believes that funding of the Department's fiscal year 2001
    budget request as well as future funding requests should be guided by
    the roadmap's R&D goals. In a number of important areas DOE's fiscal
    year 2001 budget request falls short of the roadmap's goals. In fact,
    this year's request is actually lower than amounts appropriated in
    fiscal year 2000. We believe that funding levels in several areas need
    to be increased or at least maintained at current levels if the
    technology objectives defined in the roadmap are to be achieved in a
    timely fashion. In consideration of the technologies and goals
    identified in the roadmap, the CURC is recommending that the Committee
    modify the budget request as follows:
      --Advanced research (formerly AR&TD).--Coal Utilization Science and
            Materials--While the budget for ``advanced research'' programs
            has been increased overall, the request for coal utilization
            science (basic research) has been reduced. In addition, in that
            area judged by the CURC membership to be among the most
            important to future coal-based power systems--basic materials--
            a modest $350,000 increase has been requested for the materials
            program. Rather than increase funding in science and materials,
            the DOE requested increase is to support a new international
            initiative, a coal technology exports program and new funding
            for a ``center of excellence.'' Advanced materials as well as
            basic science are central to technology improvements and
            increased funding is essential. Included in CURC's
            recommendations is work to advance high temperature heat
            exchanger materials, including novel alloys and ceramics, to
            enable power plant efficiency improvements. CURC also
            recommends that industry and government undertake an advanced
            materials program to be funded for multiple years. (RECOMMENDED
            INCREASE: Add $2.0 million of new appropriations to initiate a
            multi-year advanced materials program in support of central
            system power stations. Restore $1.0 million for coal
            utilization science and utilize these funds, in part, to
            continue support for university research programs. Further, we
            recommend that the proposed international initiatives be
            clarified for relevance with respect to the development and
            deployment of advanced technologies in countries DOE has
            specifically targeted. We also recommend that the Department
            consult directly with industry in the development of the
            proposed coal technology export program.)
      --Advanced systems.--Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
            and Pressurized Fluidized Bed (PFB)--Funding requests for the
            PFB and IGCC systems have been reduced from fiscal year 2000
            levels by more than $4.0 million. These systems are among the
            most promising technologies and central to achieving the
            environmental, efficiency and cost goals encompassed in the
            roadmap. Funding should be restored to last year's levels and
            increased in light of both increasing natural gas prices as
            well as increased reliance upon natural gas imports (15 percent
            of U.S. consumption was imported in 1999). (RECOMMENDED
            INCREASE: Restore $4.0 million and increase the overall
            advanced systems program (i.e., indirect fired cycle, IGCC and
            PFB) by $1.0 million to better insure that these technology
            options are available when needed.)
      --Advanced systems.--Indirect fired cycle--Funding for this program
            has been reduced by $5.0 million below levels appropriated in
            fiscal year 2000. The core components of the HIPPs technology
            development program should be pursued if the indirect fired
            cycle is to be matured and contribute to future technology
            advances. These components will be useful in other system
            configurations. Further, the phase II objectives of the HIPPs
            program, including emissions and performance testing on
            existing pilot plants, should be completed. (RECOMMENDED
            INCREASE: Restore $5.0 million for completing the phase II
            objectives of the HIPPS program and continue core component
            development.)
        --Transportation fuels and chemicals.--Feedstock conversion--Funds
                should be added to initiate a partnership program with the
                chemicals industry to target the use of coal in the
                production of useful chemicals. (RECOMMENDED INCREASE: Add
                $1.0 million to the DOE transportation fuels and chemicals
                program. These funds should be used to initiate a program
                with academic and industrial researchers to develop
                technology for the production of chemical blend stocks,
                chemical additives, and lubricants produced from coal for
                transportation fuels and chemicals)
        --Oil technology--Ultra clean fuels.DOE is requesting $10.0 million
                to initiate an ultra clean fuels program. CURC recommends
                that coal be specifically included in this request;
                otherwise the program will continue to rely primarily upon
                a feedstock derived from overseas energy resources.
                (RECOMMENDED ACTION: At least $2.0 million in this new
                program should be directed at using coal as the feedstock
                for ultra clean transportation fuels. This appropriation
                will enable continuation of laboratory R&D for the next
                generation of cleaner fuels from coal.)
      --Sequestration R&D.--Greenhouse gas control--The Department should
            expand the carbon sequestration program to accelerate the
            development of the most promising technology options and to
            acquire a continuing independent analysis of process concepts
            that are being pursued. Also, concurrent with sequestration
            R&D, the tools and methodologies need to be developed and
            applied to assess the technical, environmental, safety,
            permitting and economic feasibility of CO2 capture,
            separation, and sequestration concepts. This will ensure that
            relevant know-how is available, tested and reliable, when
            needed. (RECOMMENDED INCREASE: Add an additional $3.0 million
            to support climate change research being conducted in the DOE.
            These funds should be targeted specifically to the conduct of a
            independent analysis of process concepts. Also, added funding
            should be directed at the development and application of the
            tools and methodologies described above. Finally, because a
            number of DOE offices are involved in sequestration R& it is
            important that these various programs be coordinated and not
            duplicated).
        --Innovations for existing plants (formerly AR&ET).--Fine
                particulate control/air toxics. The existing fleet of coal-
                based generating facilities is facing ever increasingly
                stringent environmental restrictions. As a result, the need
                for cost-effective compliance options to maintain the
                fleet's economic viability is more pressing than ever. Like
                the budget for advanced research, funding increases in this
                program are the result of a new initiative to implement an
                ``international clean energy initiative.'' Use of clean,
                advanced technologies abroad in countries that will use
                increasing amounts of coal is important and necessary for
                the global environment and to support U.S. manufacturing
                interests. Addressing environmental concerns domestically
                is even more important and should be supported accordingly.
                DOE is currently evaluating mercury control concepts
                related to electricity generation. These activities need to
                be pursued in coordination with IGCC demonstration projects
                that are operating in a testing/demonstration mode. This
                effort requires added funding and a multi-year commitment.
                In addition, the Department's comprehensive fine
                particulate monitoring program should be fully funded
                (equipment is procured already) and studies related to the
                apportionment from various sources needs to be continued.
                (RECOMMENDED INCREASE: Restore $1.0 million in funding to
                maintain current year levels for the mercury control
                program and increase the fine particulate program element
                by $2.0 million.)
        --Innovations for existing plants (formerly AR&ET).--Waste
                management--Evaluating the stability of HAPs captured in
                flue gas desulfurization processes, on fly ash, in scrubber
                gypsum and in products made of these materials needs to be
                undertaken. (RECOMMENDED INCREASE: As the EPA determines
                the regulatory requirements for HAPs it is important that
                the wastes from coal-fired power plants be managed in
                acceptable ways. An additional $1.0 million is recommended
                for this initiative.)

                        CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY RESCISSION

        The fiscal year 2001 budget requests that $105 million in
    previously appropriated clean coal technology demonstration funds be
    rescinded. The CURC strongly recommends that this requested rescission
    be rejected. At a critical juncture when the budget request for coal
    and power systems has been reduced by more than $18.0 million below
    levels appropriated last year, when we are reminded again of the
    vulnerability of this country to an international oil cartel, and when
    the price of other energy resources, particularly natural gas, is
    increasing dramatically, now is the time to seek other appropriate uses
    for these funds in support of cleaner, more efficient, technologies to
    use coal in an environmentally sound fashion.
        The members of CURC are actively engaged in a consultative
    industry-wide process to agree upon a specific recommendation to the
    Congress for the use of clean coal funds now recommended for
    rescission. For example, the CURC is examining opportunities to reduce
    costs and significantly improve the operations of technologies that
    might be utilized on existing powerplants. Technology development will
    assure that the existing fleet of coal-fired plants can meet the
    current challenges of both environmental performance and capability for
    greater operating flexibility in a de-regulated electrically market
    Investment in technologies to support the existing fleet would need to
    be accelerated in the next 1-2 years. An accelerated program would
    ensure that the technologies are commercially viable and available in a
    timeframe that will assist owners/operators of existing coal-fired
    power plants to meet pending emissions requirements. Such an
    accelerated R&D program would focus resources on development and
    demonstration of advanced SOx, NOx and mercury control systems.
    Additional resources could be allocated to conduct research into ulta
    low-Nox burners and other combustion modifications, artificial
    intelligence, such as neural based controls to optimize plant
    operations to reduce NOx, CO, PM 2.5 and other airborne emissions,
    improve plant heat rates, and provide generating asset owners real-time
    knowledge of incremental capacity availability in order to improve
    overall national power grid stability during peak capacity needs.
    Additional resources might be allocated for solid waste management and
    utilization, or for improved SCR catalysts performance, particularly on
    units firing low sulfur western coals where worldwide experience is
    limited. In addition, funding could be made available to employ HIPPs
    and other advanced systems into field demonstrations as repowering
    techniques or strategies. Such a program, if successful, could reduce
    consumer costs and greatly benefit the environment. A portion of these
    funds also could be used to increase the budgets of the programs
    described in this statement. Or, these funds might be available to
    support advanced coal systems in new facilities. We expect to complete
    our analysis and provide the Congress with more specific
    recommendations and funding allocations within the near future.

                      REASONS FOR THE CURC RECOMMENDATIONS

        A number of specific and recent events add to the urgency of these
    recommendations. The dramatic increase in world crude oil prices and
    the resultant increase in the price of petroleum products, most notably
    gasoline, re-emphasizes the need for maintaining a variety of energy
    choices and options. And while the nation's vulnerability to crude oil
    price fluctuations is somewhat removed from the sustained use of U.S.
    coal resources it nevertheless serves as a stark reminder that
    dependence upon one fuel--especially one not derived from domestic
    resources--is dangerous to our economy and our national security.
    Recent increases in natural gas prices may escalate the time frame
    during which electricity power generators will consider the cost-
    effectiveness of new or refurbished coal powered generation as an
    alternative to natural gas. Natural gas is viewed as the ``fuel of
    choice'' for new generation and predicted to be so for the near term.
    Increased gas prices not only change that outlook but, unless newer
    more advanced clean coal technologies are made available sooner than
    expected, new coal-based generation will be constructed using current
    technology, which is economical and reliable, but does not apply
    advances in both efficiency and maximum environmental performance.
    Also, worth remembering is the fact that major new natural gas capacity
    will be imported from western Canada to supply the U.S. Midwest and
    from the east coast of Canada to supply the Northeast. U.S. coal is the
    indigenous domestic primary energy source that will act as an anchor to
    pricing of other fuels.
        Further, use of domestic coal resources will lend leverage and
    stability when there are political pressures elsewhere in the world
    that threaten to disrupt the economy as well as energy markets. And
    finally, new low emissions focused coal based combustion technologies
    for world markets need to be led by the U.S. Energy growth in markets
    like China and India will rely on western technologies. If we do not
    advance these coal-based technologies for emerging world markets,
    besides the loss of U.S. export business, we will ultimately pay the
    price in global environmental degradation.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the 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 appropriations for the Fossil Energy and
    Energy Conservation programs of the Department of Energy. The 125,000-
    member ASME is an international engineering society focused on
    technical, educational, and research issues. Energy research and the
    deployment of effective energy supply systems remain among the most
    important topics of interest to ASME members.

         NEED FOR ENERGY RESEARCH TO SUSTAIN THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY

        Virtually all predictions for energy use both nationally and
    globally show an increase in demand that will require more reliance on
    fossil fuels for electricity generation and for transportation.
        Annual growth rates for U. S. electricity generation are projected
    to range from 1.5 percent to 2.4 percent. Fossil fuels are forecasted
    to provide an increased share of our electricity generation mix by 2020
    as compared with their present 65 percent share. Regulations issued
    recently by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will require the
    installation of more efficient pollution control technologies,
    especially for coal fired systems, which could challenge the
    reliability of the electricity supply and increase electricity costs in
    some regions. Liquid fuels will continue to dominate the transportation
    sector, with about 97 percent of our transportation fuels currently
    being provided from petroleum-based feedstock. Our programs must
    develop increased fuel production technologies--including alternative
    fuels--to meet future expectations for supply and fuel quality.
        The economic boom our nation is currently experiencing is based in
    part on inexpensive energy supplies and the development of more
    efficient end use technologies, especially in our high energy intensive
    industries. We need a varied portfolio of vigorous energy research
    programs in both the Office of Fossil Energy and the Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy to ensure inexpensive, environmentally-
    friendly energy systems for continued economic growth. Our energy
    programs must maintain a diverse fuel mix for the power generation and
    transportation sectors.

                    PROGRAMS IN THE OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY

    General comments
        The COE Energy Committee is greatly disappointed that the proposed
    funding for Fossil Energy R&D projects has been reduced by $28 million
    compared to fiscal year 2000, especially the reductions in coal and
    power systems technologies. In order to meet the challenges of the 21st
    century, this account should be increased at least to the level of $433
    million recommended by the PCAST report of 1997. The Committee
    recommends that the increased funding be used primarily to enhance coal
    programs.
        The number of academic institutions offering graduate programs in
    the fuel and mineral sciences is markedly reduced compared to previous
    levels such that the supply of future scientists and engineers will be
    jeopardized unless we maintain funding for graduate student support.
    Programs specifically targeted toward university-based research should
    be increased by $3 million and expanded to include oil and natural gas.
        The role of, and funding for, the new National Energy Technology
    Laboratory in conducting research should be enhanced. Given the
    reduction in the number of industrial energy research laboratories over
    the past decade, there is need for a national center of excellence
    which can provide new ideas, conduct research, and preserve the current
    knowledge base in both the extraction [mining and related technologies]
    and utilization of fossil fuels. We recommend investments in the
    proposed Centers of Excellence at NETL in the areas of supercomputing,
    sequestration research, and advanced gas studies outlined in the budget
    request.

    Coal & power systems programs
        The COE Energy Committee recommends increased emphasis on the role
    of coal in our national energy mix, and reiterates its disappointment
    in the Administration's proposed cuts in coal and power systems
    programs. In addition to its traditional role in electric power
    generation, recent fluctuations in the supply and price of petroleum
    mandate an expanded role for coal in the production of clean
    transportation fuels and chemicals from coal. We are concerned that
    funding for the new Ultra Clean Fuels initiative is housed in the Oil
    Program budget; we recommend that at least one third of the $10 million
    allocated to this program be marked for developing coal-based fuels.
    Planned integration of the Ultra Clean Fuels program with the Office of
    Energy Efficiency is commended. Funding for the Transportation Fuels
    and Chemicals line item should be increased by at least $3 million to
    enable these programs to reach economic competitiveness with petroleum-
    based fuels and chemicals more readily, thereby promoting our energy
    and economic security. Vision 21 programs emphasizing the production of
    transportation fuels and chemicals from coal and the demonstration
    program for early entrance co-production plants should be continued and
    enhanced.
        Gas turbines and fuel cells offer the promise of dramatically
    increasing the efficiency of power generation. Funding for the turbine
    program must be increased to allow the development of mid-sized
    turbines, a ``missed'' market niche for central stations and dispersed
    applications. The very successful industry/university turbine
    consortium should be strengthened. Funding for solid state fuel cells,
    a technology of very high potential, needs to be increased. Research
    programs should be structured to ensure that coal can continue to be an
    option for fueling these new energy systems despite the current
    emphasis on natural gas fuels. Sufficient research should be done to
    ensure that advanced gas turbines could operate effectively from
    synthesis gas derived from coal. Gas separation systems must be
    developed to ensure realistic future options for using coal as the
    feedstock for fuel cell systems. We are supportive of the budget
    request for capture and sequestration technologies.
        While our research planning must ensure the development of future
    technologies, there is continued need to improve present coal-fired
    systems in view of their important role in the national energy mix and
    their projected deployment by developing countries. There is continued
    need for improvement in materials, pollution control technologies, and
    the development of advanced cycles based on coal-fired power generation
    systems. Power generation developers will be making decisions in the
    near future on the purchase of plants that will last at least 50 years
    into the future. Improved technologies are needed now to affect that
    decision process. We recommend that an additional $10 million be
    allocated to these programs for advanced coal-based power systems.

    Oil and natural gas programs
        The COE Energy Committee supports the proposed programs on
    improving technology through the development of ``rigless'' oil and gas
    drilling systems guided by ``smart'' sensors. Emphasis on ensuring the
    reliability of the natural gas infrastructure is necessary, especially
    since the demand for natural gas is projected to increase for
    applications such as power generation and transportation fuels.
    Deepwater frontiers offshore present significant opportunities to
    locate, drill, and produce large quantities of oil and natural gas.
    Significant R&D resources are required to produce and transport fuels
    from these regions. Additional research is needed to provide electrical
    power and to improve injection and separation technologies at the
    seabed; we recommend that an additional $3 million be allocated for
    such programs. We are excited about proposed new programs on the
    reliability of gas transmission and distribution systems, which we
    believe is a critical public policy issue in deregulated energy
    markets.
        Methane hydrates continue to offer promise as a vast source of
    natural gas once effective technologies for their recovery are at hand.
    The COE Energy Committee is strongly disappointed to learn that
    increased funding for methane hydrates was not appropriated last year
    and is even more dismayed at the lower level of funding recommended by
    the Administration for fiscal year 2001. Funding for methane hydrates
    research should be increased to $8 million. The continued development
    of drilling and reservoir technologies to promote the sequestration of
    carbon dioxide, while simultaneously producing oil and natural gas, is
    recommended.

      ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS IN THE OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
                                RENEWABLE ENERGY

    General comments
        The COE Energy Committee applauds the Administration's continuing
    effort to work with the nation's industries and the public to sustain a
    stronger economy, a cleaner environment, and a more secure future by
    developing and deploying less polluting energy efficient technologies.
    The recent large increase in oil prices has made R&D in advanced energy
    conservation technologies more pressing. At a strategic level, we
    recommend strengthening crosscutting research in thermal sciences and
    new materials to increase energy utilization efficiency in the
    transportation, industry, and building sectors. We urge continued
    emphasis on developing more energy efficient end-use technology options
    and the increased use of alternative fuels, which emit fewer
    pollutants.

    Office of Transportation Technologies
        We support the Administration's funding request for the Office of
    Transportation Technologies (OTT). A major component of the proposed
    program is directed toward improving the efficiency of diesel systems
    and reducing emissions. These programs focus on the development of
    better engines, reduced weight and advanced materials for the overall
    vehicle, and advanced concepts that include hybrid systems. Customer
    preferences for light trucks such as sport utility vehicles emphasize
    the need for developing more efficient engines for this market. The COE
    Energy Committee also recommends continued funding for alternative fuel
    programs, especially natural gas systems, to reduce our dependence on
    imported petroleum. The return on investment for the proposed 40
    percent increase in the biofuels program should be evaluated with
    respect to the viability of this technology in an open fuels market.
    Since our international neighbors rely more heavily on biofuels, we can
    attain economic benefits from deploying our own technologies while
    promoting a better global environment.
        We support the goals of the Partnership for a New Generation of
    Vehicles to develop automobiles with fuel economies approaching three
    times the current level. Attention should be paid to the overall
    automobile to ensure its acceptance by the public, including the effect
    of personal comforts such as air conditioning on the vehicle's overall
    performance. As a partnership program, interaction with the relevant
    industry sectors is necessary, and the COE Energy Committee commends
    OTT for its working relationships with industry participants.
        Continued emphasis should be placed on technology deployment and
    technician education programs to facilitate acquiring, deploying, and
    using alternatively fueled vehicles in the public and private sectors

    Office of Industrial Technologies
        We support the Administration's funding request for the Office of
    Industrial Technologies (OIT). The Industries of the Future program is
    focused on developing energy efficient, environmentally friendly
    processes for our most energy intensive industry sectors. The current
    emphasis on agricultural programs is welcomed. We recommend
    strengthening funding in key crosscutting areas that include not only
    existing programs, such as advanced materials and combustion, but also
    thermal sciences and emission reduction technologies not currently
    pursued by OIT. We recommend continued cooperation with Fossil Energy
    on programs in distributed generation and combined heat and power
    systems.
        The Mining Industries of the Future program should be strengthened
    and OIT's continued cooperation with Fossil Energy should be
    encouraged, especially in related areas such as advanced separations.
    The Mining IOF program is particularly important in view of the absence
    of a federal mining technology laboratory, and the continued decline in
    the number of in-house research laboratories supported by the mining
    industry.
        In view of the merits and success of the IOF program, we support
    increased investment in technical assistance for initiation of State
    IOF programs and deployment of advanced technologies by industry.

    Office of Building Technology
        While the COE Energy Committee supports the overall increase in
    funding recommended by the Administration for the buildings sector, we
    are concerned that insufficient funding is available for the science-
    based building research program. We support increased funding for
    building technology R&D, especially in under-funded program elements
    such as for energy-efficient refrigeration equipment and for commercial
    buildings integration. We recommend that an additional $5 million be
    allocated for the underfunded program elements cited above within the
    present funding request.
        We also support the expanded efforts in the State Energy program
    and the Building America initiative. We recommend that the deployment
    of advanced building technologies in K-12 schools be made as a priority
    item in these programs.
        As a general closing comment, the COE Energy Committee recommends
    that the Offices of Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency increase
    support for programs targeted toward academe to stimulate new ideas in
    energy research and education.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding the
    fossil energy and energy conservation budgets proposed for the
    Department of Energy. ASME's COE Energy Committee will be pleased to
    respond to requests for additional information or perspectives on other
    aspects of our nation's energy program.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of General Electric Power Systems

        This statement is submitted by General Electric Power Systems on
    behalf of GE Company (GE) for the information of the Committee during
    its review of the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2001 budget
    requests for Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    programs. The testimony addresses several key Department of Energy
    programs: the Advanced Turbine Systems (ATS) program, the Next
    Generation Gas Turbine Systems program, Distributed Energy Resources,
    and Lighting Research and Development.

                            ADVANCED TURBINE SYSTEMS

        GE strongly supports continued funding for the Advanced Turbine
    Systems (ATS) program, within the Fossil Energy budget account, and in
    particular, the Administration's $8.86 million request for utility-
    scale advanced turbines. GE has participated in the ATS program since
    its inception, and greatly appreciates the strong Congressional support
    for the program. The benefits to the nation of the ATS program will be
    realized through greater efficiency in the generation of electricity,
    leading to lower costs and reduced emissions, and producing jobs
    retention and growth in the turbine-related manufacturing industry.
        Through the government's partnership with industry, the ATS program
    has supported the development of the world's most efficient gas
    turbine, securing U.S. leadership in this critical technology area. In
    February, GE unveiled the 7H gas turbine, based on the new-generation H
    System technology, at the GE manufacturing facility
    in Greenville, South Carolina. The turbine passed a critical
    verification test--full speed, no load testing--in Greenville on
    February 11, 2000. The H System meets the ambitious
    technical goals established for the ATS program:
        Energy efficiency/lower costs.--The H System will
    operate at 60 percent efficiency in combined cycle operation,
    delivering significant gains and signaling a new era in U.S. energy
    technology leadership. GE's H System gas turbine is
    the world's first gas turbine to use steam from the steam turbine,
    rather than air, to cool the stationary and rotating hot gas path parts
    of the gas turbine. Advanced bucket and airfoil materials, along with
    revolutionary new steam-cooling technology, enable the H
    System to operate at the higher turbine inlet
    temperatures required to break the 60 percent efficiency barrier. The
    most efficient combined cycle systems currently operating reach only
    57-58 percent efficiency. Because fuel represents the largest single
    cost of running a power plant, an increase of even a single percentage
    point of efficiency can reduce operating costs by $15-20 million over
    the life of a typical gas-fired plant in the 400-500 megawatt range.
        Reduced emissions.--With increased efficiency comes decreased
    emissions per kilowatt hour generated, another central goal of the ATS
    program. Utilizing the advanced dry low-NOX combustion
    system, the H System will be the cleanest central
    power station option, and will achieve the goal of the ATS program of
    single digit emissions of NOX without post-combustion
    controls. The system's NOX emission levels of 9 parts per
    million will be half of the average of the turbines now in use, making
    this technology suitable for siting in environmentally constrained
    areas. The H System will emit the fewest tons of
    carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour of electricity generated of any gas
    turbine.
        Commercialization.--The goal of the ATS program was to produce
    technology ready for commercial deployment as demand for new electric
    power generation grows. This goal, too, is being met. Plans have
    already been made for the first commercial application of the H
    System technology. Two 60-hertz 7H turbines will be
    used to power the 800 MW Heritage Station plant in Scriba, New York,
    being developed by Sithe Energies. The facility is scheduled to go
    online during 2002.
        Risk to ATS technology.--In spite of these successes, however, GE
    would like to call the Committee's attention to a potential threat to
    the public-private investment made in producing the world's cleanest
    electricity generation technology. The Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) has begun a process to determine whether to mandate selective
    catalytic reduction (SCR) on new, high efficiency, low-NOX
    gas turbines. Requiring SCR as ``best available control technology''
    (BACT) on such turbines would reduce NOX emissions from 9
    ppm to 3.5 ppm.
        As the Committee is aware, the ATS program was premised on
    achieving emissions of NOX of 9 ppm without the use of post-
    combustion controls. This level represents a very substantial reduction
    from earlier turbine technologies. Imposition of an SCR mandate to
    achieve small additional reductions in NOX emissions not
    only would be inconsistent with the longstanding objective of the ATS
    program, but also would have adverse environmental impacts. The use of
    SCR can result in significant emissions of ammonia, and greenhouse gas
    emissions result when the ammonia byproduct is converted to nitrous
    oxide. Using SCR also creates the problem of disposal of spent catalyst
    hazardous waste, and increases emissions of particulate matter.
    Moreover, advanced gas turbines were designed to reduce NOX
    emissions without any compromise in efficiency. Installing SCR on a
    high efficiency gas turbine does reduce the turbine's efficiency,
    thereby resulting in increased carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt
    hour generated.
        An SCR mandate will encourage use of existing higher emitting,
    lower efficiency turbines. It will be less costly to install SCR on
    older, higher emitting units than on ATS technologies. As a result,
    requiring SCR on low-NOX, high efficiency natural gas
    turbines will make these advanced turbines less attractive
    economically, threatening the hundreds of millions of dollars invested
    in developing this technology by government and industry. The
    investment is substantial: GE has invested $500 million in the
    development of the H System, while the DOE cost share
    through the ATS program approaches $100 million.
        At the time this testimony is being submitted, GE is in discussions
    with EPA. GE remains hopeful that future EPA regulatory requirements
    relating to NOX will not undermine the remarkable success of
    this public private partnership.
        Summary.--The need for high efficiency, low emission turbine
    technology has never been clearer. 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--completed on time
    and on budget--will assure the availability of more efficient, lower
    emission domestic technology to meet this demand.

                      NEXT GENERATION GAS TURBINE SYSTEMS

        GE Power Systems has responded to DOE's request for proposals for a
    systems study evaluation of ``Next Generation Gas Turbine Systems.'' It
    is DOE's and GE Power Systems' intent to perform conceptual evaluations
    of advanced gas turbines in the 30-150 MW electric power generation
    range, with an emphasis on characteristics desirable for the
    restructuring U.S. electricity market. The criteria that will be used
    in evaluating aeroderivative and heavy frame concepts are rapid
    starting, high simple cycle efficiency, low life cycle system cost and
    lowest possible emissions. GE has participated in all the DOE workshops
    conducted during the formation of this program, and strongly supports
    this important DOE initiative.

                          DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES

        Against the successful background of DOE's cooperative efforts with
    industry in the Advanced Turbine Systems program, the Department has
    moved to consolidate and strengthen its distributed energy resources
    portfolio. GE encourages the Committee to join with industry
    stakeholders in strongly supporting the recent organizational changes
    made within the Department designed to maximize the organization and
    prioritization of the distributed energy portfolio. Having the
    commitment of the talents and skills of DOE's fossil energy and energy
    efficiency offices will bolster industry efforts to recognize the full
    potential of distributed energy.
        A major focus on distributed generation within the Department is
    especially timely now, as restructuring in the electricity industry and
    technological advances create opportunities for new and more efficient
    distributed generation technologies. It will be critical for the
    electricity marketplace of the future to have a diverse mix of
    efficient technologies available to meet demands for reliable, high
    quality power. Potential roles for distributed generation in the
    restructured electricity market include supporting available capacity
    to meet peak demands, providing critical loads with emergency standby
    power, improving power quality, supporting grid reliability and
    providing low cost energy in combined heat and power applications.
    Potential customers for distributed generation run the range from
    commercial and industrial users, to distribution utilities, power
    marketers and residential consumers.
        Key technologies being addressed in DOE's distributed generation
    portfolio include microturbines and fuel cells. Microturbines are small
    combustion turbines, generally with outputs in the 30kW to 200kW range.
    Microturbines are fuel flexible, and can be sized for a variety of
    applications, including commercial buildings and light industrial
    applications for cogeneration or power. Improving the efficiency of
    microturbines is a key technical challenge. Applications for
    microturbines will range from peak shaving to cogeneration, chillers,
    standby emergency power, and providing premium power demanded by the
    increasingly digital economy.
        Fuel cells will become an integral part of the new economy for the
    energy industry. Quiet, clean-running fuel cells hold the potential for
    very high system efficiency and low emissions. Today different
    technologies are in different stages of development and deployment.
    Fuel cells offer opportunities for cogeneration, onsite power, peaking
    and peak shaving. Major issues still to be addressed include reducing
    the cost of this technology and meeting manufacturing challenges.
        Advances in key enabling technologies also are necessary to support
    the introduction and utilization of distributed generation. Some of the
    challenges in distributed generation, such as the need for advanced
    materials, will be familiar to the Committee from the ATS program.
    Great progress has been made in the area of advanced materials, through
    the cooperative work of industry and the Department, including the Oak
    Ridge National Laboratory. Other challenges in distributed generation
    include the development of control technologies that will permit the
    effective deployment of distributed power generation options. There is
    a need for research and investments in the architecture, communications
    and grid controls that will connect generation systems, both
    distributed and central systems, and optimize overall energy
    performance.
        GE urges the Committee to provide adequate funding for initiatives
    in enabling technologies, sensor and control technologies and
    distributed energy resources, within the energy efficiency budget.
    DOE's budget request for distributed generation reflects a reduction
    from $27.3 million in fiscal year 2000 to $17.3 million in fiscal year
    2001. While this reduction may be attributed to reduced requirements
    for the industrial ATS program, given the challenges and opportunities
    for microturbines and other distributed generation technologies,
    funding more in keeping with prior year levels would be appropriate.

                       LIGHTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        Finally, GE supports the request for $6.36 million in lighting
    research, within the Building Research and Standards line item. GE
    would like to recognize the efforts of this Committee, and the
    Department, in focusing and prioritizing work in the area of lighting
    research. The buildings research portfolio, and its lighting component,
    has been substantially revitalized over the last several years. In
    particular, the institution of broad based solicitations has proven
    very successful in assuring the competitive selection of high quality
    R&D projects.
        This lighting R&D program is poised to contribute to the technology
    breakthroughs necessary to substantially increase energy efficiency
    while producing a lighting product that meets the needs of and is
    affordable to consumers. Major progress is being made: GE will launch a
    compact fluorescent lamp this summer that provides long life, improved
    color and higher energy efficiency. Importantly, this lamp will cost
    under $10. This dramatic decrease in price was enabled in part by DOE
    funded research at GE.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Urban Consortium Energy Task Force

        The Urban Consortium Energy Task Force (UCETF) submits this
    statement to advise the Committee of the progress of the applied energy
    research and development activities undertaken through the Department
    of Energy's (DOE) Municipal Energy Management Program (MEMP). As
    funding for MEMP is not included in the Administration's fiscal year
    2001 budget request, the UCETF also wishes to take this opportunity to
    highlight the many significant accomplishments of the MEMP program over
    the years that have enhanced the ability of local governments to
    design, implement and administer cutting edge energy policies and
    programs.

                                   BACKGROUND

        The UCETF is one of five task forces of Public Technology, Inc.'s
    (PTI) Urban Consortium. PTI is a not-for-profit organization founded in
    1971. PTI is the technology, research, development and
    commercialization arm of the National League of Cities, the National
    Association of Counties, and the International City/County Management
    Association. PTI's mission is to bring the benefits of technology to
    local governments.
        The Urban Consortium (UC) is a one-of-a-kind network of large local
    governments created to find practical, economic solutions to urban
    problems. Membership is composed of local government officials from
    America's largest and most progressive urban cities and counties. The
    UC serves as a catalyst for research and development of emerging
    technologies that can solve problems facing all local governments.
        For two decades, the UCETF has been a leader in developing and
    testing energy solutions, and sharing knowledge with local governments
    nationwide. The UCETF is made up of local government energy policy
    makers and administrators from major urban areas around the United
    States. Currently, 27 jurisdictions are represented on the UCETF:
    Albuquerque, NM; Austin, TX; Chicago, IL; Columbus, OH; Dayton, OH,
    Denver, CO; Fairfax County, VA; Greensboro, NC; Hennepin County, MN;
    Kansas City, MO; Little Rock, AR; Long Beach, CA; Memphis, TN; Monroe
    County, NY; Montgomery County, MD; New York, NY; Norfolk, VA;
    Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; San Diego, CA; San
    Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; Santa Monica, CA, Santa Fe County, NM;
    Seattle, WA; and Washington, D.C.
        The goal of the PTI/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 has met
    this objective, in part, by managing a competitive energy program with
    funding provided by DOE through MEMP. As the program was administered
    by PTI/UCETF, jurisdictions leveraged federal, state and local funds to
    conduct competitively selected energy research and technology transfer
    projects. The UCETF developed an annual solicitation for research
    projects to address the energy-related topics of the greatest common
    concern among local governments. The solicitation was broadly
    circulated throughout local governments across the nation, through
    PTI's sponsoring organizations. Proposals received in response to the
    solicitation were competitively evaluated and peer reviewed by local
    energy officials. Criteria used to select proposals included energy and
    dollar savings, innovation, job creation and economic development
    benefits, technology transfer opportunities, partnerships and cost
    sharing, benefits to the environment, and overall benefit to the
    community.
        More than 400 projects in over 60 different jurisdictions across
    the United States have been conducted through the PTI/UCETF-
    administered applied energy program over the years. From its early
    focus on energy emergency response and creating an energy management
    capability in local governments, the PTI/UCETF applied energy program
    grew to emphasize technology advances that can save energy and money,
    assure environmental quality and enhance prospects for local economic
    growth. The MEMP program served as a source of information and
    technical assistance to enable local governments to address the broad
    range of energy issues facing local communities. These issues include:
    the impacts of restructuring in the electricity industry, the
    opportunities for cost savings and environmental improvement through
    energy efficiency, and the opportunities for local economic growth
    associated with the deployment of renewable energy technologies.
        PTI/UCETF also undertakes a variety of technology transfers 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. PTI/UCETF will
    continue to perform these vital functions for local governments in the
    future.

                    THE ONGOING UCETF APPLIED ENERGY PROGRAM

        The 1999-2000 PTI/UCETF applied energy research and development
    program is supporting the following energy technology development/
    application and technology transfer projects:
        Distributed Generation/Options for Local Governments in A
    Restructured Electricity Marketplace.--PTI/UCETF has long been in the
    forefront of efforts to prepare local governments and local communities
    for the changes coming in the electricity market. As an extension of
    these activities, the MEMP program is supporting several projects
    focusing on issues in restructuring, including new opportunities for
    the deployment of distributed generation technologies. Phoenix, AZ
    plans to demonstrate the effectiveness of using microturbine generators
    in medium-sized municipal facilities. Barnstable County, MA is
    examining the role of local government in advancing distributed
    generation technologies in a competitive utility marketplace. Lincoln
    County, ME is considering how non-urban customers and small businesses
    in small communities will fare in a restructured utility marketplace.
    Memphis, TN is implementing a residential fuel cell demonstration
    project. Washington, D.C. is considering how the use of city government
    procurement policies can assist in the aggregation of low-income
    customers to enable these customers to take advantage of competition in
    the energy marketplace. San Francisco, CA is developing tools to
    facilitate municipal building energy retrofits in a changing
    electricity industry.
        Community Based Approaches to Energy Issues.--Jurisdictions
    conducting projects in this area are developing and implementing
    community based initiatives to respond to local energy priorities.
    Portland, OR is developing a model approach for local governments to
    acquire resources from state ``public benefits'' funds established as
    part of electric restructuring for use in local energy efficiency
    projects. Seattle, WA is investigating the productivity benefits of
    sustainable commercial building practices, and the demand for such
    benefits from developers and tenants. Chisago, MN is developing a
    county-wide energy plan. Hennepin County, MN is addressing the need for
    educational, marketing and public outreach support for the creation of
    an E85 refueling infrastructure in the Twin Cities area.
        Solar.--Jurisdictions are investigating energy efficiency and solar
    energy applications to meet local needs. San Jose, CA is considering
    emergency disaster applications for photovoltaics and developing a
    sustainable energy emergency action plan for the city. Albuquerque, NM
    is demonstrating municipal applications integrating photovoltaics and
    light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for outdoor lighting applications. Santa
    Barbara, CA is calculating the benefits of and developing an outreach
    campaign for the local deployment of solar energy systems. The Yavapai-
    Apache Nation, AZ is studying power quality and reliability issues
    unique to the local Native American community.
        Technology Transfer.--The UCETF is conducting three projects
    specifically designed to document, transfer and apply lessons learned
    through local government energy programs. Tucson, AZ is planning for
    the implementation of Cool Communities concepts on a small-scale basis.
    Anaheim, CA is implementing an electric vehicle car-sharing program,
    and documenting the implementation methodology for replication in other
    areas. Cheshire, CT is exploring outdoor lighting applications deployed
    in other jurisdictions, including projects developed under the auspices
    of MEMP, to develop appropriate applications for the county.

             SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE UCETF/MEMP PROGRAM

        The Municipal Energy Management Program has greatly increased the
    ability of local governments to identify, design and implement energy
    policies that support local economic objectives, including job growth
    and retention. For many years, MEMP was the only Federal energy
    efficiency research, development and technology application and
    transfer program directed by local governments and responding to the
    specific energy-related needs of local governments.
        Energy solutions developed with the help of the UCETF have already
    saved millions of dollars, measurably cut energy consumption across the
    country and made breathing easier for millions of Americans. The UCETF
    has achieved these results one community at a time. For example,
      --Denver, Colorado.--Local governments in the Denver area are saving
            hundreds of thousands of dollars by implementing an innovative
            system they learned about through the UCETF. By replacing the
            Denver metro area's 1,200 incandescent traffic lights with
            energy-efficient LED signals, the city and county save almost a
            quarter million dollars a year, and substantially reduce air
            emissions.
      --San Francisco, California.--The City of San Francisco is evaluating
            the energy efficiency services emerging within the newly
            restructured electric utility industry. The city is developing
            guidance for local governments across the country in evaluating
            the increasingly complex services offered by energy service
            companies (ESCOs), and developing ``in house'' energy
            management services so cities can hold down the amount they pay
            to ESCOs.
      --Memphis, Tennessee.--Memphis is implementing a plan for a building
            automation network that will centralize monitoring and control
            of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment
            by electronically linking city buildings. The system will save
            money by making overall management of energy use by city HVAC
            equipment more efficient.
        Every day, technology becomes a more and more important part of
    finding the energy solutions local governments need. The Urban
    Consortium Energy Task Force is creating new options and opportunities
    for every local government to cut costs, boost revenues, improve
    services, and enhance the quality of life of their citizens.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Local governments are and must remain a crucial component of the
    effort to maintain the United States' position as the world's leader in
    developing, applying and exporting sustainable, environmentally benign
    and economically competitive energy technologies. PTI/UCETF will
    continue to provide important opportunities for hands-on applied energy
    research in local communities, serving as an urban laboratory for the
    development, testing and deployment of new energy and renewable energy
    technologies, programs and practices.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Ford Motor
                    Company, and General Motors Corporation

        Through the United States Council for Automotive Research (USCAR),
    DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors coordinate collaborative,
    pre-competitive basic research with the U.S. Government (USG) over a
    broad range of technologies. One of the federal agencies that is
    critical to the success of many USCAR endeavors is the Department of
    Energy (DOE). DaimlerChryster, Ford, and General Motors provide this
    statement in support of DOE's fiscal year 2001 automotive research
    budget.

                                PROGRAM OVERVIEW

        An important element of DOE's budget proposal is the Partnership
    for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program. Through this
    initiative, USCAR and several federal agencies are jointly researching
    leading edge, ``breakthrough'' automotive technologies. The three goals
    of the partnership are to: (1) enhance manufacturing productivity, (2)
    improve the fuel efficiency of conventional vehicles, and (3) pursue
    high risk technologies that could lead to a fuel efficiency improvement
    of up to three times that of today's vehicles, without compromising
    safety, performance, utility, or affordability. The program relies
    extensively on the technical contributions of the federal labs; many
    small, high technology U.S. businesses; universities; and a broad cross
    section of the supplier community.
        With respect to the third goal, the program is structured to
    evaluate advanced technologies in three principal phases. In the first
    phase, the partnership identified those technologies considered to be
    the most promising for achieving the aggressive fuel efficiency target.
    During the second phase, which is drawing to a close, concept vehicles
    incorporating, key technologies are being developed to demonstrate
    technical feasibility. The final phase is aimed at developing
    production prototypes by the year 2004 that will demonstrate cost
    effective manufacturing feasibility. Research on the most promising
    technologies will continue in parallel with the vehicle systems
    research efforts in phases two and three.

                            MAJOR MILESTONE REALIZED

        Over six years into the partnership, PNGV continues to report solid
    progress toward developing enabling technologies for affordable family
    sedans capable of achieving up to 80 miles per gallon with very low
    emissions. DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors realized a major
    milestone in the program early this year with the unveiling of PNGV
    concept cars. The DaimlerChrysler ESX3, Ford Prodigy and the General
    Motors Precept have each incorporated several PNGV technologies,
    including Compression Ignition Direct-Injection (CIDI) engines in
    hybrid configurations with advanced batteries, lightweight materials,
    improved aerodynamics, and low rolling resistance tires. However, the
    designs of all three vehicles, as well as their expected performance,
    are quite unique. This resulted from each company employing a different
    integration strategy in an attempt to meet the very aggressive goals of
    the Partnership.
        While the concept vehicles demonstrate the technical feasibility of
    achieving the PNGV fuel efficiency goals, continued focus and research
    is needed to bring these technologies to an affordable, production-
    ready state. PNGV's goal is to build production prototypes in 2004. The
    research plans and portfolio are designed to support that event.
        In addition to the hybrid-electric concepts, the three companies
    also revealed new demonstrations of fuel cell technology in concept
    vehicles. Specifically, DaimlerChrysler debuted the NECAR 4, a
    driveable compact fuel cell powered vehicle; Ford unveiled its
    driveable P2000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicle; and General Motors revealed
    the Precept fuel cell concept vehicle with an advanced hydride hydrogen
    storage system.

                            RECENT RESEARCH PROGRESS

        In addition to these new concepts, progress has also been
    demonstrated in each of the four key system areas that PNGV has chosen
    to focus and accelerate its research and technology development
    efforts: direct-injection engines, fuel cells, lightweight materials,
    and electric traction systems for both hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.
    Examples of recent work in each area follow.
    Direct-Injection (DI) Engines
      --Advanced Fuels Testing
        [Participants: PNGV Fuels Working Group, 4SDI Technical Team, SwRI]
        The auto industry has recently completed an evaluation of several
    advanced diesel fuel formulations.
        The testing was performed on each company's proprietary CIDI engine
    at a variety of common speeds/load points. The results directionally
    confirm earlier results from SwRI that advanced fuels help reduce
    emissions, namely NOX and particulates. A second phase of
    testing, to optimize engine calibration for the various fuels and to
    include aftertreatment systems, is being discussed.
      --Mixing and Transport of EGR
        [Participants: PNGV 4SDI Technical Team, DOE, Sandia National
    Laboratory]
        Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) can be an effective way of reducing
    emissions. However, at the high EGR levels needed for PNGV, many
    engines exhibit cylinder-to-cylinder variations. Excessive EGR causes
    particulates to increase and causes poor transient engine response.
    This project has demonstrated a fully functional engine equipped with
    optical access to each port with data acquisition in progress.
      --CIDI Aftertreatment Demonstration
        [Participants: PNGV 4SDI Technical Team, Los Alamos National
    Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National
    Laboratory]
        Developed aftertreatment technologies capable of up to 50 percent
    reduction in oxides of nitrogen (NOX) under the high
    efficiency lean bum conditions of advanced diesel engines.
    Fuel Cells
        Fuel cells combine hydrogen and oxygen to generate electricity,
    which is used to power a motor that drives a vehicle's wheels.
    Accomplishments in the area of fuel cells include:
      --Full-Scale Microchannel Gasoline Vaporizer (Pacific Northwest
            National Laboratory, Epyx).--A microchannel gasoline vaporizer
            1/10th the size of conventional units has been successfully
            tested for 50 kWe fuel processing systems. A
            pressure drop of less than 2 psi through the microchannels was
            realized.
      --Fuel Processing Catalyst (Argonne National Laboratory).--ANL
            developed a fuel processing catalyst that allows a 30 percent
            reduction in shift reactor volume.
    Lightweight Materials
      --Lightweight Hybrid Body Completed Testing and Validation
        [Participants: PNGV Materials & Vehicle Engineering Technical
    Teams, Multimatic]
        The Multimatic hybrid construction ultra-light weight body achieved
    67 percent weight reduction (96 kg vs. 269 kg reference). In 1999 the
    body completed static and validation testing and was crash tested into
    a barrier at 30 mph.
      --Design & Product Optimization for Cast Light Metals
        [Participants: PNGV Materials Technical Team, Lawrence Livermore
    National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory]
        Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) & Sensor Technologies.--LLNL has
    developed Infrared Fiber Optic Sensors that have been installed in two
    production aluminum casting molds. One application is for gravity cast,
    and the other is for a high pressure die cast mold cavity. These
    sensors offer rapid response when compared to standard thermocouples.
    The new sensors can measure mold temperature, metal temperature, and
    cavity fill. The fiber optic is sensitive enough to measure cooling
    curves for the specific alloy being cast. This has the potential to
    allow determination of alloy composition and/or modification state.
        Mechanical Property Simulation Model.--A math-based model has been
    developed by SNL to accurately predict static and dynamic failure. The
    SNL model is a constitutive damage model which tracks damage (crack
    nucleation, propagration, coalescence, fracture) occurring under
    various load conditions. The model has been validated on a cast
    aluminum lower rear control arm.
      --Advanced Forming Technologies for Aluminum
        [Participants: PNGV Materials Technical Team, University of
    Michigan, Alcoa, Troy Design, Erie Press]
        The participants successfully improved the formability of aluminum
    sheet (without wrinkling and/or ZD tearing) through warm forming and
    binder load control.
        Warm Forming of Aluminum.--This process was successfully
    demonstrated on a Neon door panel.
        Variable Force Binder Technology.--The force on the edge of a
    stamping part (binder force) regulates the flow of material into the
    die so that no wrinkles or splits occur. By varying the force on the
    blank (a sheet of flat metal) during the stamping process, the window
    (percentage of blank size that can be used) for producing good parts
    may be enlarged. In October 1999, this technology was successfully
    demonstrated at Troy Design.
    Electric Traction Systems
        In the area of advanced power electronics, DOE has selected two
    teams to research, develop and demonstrate Automotive Electric Motor
    Drives (AEMD). Delphi Automotive is pursuing a 325 volt AC induction
    motor system, while Delco Remy is investigating a 132 volt DC brushless
    configuration. Final reports are due in 2002.
        Progress continues to be made in the area of high-power energy
    storage. Electrochemistry for longer life lithium-ion batteries has
    been identified (3-5 years; up from 2 years). Detailed production cost
    studies have been completed, with cost reductions needed in all cell
    core materials.
        These accomplishments are impressive. However, the ultimate goal of
    PNGV is that customers realize the benefits of these technologies
    through vehicles that cost no more to own and operate than comparable
    conventional vehicles. Additional technology breakthroughs and
    advancements will be required to realize that goal. In addition, new
    Tier 2 emission standards announced by the EPA will require
    breakthroughs in the areas of engine combustion, controls, and
    aftertreatment.

                        KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PARTNERSHIP

        PNGV has become one of the most visible examples of a successful
    partnership between industry and government. By working cooperatively
    on pre-competitive, basic research, the program strategically aligns
    tile goals of the three industry partners and suppliers with those
    federal agencies and labs that are engaged in similar or complementary
    research programs. This permits a large number of previously separate
    projects to be channeled into a coherent, focused program that
    eliminates duplication of efforts, reduces costs, and enhances learning
    through team participation.
        Not surprisingly, this program has become far more than a
    Washington-Detroit partnership. In addition to automotive suppliers and
    federal labs, PNGV has also benefited from the participation of
    universities, small businesses, and individual inventors. In fact, this
    program has sponsored more than 1200 projects at 622 sites around the
    country, representing 47 states. This broad-based participation
    provides an alternative pathway for some of the technologies developed
    under PNGV to be implemented in other important industries. The result
    is a true national effort, using strategic alignment of both private
    industry and Federal Government resources to produce considerable
    technology research leveraging opportunities for all parties. Without
    USG support, much of this would not be possible.
        The PNGV objectives include development of the basic technology
    breakthroughs needed to significantly improve the next generation of
    automobiles and the manufacturing research necessary to produce them.
    These research goals are in the public interest because research and
    development of breakthrough technologies hold the promise of addressing
    societal concerns about reducing dependence on imported oil, improving
    air quality, and enhancing the global competitiveness of our products
    and companies. Our belief is that cooperation between government and
    industry is more effective than traditional command and control
    regulations. For example, within PNGV, the voice of the customer is
    achieved by maintaining a vehicle systems perspective. This is critical
    to the successful introduction of advanced technology into the
    marketplace. Keeping customer interests (such as comfort, performance,
    utility, and affordability) prominent in the decision process helps to
    ensure market acceptance and a greater likelihood that high-technology
    products will proliferate more quickly. A vehicle systems perspective
    helps keep the component research focused on the key barriers.
    Conversely, regulation aimed at improving air quality and achieving
    energy consumption reductions do not reflect the demands of the market,
    often run counter to consumer needs, and result in competitive market
    distortions, job losses, and reduced affordability of vehicles.

                           SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

        DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors believe strongly in the
    merits of research being conducted under collaborative programs such as
    PNGV and are committed to maintaining a meaningful level of effort and
    resource expenditure on such programs. Just as critical to the
    successful completion of program objectives is sustained government
    participation. The National Research Council Standing Committee's Fifth
    Review of the Research Program of the PNGV (May, 1999) concurs that
    progress in on-track. ``In the past year, more progress was made
    towards meeting PNGV goals than in previous years.'' Later, the report
    supports the need for continued and additional resources. ``Despite
    these positive developments, the Committee believes the PNGV program
    will need additional resources.''
        DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors strongly urge continued
    support of this program, which we believe is in the best interests of
    consumers, industry, government, and the nation as a whole. In
    particular, the DOE's transportation technology programs in the areas
    of direct-injection engines, fuel cells, lightweight materials, and
    electric traction systems for both hybrid and fuel cell vehicles
    reflect PNGV's highest priorities. These programs are vital to the
    success of PNGV. Significant cuts in the level of federal funding would
    undoubtedly delay achievement of many research goals and perhaps
    necessitate a revision to the scope of the program.
                                     ______

        PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
                                   CALIFORNIA

                                    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 second annual installment payment
    of compensation due in fiscal year 2000 to the State for its interest
    in the Elk Hills Reserve. This was done by means of an advance
    appropriation of $36 million to become available at the beginning of
    fiscal year 2001.
        The President's fiscal year 2001 Budget includes a request for an
    advance appropriation for payment to the State of the remaining five
    annual installments of compensation due to the State, to be payable in
    fiscal years 2002-2006 and to be made available on or about October 1
    of each fiscal year, as follows: for fiscal year 2002, $36 million; for
    fiscal year 2003, $36 million; for fiscal year 2004, $36 million; for
    fiscal year 2005, $60 million; for fiscal year 2006, $60 million.
        The California State Teachers' Retirement System respectfully urges
    the Subcommittee's serious consideration of including in the fiscal
    year 2001 Interior Appropriations bill an advance appropriation to
    provide for the remaining annual installments of Elk Hills compensation
    due to the State. At a minimum, Congress should appropriate for fiscal
    year 2001 the $36 million to fulfill the Federal Government's
    obligation to make the third annual installment payment of
    compensation, due in fiscal year 2001 under the settlement that
    Congress directed the Administration to achieve.
        The entire 52 Member California House delegation recently signed a
    letter of strong support for the Elk Hills appropriation.

                                   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 (fiscal years 1999-2003) and the balance of the amount due
    split evenly between years 6 and 7 (fiscal year 2004-2005).

                      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 the Elk Hills School Lands Fund for the
    express purpose of compensating the State. (The balance in the Elk
    Hills School Lands fund has been reduced by an approximately $26
    million ``hold-back'' from the State's share pending the final equity
    determination of the Federal Government's share of the Elk Hills field
    vis-a-vis its co-owner prior to the sale, Chevron. This escrow will be
    released once the final equity shares are determined.)

       THE PRESIDENT HAS REQUESTED APPROPRIATION OF THE REMAINING ANNUAL
        INSTALLMENTS OF COMPENSATION DUE UNDER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

        In the Administration's Budget for fiscal year 2001, the President
    has requested an advance appropriation for payment to the State of the
    remaining five annual installments of compensation due to the State
    under the Settlement Agreement, to be payable in fiscal years 2002-2006
    and to be made available on or about October 1 of each fiscal year, as
    follows: for fiscal year 2002, $36 million; for fiscal year 2003, $36
    million; for fiscal year 2004, $36 million; for fiscal year 2005, $60
    million; for fiscal year 2006, $60 million. (The Administration's
    requested appropriations do not include the $26 million ``holdback''
    from the State's share pending the final determination of the Federal
    Government's equity interest in Elk Hills or the State's 9 percent
    share of any additional sales proceeds that the Federal Government
    would receive upon increase of its equity interest.)
      congress should appropriate the funds due under the settlement that
                congress directed the administration to achieve
        The California State Teachers' Retirement System respectfully urges
    the Subcommittee's serious consideration of including in the fiscal
    year 2001 Interior Appropriations bill an advance appropriation to
    provide for the remaining annual installments of Elk Hills compensation
    due to the State under the Settlement Agreement with the Federal
    Government. At a minimum, Congress should appropriate for fiscal year
    2001 the $36 million to fulfill the Federal Government's obligation to
    make the third annual installment payment of compensation due in fiscal
    year 2001 under the settlement that Congress directed the
    Administration to achieve. The entire 52 Member California House
    delegation recently signed a letter dated March 17, 2000 to the House
    Interior Appropriations Subcommittee strongly supporting the Elk Hills
    appropriation.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction
                                    Science

        C1 chemistry is the conversion of carbon-containing gases that
    contain one carbon atom per molecule, such as natural gas, synthesis
    gas and carbon dioxide, into transportation fuels and other 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 2001. This
    represents a modest increase over the $1.4 million of funding provided
    for this program by DOE in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. The
    CFFLS research program on C1 chemistry is a cooperative program jointly
    supported 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 by gasification of
    coal, biomass, or organic wastes, and by reforming of natural gas with
    steam or carbon dioxide. C1 chemistry is currently used to produce
    nearly all hydrogen and methanol and many valuable chemicals. Because
    of new environmental standards now being promulgated, C1 chemistry is
    likely to become a major source of clean, high efficiency,
    transportation fuel in the U.S. early in the next century.
        In order to insure that our research produces results that are of
    practical value to industry, we have established an Industrial Advisory
    Board (IAB) to review and focus our C1 chemistry program. The IAB
    includes members from Chevron, Daimler-Chrysler, Eastman Chemical, the
    Department of Defense, and Teir Associates. In cooperation with the IAB
    and DOE, the Consortium has identified several research topics that are
    being emphasized in this program, which are listed below.
      --Development of new Fischer-Tropsch technology to produce oxygen-
            containing transportation fuels that produce less emissions and
            have higher efficiency.
      --Development of new fuel additives to improve the efficiency and
            decrease emissions of diesel fuel and gasoline. These additives
            could replace MTBE.
      --Development of novel processes for producing syngas and hydrogen.
        A brief summary of the progress that has been made in the CFFLS
    program for each of these research topics is given below.
        Improved Fischer-Tropsch fuels.--A principal goal of the U.S. 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. Several catalysts have been identified in the CFFLS C1
    program that promote the incorporation of oxygen into diesel fuel
    produced via the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should cause easier
    ignition and more complete burnout of the fuel. Consequently, higher
    mileage per gallon and lower emissions of fine particulate matter
    should be the result of this fuel modification.
        This will be tested in future diesel engine experiments at the
    National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).
        New fuel additives.--Good progress has been made on the development
    of catalysts and processing conditions for the production of a number
    of compounds that may make excellent additives for transportation fuel.
    These additives are expected to improve the efficiency and decrease
    emissions of diesel fuel and gasoline. The most widely used
    transportation fuel additive, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), has
    been found in the ground water in California and is likely to be banned
    soon in that State. The compounds we are working on include dialkyl
    carbonates and higher ethers and alcohols containing from six to nine
    carbon atoms per molecule. Such compounds are much less volatile and
    much less soluble in water than MTBE and therefore are much less likely
    to be dispersed into the ground water. The dialkyl carbonates are
    biodegradable into carbon dioxide and water.
        Production of syngas and hydrogen.--There is an abundance of remote
    natural gas, such as that associated with the Alaskan oil fields, that
    is currently being wasted. Therefore, it is important to develop more
    effective technology to convert natural gas into liquid products that
    can be transported by pipeline or tanker. The costliest step of this
    process is converting the natural gas into syngas. 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 on this topic is focused on catalytic reforming
    of natural gas with carbon dioxide or mixtures of steam and carbon
    dioxide. The goal is to develop novel catalysts with higher activities
    and longer lifetimes.
        Hydrogen research is focused on the development of nanoscale
    catalysts to produce hydrogen from syngas, methanol, natural gas or
    higher hydrocarbons. 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. Consequently, we will explore methods of
    extracting hydrogen from various liquid fuels. An alternative approach
    is the development of safe, stable, hydrogen storage materials for use
    on vehicles.

                      ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

        Technology to be developed in this program could have significant
    economic and environmental impact. The value of the products produced
    by C1 chemistry (diesel fuel, transportation fuel additives, hydrogen,
    etc.) could eventually exceed $70 billion per year, while oil imports
    could be significantly reduced. At the same time, emissions of fine
    particulate matter, carbon dioxide, and sulfur and nitrogen oxides
    could be reduced by as much as 10 percent.

                           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,
    syngas, carbon dioxide, and methanol) into ultra clean, high efficiency
    transportation fuel. The CFFLS is requesting $1.6 million from the
    Department of Energy to support this program in fiscal year 2001. This
    would be a modest increase over the $1.4 million allocated for the
    program in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. The five Consortium
    universities will provide $0.25 of cost sharing for every $1.00 of
    federal funding, or $400,000 in fiscal year 2001.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the National Research Center for Coal and Energy,
                            West Virginia University

        Dear Chairman Gorton and Members of the Subcommittee: We are
    writing to request your support for the C-1 Chemistry research program
    of the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science. Our research is
    focused on producing clean alternative liquid transportation fuels from
    feedstocks such as coal and natural gas. We seek funding at a level of
    $1.2 million for fiscal year 2001 in the budget of the Office of
    Transportation Technologies of the U.S. DOE Office of Energy Efficiency
    and Renewable Energy. This request is an increase of $0.2 million over
    the level supported by your Subcommittee for fiscal year 2000.
        Recent forecasts by the Energy Information Agency of the U.S.
    Department of Energy predict that our nation's dependence on foreign
    oil will increase from its present level of around 50 percent of our
    total consumption to about 63 percent of consumption in the next
    fifteen years. Our energy security will be increasingly in jeopardy
    unless we can develop alternative sources of liquid transportation
    fuels.
        In the near future, the Environmental Protection Agency is expected
    to propose tightening diesel fuel and diesel engine sulfur emission
    standards. The sulfur content of diesel fuels is projected to be
    reduced from the current standard of 500 parts per million to 15 parts
    per million in 2006. Fuel for cars and light trucks would be limited to
    no more than 30 ppm, a 90 percent reduction over the sulfur content in
    most gasoline currently on the market.
        The national concern over the current rise in prices at the
    gasoline pump has driven home our dependence on liquid transportation
    fuels. Increased fuel costs are already causing unwanted adverse
    changes in our overall economy.
        These factors demonstrate the relevance and importance of our
    research program.
        C-1 Chemistry begins with the conversion of natural gas or coal
    into synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. When
    syngas is produced from coal by gasification, undesirable minerals such
    as sulfur can be readily removed, thereby ensuring that a clean
    transportation fuel can be made upon further processing. When natural
    gas is used as a feedstock, C-1 Chemistry processes require fewer
    clean-up steps, but the initial fuel cost is higher than coal. Further
    processing of syngas streams by using tailored catalysts can produce a
    wide variety of liquid fuels and fuel additives, including hydrogen.
    Some processes utilize carbon dioxide, thereby reducing the emission of
    greenhouse gases.
        C-1 Chemistry processes are an integral part of important national
    energy programs. C-1 Chemistry can be applied in the conversion of
    remote natural gas, as in the Alaskan oil fields. Under the Vision 21
    program, gasification units are integrated into co-production
    facilities to produce turbine fuels for power generation or to produce
    liquid transportation fuels or chemicals. Our research also contributes
    to the Ultra Clean Fuels initiative proposed by DOE for their fiscal
    year 2001 program.
        Investments in C-1 Chemistry research are required for optimizing
    the conversion of feedstock fuel into final products, for evaluating
    the characteristics of fuels and fuel additives produced, and for
    testing these fuels in engine systems. Further research will reduce the
    cost of producing fuel to enable our nation to more readily meet its
    transportation needs using indigenous resources. Value added chemicals
    will be a useful byproduct of this research program.
        Our Consortium provides 20 percent of the cost of the research. We
    work closely with DOE program managers in both Fossil Energy and Energy
    Efficiency. An Industry Advisory Board provides guidance to our
    program.
        Our program integrates well with the major transportation fuel
    initiatives of the U.S. Department of Energy. The relatively modest
    cost of basic research investments will be reflected in cleaner and
    cheaper transportation fuels in future years. In addition to economic
    and energy security benefits, these initiatives will provide increased
    health benefits as harmful emissions from cars and trucks are reduced.
        We are appreciative of your past support. We urge your funding of
    the C-1 Chemistry program of our Consortium in fiscal year 2001. We
    would be pleased to provide additional information about our programs
    and accomplishments.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction
                          Science, University of Utah

        In your considerations for the fiscal year 2001 Budget, I recommend
    support for the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science
    (CFFLS), a five-university research consortium with approximately 90
    participants from: the University of Kentucky, West Virginia
    University, the University of Utah, the University of Pittsburgh, and
    Auburn University. Over the past three 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 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 initiated a basic research program on C1 chemistry
    that was included in the DOE budgets for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
    year 2000.
        The Consortium made a thorough study of C1 chemistry to determine
    which research topics should be emphasized to meet our national energy
    needs and environmental goals. In order to insure that the research
    produces results that are of practical value to industry, the
    Consortium has established an industrial advisory board (IAB) to review
    and focus the Consortium's C1 chemistry program. The IAB includes
    members from Chevron, Daimler-Chrysler, Eastman Chemical, the
    Department of Defense, and Teir Associates. In cooperation with the IAB
    and DOE, the Consortium has identified several research topics that are
    being emphasized in this program, which are listed below.
      --Development of new Fischer-Tropsch technology to produce oxygen-
            containing transportation fuels that produce less emissions and
            have higher efficiency.
      --Development of new fuel additives to improve the efficiency and
            decrease emissions of diesel fuel and gasoline. These additives
            could replace MTBE.
      --Development of novel processes for producing syngas and hydrogen.
        The CFFLS is requesting $1.6 million from the Department of Energy
    to support this program in fiscal year 2001. The five consortium
    universities will provide $0.25 of cost sharing for every $1.00 of
    federal funding, or $400,000 in fiscal year 2001. Your support for this
    important program is requested.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the University of Pittsburgh

        We are offering this testimony in support of a request for
    continued funding for research on C1 chemistry which involves the
    conversion of simple molecules such as natural gas, synthesis gas (a
    mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide), carbon dioxide and methanol
    into efficient, environmentally clean fuels and chemicals. This
    research is being conducted by the Consortium for Fossil Fuels
    Liquefaction Science and is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.
    The Consortium includes the Universities of Pittsburgh, Kentucky and
    Utah as well as West Virginia and Auburn Universities.
        There is a growing need for efficient diesel fuel that has little
    or no sulfur, nitrogen or aromatic material, substances responsible for
    harmful emissions, especially of particulate matter consisting of black
    sooty material. The Consortium is engaged in research to produce clean,
    high cetane diesel fuel containing built-in oxygen atoms, by adding
    certain oxygenated compounds to petroleum-derived diesel fuel or by
    oxidizing petroleum diesel by blowing air through the fuel.
        Work is also being conducted on converting heavy materials such as
    Fischer-Tropsch waxes and waste polymers to diesel fuel or to gasoline,
    both environmentally clean and fuel efficient. A new and robust
    catalyst has been found that can convert heavy materials by
    hydrocracking and hydroisomerization to diesel fuel, jet fuel and, in
    the future, to needed lubricant oils. Work on using carbon dioxide as
    an oxidizing agent to convert various materials to high volume, high
    value chemicals is also proceeding.
        The Consortium is a much-needed resource team to provide trained
    engineers and chemists who will supply the talent to meet the needs of
    industry, especially those concerned with supplying the energy that is
    crucial to our economy. Students who have been trained by Consortium
    researchers are already important contributors to major firms.
        The work of the Consortium is of great value to the health and
    wealth of this country. It is recommended that funding for the
    Consortium, now at $1.4 million, be increased to 1.6 million in fiscal
    year 2002. The undersigned recommend and request your strong support
    for the much-needed program and budget proposed for the Consortium.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Auburn University

        Auburn University, in conjunction with the universities of
    Kentucky, West Virginia, Utah, and Pittsburgh, is a member of the
    Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science (CFFLS). In 1999, this
    consortium initiated a new basic research program in C1 chemistry. C1
    chemistry is the conversion of carbon containing gases with one carbon
    atom per molecule such as synthesis gas, methanol, and carbon dioxide,
    into transportation fuels. The fuels, hydrogen and methanol, made
    through C1 chemistry bum cleanly and provide a new source of
    environmentally friendly fuels. C1 chemistry also offers the
    opportunity to make (produce?) valuable fuel additives that promote the
    clean burning of petroleum fuels.
        Research at Auburn University is directed toward the development of
    processes to synthesize higher ethers from synthesis gas and methanol
    that will serve as additives to gasoline and diesel fuels. These
    oxygen-containing additives promote combustion and assist petroleum
    fuels in burning more completely and efficiently. The addition of these
    additives decreases the emissions from the combustion of diesel fuels
    and gasolines. Higher ethers provide a more environmentally favorable
    alternative to MTBE because the higher ethers are less soluble in water
    and have a lower vapor pressure. These chemical characteristics of
    higher ethers decrease the likelihood of ground water contamination.
        Auburn University researchers are also engaged in developing a
    novel approach to Fischer Tropsch synthesis of transportation fuels.
    State-of-the-art research in supercritical fluid reaction chemistry is
    being applied to the production of fuels from synthesis gas.
    Supercritical fluid conditions allow fine-tuning of the reaction
    environment to mediate the current heat and mass transport limitations
    and to enhance the selectivity and conversion of synthesis gas to the
    desired products in Fischer Tropsch synthesis.
        Auburn University supports the request of $1.6 million by the CFFLS
    from the Department of Energy (DOE) for this C1 chemistry research
    program. The request is for $1.2 million from the DOE Energy Efficiency
    and Renewable Resources Office of Transportation Fuels and the DOE
    Fossil Energy Advanced Research and Environmental Technology division.
    Auburn University, like the other four consortium members, will provide
    $0.25 of cost sharing for every $1.00 of federal funding.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association

        This testimony pertains to the request for appropriations in fiscal
    year 2001 by the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), for three, specific, mission-
    oriented, biomass research programs included under the general title
    Energy Conservation, Industry Sector. These programs are supported by
    EERE's Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT): The production of
    organic commodity chemicals from biomass feedstocks in the Industries
    of the Future (Specific), Agriculture Vision; The development of
    advanced biomass gasification processes in Industries of the Future
    (Specific), Forest and Paper Products Vision; A variety of advanced
    biomass technologies in Industries of the Future (Crosscutting),
    Enabling Technologies. A separate statement has been prepared in
    support of the biomass research funded by the Energy and Water Bill.
        Specifically, the Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA)
    recommends that $43,826,000 be appropriated for these programs in
    fiscal year 2001. The high priority activities and the dollar
    allocations recommended for each program in fiscal year 2001 are:
      --Continuation of the chemicals-from-biomass core research
            ($5,000,000) and incorporation of the requested Bioenergy/
            Bioproducts Initiative (BBI) ($8,000,000). This program should
            include assessments of biomass feedstock production and needs
            in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
            and independent contractors if needed, and a clear definition
            of the potential contribution that each project can make to
            meet program objectives before an award is made.
      --Continuation of the core research started in fiscal year 2000 to
            develop advanced biomass gasification technologies such as
            integrated gasification-combined cycle (IGCC) processes and
            their demonstration in the field for waste biomass including
            black liquor ($13,726,000). This program, which will be
            implemented through the National Energy Technology Laboratory
            (NETL), should fully utilize the large background already in
            existence on gasification technologies developed over many
            years, most of which is readily available.
      --Continued development of advanced biomass technologies for the
            forest and paper industries ($12,100,000) and incorporation of
            the requested BBI ($5,000,000) into the program. Although these
            biomass-related activities are important projects for both
            national and industry goals, the OIT is urged to provide more
            supporting detail in future requests. (See next item)
      --In the OIT's future requests for appropriations, new projects and
            existing projects scheduled for continuation in the next fiscal
            year and terminated projects from the current fiscal year
            should be described in sufficient detail, as is done in EERE's
            funding requests under the Energy and Water Bill, so that it is
            possible to determine specific expenditures that are planned
            for each project and the cost-shared amounts from the private
            sector already in-hand and expected for each of the scale-up
            projects.
      --Continued internal coordination and joint management of all DOE
            biomass programs at DOE headquarters.
        BERA is a non-profit association in Washington, DC. It was founded
    in 1982 by researchers and non-governmental 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. BERA does not accept federal funding for its efforts.
        I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of BERA's
    members for the opportunity to present BERA's position on the federal
    funding of these biomass programs. Continued support of this research
    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.

               PROGRAM INTEGRATION, COORDINATION, AND MANAGEMENT

       For several years, BERA has urged that all of the biomass-related
    research funded by DOE should be internally coordinated and jointly
    managed at DOE headquarters. The program managers at DOE Headquarters
    should be heavily involved in this activity. Multi-agency agreements to
    expand the coordination of biomass energy research programs between two
    or more federal agencies do not seem to have been too effective in the
    past. Implementation of the Bioenergy Initiative enacted by Congress
    for fiscal year 2000 to identify each federal agency that provides
    funding related to producing biomass energy, each agency's programs,
    and the expenditures by each agency, coupled with President Clinton's
    Executive Order 13134 issued on August 12, 1999, ``Developing and
    Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy,'' should make it possible to
    extend the coordination of all of these programs through a National
    Coordination Office to all federal agencies involved in biomass energy
    development, as proposed in the Executive Order.
        BERA strongly recommends that these initiatives be continued and
    incorporated into the overall federal biomass RD&D program. In fiscal
    year 2001, it is especially important that the biomass research of DOE
    and the USDA be closely coordinated. If the initiatives are fully
    implemented, the value of the federal expenditures on biomass research
    to the country will be enhanced in many different ways.
        In addition, BERA strongly urges that at least 50 percent of the
    federal funds for biomass research, excluding the funds for scale-up
    projects, are used to sustain a national biomass science and technology
    base via subcontractors outside DOE's national laboratories. While it
    is desirable for the national laboratories to coordinate this research,
    increased support for U.S. scientists and engineers in industry,
    academe, and research institutes that are unable to fund biomass
    research will encourage commercialization of emerging technologies and
    serious consideration of new ideas. It will also help to expand the
    professional development and expertise of diverse researchers committed
    to the advancement of biomass technologies.

                                   BACKGROUND

    Organic commodity chemicals from biomass (agriculture vision)
        This program was started by OIT in fiscal year 1999 ($1,981,000)
    and continued in fiscal year 2000 ($4,000,000). A third solicitation to
    support project R&D is scheduled for fiscal year 2001 ($8,000,000
    requested including a BBI of $5,000,000). Specific projects and project
    areas are not described in the formal budget request for fiscal year
    2001. Additional solicitations will support projects to integrate
    technology, markets, and policies for using crops and agricultural
    wastes to produce fuels, power, and biobased products in biorefineries
    ($5,000,000 requested including a BBI of $3,000,000).
        Several reports on the Agriculture Vision program and the
    information presented in the request for appropriations for fiscal year
    2001 have been examined. The overall goal is to develop the
    technologies necessary to displace 10 percent of the U.S. market for
    fossil feedstocks with biomass for the production of organic commodity
    chemicals and chemical products by the year 2020. We are pleased to
    note that BERA's recommendation last year to include the displacement
    by biomass of process energy consumption supplied from fossil fuels
    appears to have been incorporated into the program objectives. It was
    previously recommended that the program goal be expanded to include
    both fossil feedstock displacement and the use of biomass energy,
    biofuels, and other renewable energy resources to displace the fossil
    energy inputs used for processing. In addition, reductions in process
    energy consumption through higher efficiency unit operations and
    process energy conservation should be part of this goal. This year, DOE
    has reported that they expect to achieve a 30 percent reduction per
    pound of chemicals produced in energy consumption, materials used,
    water consumption, and pollutant and toxic dispersion by 2020. This is
    important because the total fossil feedstock converted to organic
    commodity chemicals in the United States last year, for example, in
    terms of barrels of oil equivalent (BOE), was approximately 1.26
    million BOE/day. Ten percent of this value is 126,000 BOE/day, while
    the corresponding process energy consumption was about 136,000 BOE/day.
        BERA believes that this program is very worthwhile. Successful
    implementation of the chemicals-from-biomass program in the Agriculture
    Vision is expected to result in many regional and national benefits.
    Virtually all basic organic chemicals (including plastics and
    petroleum- and natural gas-derived chemicals (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 federal farm subsidy payments and
    trade deficits will be reduced. The displacement of fossil feedstocks
    by virgin and waste biomass will also help reduce atmospheric
    pollutants emitted by conventional manufacturing plants that use fossil
    feedstocks, such as sulfur oxides and unburned hydrocarbons, each of
    which contributes heavily to sub-quality air.
        As stated last year, the potential amounts of fossil feedstock and
    process energy displaced by biomass feedstock and biomass energy and
    biofuels should be estimated for each contract before an award is made.
    Each respondent to a competitive solicitation should address this
    question in the proposal. A simple analysis is sufficient 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 basic assessment, along with preliminary economic analyses, when
    applied to development of this program, will help ensure its success.
    There is no indication in the request for fiscal year 2001 that this
    will be performed for each project. However, the contracts already
    awarded for this program and the progress made in fiscal year 2000 are
    not discussed in the request for fiscal year 2001.
        An in-depth assessment of the availabilities, 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, is required to
    properly structure the Agriculture Vision program and to select optimum
    biomass feedstocks. This assessment 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 to energy and fuels is about 50 to 75
    miles. Note also that 1.0 quad (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 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 assessment 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.
    The EERE and its predecessor groups in DOE, USDA, and others have
    performed such assessments. The results of this work should be
    incorporated into the assessments of the Agriculture Vision.
    Advanced biomass gasification processes (enabling technologies)
        This program was started by the OIT in fiscal year 2000. It
    involves preliminary design studies scheduled for completion in fiscal
    year 2001 with black liquor feedstocks, critical R&D needs for systems
    in industrial plants, and a competitive solicitation ($10,726,000
    requested). Supporting areas include sulfur management, gas clean-up,
    materials, system integration, and other combustion-related studies
    ($3,000,000 requested). It is anticipated that perfection of this
    technology with black liquor and wood waste feedstocks will open new
    applications in the pulp and paper industry.
        The federal and private sector funding provided over the last few
    decades to perfect biomass gasification technologies and to develop
    advanced processes such as IGCC systems is substantial. Some of this
    work is on-going and includes other EERE projects in progress that are
    currently funded at a reduced level under the Energy and Water Bill.
    Significant processing improvements and innovative advancements have
    been and continue to be made. However, the gasification of black
    liquor, a major biomass energy resource, has not been developed.
        This program, if successful, could result in the initiation of new
    projects to perfect biomass gasification and can help this fledgling
    technology make the successful transition to commercial use. The
    program, which will be implemented through NETL, should fully utilize
    the large background already in existence on gasification technologies
    developed over many years, most of which is readily available. It is
    strongly recommended that the history, information, and data
    accumulated to date be carefully examined, and where appropriate
    utilized by proposers before awards are made by DOE to design and build
    new biomass gasifiers.

    Advanced biomass technologies for the forest and paper industries
            (forest and paper products vision)

        All of the Forest and Paper Products Vision ($17,100,000 requested
    including a BBI of $5,000,000) has been categorized by DOE as biomass
    energy RD&D. This program is described by various titles as follows:
    Energy Performance consists of approximately 12 projects on efficiency,
    heat recovery, wood and paper drying, environmental impacts, and Kraft
    pulping ($3,280,000 requested); Environmental Performance consists of
    approximately 10 projects on developing advanced pollution prevention
    technologies such as volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
    reduction in Kraft mills and commercial VOC extraction and collection
    from lumber drying ($2,073,000 requested); Improved Capital
    Effectiveness consists of approximately 7 projects focused on system
    and process efficiency, such as a tool to predict corrosion rates in a
    Kraft chemical recovery boiler that will be commercialized ($2,172,000
    requested); Recycling consists of approximately 8 projects to develop a
    new screening technology to reduce energy consumption during the
    removal of contaminants from recycled fiber ($1,678,000 requested);
    Sensors and Controls consists of 8 projects for optimizing paper mill
    operations such as a project to develop an apparatus for measuring
    properties on the wet end of a paper machine ($2,073,000 requested);
    Sustainable Forestry consists of approximately 5 projects to improve
    the conversion of solar energy to woody biomass such as a project to
    increase stem growth rates of loblolly pine ($824,000 requested), and
    approximately 7 additional projects to implement the relevant results
    ($2,000,000 BBI requested) and 8 additional projects that involve
    biorefineries ($3,000,000 BBI requested).
        This program has shown and continues to show significant value in
    addressing both national and industry priorities and has significant
    matching funds from industry. However, in future funding requests, OIT
    should provide brief status reports of each project, including the
    results for the current year, plans for the next year, and the level of
    industry participation.
                                     ______

          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 45 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 2001 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 2001. 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 2001 to approximately $850.5 million,
    12 percent above the fiscal year 2000 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 $142.5 million 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 $339.8 million to restore previous
    reductions to these energy partnership programs. Among them are Rebuild
    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 2001 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 $100 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 2000. 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 some 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 2001 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 2001 represents
    an increase of nearly $4 million above the fiscal year 2000 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 2001, the
    cost-shared contract calls for DOE support in the amount of $41.5
    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 2001 request of $83.9 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 2001 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.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Association for State Community
                               Services Programs

        The National Association for State Community Services Programs
    (NASCSP), a member organization comprised of state directors of the
    Weatherization Assistance Program and the Community Services Block
    Grant, is pleased to submit testimony in support of continued funding
    for the Weatherization Assistance Program operated through the U.S.
    Department of Energy's (DOE) Building and Technology Assistance. DOE's
    Weatherization Assistance Program is the largest residential energy
    conservation program in the nation, serving more than 65,000 families
    each year. Its purpose is to increase the energy efficiency of homes
    occupied by low-income persons, particularly the elderly, those with
    disabilities, and families with children, while ensuring their health
    and safety. The Weatherization Assistance Program exists in all fifty
    States, the District of Columbia, and on several Native American
    reservations.
        The Weatherization Assistance Program regulations stipulate that
    the Program will serve families who have incomes at or below 150
    percent of the poverty level, as established each year by the Office of
    Management and Budget, or at 60 percent of state median income. The
    income level for qualified families is established by each State in
    adherence to these rules. Currently, the average household served by
    the Program has an income of less than $8,000 per year. These families
    spend between 14 to 20 percent of their income to pay their energy
    bills, while typical households spend only 3.5 percent of their income
    on home energy. The Weatherization Assistance Program serves a vital
    function in helping these less fortunate families control their energy
    consumption, thereby reducing their energy costs and increasing usable
    income to provide vital necessities like food, shelter, clothing, and
    health care.
        The Oak Ridge National Laboratory report entitled State Level
    Evaluations of the Weatherization Program in 1990-1996: A Meta-
    evaluation That Estimates National Savings revealed that the Program
    has significantly improved its energy savings results during the past
    several years. In 1996, the Program showed savings of 33.5 percent of
    gas used for space heating--up from 18.3 percent savings in 1989. The
    increase in savings was based in large part on the introduction and use
    of more sophisticated diagnostic tools and audits. The report also
    concluded that the Weatherization Assistance Program possessed a
    favorable cost-benefit ratio of 2.40 to 1.0. Simply stated, the federal
    funds provided to support the Program have a 140 percent return on
    investment or more than $2 in benefits for every dollar invested. This
    positive ratio of benefits continues to increase as state and local
    agencies integrate advanced technologies and constantly improve their
    return on investment.
        We believe the Weatherization Assistance Program has an even
    greater national impact and serves national interests by creating the
    technological and programmatic foundation for the individual state
    programs it funds. The Program's contribution in achieving national
    energy and social goals includes:
      --Reducing harmful green house gas through reduced CO2
            emissions--the avoided energy production resulting from this
            conservation effort reduced CO2 emissions by tens of
            thousands of metric tons that would otherwise have been
            released into the air;
      --Reducing consumption of imported fuels by reducing residential
            energy consumption, especially important in these times of sky-
            rocketing oil prices;
      --Reducing demand on other social programs like the Low-Income Home
            Energy Assistance Programs (LIHEAP), housing, and health care;
            and
      --Promoting the use of innovative energy conservation technologies
            and the transfer of this technology into the private market.
        These are examples of how the Weatherization Assistance Program
    helps conserve energy and advances national interest. There is a
    greater story centering on the Program's ability to incorporate new
    technologies and constantly re-engineer itself. Since the 1990
    reauthorization in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act
    (Public Law 101-440), the rules promulgated by the DOE insure greater
    flexibility in the program which has led to even greater energy
    efficiency and savings in the homes of low-income families. Based on
    this reauthorization language, the Program now includes services to
    reduce the cost of cooling homes. The language also called for a review
    of the factors in the funding formula, leading to the development of an
    entirely new funding distribution method. The new formula addresses
    issues of equity between States who use energy to heat their homes
    (north) and those States that use the greatest portion of energy to
    cool their homes (south). The Weatherization Assistance Program is no
    longer characterized as a ``cold climate'' program, but one that
    acknowledges energy as a basic commodity that every American household
    needs.
        The Weatherization Assistance Program, like all successful
    businesses, understands the need for change and self-improvement. When
    the 1990 evaluation noted that greater savings were achieved by the use
    of more sophisticated auditing techniques, States moved immediately to
    incorporate them. Other important advances included the increased use
    of blower-door directed air infiltration reduction, in-depth furnace
    efficiency analysis, duct system diagnostics, and air quality
    improvement measures. Nearly 6,000 trained professionals employed by
    970 local agencies use state of the art diagnostic equipment and
    techniques along with twenty years of practical experience to make
    homes more energy efficient, safer, and more affordable.
        The DOE supports state program efforts to ensure that the
    individuals involved in the implementation of the program at the local
    level have adequate training on the latest and best energy conservation
    practices. The States of New York and Vermont joined together to create
    the Building Performance Institute (BPI) to set competency standards
    and establish a training curriculum that can be transferred throughout
    the country. Illinois uses the community college and vocational
    education systems to offer ongoing standardized training. Indiana,
    Ohio, North Carolina, California, Virginia, West Virginia, and
    Pennsylvania have created their own training centers to support
    technological advances. In Florida, the Solar Energy Center provides
    training on warm climate weatherization measures. In Washington State,
    a peer circuit rider program has been developed to meet locally-
    determined training needs, especially new diagnostics implementation.
    These are only examples of the States' commitment to providing skills
    training for those who provide this valuable service. Whichever option
    is selected for transferring technology and skills improvement, the
    results are the same--highly skilled, competent people using the latest
    technologies are providing the most cost effective and energy efficient
    services in low-income households throughout the country.
        The DOE has invested significant amounts of money in energy
    conservation research through its laboratories. The Weatherization
    Assistance Program serves as a testing ground and provides a fertile
    field for the deployment of their research. The Oak Ridge National
    Laboratory developed the National Energy Audit (NEAT) for use by local
    agencies in assessing cost effectiveness of service delivery. The NEAT
    audit, as well as other comparable and approved auditing methods, helps
    local agencies make decisions about which services are best suited for
    the home and helps set priorities for federal investments so that the
    most cost-effective energy conservation services are installed. Oak
    Ridge is currently investigating the cost effectiveness of including
    certain base load measures into the Program and continues to test other
    protocols and material installation techniques to help State and local
    agencies improve their field operations. The Florida Solar Energy
    Center and the State of Hawaii are working on the development of cost
    effective solar hot water heaters. The State of New York, working in
    concert with the local utility companies and the State Energy Research
    Development Authority, has implemented a refrigerator replacement
    program to test the impact of providing base-load services to conserve
    energy and reduce costs for eligible multi-family residents. We are
    hopeful that Weatherization Assistance Programs throughout the country
    will remain on the front line in the deployment of these technologies
    and that the citizens of their States continue to benefit from these
    technological advances.
        One of the major positive effects of field deployment through the
    Weatherization Assistance Program is that the private sector will
    eventually adopted these technologies. This pattern has been
    established with several technology advancements including blower door-
    directed air infiltration, duct system testing and sealing, furnace
    efficiency standards, and insulation/ventilation protocols. The
    rigorous conservation standards of the Weatherization Assistance
    Program are not usually found in the building industry. The acceptance
    of these standards and protocols by the private sector is enormously
    important as builders attempt to construct new properties or
    rehabilitate existing ones using a conservation philosophy.
        The electric and gas industries are in the midst of changes that
    will affect nearly every American business, institution and household.
    These changes are a result of utility restructuring and will have a
    major impact on low-income households. It is more crucial than ever
    that the Weatherization Assistance Program retains an economically
    viable presence and the core capacity of the Program remains intact to
    guide the residential energy conservation efforts during the next
    decade as utilities begin investing in energy efficiency programs as
    part of their restructuring requirements. The continuation of federal
    support for the Weatherization Assistance Program will ensure that it
    remains a catalyst for utility involvement and that low-income energy
    conservation activities remain a priority in local case settlements.
        The House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee recently placed a
    new requirement on the Program during 2000 that requires all States and
    eligible recipients (e.g., Native American tribes who receive funds
    directly from DOE) to provide a 25 percent cost share using non-federal
    funds. This requirement has resulted in a mixed reaction from States
    that administer the day-to-day operations of the Program. Members of
    Congress and the White House received letters in opposition of this
    cost share from several Governors and top-ranking officials from the
    following States: New Hampshire, Montana, Washington, Wyoming, Georgia,
    Vermont, and West Virginia.
        Some States will easily provide the 25 percent cost share
    (equivalent to a 33 percent match) using State-appropriations or funds
    provided by utility companies or other local sources. Other States may
    be able to pass the cost share responsibility to local agencies and
    require local participation in order for contracts to be executed
    within their State. Unfortunately, there will be a certain number of
    States and probably all the Native American tribes that will not be
    able to offer a cost share from non-federal sources. With approximately
    half the States reporting in as March 27, we are aware of eight States
    that have indicated that they may not be able to meet the cost share
    requirement (KS, LA, ME, NH, TN, UT, WV, and WY). The low-income
    families living in these States or on those affected Native American
    reservations will be denied access to this extremely valuable and, in
    some cases, life-saving service because of this very restricted and
    penalizing addition to the law. We are confident that no one ever
    intended to enact a law that would punish low-income families and deny
    them services and ask that this Committee act to repeal the language
    found in H.R. 3423 related to the 25 percent cost share requirement.
        While we support the Administration's request for $154 million in
    fiscal year 2001, we believe that the Weatherization Assistance Program
    remains slighted by this Committee in terms of funding recovery. In
    1995, the Weatherization Assistance Program suffered a 47 percent cut
    in funding (from $214 million to $110 million). Over the past five
    years, the Program has had a small recovery from this loss to $135
    million in 2000. The Program still remains 37 percent below the 1995
    funding level while programs for research and development, corporate
    technology investment, fuel subsidies, and other energy related
    programs have been fully restored. Low-income families deserve to have
    their services restored as well. We strongly support a funding level of
    $250 million for the Weatherization Assistance Program. This figure
    represents full recovery to pre 1995 funding levels, adjusted for
    inflation over that same time period. These funds would be used to
    increase the number of homes receiving services from 65,000 to more
    than 125,000 homes weatherized each year and would serve as the
    catalyst to promote an additional $80 million to $100 million in
    leveraged resources. By the evidence provided herein, this Committee
    can be assured that the increase in the number of low-income families
    served will result in greater energy savings, more economic
    investments, increased leveraging of other funds, and less reliance on
    high cost energy like foreign oil--outcomes that will benefit the
    country.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Detroit Diesel Corporation

        Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC) strongly supports the
    Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Office of
    Transportation Technologies' (OTT), Office of Heavy Vehicle Technology
    (OHVT) and Office of Advanced Automotive Technologies (OAAT)
    activities. Specifically the Vehicle Technologies R&D, Fuels
    Utilization R&D and Materials Technologies budget line items are the
    focus of this statement. We believe that the aforementioned program
    elements under the combined leadership of OHVT and OAAT Program Offices
    forge a formidable United States Government-Industry coalition that
    will bring forth substantial and tangible results to the nation's
    economy, energy independence and clean air improvements. We also
    believe that the Transportation Technologies roadmap deserves the
    collective and combined support of policy and decision makers from the
    U.S. Government, networked with key industrial partners.
        DDC is a U.S. company with its world headquarters in Detroit,
    Michigan. DDC's 1999 net revenues were $2.4 billion, with R&D at 4.5
    percent of revenues. DDC designs, manufactures and sells diesel-fueled
    and alternative-fueled engines for heavy duty, light duty and
    automotive applications for on-highway and off-highway throughout the
    world. The DDC Series 60 engine has revolutionized the truck engine
    technology. It has consistently set new global performance, emissions,
    fuel economy and durability standards and has been the most popular
    heavy duty truck engine in the United States for the past 8 consecutive
    years. DDC is the world's largest independent manufacturer of
    automotive diesel engines and is part of the Penske group of companies.
        The proposed fiscal year 2001 Advanced Combustion Engine R&D
    program element includes Combustion and Aftertreatment R&D, Light Truck
    Engine, Heavy Truck Engine and Health Impacts, having a total budget
    request of $46.9M. This program element encompasses competitive
    vertical teams of industry, national labs and academia competing for
    the development of far-reaching technologies to enable clean and
    efficient diesel-based transportation for people and goods. Horizontal
    teams have also been formed with the direction and leadership of DOE's
    OTT seeking pre-competitive, high risk and fundamental breakthrough
    technologies. This too is leveraging the resident expertise in the
    nation's national laboratories and elsewhere. Such developments are
    urgently needed for a substantial and pervasive impact on energy
    independence, emissions reduction, CO2 reduction (the
    climate change action plan), and for sustaining the growth in U.S. jobs
    and our international competitive edge. Further, this program element
    deserves more emphasis now due to the increased shift towards light
    truck (pickups and sport utility vehicles) use for personal
    transportation, the unprecedented increase in fuel prices, and the
    accelerated mandated emissions reductions that have been recently
    enacted.
        We draw special attention to the Advanced Petroleum-based Fuels
    program under the Fuels Utilization R&D subject category with a
    combined request of $12M. The compression ignition piston engine
    combined with an effective aftertreatment device is undisputedly the
    most efficient clean power plant that has a potential of practical
    applications in the transportation sector for the near- and mid-term
    future. Current diesel fuel properties, such as sulfur content and
    aromatics, are known as major barriers to further improvement in the
    engine-aftertreatment system performance and emissions. Lab-scale
    advanced fuels under idealized test conditions have confirmed the
    potential for realistic achievements with advanced petroleum-based
    fuels. The proposed program is but a small investment with a potential
    significant payback for the U.S. energy independence and cleaner air.
        The Transportation Materials Technology program request of $17.5M
    covers the areas of Propulsion Materials Technology, Lightweight
    Materials Technology and the High Temperature Materials Laboratory
    (HTML). It has been long recognized that advanced materials is a key
    critical technology area for the U.S. global competitiveness. The most-
    popular DDC Series 60 truck engine touts applications of structural
    ceramics and advanced tribological coatings for many years, and it is
    still a worldwide first in our industry. This program element includes
    investigation of smart materials application for advanced systems and
    controls as well as maintaining and enhancing HTML world leadership.
        In summary, the proposed DOE/OTT (OHVT+OAAT) fiscal year 2001
    budget requests will continue the trend-setting partnership between the
    United States Government and a key industrial base to address the
    Country's and the global needs in critical areas of the economy,
    environment and the United States competitiveness. The exemplary track
    record through competitive leveraging of Government funding by
    substantial industry cost share of 50 percent and more in many
    instances, and the emerging high potential results of these
    partnerships warrant continued endorsement of the Administration's
    budget request. Such endorsement offers a unique potential for a
    justifiable and highly effective return on investment of the U.S.
    taxpayers' money. We petition your strong support of the aforementioned
    programs' budget requests.
                                     ______

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Bureau of Indian Affairs

                     Prepared Statement of the Yurok Tribe

        Before addressing our specific tribal issues, the Yurok Tribe would
    like to express our wholehearted support of President Clinton's
    proposed Native American budget for fiscal year 2001. It is not nearly
    enough to redress centuries of theft and neglect, but it is the best we
    can hope for at this time, under these circumstances, and we urge the
    Committee to join with the Administration in honoring the United
    States' commitments to all tribes of this nation.
        The Yurok Tribe appreciates the support provided by the Committee
    since the 1988 Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act (Public Law 100-580, ``the
    Act'') split the former Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation between the
    Yurok Tribe and the Hoopa Tribe. One stated intent of the Act was to
    equitably divide the resources of the former reservation between the
    two tribes. Because the one Yurok resource mentioned in the Act--the
    chinook salmon--is severely depleted, the Yurok Tribe finds it
    necessary to submit this request for additional funding in the amount
    of $12,423,025.00 in order to continue implementation of the Act.

                                   BACKGROUND

        The Yurok Reservation consists of approximately 56,000 acres on the
    lower 45 miles of the Klamath River canyon, in Humboldt and Del Norte
    Counties of far northern California. This bioregion--the Lower Klamath
    Basin--is in grave danger. The fishery on which the Yurok people depend
    for their survival, and which was central to Congress' determination of
    ``equity'' in the Act, is close to dying. Federal task forces have been
    measuring the cumulative impact on the fishery of 150 years of careless
    and abusive land use practices. It is now obvious that the salmon runs
    will not in the near future return to their former richness, and cannot
    therefore be depended upon to provide any viable means of economic
    development.
        The vast majority of the Yurok Reservation (approximately 80
    percent) is owned in fee by Simpson Timber Company. With the purchase
    of 6,000 acres of cut-over land, the Tribe has recently increased its
    total holdings, fee and trust, to a little over 13,000 acres. The Tribe
    acquired the land in an effort to consolidate a Tribal landbase, to
    protect the watershed and to save as much land as possible within the
    watershed from wasteful logging practices. However, the purchase of the
    land, through a USDA Rural Development loan guarantee, has placed the
    Tribe heavily in debt.
        Community and physical infrastructure on the Reservation (which is
    mostly rugged, steep river canyon) are limited or nonexistent.
    Residents in the upper Yurok Reservation live in near third world
    conditions, without sewer, electricity or telephone services. Community
    policing and fire protection are virtually unavailable.
        The lower Yurok Reservation contains the only land currently
    available for economic or housing development. However, the majority of
    the flat land is periodically and consistently flooded. In 1964 the
    entire town of Klamath was wiped off the map. The ``new'' Klamath
    townsite was built on what is basically a landfill, and the 35-year-old
    infrastructure is outdated and insufficient for true development. Heavy
    flooding in 1997 and 1998 caused further heavy damage. No further
    development can occur without additional public investments.
        Pursuant to the Settlement Act, the Yurok Tribe formally organized
    under a tribal constitution in 1994. Since that time, we have achieved
    Self-Governance status. Even so, our efforts at self-determination and
    self-sufficiency have been hampered by a severe funding shortage,
    caused by the actions or inactions of federal interests who continue to
    ignore our needs and to resist any attempt at government-to-government
    negotiations. Jurisdiction and control over our own affairs are
    constantly challenged by the very agencies who are supposedly entrusted
    with the federal responsibility for oversight of tribal interests.,
        The Yurok Tribe has made great strides in community and
    administrative services, despite the resources promised but never
    allocated under the 1988 Act. Yurok people have been looking to the
    Yurok Tribe as their only means of achieving an above-poverty status
    for the first time in their lives. The Tribal organization represents a
    hope of positive development. To deny the Tribe its promised resources
    is to deny the people equity in their lifestyles.
        These funding requests will enable the Yurok Tribe to fully carry
    out the mandates and intent of the Act. The increased funding will
    enable the Tribe to address the needs of a tribal membership that is
    more than twice as large as the original Base Roll provided by the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs, which was used to determine the Tribe's base
    funding levels. That original Base Roll, because of bureaucratic
    oversight, did not include any Yuroks born after 1978.
        The Yurok Tribe has carried on the work of organization and
    development without the resources promised and allocated under the Act.
    Our achievements over the last five years have been the result of
    bootstrapping in the truest sense. We have suffered under an overall
    shortfall of federal funding that we conservatively project to be
    $17,297,180, not including the amounts listed below. However, our
    current requests are related only to the requirements and intent of the
    Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act. Our requests for fiscal year 2001 total
    $12,423,025:
      --$2,500,000 (Miscellaneous Payments to Indians) for land acquisition
      --$5,765,625 (Miscellaneous Payments to Indians) for development of
            energy systems and telephone services on the Yurok Reservation
      --$687,000 (Wildlife & Parks, Tribal Management) for law enforcement
            activities on the Reservation
      --$450,000 (Realty Services) for continuation of the Yurok
            Reservation Boundary Survey and completion of the Yurok
            Orthographic Survey.
      --$3,020,400 (Tribal Priority Allocations) to make up the shortfall
            in base funding due to the Yurok Tribe.

                                    DETAILS

        $2,500,000 (Miscellaneous Payments to Indians) Funding for land
    acquisition pursuant to Public Law 100-580. The Settlement Act resulted
    in an extremely lopsided division of the former Hoopa Valley
    Reservation without the participation or consent of the Yurok Tribe.
    Because we received less than 10 percent of the lands of the former
    Reservation, the Act authorized not less than $5,000,000 for land
    acquisition, of which the Congress has previously appropriated
    $2,500,000.
      --Because of the inequitable division, the Yurok Tribe lacks an
            adequate land base to consolidate tribal jurisdiction and speed
            up the process of economic self-sufficiency. Tribal attempts at
            augmenting the land base with commercially producing forested
            lands have stalled due to poor weather and poor market
            conditions.
        $5,765,625 (Miscellaneous Payments to Indians) Provide support for
    and finance construction of energy development and a telecommunications
    system for the upper Yurok Reservation. According to a
    Telecommunications Survey commissioned by the Tribe, linking the entire
    unserved area with a telephone system would cost $2,500,000. The Tribe
    is finalizing plans for implementation of a tribally managed
    Reservation-wide Utility Authority, which will assume administrative
    and maintenance responsibility for the system. An additional $3,265,625
    would finance further energy development for the Reservation.
        $687,000 (Wildlife & Parks, Tribal Management) To enhance law
    enforcement activities on the Reservation. Due to bad roads and steep
    geography, there is effectively no law enforcement on the upper
    Reservation. The Yurok Tribe was forced to choose not to compact BIA
    law enforcement, because there is currently insufficient funding to
    make compacting a viable option for the Tribe. The Yurok Tribe has
    outgrown its tribal court system, which currently has jurisdiction over
    only fishing violations among Yurok Tribal members.
      --The Klamath River salmon fishery is identified in the Act as a key
            resource of the Yurok Tribe. The Klamath River fishery
            management and law enforcement activities must be expanded in
            order to insure that the Tribe can effectively manage the Yurok
            tribal fishery and remain an effective co-manager of the
            Klamath River fishery resources.
        $450,000 (Realty Services) For continuation of the Yurok
    Reservation Boundary Survey. In 1992 Congress supported our request to
    begin and continue the process of surveying and fixing the boundaries
    of the Yurok Reservation through a Cadastral Survey. Support ceased in
    1996 and the survey has not been completed. The funding is technically
    a BIA budget item, but the BLM does the actual work, pursuant to
    statute. The amount requested is the amount the local BLM staff
    determined is necessary to work at the same level as previous years. An
    additional $100,000 is requested to complete an orthographic survey
    that will establish the boundary of the Reservation in accordance with
    the State Coordinate System and provide GIS templates of the entire
    Reservation Basin.
        $3,085,400 (Tribal Priority Allocations) to make up the shortfall
    in base funding due the Yurok Tribe. Based on a formula of $1,000 per
    tribal member, the 4,100 member Yurok Tribe should be receiving Base
    Funding of $4,100,000. Instead, the Tribe received Base Funding of
    $1,014,600 for fiscal year 1999, which has created a budget shortfall
    of $3,085,400.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the American Dental Association

        Over the past 30 years, the American Dental Association (ADA) has
    worked in partnership with the IHS Dental Program to improve the oral
    health of American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN). Every three
    years the Association evaluates selected IHS dental clinics. In recent
    years, we testified before this Committee about our findings from our
    1997 visit to the Navajo Reservation. We discovered a significant gap
    between the oral health of Indian people and the people we see in our
    practices every day. We look forward to our upcoming visit in July to
    sites in Arizona and will report our findings to you next year.
        The Association would like to thank the Committee for its continued
    support for oral health care and specifically for its actions on the
    fiscal year 2000 IHS appropriations. We believe that the Committee's
    strong directives have directly influenced the Administration to make a
    real commitment in its fiscal year 2001 budget to reverse the alarming
    trends and move towards eliminating the significant disparities in oral
    health status of the AI/AN people. We have come today to support the
    Administration's request for fiscal year 2001 appropriations and
    request minimal increases.

                                   BACKGROUND

        For 45 years the IHS has made steady progress to build a system of
    oral health care delivery for AI/AN. Included in this effort has been
    the development of structures to recruit highly qualified staff, and
    opportunities for training to enhance knowledge and skills in the
    treatment and prevention of oral diseases. In addition, skills in
    public health administration and human resource development, adult
    education, community development, and applied research have been
    developed to coordinate the program and facilitate growth in AI/AN
    Self-Determination. As a result of this process, the IHS Dental Program
    has developed a core of trained, experienced and committed dental
    professionals who serve a multitude of clinical and administrative
    leadership roles, which have maintained and enhanced the program's
    ability to serve the AI/AN population. Until very recently this system
    has resulted in progressive improvement in the oral health status of
    Indian people.
        It is well documented that AI/AN people have among the highest oral
    disease rates reported in the world. The IHS has just concluded its
    most recent survey of Oral Health Status and Treatment Needs. The
    preliminary data indicates that the oral disease rates of children have
    worsened since 1991. During that same time, IHS also reports that
    access to dental care has declined from about one third of the
    population receiving dental care each year in 1992 to a current level
    of 25 percent of the user population receiving dental services each
    year.
        It is not surprising that AI/AN consumers have consistently
    identified dental health as a high priority, and Tribes taking over
    control of health programs have frequently increased dental funding.
    However, overall the IHS has a relatively low level of funding for
    dental care compared to the nation as a whole (i.e., 3.5 percent of
    health expenditures in IHS versus 6 percent for the nation). Thus, the
    IHS has been faced with the formidable task of reducing the ravages of
    oral disease at rates almost twice the national level but with a
    workforce (i.e. dentist to population ratio) roughly half the national
    average.

                           DECLINE IN DENTAL SERVICE

        Probably the most compelling evidence that the IHS Dental Program
    is losing its capacity to serve the AI/AN population is that annual
    utilization of dental services dropped to approximately 25 percent
    since 1996 from a high of 33 percent in the early 1990s. Equally
    disturbing are the findings of the most recent IHS fluoridation
    monitoring program that documents a dramatic reduction in the number of
    water systems monitoring fluoride levels and the number of these
    reporting systems with samples in compliance with standards. Through
    the late 1980's and early 1990's, about 700 water systems submitted
    samples for evaluation. Of these, about 500 were found to be within
    compliance levels each month. In fiscal year 1999, only 192 water
    systems were delivering fluoride, with only 26 systems (about 14
    percent) within compliance levels. Such a drop in coverage of one of
    public health's most cost-effective preventive tools is unequivocally
    resulting in higher rates of decay in the AI/AN population. This
    discouraging trend, coupled with the documented reduction in access to
    dental care, will rapidly wipe out the gains in oral health status that
    were achieved in the 1980's and early 1990's. Therefore, we strongly
    urge the Committee to support the Administration's request for $500,000
    for improving community water fluoridation.
        The reasons for these declines in dental services (i.e., clinical
    and fluoridation) to AI/AN people are complex and multi-factorial.
    However, through our visits to IHS sites over the years, our ongoing
    partnership with the IHS Dental Program, and experience in evaluating
    other Federal, State and local dental programs, the ADA offers several
    plausible insights and suggestions for reversing these alarming trends.
        At the most global level, it is clear that the IHS Dental Program's
    infrastructure has been eroded as a consequence of budget constraints
    and the reorganization of the IHS. Since 1992 the IHS has not received
    full mandatory cost increases to maintain services. This lack of
    funding has deprived the dental program of $9 million and has
    significantly diminished the dental program's capacity. As a result, 60
    percent of Area and Headquarters dental staff (including training and
    prevention positions) have been lost. Presently, several Area offices
    have no staff assigned to support dental programs. These vacancies have
    directly affected their ability to recruit and retain clinical
    providers and oral health promotion/disease prevention coordinators. As
    a result, vacancy rates for clinical dentists are now the highest in
    IHS history with one out of four positions vacant.
        Thus, the ADA recommends that Congress assure that the IHS Dental
    Program have the resources necessary to maintain a capable dental
    public health infrastructure with the capacity to support both clinical
    care and community-based preventive activities.

          RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESTORING IHS DENTAL PROGRAM CAPABILITY

        The ADA suggests that the IHS adopt an oral health goal of
    restoring access to dental services over the next three years to the 33
    percent annual utilization rate that existed in the early 1990s. This
    goal is consistent with the Administration's goal to eliminate racial
    and ethnic disparities in health status.

                         INCREASE ACCESS TO DENTAL CARE

        The Administration has embarked on an ambitious initiative to
    eliminate health disparities among disadvantaged populations by the
    year 2010. The Association supports this initiative as well as the
    Administration's request that $1 million be appropriated to increase
    access to oral health care in fiscal year 2001. We believe, however,
    that the disparities for AI/AN people require a significantly larger
    increment if the Administration is to achieve its goal. The ADA
    recommends that an additional $1.7 million be added to the IHS dental
    budget to increase access to oral health care.

                      ENHANCE LOAN REPAYMENT FOR DENTISTS

        In recent years, the IHS has experienced difficulties recruiting
    and retaining dentists because the average starting salary for an IHS
    dentist remains below a similar trained and experienced dentist in
    private practice. The lack of parity in pay has been lessened with the
    recently passed optional pay bills for military and Commissioned Corps
    dentists, which the ADA supported. However, a pay disparity still
    exists and combined with the heavy burden of debt from educational
    loans, the IHS is experiencing a dental workforce crisis evident by:
      --over 130 dental officer vacancies;
      --a pool of less qualified applicants from which to select dentists;
      --high turnover rates of 20 percent to 25 percent; and
      --a dwindling number of experienced dentists to serve in more
            technically demanding positions.
        The Loan Repayment Program has proven to be a powerful recruitment
    and retention tool for the IHS. The Association is pleased that the
    Administration has identified an increase for the loan repayment
    program and that a ``significant portion'' will be used for dentists.
    Availability of these funds would facilitate filling 40 positions and
    over time reverse a trend of decreasing retention rates. However, the
    ADA believes that to seriously address this the Committee needs to
    earmark $2,000,000 for loan repayment for dentists instead of a
    ``significant portion.''

                       EXPAND USE OF CONTRACT DENTAL CARE

        Opportunities for enhancing AI/AN access to dental care in more
    populated regions could be immediately and significantly enhanced
    through the private sector if funding were available. We note that IHS
    expenditures for dental care through its Contract Health Services
    Program have declined in recent years from about $12 million in 1992 to
    about $7 million in fiscal year 1999. In that same period, the overall
    Contract Health Services budget has increased from $309 million to $386
    million. This is a very disturbing trend since it occurred at a time
    when oral health status and access to dental care for Indian people
    were declining. We are pleased that the Administration has chosen to
    make dental care a priority for the Contract Health Services Program in
    fiscal year 2001 by requesting a $1 million increase earmarked for
    dental care. We do not believe that request goes far enough and
    recommend restoring the amount of Contract Health Services for dental
    care to fiscal year 1992 levels. The ADA recommends that the Committee
    support the Administration's request for an additional $1 million in
    Contract Health Services funds for dental care and that a total of $12
    million be earmarked from within the contract medical services budget
    specifically for dental services.

                         DENTAL FACILITIES AND HOUSING

        The Association is pleased that the Administration has included $1
    million in the facilities appropriation for modular dental units. The
    Committee has supported replacement of these units for many years and
    because of that support dental care is now available in many
    underserved locations. We urge you to continue to support this effort.
        In recent site visits to IHS facilities we have observed many
    remote locations where dentists have substandard housing or must
    commute great distances because there is no housing available near the
    clinic. Providing basic housing for dentists and other health
    professionals must be a priority if IHS is to recruit and retain an
    adequate health professional workforce. The ADA recommends that $1
    million be appropriated for modular dental units and an additional $1.5
    million for staff quarters for dentists at those sites where housing is
    not currently available.

                REBUILD THE DENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE

        The Association's final recommendation is in response to the
    cumulative set of challenges facing the IHS Dental Program, which have
    been the result of continued loss of its public health infrastructure.
    We are pleased to see that the Administration's request builds upon the
    fiscal year 2000 appropriation and describes a rational and cost-
    effective approach to restoring essential dental public health
    capacity. That request includes the following items:
      --$750,000 to establish three additional Clinical and Preventive
            Support Centers to provide training and technical assistance in
            preventive and clinical care provision in IHS, Tribal, and
            Urban Indian clinics. This request would increase to a total of
            7 the number of centers established to meet the needs of IHS
            dental clinics.
      --$222,000 to increase training in dental specialties to enhance
            access to specialty care. We support enhanced training for IHS
            dental staff but note that the amount is very likely to be
            inadequate. Over 1200 dental staff currently work in IHS dental
            programs. We feel that a total of $2 million is required to
            meet long and short term training goals.
      --$500,000 to enhance support for community water fluoridation.
      --$485,000 to enhance capacity for management of dental data.
      --$300,000 for three additional grants to treat advanced periodontal
            disease among individuals with diabetes. This would increase to
            a total of 6 the grants available to implement recently
            developed non-surgical treatment regimens for individuals with
            diabetes and advanced periodontal disease.
        The ADA believes that this request represents a relatively ``bare
    bones'' approach to rebuilding the dental public health infrastructure
    and is essential to accomplishing increased access to care as well as
    meeting the accountability requirements of the Government Performance
    and Results Act. The ADA recommends that an additional $6 million be
    appropriated above the President's request to support the initiatives
    in our testimony.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The ADA recognizes the multitude of funding priorities Congress
    must reconcile; however, the continued inadequate funding of the IHS
    Dental Program impairs its ability to meet the growing needs of the AI/
    AN population. The overall IHS budget as proposed represents only a
    modest commitment to reverse this trend, and must not be reduced. To do
    so at a time of national prosperity would represent an inexcusable
    broken promise to the ``First Americans.'' The Association respectfully
    request that this subcommittee support the program enhancements
    discussed above, as they offer an efficient and effective means of
    restoring access to dental services.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska

        This testimony addresses the fiscal year 2001 budget request for
    programs in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
    The Tribe is concerned about funding for the Indian Health Service, and
    supports the Administration's proposed increases for the Tribal
    Priority Allocation account, Law Enforcement and the Tribally
    Controlled Community Colleges program within the BIA.
        The Tribe and Economic Development.--The Winnebago Tribe of
    Nebraska is a federally recognized Indian Tribe organized pursuant to
    Section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934. Our
    forefathers were forcibly relocated from lands in and near what is now
    the state of Wisconsin. Our Treaty of 1865 is the first in history to
    require that the United States provide health care services to tribal
    members. The Tribe's 120,000-acre reservation includes lands in both
    Iowa and Nebraska and only about 30,000 acres of land within the
    reservation is now tribally controlled. There are 3,764 enrolled
    members, of who about 1,238 reside on the reservation.
        The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska is very active on the economic
    front. The Tribe operates several business enterprises, including the
    WinnAVegas Casino in Sloan, Iowa, and the Heritage food store and the
    Company A Convenience Mart, both in Winnebago, Nebraska. Additionally,
    the Tribe has developed a small strip mall located on the reservation;
    leasing tribal land to outside agricultural interests generates added
    tribal revenue. Ho-Chunk, Inc., a wholly-owned tribal development
    corporation, owns & operates a Ramada Inn hotel in Lincoln, a tobacco
    outlet shop in Omaha, a computer business, WINCOMP in South Sioux City,
    Nebraska and a Native American Products Internet business located in
    Winnebago. Even with the economic contribution of these projects,
    tribal per capita income remains significantly below the poverty level
    at just over $5,000.
        Unlike states, the tribes have little or no tax base or other
    revenue sources with which to operate tribal government programs.
    Gaming has given a jump-start to our economy but those revenues are
    decreasing because of commercial competition. The Tribe still relies
    heavily on federal funds to provide even the most basic level of
    services to tribal members.
        As Chairman of the Winnebago Tribe I would take some of my five
    minutes and four pages to express the gratitude of my people for the
    positive response we received on our 1999 funding requests.
        Our written testimony that year contained several items of concern
    and need. We only shared three of those issues in our testimony at the
    public witness hearings, the reason being, if our hospital funding,
    tribal college request and law enforcement funding did not receive a
    favorable response, our several items in the written testimony were of
    little consequence. As a result . . .

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        We received funds to complete the A & E phase of our hospital (950
    K) and $10 million minus across the board cuts to begin phase one of
    the construction. We would thank the Committee and senate for their
    continued commitment for better health care to all native people.
    However:
        It is our understanding that continued funding is not automatic and
    must be requested annually. We therefore would request $12.2 million
    for phase two of construction in fiscal year 2001. It would certainly
    be a cruel hoax to complete the foundation and not be able to continue
    construction. Thus the request.

                                TRIBAL COLLEGES

        The Winnebago Tribe supported the administrations request to
    increase funding by $5.5 million. Again a thank you by this tribe is in
    order.
        Little Priest Tribal College did submit a self-study and received a
    site visit by the North Central Accreditation Agency. As a result,
    today Little Priest is an accredited college, taking only four years to
    do so.
        May the Lilly Foundation's Public Announcement to fund Indian
    Colleges not diminish the governments continued commitment to Indian
    education.

                                      BIA

        Again the request for Law-Enforcement funding was favorable to the
    Winnebago Tribe. Again a thank you from the Winnebago people. However .
    . .
        As a result of the funding requests, we in Indian country have well
    trained, well uniformed, and well equipped officers with good vehicles
    but poor facilities to accommodate our officers, courts and detention.
        We request or recommend that more of the funding be designated for
    construction of criminal justice facilities in fiscal year 2001.

                             LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER

        The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska is requesting a centralized
    Facility to house our Tribal Court, BIA Law Enforcement, Tribal Law
    Enforcement, Law Enforcement Communications Services, Adult Detention
    Services, and Juvenile Detention Services on the Winnebago Reservation.
    Projected costs for this project would be $11,000,000 for site
    preparation and construction, $630,760 to meet staffing requirements
    for detention facilities, and $657,000 to meet operational costs for
    this facility. The Winnebago Tribe is currently developing plans and
    options for cost share on this needed facility for our community. As
    mentioned earlier juvenile detention costs are reaching prohibitive
    amounts for the tribe. Adult detention requires a number of adults
    ordered to detention to be transported to facilities in South Dakota
    approximately 150 miles from our reservation. Costs of transportation,
    officer-transporting time, report filing time, and returning of
    prisoners to the Winnebago Reservation are costs that can only be
    estimated. Adults and juveniles that must be placed under house arrest
    because of funding limitations defeats the process of punishment for
    law violations. It is our hope by jointly working with federal
    agencies, state agencies, and our tribal government there will be
    affordable solutions in cost sharing to enable this project to proceed
    in a very timely matter. As part of this request the Winnebago Tribe
    ask that General Services Administration (GSA) begin the process to
    work out a long term lease with the tribe to secure needed operational
    costs. And possible loan repayments for this facility.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

                    ELWHA RIVER RESTORATION--TRIBAL CONCERNS

        Beginning in fiscal year 2001 a $400,000 increase to the funding
    base for the Olympic National Park was promised by the Department of
    Interior (DOI) to fund the activities of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
    associated with restoring the Elwha River pursuant to Public Law 102-
    495, the ``Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act.'' It
    has since been removed from the administration request. The Lower Elwha
    Klallam Tribe respectfully requests that the $400k be put back into the
    National Park Service budget to fund tribal response and participation
    in the Elwha Dam Removal Project.
        The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe respectfully requests $1,000,000 to
    design and construct a stock preservation channel. The purpose of this
    channel is to provide a safe haven and spawning habitat for all species
    of salmon while the Elwha River dams are being removed. The channel
    will be adjacent and parallel to the main river channel, and allow
    mature, returning fish to spawn off the mainstem where the damaging
    effects of sediment transport during dam removal will be significantly
    reduced, to ensure spawning success.

    ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM AND FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT (PUBLIC LAW 102-
            495, SECTION 7: TRIBAL LAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT)

        Section 7 of EREFRA authorizes appropriation of $4,000,000 for land
    acquisition by the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe for housing, economic
    development, and moorage for the tribe's commercial fishing fleet. The
    tribe requests appropriations of funds for the authorized acquisition
    and costs of that acquisition. Parcels must be evaluated, prioritized,
    appraised and purchased. Negotiations with sellers, use and development
    plans, cost of title insurance and the fee-to-trust process are all
    tasks necessary to acquiring land that will serve this purpose of the
    act. The tribe therefore requests an additional appropriation of
    $100,000 to address this section.

                                TRIBAL FISHERIES

        The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe remains committed to pursuing an out-
    of-court settlement with the Shellfish Growers and private tideland
    owners of Puget Sound. The tribe desires access to traditional
    shellfish resources for the purpose of pursuing Treaty reserved
    shellfish rights in a manner consistent with the needs of the Shellfish
    Growers and private tideland owners. The tribe requests the support of
    Congress to implement the settlement when it is finalized.
        The tribes are responsible for the management of 50 percent of the
    shellfish resources within Puget Sound, yet receive no funding to
    support our management or enforcement activities. The tribe requests
    that Congress include funding for the tribes at a level which ensures
    the ability of the tribes to provide proper management of the resource.
    The tribe fully supports the funding requests that have been annually
    submitted by the Northwest Indian Fish Commission on behalf of the
    western Washington tribes.
        Emergency Hatchery Water Supply.--Flooding during the winter of
    1998-99 altered the Elwha River mainstem channel, causing the majority
    of the river's flow to migrate a quarter mile to the west of the Lower
    Elwha Klallam Tribe's hatchery water supply intake. During summer low
    flows there will be insufficient water quantity at the hatchery to
    support fish production. The construction of a pipeline from the City
    of Port Angeles's industrial water supply to the hatchery would provide
    an emergency source of water for the hatchery, as well as a reliable
    source of hatchery water for the long term. Preliminary engineering
    cost estimates for this action are $526,350. The tribe requests the
    support of Congress to provide the funding for this emergency need.
        This past year the tribe and the USFS reached an out-of-court
    settlement regarding road maintenance, watershed analysis and habitat
    restoration within the Olympic National Forest. The success of this
    settlement is dependent upon the USFS receiving adequate funding to
    conduct the activities required. The tribe requests that Congress
    specify funds in the USFS budget to complete the tasks required in the
    agreement.
        The tribe would like to thank Congress for funding tribal
    participation in recovery planning and habitat restoration for
    threatened Puget Sound chinook salmon. We ask that you continue to
    appropriate the funds necessary to ensure recovery of this important
    resource.

                        POINT NO POINT WILDLIFE PROGRAM

        The wildlife program serving the four Point No Point Treaty Tribes
    has become the premiere tribal wildlife program in western Washington,
    and has been critical in achieving the necessary cooperation between
    our tribes and the State. It has provided the needed biological date,
    coordination and facilitation to resolve state-tribal and inter-tribal
    disputes over wildlife management on the Olympic Peninsula.
        The wildlife program has been funded since 1993 by a combination of
    grants. However, this source of funding is extremely precarious, and it
    is impossible to conduct long-term planning without a permanent source
    of program funding. We support funding for this crucial program in the
    amount of $300,000.
        Subsistence and ceremonial hunting of wild game is an essential
    cultural activity for our tribal people. The tribes are committed to
    responsible wildlife management based on sound biology. Prior to our
    wildlife program, little biological data existed for the culturally
    important elk herds on the Olympic Peninsula. Our wildlife program has
    conducted extensive surveys and shared all our data with the State and
    other Olympic Peninsula tribes. As a result of our surveys, for the
    first time elk are being managed by both the State and tribes based on
    hard biological data.
        Elk in the east Olympic mountains had declined to such low levels
    that all hunting had to be eliminated for several years. It was only
    through a remarkable, cooperative effort between our tribal wildlife
    program and Washington State that we were able to rebuild the herds:
    with a combination of relocating elk, and habitat enhancement and
    protection. Finally, in 1997 we were able to reopen a limited hunt for
    both state hunters and our tribal people.
        There is an on-going need for research and reliable data on which
    to base our management decisions. It is only through sufficient funding
    for this program that we can responsibly continue to co-manage our
    essential wildlife resource.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe is appreciative of the increases
    provided by congressional appropriations in the current year's budget.
    We also appreciate the increases in funding for health included in the
    administration request for 2001. However, as a member tribe of the
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, we support the analysis
    prepared by the board, which points out that mandatory pay cost
    increases are not included in the administration request. We
    respectfully request the inclusion of mandatories in the fiscal year
    2001 appropriation for IHS.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Joslin Diabetes Center

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to provide a status
    report on the Diabetes Project conducted jointly by the Joslin Diabetes
    Center in Boston, MA and the Indian Health Service, for which you
    provided $1 million in the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act. Our
    request for fiscal year 2001 is to continue this project with IHS at $1
    million. I am Dr. Sven Bursell, Principal Investigator of the project
    and Associate Professor of Medicine at the Harvard Medical School.

                                   BACKGROUND

        As you may recall, the fiscal year 1999 Conference Agreement urged
    the Indian Health Service to work with the Joslin Diabetes Center in a
    collaborative effort to utilize Joslin's advanced diabetes detection
    technology to bring state of the art diabetes care to the patient
    population of the IHS. The recommended funding level for fiscal year
    1999. Due to the late obligation of funds, $250,000 was allocated by
    IHS in fiscal year 1999 for the commencement of this cooperative
    effort.
        The current fiscal year (fiscal year 2000) Conference Agreement
    reiterated Congressional intent on this project. We are close to
    obtaining the full year funding of $1 million set aside for this
    purpose in the current fiscal year.
        The Phoenix Indian Medical Center (PIMC) was selected by the IHS as
    the most appropriate site to locate the initial Joslin technology and
    presence.
        The Joslin Vision Network (JVN) will be deployed to three
    additional sites with current year funding. The JVN employs
    telemedicine technology to image the retina of patients with diabetes,
    through an undilated pupil, and produces a digital video image that is
    readable in multiple formats.
        PIMC will serve as the repository for images and will provide
    initial image evaluation and review. The new sites for fiscal year 2000
    are Sells Reservation in the Tucson region, one site in the Bemidgi, MN
    region, and one site in the Billings, Montana region.
        Joslin Diabetes Center will provide training, certification and
    quality assurance services to the newly deployed sites. The deployment
    and installation of these systems will include a comprehensive
    maintenance and support program, which also will include upgrade of the
    current JVN application to the newly designed and enhanced JVN system.
        The IHS staff will participate in the design and development
    workshop Joslin will conduct in June 2000 to identify and incorporate
    needs that are specific to the IHS program into the JVN application.
        IHS officials are enthusiastic about the promise of incorporation
    of Joslin diabetes detection, prevention and care methods and
    technology into the IHS health care system. The initial phase of such
    incorporation involve the trial deployment of Joslin technology to
    several sites in order to refine the Joslin technology to meet the
    specific needs and parameters of the IHS system and patient population.
        It is estimated that two more years of development and training
    will be required before the IHS fully incorporates this technology
    system wide within the IHS.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        It is our understanding that the IHS fiscal year 2001 Budget
    Request includes $1 million for the continuation of this project. We
    request that the Committee approve this portion of the fiscal year 2001
    Budget for continuation of the project at $1 million in fiscal year
    2001.
        The fiscal year 2001 plan for activities includes continuation of
    fiscal year 2000 activities and sites and the following additional
    activities:
      --Upgrade four existing sites to the newly refined JVN system;
      --Deploy enhanced JVN system to additional sites as determined by
            IHS;
      --Certify Image Acquisition and Image Reviewers at each site;
      --Provide the support and infrastructure for a reading center at
            PIMC;
      --Assist in conversion to providing reading services to additional
            sites;
      --Provide an ongoing mechanism for quality assurance for the PIMC
            reading and coordinating center; and
      --Provide a maintenance and support agreement for all newly and
            previously deployed sites.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Thank you for this opportunity to present this fiscal year 2000
    status report and this request for approval of the fiscal year 2001 IHS
    Budget Request of $1 million for the IHS/Joslin project. This project
    is viewed by IHS and Joslin Diabetes Center as a significant medical
    technology breakthrough for the patients and health care system within
    the Indian Health Service.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the 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 today addresses the
    proposed fiscal year 2001 budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
    the Indian Health Service with the following requests and comments:
      --Extension of a Bureau of Indian Affairs loan to assist the
            construction of a new elementary school at Warm Springs;
      --Bill language directing B.I.A. law enforcement services funding to
            be eligible to pay for tribally-hired patrol officers and
            corrections personnel whose pay under the Justice Department's
            COPS program is expiring.
      --Bill language directing the Indian Health Service to fully honor
            its funding commitment to the Warm Springs Wellness Center
            under the terms of the unique Joint Venture with I.H.S.; and
      --Bill language directing the I.H.S. to conduct an assessment to
            measure the financial impact of Self-Governance activity on
            Direct Service Tribes.
        Below, I discuss each of the above requests in detail.
        Extension of a Bureau of Indian Affairs loan to assist the
    construction of a new elementary school at Warm Springs.--As you know,
    construction of a new K-5 elementary school at Warm Springs has been a
    top priority for our Tribe for the past several years. This has become
    even more urgent because the Madras Public School District will clearly
    have increased student population resulting from anticipated growth
    when a new prison is built in Madras in 2002. Our school officials also
    tell us that our students will have an increased rate of high school
    graduation if they spend additional time in school on the reservation
    before transferring to Madras. The Madras Public School District, which
    operates the current outdated and undersized elementary facility at
    Warm Springs, has offered to cover about half the $8 million cost of a
    new school in Warm Springs. Because the School District does not
    believe a bond measure to fully fund a new school at Warm Springs would
    pass, they have challenged the Tribe to come up with the balance of the
    construction costs, something we are unable to do on our own.
        Last year, we sought B.I.A. funding to assist building a new
    facility, but the Interior Department has rebuffed those efforts and
    noted a statutory bar to providing such funds for non-BIA system
    schools. Consequently, in seeking alternative means of assistance, we
    request that a $5 million 1979 BIA loan to the Tribe for twenty years
    at no interest for purposes of construction of our Pelton Reregulating
    Dam Hydroelectric Project, which was statutorily authorized in the
    fiscal year 1979 Interior Appropriations Act and which came due in late
    November, 1999, be extended under the same terms for another twenty
    years to assist in financing the new school. We are presently
    developing a proposal to the BIA to restructure the loan, and hope that
    proposal will at least defer the loan's transfer to the Treasury
    Department for collection, so that a statutory extension through
    appropriations can be considered. We are currently investigating
    whether a statutory extension of the loan could be accomplished just by
    changing ``20 years'' to ``40 years'' in the 1979 Interior
    Appropriations Act, BIA Construction.
        Bill language directing B.I.A. law enforcement services funding to
    be eligible to pay for tribally-hired patrol officers and corrections
    personnel whose pay under the Justice Department's COPS program is
    expiring.--We urge that BIA law enforcement funding be made
    specifically eligible to pay for tribally-hired patrol officers and
    corrections personnel, particularly those whose funding under the
    Department of Justice's COPS program is expiring. The COPS program has
    provided desperately needed law enforcement assistance to reservations
    such as ours where the BIA itself does not directly or through Public
    Law 93-638 provide police services. At Warm Springs, our limited number
    of tribally-funded officer positions have been substantially assisted
    by funding under the Justice Department's COPS grants. But as the COPS
    grants expire, we will not be able to sustain those positions, and will
    have to again scale back to an insufficient force. Meanwhile, the
    B.I.A. has significantly increased permanent funding for its law
    enforcement program over recent years (for fiscal year 2001, B.I.A. law
    enforcement is requested to increase $16 million to $156.6 million),
    but it has dedicated those increases principally to those reservations
    where the B.I.A. directly provides law enforcement services. To help
    alleviate the impact of expiring COPS grants, we request that B.I.A.
    law enforcement funding for fiscal year 2001 be prioritized to replace
    expiring COPS grant funding for tribally-hired law enforcement
    personnel.
        Bill language directing the Indian Health Service to fully honor
    its funding commitment to the Warm Springs Wellness Center under the
    terms of our unique Joint Venture with the I.H.S.--The Indian Health
    Service directly provides health services to the members of the Warm
    Springs Tribes. Prior to 1993, the IHS clinic at Warm Springs was old
    and unable to comply with federal standards for health care delivery,
    yet a new facility for Warm Springs was so far down the IHS
    construction ranking that it would have been many, many years before a
    new facility would be built. So, in 1987, our Tribe developed and
    proposed to the Indian Health Service the idea of a Joint Venture,
    whereby the Tribe would build a new facility to IHS specifications and
    then turn it over at basically no cost to the IHS. In exchange, the IHS
    would fully staff, equip, and maintain the clinic as if it were its own
    new facility. The Joint Venture was authorized in the 1991 Interior
    Appropriations Act. The Tribe spent $5 million to build the new clinic,
    which the IHS staffed in August 1993, at the designated level for such
    a new facility.
        Since that time, IHS staff funding for the Warm Springs clinic has
    not been sufficient to maintain all the positions initially placed
    there. To make up the difference, the clinic has had to draw upon ever-
    increasing amounts of funds collected from third parties. Those funds
    have always been intended for use for the staff training and equipment
    replacement needed to maintain the clinic's accreditation. With those
    funds diverted to maintain existing staff, the clinic is unable to
    address those needs, and although the Joint Venture is only seven years
    old, the quality of the IHS health care at the clinic is already being
    eroded. The alternative is to lay off staff and cut services. While the
    Warm Springs have fulfilled our obligation under the Joint Venture, the
    IHS needs to be directed to fulfill its obligations to the Tribe under
    the Joint Venture by fully supporting the full complement of staff and
    level of service promised.
        Bill language directing the I.H.S. to conduct an assessment to
    measure the financial impact of Self-Governance activity on Direct
    Service Tribes.--We are requesting that Congress direct the Indian
    Health Service to conduct an assessment to measure the financial impact
    of Self-Governance activity on Direct Service Tribes. This assessment
    should identify actual costs and services that have been decreased to
    the Service Units and the Indian Health Service should be directed to
    consult with Direct Service Tribes for this information. Once the
    specific costs are identified we request that Congress provide funds to
    the Indian Health Service specifically to off-set the costs the Direct
    Service Tribes incurred due to the adverse impacts caused by Self-
    Governance activity.
        The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs has estimated the financial
    impact of the Self-Governance Demonstration Project on the Warm Springs
    Health and Wellness Center to be approximately $200,000 per year. This
    excludes the loss of service provided to our Health and Wellness Center
    from the Portland Area Office due to downsizing caused by Self-
    Governance activity.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. Thank you for this
    opportunity. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium

                                  INTRODUCTION

        On behalf of this nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities, which
    comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), we
    thank the Subcommittee for allowing us this opportunity to present our
    fiscal year 2000 appropriations request for the 25 tribally controlled
    colleges funded under Public Law 95-471, The Tribally Controlled
    College or University Assistance Act. The United States Department of
    Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, administers this program, also
    known as the Tribal College Act. AIHEC respectfully requests full
    funding for the Act's authorized programs; however, we realize step-by-
    step increases are a way we can meet that goal over time.
        As our top priority, we specifically request $44,220,000 for Title
    I and II operational grants, an increase of $10 million over fiscal
    year 2000 funding and $7.1 million over the president's budget request.
    Additionally, we seek: $2 million for Title III Endowments with
    matching provision; $2 million for Title IV Economic Development; $5
    million for facility renovation; and $214,000 for technical assistance.
        The total amount under the Act is $53,434,000.
        AIHEC's membership also includes institutions of higher education
    funded under separate authorities within the Department of Interior
    Appropriations Act, and AIHEC fully supports their independently
    submitted funding requests. These include Haskell Indian Nations
    University; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute; the Institute
    for American Indian Arts; United Tribes Technical College and
    Crownpoint Institute of Technology.
        AIHEC was founded in 1972 by the first six tribally chartered and
    controlled community colleges. Today, AIHEC is a cooperatively
    sponsored effort on the part of 33 member institutions throughout the
    United States and Canada, almost all of which are fully accredited or
    accreditation candidates. Tribal Colleges have been developed over the
    last 32 years to bring greater access to higher education opportunities
    to American Indians living on remote and economically disadvantaged
    reservations. Located in 12 States, 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 development in American
    Indian education history, promoting achievement among students who
    would otherwise never know educational success.
        In addition to our focus on academic excellence, Tribal Colleges
    have always addressed the many problems and challenges of our welfare
    system by providing GED, literacy training, remediation and other
    college preparatory courses. Through the Tribal Colleges, American
    Indian communities are being effectively developed and tribal members
    are moving off welfare rolls into gainful employment.
        Tribal Colleges and Universities have had an immediate economic
    impact on local communities through the creation of jobs, services, and
    role models, but even more significant are their long-term promotion of
    workforce development, entrepreneurship and small business growth, and
    efficient, environmentally sounds practices in agriculture and natural
    resources. Over the past few decades median income has been growing
    faster on Tribal College reservations than on similar reservations
    without such schools. Together, our colleges represent the most
    significant and successful development in American Indian education
    history, promoting achievement among students who would otherwise never
    know education success.

                       BACKGROUND AND FUNDING DISPARITIES

        The Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act
    authorizes funding for the basic operating budgets or ``core funding''
    of one qualifying institution per federally-recognized tribe based on a
    full-time American Indian student enrollment formula. Unfortunately,
    the amount appropriated under the Act has never reached the authorized
    level. Today, the colleges remain grossly underfunded. Despite a much
    appreciated increase in our appropriation of $4 million in fiscal year
    2000, the Tribal Colleges still operate at a dramatically less than
    average level of $3,433 per full-time Indian student (ISC). The amount
    is far short of the current $6,000 per ISC authority level.

    Enrollment gains
        Compounding existing funding disparities is the fact that Tribal
    College enrollments continue to steadily increase(the 25 Tribal
    Colleges funded under this Act now serve approximately 22,000 students
    every year. Title I Tribal Colleges recorded a remarkable 275 percent
    increase in full-time Indian students from 1981 to 1999. Additionally,
    funding for Tribal Colleges has not kept pace with inflation. In fiscal
    year 2000, the Title I Tribal Colleges received only $602 more per
    Indian student than they received in 1981. This represents a small
    increase of 21 percent over a 19-year period. When inflation is
    factored in, however, the payment's value actually decreased by more
    than $1,000 (in constant 1981 dollars, $2,831 to slightly less than
    $1,800), or 36 percent, over this period.
        Tribal Colleges, in many ways, fall victim to their own
    successes(the dramatic enrollment increases recorded by our colleges,
    coupled with a growing number of Tribally Controlled Colleges, have
    forced Title I colleges to slice an inadequate pie into smaller and
    smaller pieces. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
    Teaching, in two separate studies, praised the Tribal Colleges for
    addressing longstanding barriers to the advancement of disadvantaged
    reservation populations. They noted the colleges' success in providing
    access to students, strengthening communities and rebuilding cultures
    and called on the Administration and Congress to fund suffering basic
    operational budgets under the Tribal College Act, at fully authorized
    levels.
        Our request for Title I would amount to only $4,539 per full-time
    Indian student, still significantly less than the average amount under
    which mainstream community colleges operate and only 75 percent of the
    authorized amount of $6,000.

    Patchwork funding
        Tribal Colleges are forced to survive on a patchwork of smaller,
    competitive, short-term grants because of insufficient levels of core
    operations funding. This is not a stable way of funding an institution
    of higher learning, but Tribal Colleges have little choice. Several
    colleges face serious struggles because of their funding instability.
    Accrediting agencies have warned many of our colleges about the hazards
    of relying too heavily on temporary funding. None of the colleges under
    this Act are forward-funded, and most do not have adequate reserves or
    endowments. Unlike the state institutions, Tribal Colleges are young
    and still developing and have not built the reserves common at older
    institutions. The lack of expected appropriations and lack of reserves
    actually forced two Tribal Colleges to cease operations during the
    Government furloughs and the budgetary impasse of 1996. In more recent
    years, Congressional Reconciliation Packages have caused continuous
    strain on already difficult situations.

    The absence of State core funding
        While mainstream institutions are able to fall back on a foundation
    of stable state support, Tribal Colleges are reliant on the Federal
    Government for operational funding because we are located on federal
    trust territories. States have no obligation to fund the federal
    responsibility, and, in most cases do not fund the Tribal Colleges. In
    fact, most States do not even fund our colleges for our non-Indian
    state-resident students who account for approximately 20 percent of our
    enrollments. Yet, if these same students attended any other public
    institution in the State, the State would provide ``core funding'' to
    the institution in an amount ranging from $4,600 to $11,000 or more,
    per full-time student.

    Local tax and revenue bases
        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.
    Unemployment for American Indian residents of reservations served by
    Tribal Colleges is 55 percent on average, and can reach as high as 85
    percent.
        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 where
    gaming is not highly profitable. Indeed, only a handful of very small
    and urban tribes account for well over 50 percent of all tribal gaming
    profits. Therefore, gaming has not been a significant or stable source
    of income for the majority of our colleges. In addition, we believe
    gaming tribes should be held to the same standard as States: the
    Federal Government does not require States to share their gaming
    revenue with other States, nor does the Federal Government pin block
    grant of state formula funding on a particular state's lottery or
    gambling revenues.

    Trust responsibility--Government functions
        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 more than 400 treaties, several Supreme Court
    decisions, prior congressional action, and the ceding of more than one
    billion acres of land to the Federal Government. Beyond the trust
    responsibility, the fact remains that Tribal Colleges are providing a
    public service to all American people that no other institutions of
    higher education are willing or can provide. We are helping the Federal
    Government fulfill its responsibility to the American people,
    particularly in rural America. Tribal Colleges do not discriminate
    based on race or ethnicity. They are simply and effectively removing
    barriers that have long prevented equal access to higher education for
    reservation communities.

    Further justifications
        Tribal Colleges provide access to critical postsecondary education
    opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach.--Almost half of
    Tribal College graduates are the first in their families to attend
    college. Most American Indian reservations are located in extremely
    remote areas, and their populations are among the poorest in the
    nation. On average, median household income levels on reservations
    served by Tribal Colleges are only half of the level for the U.S.
    population as a whole. As a result, the cost of attending a mainstream
    institution is usually prohibitively high, especially when tuition,
    travel, housing, textbooks, and all other expenses are considered. In
    addition, for many American Indian communities, the nearest mainstream
    institution is several hours away, making attendance virtually
    impossible.
        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.--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.
    In contrast to the high rates of unemployment in most reservation
    communities, three-quarters of recent Tribal College graduates were
    employed and using the skills gained through their educational
    experiences. Of these graduates, significant percentages employed in
    ``high need'' occupational areas such as elementary and secondary
    school teachers (13 percent) and nurses/health care providers (16
    percent). Just as important, the overwhelming majority of Tribal
    College graduates(almost 85 percent(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.
        Tribal College students and faculty 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 of the Title I and II
    colleges have completed a detailed economic development plan that
    strongly justifies the need for the economic development appropriation
    (Title IV) recommended in this statement.
        Tribal Colleges meet the strict standards of mainstream
    accreditation boards and offer top-quality academic programs.--Several
    colleges, including Turtle Mountain Community College, Sitting Bull
    College, Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College and Stone Child
    College, have been granted a ten-year accreditation term--the longest
    term allowed for any higher education institution. The quality of the
    colleges' programs is reflected in the high rates of satisfaction
    reported by their graduates: about 90 percent of Tribal College
    graduates reported being very satisfied or satisfied with courses in
    their major field of study and with overall instruction.
        Tribal Colleges serve as highly effective bridges to four-year
    postsecondary institutions.--While most Tribal Colleges are two-year
    institutions offering associate's degrees and certificates, their
    transfer function is significant. A recent survey of Tribal Colleges
    indicated that almost 50 percent of graduating students continued their
    education during the year after their graduation, with the majority
    pursuing bachelor's degrees. Nationally, about 35 percent of community
    college graduates who received associate's degrees remain enrolled in
    higher education the next year. The overwhelming majority of the
    continuing Tribal College graduates felt that the programs at Tribal
    Colleges had prepared them well for further education. 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.
        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 to
    rural America. Most of the colleges have business assistance centers
    that provide help to both students and the wider community.
        Tribal Colleges have become centers for American Indian language
    and cultural research, preservation, and revitalization.--Many Tribal
    Colleges now serve as tribal archives, and all offer courses in tribal
    history, literature, government, language, and other aspects of
    American Indian culture.

                          HIGH PRIORITY AREAS OF NEED

        Like mainstream institutions, each Tribal College strives to fully
    develop its institution and to expand services to address the needs of
    its increasing student body.--If each college received full or at least
    increased core operational funding in fiscal year 2001, Tribal Colleges
    could focus high priority areas of need, such as (1) maintaining
    accreditation by stabilizing core operational budgets and moving away
    from piecemeal core budgets; (2) improving instructional capabilities
    and enhancing student support services; (3) expanding library services
    and collections; (4) maintaining and improving facilities and enhancing
    laboratory facilities; (5) expanding technology through the Tribal
    Colleges' High Technology Plan, which includes T1 or greater access at
    all tribal Colleges; (6) expanding child care facilities; and (7)
    constructing community or cultural centers.

        BUILDING ON THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

        The President's budget request reflects a $2.9 million increase for
    the core operations grant funding under Titles I and II of the Act.
    Although we are very appreciative for this increase request and
    acknowledge that it will be helpful to the 25 institutions funded under
    the 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
    attained will equal educational opportunities begin to exist for
    American Indians, and only then will Tribal Colleges have the resources
    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, we
    strongly urge the Subcommittee to increase funding for Tribal Colleges.
    Fulfillment of AIHEC's fiscal year 2001 request will strengthen the
    missions of our 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 19 years. Our institutions have proven themselves as a sound
    federal investment, and we ask for your continued support.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indians
                                Tribes of Alaska

        GREETINGS FROM ALASKA! My name is Edward K. Thomas. I am the
    elected President of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian
    Tribes of Alaska (hereinafter ``Tlingit Haida''), a federally
    recognized Indian tribe from Southeast Alaska with over 23,000 members.
    I have served as the elected President of my Tribe since 1984. Thank
    you for the opportunity to submit written testimony to this
    Subcommittee regarding the fiscal year 2001 budget request for Indian
    programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. My testimony will address
    two issues: First, the overall funding levels requested by the Clinton
    Administration for fiscal year 2001 Indian programs. Second, the
    contract support cost funding crisis that has nearly strangled my
    Tribe's operations.
     the increases in the fiscal year 2001 budget request are long overdue
        While its record with regard to Indian affairs has caused me and
    the Tribe I lead to be a persistent critic of the Clinton
    Administration over the years, I applaud the Administration for
    substantially increasing its overall budget request for fiscal year
    2001 Indian programs. During the past seven years, Tlingit Haida and
    many other Indian Tribes have been greatly disappointed by the non-
    responsive of both the Clinton Administration's requests and the
    Congress's funding levels, in relation to the grossly unmet needs that
    persist in most Native American communities and especially in much of
    Alaska. However, we are pleasantly surprised to see, in its last year
    in office, the Administration put forward a request with increases that
    would begin to make substantial progress toward eradicating our huge,
    unmet needs. Tlingit Haida urges the Senate Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee in particular, and the Senate Appropriations Committee in
    general, to support the significant increases for Native American
    programs, government-wide, which are requested for fiscal year 2001. We
    note that, in addition to proposing increases for a number of core
    programs in the BIA and IHS--ranging from housing to roads to
    replacement schools to health disparities--the Administration's fiscal
    year 2001 budget proposal requests other increases and new programs in
    other agencies, such as the Departments of Justice, Housing and Urban
    Development, Education and Commerce, with these proposed increases
    totaling $1.2 billion overall. We hope that this Committee and the
    Congress will concur by appropriating the full amounts requested.

            FIX THE CSC FUNDING SHORTFALLS THAT CHOKE OUR OPERATIONS

        My Tribe, and many other Indian tribes who lack a revenue base
    other than Federal grants, are in a state of crisis as a result of the
    calculation method and the underpayment of indirect costs, also known
    as Contract Support Costs (CSC). Both the Congress and the
    Administration are responsible for this crisis. At the end of my
    testimony, I propose some language which would, as an interim measure,
    resolve part of the problem even as the Congress considers more
    comprehensive solutions. I ask that the Subcommittee add our proposed
    bill language to direct the Department of the Interior to ``de-link''
    certain funds from the calculation of indirect cost rates. Unless our
    language is added, the increases in direct funding that are reflected
    in the fiscal year 2001 budget request will compound our problem. As
    described below, Tlingit Haida will not be able to afford to accept
    increased direct funding under Head Start and other similar non-BIA
    programs because that will hike our indirect cost rate and enlarge our
    unfunded shortfall in contract support costs.
        Tlingit Haida's Administrative Costs Are Kept to a Minimum.--I am
    proud to report that the Tlingit Haida has, year after year, restrained
    the pressures to increase its administrative spending. We have kept our
    increases below the national rate of inflation, despite the fact that
    our unemployment rates are exceedingly high and the resulting pressure
    from our membership is to make job creation the priority above all
    other program and service priorities.
        History of Tlingit Haida's Shortfall.--Despite our administrative
    cost restraint, for the period between 1996 through 1999, the BIA
    failed to deliver to Tlingit Haida a total of $953,781 in contract
    support cost funding which the BIA's own negotiators, applying uniform
    federal rules, had determined was due Tlingit Haida for our operation
    of BIA-funded programs. This shortfall of $953,781 represents actual
    expenditures that were approved and allowable. In fact, if we did not
    spend this $953,781, our receipt of BIA funds would be jeopardized,
    because this $953,781 is part of the overall contract support costs we
    are required to spend in order to assure proper management of the BIA
    program dollars we administer. The only way we can continue to qualify
    to administer the program funding is if we find some non-federal source
    of funds to pay for this shortfall. But Tlingit Haida, unlike some
    other Tribes, has no substantial revenue source other than grants.
    Without a land base, Tlingit Haida is unable to operate any significant
    economic enterprises or otherwise gain permit or tax revenues. The only
    income producing asset we have is our modest tribal trust fund. Tlingit
    Haida jealously guards the interest income from that fund, seeking to
    expand the principle for the sake of future generations, and to apply a
    limited portion of its proceeds to tribal programs targeted at meeting
    the emergency needs of tribal members. If we use our trust fund income
    to replace the Federal Government's contractual obligations regarding
    contract support costs, we rob ourselves of opportunities to address
    the many problems facing our people whose unemployment rates are on the
    average twice that of unemployment rates during the Great Depression of
    the last century.
        Throughout the past decade, our BIA contract support costs have
    been severely under funded. In 1996 we recovered only 87 percent of our
    contract support need. This meant we faced a 1996 shortfall in funding
    of $129,418. We did not learn about this shortfall until about halfway
    through our program year. Leases had been signed. Purchases made.
    Employees hired. We were well into our budget year, with expenditures
    meeting plan when suddenly we were told to our complete surprise and
    without any warning that the equivalent of about six weeks of
    operations would be unfunded. We were forced to pull $129,418 out of
    our modest Trust Fund earnings in order to meet the costs we were stuck
    with by the United States. In 1997, BIA again notified us mid-way
    through our budget year that we would be underfunded, this time we were
    to receive only 77 percent of our BIA-generated contract support
    funding requirements. This amounted to an actual under-recovery of
    $299,287, nearly one-fourth of our annual, BIA-approved budget. Halfway
    through 1998, BIA notified us our payment be only 80 percent of our
    contract support need. This amounted to an actual shortfall of
    $302,400. In 1999, the BIA informed us that available funding permitted
    BIA to send us only 88 percent of the indirect costs associated with
    our operation of BIA-funded programs, creating a 1999 shortfall of
    $222,676.
        Indirect Costs are Fixed Cost Requirements.--If indirect costs were
    not primarily ``fixed'' costs, the recurring problem of a shortfall in
    BIA contract support cost funding would, perhaps, be survivable. But
    most of our actual indirect costs are ``fixed''. For example, typically
    the most cost-effective way to acquire facility space or equipment is
    through a long-term lease with locked-in costs. Similarly, package
    deals for telephone and some forms of transportation offer significant
    cost savings over time. And obviously, the salary and benefit costs of
    accounting, administrative, and management staff must be treated as
    ``fixed'' or else we cannot hire and retain employees. Tribal indirect
    cost funding is a ``requirement'', not a ``need''. CSC levels are
    determined by rates that are used uniformly by federal agencies with
    all contractors, including universities and the defense industry. The
    rates use actual expenditures from prior years to project costs in the
    future year. Once set, the rates must be applied uniformly to all our
    programs. We would spiral into bankruptcy if we chose to not spend at
    the budgeted amounts. Failing to pay certain fixed costs would actually
    increase our costs (breaking leases, terminating employees, breaching
    contracts). Deferring certain costs to the following year aggravates
    the hardship of the shortfalls that cripple that year.
        Sources of the CSC Shortfall Problem.--There are several reasons
    why we have the present shortfall crisis in BIA contract support
    funding. The GAO study released in June, 1999 details them in adequate
    fashion. Here I wish only to note that if Congress and the
    Administration had set up a separate appropriations account for the
    direct funds under tribal contracts, like the separate account set up
    for indirect costs associated with the operation of those tribal
    contracts, Congress would have been better able to identify the gap in
    growth of these two inter-related accounts. GAO reports that between
    1989 to 1998, the growth in actual funding of ``indirect'' costs by BIA
    and IHS was less (224 percent) than the growth in ``direct'' cost funds
    placed in contracts and compacts (238 percent). In other words,
    although direct and indirect funds were ``de-linked'' some time ago, no
    attention was paid to how out of proportion they were becoming.
        A Partial Fix for the Shortfall Problem--Change How Interior
    Calculates our Rate.--Obviously, the simplest way to fix the shortfall
    problem is to increase funding for CSC. But until that can happen,
    there is another partial solution that has no budgetary impact.
    Changing how our rate is calculated would remedy an existing, practical
    inequity that causes some tribes to be hurt more than others by the
    shortfall. Tribes who receive nearly all their revenue from BIA and IHS
    sources, and tribes who have non-federal resources from tribal revenues
    at their disposal, both have an incentive under the present system to
    classify more costs as indirect, thereby hiking their rates and
    obtaining higher shares of contract support funds even with the
    shortfalls. Tribes like Tlingit Haida who receive funding from a
    variety of sources in addition to the BIA, but have little or no tribal
    revenues, have no such incentive but also have no ability to make up
    the difference from the shortfall. Tribes like ours are in crisis as
    the shortfalls recur year after year.
        While the Public Law 93-638 protections against theoretical under-
    recovery do help with respect to BIA funding shortfalls, they still do
    not cushion our Tribe from the difficulties of dealing with shortfalls
    in non-BIA programs for which we must, by law, use the same indirect
    cost rate. If in year one we don't spend uniformly on all programs, BIA
    and non-BIA alike, this will lower the rate negotiated for the
    following year because the rate must be based on actual expenditures
    for the prior year. That lower rate is applied across the board to all
    programs, BIA included. When the BIA ``requirement'' is calculated by
    the rate, the BIA then applies an additional reduction to reflect the
    pro rata shortfall in appropriations earmarked for the BIA contract
    support cost fund. The bottom line is that our bottom line gets smaller
    and smaller, year after year while our expenses remain steady or rise
    with inflation. Accordingly, to enable grant-dependent Tribes like
    Tlingit Haida to be able to continue to administer federal funds from
    non-BIA agencies (e.g., Head Start funds whose administrative costs are
    statutorily capped at a very low level), we need to have the
    flexibility to remove such funds from the pool of costs which Interior
    uses to calculate our overall indirect cost rates. To do this,
    statutory language will be needed. We ask that the Subcommittee include
    the following language in the administrative provisions of the fiscal
    year 2001 Interior Appropriations Act:

        ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law or circular or
    regulation issued thereunder, a tribe or tribal organization may elect
    to have any grant or other type of funding, as well as all associated
    indirect cost funding whether negotiated as a lump sum or otherwise,
    excluded from the indirect and direct bases of funds from which the
    indirect cost rate of the tribe or tribal organization is calculated by
    the Secretary of the Interior: Provided, That such exclusion may be
    made only with respect to funds other than those appropriated to the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs or Indian Health Service and upon which a
    statutory or other limitation is placed by the funding source on the
    amount of administrative or indirect costs associated with such
    funding.''

        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for
    the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of Central Council
    of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska and its citizens we serve.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Ketchikan Indian Corporation

        Greetings. My English name is Stephanie Rainwater-Sande and my
    Haida name is Dat Kan San, which means ``asking for something''. I am
    the Tribal Council President of the Ketchikan Indian Corporation (KIC).
    Thank you for this opportunity to provide written testimony on the
    fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    and Indian Health Service (IHS).
        Ketchikan Indian Corporation (KIC) is a federally recognized tribal
    government created under the Indian Reorganization Act (I.R.A.); the
    Secretary of the Interior approved the KIC Constitution in 1940. We
    currently have 4,300 members, and our enrollment has been growing each
    month.
        In 1976, KIC was one of the first Indian Tribes to assume, under
    the newly enacted Public Law 93-638, the Tribal operation of BIA-funded
    programs. In 1993, KIC was one of several Tribes in Alaska that first
    participated in the first BIA Tribal Self Governance demonstration
    program. Since then, we have managed our federally funded programs with
    increased flexibility and an equal measure of increased accountability.
        Through Self-Governance, we have shifted the focus of our welfare-
    assistance programs more towards Tribal employment and training. Years
    before policy-makers in Washington D.C. decided that handing out a
    welfare check was not a solution with a future, the KIC Tribal Council
    decided in 1993 to refocus the BIA-funded General Assistance grant
    program to provide training and other tools designed to end dependency,
    encourage self-sufficiency, and foster permanent, full-time employment.
    This program is now known as the Tribal Welfare-Employment Program or
    TWEP used by many Indian tribes. Our Tribal administration is also
    responsible for the operation of other programs not covered by this
    Subcommittee (for example, in 1997, KIC established a Housing Authority
    and became a HUD Indian Housing Block Grant recipient. Our HUD housing
    grant now totals nearly one million dollars annually.).
        Tribal Self-Governance has strengthened our Tribal administrative
    and management control systems, allowing the Tribe to grow and better
    target our delivery of services. Our increased Tribal economic activity
    during the last decade has had a visibly beneficial impact on our non-
    Native neighbors who have been hit hard by the closing of so many of
    the timber industry facilities and the downturn in regional commercial
    fishing. In these difficult times, we have entered into agreements with
    community and federally funded agencies to leverage our program funds
    to provide the maximum possible benefits. We have merged the
    administration of our BIA and IHS funded social service programs to
    achieve greater efficiencies and more comprehensive services. Other
    programs we have integrated include Higher Education and Vocational
    Training. Our original program Johnson O'Malley (JOM) still operates
    within the public school system, offering a rich Knowledge of our
    Alaska Native heritage and culture to all students. However, the JOM
    funding we receive is at an all time low and so our Tribe has allocated
    additional sums to supplement that program from our general Tribal
    Priority Allocations funding. We encourage the Subcommittee to increase
    the JOM funding available, given how valuable is the knowledge that it
    encourages to be gained by our children and their non-Native friends
    who must learn how the diversity of cultures is something to be
    celebrated and cherished.
        KIC's various economic development enterprises likewise continue to
    flourish, providing additional employment opportunities for Tribal
    members and revenue for Tribal services. Despite all of our efforts,
    and those of this Subcommittee, tremendous unmet needs still exist
    among our people, many of whom struggle with extreme poverty and
    hardship. KIC is committed to improving its efforts to efficiently and
    effectively meet these unmet needs by aggressive marshaling federal
    funds even as KIC makes significant strides toward increased self-
    sufficiency.

                                 HEALTH FUNDING

        KIC is a member of the Alaska Native Health Board (ANHB) and
    supports the ANHB testimony seeking additional IHS patient travel
    funding for Alaska. Another $10 million is needed to supplement the
    expense that Tribes and tribal organizations in Alaska experience due
    to our extreme conditions. The burden of travel expense is much higher
    in the expansive and rugged geographical terrain of Alaska.
        For example, Ketchikan is located in the rural Southeast portion of
    Alaska where the only access to IHS-funded hospital facilities and
    specialty services is by air travel. This has become a tremendous
    burden on KIC's health budget. In 1998, $110,610 was expended on travel
    costs alone for 197 KIC hospital patients. In 1999, $64,000 was spent
    on the travel costs of 146 patients. These travel expenses take away
    from other health services that could be offered by the Tribe.
        In large part due to the financial cost and personal toll imposed
    by an out-dated IHS health care delivery system, KIC has been compelled
    to insist that IHS provide it with all of the funding associated with
    the hospital-related programs, functions, services and activities that
    KIC has assumed under its Compact and Annual Funding Agreement with the
    IHS. The IHS has refused to do so, claiming an adverse impact will
    arise from the resulting (approximate) 10 percent reduction in the
    funding the IHS has previously allocated to an IHS-funded hospital in
    Sitka, Alaska for the benefit of patients from Ketchikan. KIC's claim
    under the contract Disputes Act is for $1,856,947, which is the
    adjusted amount of fiscal year 2000 funds appropriated and allocated
    for the hospital-related activities KIC has assumed under its fiscal
    year 2000 AFA, as well as the indirect costs associated with these
    direct dollars pursuant to KIC's negotiated indirect cost rate.
        The KIC Tribal Council decided to file its Contracts Disputes Act
    lawsuit because KIC seeks to spend its hospital-related fiscal year
    2000 appropriated funds principally at the local Ketchikan General
    Hospital (``KGH'') rather than at the IHS-funded Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital
    in Sitka. In previous fiscal years, the KIC Tribal Council adopted
    resolutions authorizing a tribal organization, the Southeast Alaska
    Regional Health Consortium (``SEARHC''), to provide hospital-related
    activities for KIC's benefit at the Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital. But given
    the increasing costs and risks of travel, continued use of a hospital
    far from Ketchikan makes no financial nor personal nor policy sense in
    this day and age.
        KIC is located within one of the largest urban areas of Alaska. The
    health clinic operated by KIC is located next door to the KGH, which is
    one of the largest hospitals in Alaska. Sitka where the IHS-funded Mt.
    Edgecumbe Hospital is located is 12 hours away from Ketchikan by ferry
    and nearly an hour away by jet. Flying between Sitka and Ketchikan is
    further complicated by adverse weather conditions at both places (fog,
    strong winds and low visibility). Transporting KIC patients and their
    families by air from Ketchikan to Sitka for basic hospital services
    wastes scarce health dollars and imposes great cost inefficiencies,
    unnecessary medical risks and needless personal hardships on the
    patients for whom KIC is responsible. The additional costs of lodging,
    delayed treatment, and family disruption are immense. Moreover, another
    separate but significant portion of KIC's health care funding has been
    withheld, with the continued consent and support of KIC, for the
    provision of sophisticated hospital-based and specialty services at the
    new Alaska Native Medical Center (``ANMC'') in Anchorage. Anchorage is
    nearly a half-day's travel by airplane from Ketchikan. Having one
    backup hospital (ANMC) an airplane flight away is enough. Using two
    hospitals at distant and hard-to-reach cities is a waste of critically
    needed health care funds in the context of KIC and its unique placement
    next to KGH. This type of redundancy has been a concern repeatedly
    raised by both KIC and the Alaska Congressional delegation. But given
    IHS's unwillingness to transfer to us our hospital-related funding, KIC
    has been forced to sue for relief under the Contract Disputes Act. We
    ask only that the Congress not interfere with the judicial and
    administrative resolution of that litigation under the Contract
    Disputes Act.
        We ask that the Subcommittee continue to work to bridge the gap in
    health care services and conditions that exists between Americans as a
    whole and Native Americans. This will necessarily require increased
    health funding for Native Americans, which at present are funded at
    half the level that is spent on the rest of America's citizens. We also
    ask this Subcommittee to support the legislative efforts Reps. Don
    Young and J.D. Hayworth to establish contract support cost (CSC)
    funding as entitlement rather than discretionary spending. KIC opposes
    any reallocation of health CSC funding on a pro-rata basis. KIC
    supports the IHS policy of promoting stability by not reducing CSC
    being paid to a tribe from one year to the next.
        We also ask that the Subcommittee not enact further authority like
    that in Section 314 of the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act
    which attempts to limit the liability of the IHS and BIA for past
    failures to fulfill contract support obligations to tribes and tribal
    organizations under Public Law 93-638, as amended. IHS has used Section
    314, we believe in error, to deny payment to KIC of $325,000 in startup
    costs that were due KIC under our Compact for the startup of our clinic
    operations in 1997-1998. We ask that fiscal year 2001 bill language be
    included which expressly permits legitimate startup costs from prior
    years, like KIC's $325,000, to be paid from the fiscal year 2001 funds.
        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. KIC supports the $60 million request proposed by ANHB for the
    funding of inflation adjustments. Despite increases in appropriations
    from fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 1998, there has been an 18 percent
    decline in the adjusted per capita expenditures, or purchasing power,
    of IHS funding. The immediate solution would be to place inflation or
    population growth safeguards in the budget. Population growth is a
    large part of the equation. The methodology used to determine our
    Compact budget is based on the 1990 census, which said we had 1,566
    members within our service area. But our current membership is now
    4,300 people, and we now 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. 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
    human limits. The methodology of funding these costs has proven to be
    completely inadequate; it has created shortfalls which have had to be
    absorbed by the Tribe and by service reductions. Of the $127 million
    inflationary shortfall identified by the IHS for fiscal year 1999, only
    $60 million was appropriated. Congress must identify a more logical
    response and methodology of keeping up with this inflationary
    shortfall. An increase in funding is needed beginning in fiscal year
    2001 to alleviate this detrimental erosion of the Indian health care
    system.

                    BIA CONTRACT SUPPORT FUNDS AND PROGRAMS

        We share the concerns of other tribes that the inability of the BIA
    to fund 100 percent of identified contract support costs serves as a
    disincentive to increased contracting or compacting of federal
    programs. Over the last five years approximately 80 percent of the
    tribal indirect costs have been funded. This shortfall greatly reduces
    the ability of a Tribe like KIC to meet its obligations to administer
    and manage its Compact operations. Inadequate funding weakens and
    imperils the effective delivery of all program services. Significant
    increases must be applied to this account in order to assure adequate
    administrative control of vital program services being provided by
    Indian tribes.
        We wish also to note our objection to how the BIA has altered the
    Housing Improvement Program (HIP) funding allocation system. Without
    meaningful consultation, BIA abruptly changed the funding allocation
    methodology from use of a housing inventory data base to an untested
    system that purported to allocate funds based on the individual
    eligible applicants. At the very least, the change was disruptive, and
    we doubt it does anything but add to existing inequities. It also
    appears to forever consign recipients to a dependency status of poverty
    that precludes them from ever owning a home.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The BIA and HIS funding for tribal programs falls far short of
    tribal needs. The growth of funding for Indian programs has not kept
    pace with the rise in basic unmet need, nor with the demands of
    inflation and population growth. KIC, like other tribes, uses our own
    resources to supplement our BIA and IHS funding. KIC, like other
    tribes, seeks to maximize administrative efficiency and creatively to
    address the shortfall.
        Our tribal members are excited about this new chapter in our
    Tribe's history. We see a bright future that includes the growth of
    tribal enterprises which provide more employment opportunities for
    tribal members and more revenue for tribal governmental programs. We
    thank you for this privilege to provide testimony. If the Committee has
    any questions concerning these requests or comments, we would be glad
    to respond.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the St. George Traditional Council of the Aleut
             Community of the Pribilof Island of St. George, Alaska

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, on behalf of my people I
    thank you for this opportunity to provide this testimony on Indian
    Health Service (IHS) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) issues.
        My name is Boris Merculief. 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 Aleuts of all
    ages who reside on St. George Island.
        We are a small Aleut community located on a remote Pribilof island
    that has been the homeland of our people 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.
        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 been
    engaging in a discussion with other Pribilof Island entities and with
    our Alaska congressional delegation on how best to proceed to gain a
    fair resolution of our various claims against the United States for the
    harm it has caused our people and our Island by taking away our entire
    means of livelihood--the fur seal harvesting that was our economic
    mainstay for generations until a complete moratorium was imposed in the
    early 1980s by interests far from our Island. 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 two
    centuries.
        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 #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 is
    required to serve everyone, regardless of whether they are Aleuts or
    other Alaska Natives.
        Our health Clinic facility is dangerously dilapidated. For years,
    we have been promised a replacement Clinic by the IHS but nothing has
    been done. 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. But housing is in very short supply. The lone, 10-
    room hotel on St. George charges $130 per night, sorely taxing our
    scarce health services budget.
        Meanwhile, across the street from our Clinic is a National Oceanic
    and Aeronautic Administration (NOAA) facility that is mostly unused and
    empty. 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 infrequently by National Marine and
    Fisheries Services (NMFS) supervisory personnel when they visit our
    Island.
        We estimate that NMFS and other Federal personnel use ``Cottage C''
    only about 10 percent of the year. The cost by NOAA to maintain this
    building for that amount of usage is not a good use of funds. When the
    Federal government pulled out of St. George Island in 1983, both the
    City of St. George and Tanaq, the ANCSA village corporation, received
    facilities and staff quarters which were transferred to them by various
    Federal agencies. However, as the entity that is responsible for all
    medical care on St. George Island, the St. George Traditional Council
    has no quarters to house medical personnel that visit the Island.
        IHS funds for basic specialty health services like dental and eye
    care have been quite limited. 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.
        With the reorganization of IHS, we have been notified 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 added 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
    these medical visits.
        In addition to serving as temporary staff housing, ``Cottage C''
    could also provide some 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
    literally were forced to lay them in the hallways and as we did not
    have adequate bedding, 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.
        In short, we ask this Subcommittee to set in motion the immediate
    transfer of ownership and control of ``Cottage C'' to the St. George
    Traditional Council for its use for public health purposes on the
    Island of St. George. 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 #2.--Special Add-On or Ear-Mark to Repair Our IHS Clinic.
        Our existing IHS Clinic is facing major structural problems that
    may force us to close it in the immediate future. Its plumbing system
    is nearly completely destroyed and inoperative. Its central heating
    system is completely inoperable. The Clinic rests on a bad foundation
    that is causing structural damage. We are now 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 were run through the
    concrete slab foundation and 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 9
    recommendations (we would be pleased to provide a full copy of the
    engineering report to the Subcommittee upon request) of which the most
    significant was the need to build a replacement Clinic. The cost
    estimate for this construction was $980,000.00, 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. The 1999 report of
    the independent engineering firm concerns us greatly. We may be without
    any Clinic facility in the very near future. The costs for replacement
    now stand at $2 million.
        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 that the
    health facilities on St. George are to be maintained and constructed,
    with all costs charged to the budget of the Secretary of Health and
    Human Services.
        Accordingly, we ask this Subcommittee to add-on or earmark $2
    million to permit emergency repairs and immediate replacement of our
    health Clinic facility given the serious deterioration and the public
    health hazard that our health Clinic has become. Thank you.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the 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
    written testimony on the fiscal year 2001 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
        Support for $97,500 for the Squaxin Island Shellfish Management
    Regional
        Support for $6.5 million for 20 Western Washington Tribes and the
    Northwest Indian; Fisheries Commission for Tribal shellfish harvest
    management, enforcement and enhancement to implement Tribal treaty
    rights through the establishment of base shellfish operations;
        Support for $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;
        Support additional funding of $3.048 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 and vessel subsidized payment account
        $300,000 for the Point no Point Wildlife Program; and,
        Support all requests and recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes
    of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and
    the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
    Self-Governance and other national issues
        Provision of Contract Support Funding in BIA and IHS at the level
    of need documented by Tribe for existing and emerging programs;
        Joint BIA/IHS CSC Policy should be model more in line with that of
    the IHS rather than that of the BIA;
        Competitive Awards in the IHS should be identified after
    consultation with Tribes to determine the areas for such awards;
        Provide a minimum of $25 million in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment;
        Support at a minimum, existing funding levels within the Bureau for
    Trust Responsibility, Tribal Priority Allocation, and Self-Governance
    that pertain to Fisheries Management and U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon
    Treaty at fiscal year 2000 levels;
        Provide $201 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increases needed to maintain existing health care services;
        Support Tribal Court funding to $58.4 million; and,
        Support the requests and recommendations of the National Congress
    of American Indians and the National Indian Health Board.

                         NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF REQUESTS

    SE 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 $6.5 million 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 $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 additional funding of $3.048 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 Contract Support Costs
    (CSC) in the BIA and the IHS at the level of need documented by the
    Tribe up to 100 percent. 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 requests and recommendations of the Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board, the and Northwest Indian Fisheries
    Commission. 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 S. 979, a bill to make Self-Governance a permanent tribal
            option in the IHS
      --Support S. 299, 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 the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in
                                    Oklahoma

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (UKB) is
    a federally recognized tribe in the fourteen northeastern counties of
    Oklahoma. Known as the ``Western Cherokees'' for their unilateral
    decision to avoid assimilated Cherokees who remained in the East until
    removal, the UKB is a Band of Cherokee Indians which has remained
    separate from other Cherokee groups for political, religious and
    ethnological reasons since the early 1800's.
        The UKB chose its own chiefs and captains, engaged in a distinct
    culture and government, and acted separately from the mainstream
    Cherokee Nation in numerous treaties with the United States. The
    Federal Government subjected the Eastern Cherokee, which remained in
    Georgia and Tennessee, to the Removal Policy and forcibly marched
    approximately seventeen thousand (17,000) Cherokees at gunpoint onto
    the seven million (7,000,000) acres the UKB received under the Treaty
    of 1828. These federal actions caused a forced administrative joinder
    of the UKB and what became the Cherokee Nation in the mid-1830's.
        Tense relations between Keetoowahs and the newly arrived Eastern
    Cherokees led to fierce clashes, also when the Keetoowahs sided with
    the Union in the Civil War. The Keetoowahs resisted submitting to the
    Dawes Roll and administration, so most of the allotments of the seven
    million (7,000,000) acre reservation went only to non-Keetoowahs. The
    U.S. Government promised the UKB possession and use of the unallotted
    lands within the Cherokee Nation but still ignores this promise. As a
    result, the UKB has no lands in trust. In 1993, the Department of the
    Interior reaffirmed the status of the UKB as an autonomous historical
    tribe. In 1998, the UKB began to administer its own federal programs
    for exclusive UKB members.

            LONG AND SHORT RANGE GOALS FOR SURVIVAL/SELF-SUFFICIENCY

        With limited federal funding, the UKB Tribal Council has actively
    worked for many years to maintain lines of communication between tribal
    members and the tribal government despite a denial of federal funding.
    The UKB conducted a needs assessment survey and compiled statistics for
    HUD under a Community Development Block Grant. The UKB works with local
    BIA Agency and Area Offices, RDA, EPA, the Corps of Engineers, and
    other agencies to address housing access and other community needs.

                                   UKB GOALS

        The long range plan of the UKB relating to governance and
    addressing social needs reflect the UKB Charter (I and II),
    Constitution (Article III) and By-Laws, and Tribal Council Resolutions
    (see Attachment). These include:
      --Strengthening the ability of the UKB Council and Administration to
            govern and provide for the social and economic needs of all
            tribal members, particularly the elderly, disabled and youth;
      --Providing for unmet education and social needs of tribal members;
            reclaiming and preserving the legal, historical and cultural
            heritage of the UKB;
      --Achieving self-sufficiency through the generation of income by
            tribal enterprises; maintaining economic solvency by
            diversifying income sources.

                UKB EFFORTS TO ADDRESS CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVES

        To date, there have been NO formal meetings inclusive of all the
    tribes affected by Congressional Directive BIA 99-4, SR 105-227 (July
    1998). There have been informal verbal exchanges among UKB
    Councilmembers and administrators and representatives of Cherokee
    Nation of Oklahoma and the Delaware Tribe of Oklahoma in the months
    since the passage of the fiscal year 2000 budget. UKB administrators
    informed the Muskogee Area Office of efforts to address the Directive.
    On 22 June 1999, John Berry, Assistant Secretary-Policy, Management and
    Budget, Department of the Interior, provided a summary of issues and
    the status of BIA efforts to address the Directive, noting:
      --The fiscal year Annual Funding Agreement for the Self-Governance
            Compact with Cherokees includes a provision to allow for
            division of funds among the Cherokee, Delaware and UKB pending
            the outcome of court actions results of legislative proposals;
            and, development of plans, procedures and methodologies for
            determining non-duplicative service populations and service
            areas.
      --Presently, members of the UKB and Delaware receive all Bureau-
            funded program services through the Cherokee Nation of
            Oklahoma. Neither of these two tribes currently receives any
            program funds from the BIA, except the UKB has a contract with
            the BIA for Aid to Tribal Government funds.
      --Personnel from the Muskogee BIA Area Office have met with each of
            the three tribes in an attempt to bring the parties together.
            While the BIA can facilitate discussions among parties, each of
            the three tribes is responsible for service. Individuals with
            dual enrollment may have to choose the service provider tribe.
            These tribal disputes go back many years and are unlikely to be
            resolved soon.
      --The UKB has never received New Tribes funds though the Delaware
            Tribe did Informal discussions with staff of the local BIA and
            other agency officials since July 1998 relating to
            Congressional Directive 99-4, SR 105-227, although productive,
            have not resulted in material progress toward assurance the UKB
            will obtain a proportional share of the Self-Governance Compact
            funds based on the service population of the UKB, which the
            Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has included in its headcount
            without providing services. If the BIA has ``tried to bring the
            parties together'' to negotiate these matters, those efforts
            have not included the UKB . . . perhaps because efforts to
            bring the CNO to the table are unavailing. The UKB has
            undertaken the following independent actions consistent not
            only with the need to address the Congressional Directive, but
            also the overall UKB goals:
        Objective I: The UKB has identified the number of exclusive UKB
    members as indicated in the BIA Certified Audit.--In 1990, in
    cooperation with the Muskogee Area Office, the UKB compiled data on the
    exclusivity of UKB members and, in 1992, Rosella Garbow reported the
    UKB had approximately four thousand, seven hundred (4,700) exclusive
    members. The UKB has required all new applicants for membership to
    voluntarily relinquish membership in any other federally recognized
    tribe since September 1990. The UKB automated its enrollment system by
    June 1999. On 21 September 1999, at the request of the UKB, Muskogee
    Acting Area Director James E. Fields provided a certified audit of the
    number of UKB tribal members residing within the State of Oklahoma.
        As of this date, the membership of the UKB is six thousand (6,000).
    In the following months, the State of Oklahoma entered into both a
    Motor Fuels Tax Agreement and a Cigarette Tax Agreement with the UKB
    based upon the UKB enrollment audit. The UKB automated database
    includes the names of six thousand, one hundred, thirteen (6,113)
    persons to date, representing the total service-eligible UKB
    membership.
        Objective II: Progress toward identifying (1) UKB-owned lands, (2)
    unallotted lands within the Old Cherokee Nation, (3) the number of
    exclusive UKB members who have interests in restricted lands and
    mineral claims.--In 1999, the UKB identified some eight thousand
    (8,000) acres of unallotted acres of Cherokee lands which the United
    States promised to preserve for the benefit of the UKB by 1950 and
    identified and contacted over two hundred (200) exclusive members with
    interests in restricted lands and mineral claims throughout the nine
    UKB Districts in the fourteen northeastern counties of Oklahoma.
        Objective III: Progress toward identifying lands within the Old
    Cherokee Nation for use as a federal trust land base.--The UKB is
    investigating opportunities to acquire property in the fourteen
    northeastern counties of Oklahoma and adjacent to the present three
    acres at 2450 South Muskogee Avenue, Tahlequah, Oklahoma, 74465, on
    which the UKB tribal headquarters are located. The UKB has acquired
    over twenty (20) parcels of land in Oklahoma, in addition to other
    small parcels, from UKB members and donors since 1980 and has asked the
    Secretary of the Interior to place several parcels in trust for
    community services and economic development. The UKB is examining
    distribution, density and economic characteristics of the UKB
    population for planning purposes.
        Objective IV: Progress toward identifying funding needs of
    exclusive UKB members.--The UKB developed 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, and
    combined multi-year programmatic and economic development plans in
    1999, now under review in the course of partial implementation.
        Objective V: Progress toward identifying contract and programmatic
    funding needs for exclusive UKB members.--The UKB is seeking to
    implement plans for the responsible use of funding.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                      Source           Project Type
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1992-1998.......................  Dept. of Education  Library Grant
    1998-2000.......................  BIA                 Aid to Tribal
                                                           Governments
    1998, 2000......................  NAHASDA             Low-Income Housing
    1998............................  CDBG                Education
    1999............................  USDA                Land Acquisition &
                                                           Tribal Center
                                                           Construction
    1999............................  ..................  Planning
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe

        This testimony is submitted on behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam
    Tribe in Washington State, regarding the President's fiscal year 2001
    budget request for tribal programs in the BIA and IHS. This statement
    is presented on behalf of the elected members of the Tribal Council and
    on behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam people.
        Our testimony addresses four particular program areas for which the
    Tribe urges Congress to support funding increases in fiscal year 2001:
      --Point No Point Tribal Wildlife Program.--Provide $300,000 to enable
            long-term management regarding subsistence and ceremonial
            hunting of wild game on the Olympic Peninsula by the Point No
            Point Treaty Tribes.
      --Cleanup of Kitsap County's Hansville landfill.--Provide resources
            to assess the hazards to tribal members' health and begin a
            process for cleanup of reservation groundwater and soils
            resulting from Kitsap County's Hansville landfill.
      --Contract Support.--Provide additional funds to both BIA and IHS for
            tribal contractors to meet the needs and expenses associated
            with the programs they have assumed on behalf of the Federal
            Government.
      --Tribal Courts.--Support proposed increases through BIA (and DOJ)
            for Tribal Courts, as authorized under the Indian Tribal
            Justice Act of 1993.

                     POINT NO POINT TRIBAL WILDLIFE PROGRAM

        The Wildlife Program serving the four Point No Point Treaty Tribes
    has become the premiere tribal wildlife program in western Washington,
    and has been critical in achieving the necessary cooperation between
    our Tribes and the State. It has provided the needed biological data,
    and coordination and facilitation to resolve state-tribal and inter-
    tribal disputes over wildlife management on the Olympic Peninsula.
        The Wildlife Program has been funded since 1993 by a combination of
    grants. However, this source of funding is extremely precarious, and it
    is impossible to conduct long-term planning without a permanent source
    of program funding. We support funding for this crucial program in the
    amount of $300,000.
        Subsistence and ceremonial hunting of wild game is an essential
    cultural activity for our tribal people. The Tribes are committed to
    responsible wildlife management based on biology. Prior to our Wildlife
    Program, little biological data existed for the culturally important
    elk herds on the Olympic Peninsula. Our program has conducted extensive
    surveys and shared all our data with the State and other Olympic
    Peninsula tribes. As a result of our surveys, elk are for the first
    time being managed by both the State and Tribes from hard biological
    data.
        Elk in the east Olympics had declined to such low levels that all
    hunting had to be eliminated for several years. It was only through a
    remarkable cooperative effort between our tribal Wildlife Program and
    Washington State that we were able to rebuild the herds, through a
    combination of relocating elk, habitat enhancement and habitat
    protection. Finally in 1997 we were able to reopen a limited hunt for
    both state hunters and our people.
        There is an on-going need for research and data on which to base
    our management decisions. It is only through funding this program that
    we can continue to responsibly co-manage our essential wildlife
    resource.

                 CLEANUP OF KITSAP COUNTY'S HANSVILLE LANDFILL

        The Port Gamble S'Klallam Reservation, located in Washington State,
    is held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe. 100
    percent of our reservation is in trust status; none of our lands have
    ever been individually allotted.
        Kitsap County sited a landfill uphill from the Port Gamble
    S'Klallam Reservation in 1962. For nearly 40 years, virtually all of
    the hazardous chemicals from the landfill flowed directly into the
    Reservation groundwater and soils. Although there has been monitoring
    of groundwater, we don't know how much pollution to expect or how long
    it will persist. It is also not known whether the pollution has
    impacted the Tribe's drinking water, our shellfish and the salmon
    reared in the reservation hatchery. The tribal diet and economy both
    center on these resources. It appears that at least 25 percent of the
    Tribe's land may be subject to use restrictions to protect public
    health.
        There is an immediate and critical need for financial and technical
    support to:
      --ensure that adequate sampling and monitoring of the Reservation's
            environment occurs;
      --complete a risk assessment on the hazards to the health of tribal
            members is prepared, based on the best scientific evidence
            available;
      --ensure that the United States' and the Tribe's legal rights are
            protected; and
      --secure an alternate source of drinking water.

                                CONTRACT SUPPORT

        In fiscal year 2001, Contract Support Costs are proposed for a
    total level of $128.7 million within the BIA Tribal Priority
    Allocations account. Although this amount is $3.5 million over the
    fiscal year 2000 enacted level, it will still leave a shortfall of
    approximately 12 percent (nearly $17 million). An additional $5 million
    is requested for new and expanded contracts under the Indian Self-
    Determination Fund. Within IHS, the budget proposes a $40 million
    increase for Contract Support Costs, for an fiscal year 2001 total of
    $268.8 million. Of this total, $40 million is for new and expanded 638
    contracts and Self-Governance compacts. These increases will go a long
    way towards assisting contracting and compacting Indian tribes in
    meeting the incidental needs and expenses associated with the Federal
    programs they have chosen to administer for the benefit of their Indian
    communities.
        We are aware that Congress has provided increases for both BIA and
    IHS Contract Support Costs in both the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
    2000 appropriations bills, and that the Appropriations Committees have
    labored with tribes and agency representatives to address contract
    support cost funding disparities among tribes. These increases and this
    work have been productive; unfortunately, they have not provided tribes
    with all the resources necessary to assume tribal administration of
    Federal programs under the Indian Self-Determination Act, as Congress
    had envisioned. We urge this Subcommittee to support the proposed
    increases for fiscal year 2001 for both BIA and IHS Contract Support
    Costs.
        The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe has consistently been in the bottom
    of the heap on IHS Contract Support Costs. Funding levels have been at
    70 percent from 1994 through 1998, with a slight increase to 76.28
    percent in 1999. The Tribe waited for five years on the Indian Self-
    Determination list for full funding, only to have the new 1999 funds
    distributed to all tribes, rather than those who had been on the list
    the longest. This was another promise that was not kept.
        As the court determined in Ramah 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 2001 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, which
    has resulted in more cost effective and efficient delivery of services.
    Because of the contract support shortfall, 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 to use funds
    otherwise identified for a particular program--such as daycare,
    education and senior citizen housing--to cover the contract support
    shortfall.

                                 TRIBAL COURTS

        In the BIA's fiscal year 2001 budget request, an additional $1.3
    million is requested within the BIA's Tribal Priority Allocations
    account for tribal courts, as initial funding pursuant to the Indian
    Tribal Justice Act of 1993, to provide financial and technical
    assistance for the development and enhancement of tribal judicial
    systems. We urge this Subcommittee to support this proposed increase
    for Tribal Courts. (We also wish to express our support for the $15
    million for Tribal Courts through the Department of Justice.)
        We also feel we must note that the amount requested by BIA for
    fiscal year 2001 is nowhere near the level of funds authorized under
    the Tribal Justice Act or what is needed to support strong tribal
    judicial systems. Adequate funding for tribal justice systems will help
    ensure equal access to justice and the tools necessary to implement
    justice so that whole communities, individuals, local businesses,
    service vendors and contractors, schools, and local government benefit.
    Adequate funding for our court and all tribal courts enables tribal
    governments to provide the necessary judicial services to all the
    citizens of the reservation, both Indian and non-Indian, and to respect
    the civil rights of each individual in that judicial system.
        The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's court is part of the Northwest
    Intertribal Court System, and hears cases on criminal, civil, traffic,
    child welfare, juvenile, domestic violence, hunting, fishing, housing,
    and adult protection issues. Our tribal court staff is made up of a
    judge, prosecutor, court administrator, court clerk, court compliance
    officer and support staff. 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.
        Thank you for this opportunity to submit this testimony on fiscal
    year 2001 funding for tribal programs in the BIA and IHS.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican
                                    Indians

        Thank you for this opportunity to submit the testimony of the
    Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians to the Senate
    Interior Appropriations Subcommittee regarding the President's fiscal
    year 2001 budget request for programs within the Indian Health Service.
    Our testimony focuses on fiscal year 2001 funding for one specific
    program, which the Tribe strongly supports. We respectfully request
    this Subcommittee's favorable consideration to fund the IHS Joint
    Venture Construction Program in fiscal year 2001 at a level of $15
    million. The Joint Venture Program is an innovative approach to enable
    tribes and the Federal Government to construct or acquire facilities in
    order to provide meaningful health care to Indian people. We hope that
    Congress will support this program by providing funding in fiscal year
    2001.
        Background on the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe.--The Stockbridge-Munsee
    Tribe was once located in what is now the northeastern United States.
    However, in the early 1800s, we were removed from our ancestral lands
    to Indiana, and later relocated to what became the State of Wisconsin.
    Since 1856, our homeland has been a 46,000-acre reservation in central
    Wisconsin. The Tribe has nearly 1,500 tribal members, over 800 of whom
    live on the reservation. The Tribe employees approximately 700 people--
    members and non-members--in our tribal programs and economic
    enterprises, including our small but successful casino and bingo
    operation, and is the largest employer in Shawano County, WI.
    Currently, the Mohican North Star casino employs some 550 people, about
    three-fourths of whom are non-tribal members. The Community uses our
    modest gaming proceeds to supplement funding for all our tribal
    governmental programs, including Elderly Assistance, Higher Education
    and Vocational Training, Housing Assistance, and Economic Development.
    However, gaming revenues make up only approximately 40 percent of the
    Tribe's fiscal operating budget.
        Support for fiscal year 2001 Funding for IHS Joint Venture
    Construction Program.--As the Subcommittee may know, the IHS joint
    venture demonstration projects program was authorized in 1990 under the
    Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1680h(e)). The
    Stockbridge-Munsee Community is a member of the Tribal Nations Joint
    Venture Coalition for Health Facilities, a coalition of some 20 tribes
    from across the United States which would like to use the joint venture
    approach to draw upon non-federal funds to construct health facilities
    in our communities. Under the current joint venture demonstration
    program, a tribe would use tribal, private sector or other available
    non-tribal funds, including loan guarantees, to acquire or construct a
    health facility under a 20-year, no-cost lease. IHS would then provide
    equipment, supplies and staffing to operate and maintain that facility.
    To date, $1.66 million has been appropriated under the program, and was
    used by tribes in Oregon and Oklahoma to build facilities which were
    completed in the early 1990's.
        Report language accompanying both the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
    year 2000 Interior appropriations bills directed the IHS to consider
    reinstituting the joint venture facilities construction program in the
    next budget cycle, as well as to continue to work with tribes to
    identify and implement alternative and innovative approaches to funding
    construction of health care facilities.
        We are aware that in its needs-based fiscal year 2000 budget
    submission to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
    Services, the IHS requested $15 million for the Joint Venture Program,
    which the Department supported. IHS and the Department of Health and
    Human Services, in fact, appealed a level of $15 million for the Joint
    Venture Program, which the Office of Management and Budget declined to
    include in the budget request. For fiscal year 2001, IHS and the
    Department again supported an initial level of $15 million, and
    appealed a funding level of $5 million, and again, OMB rejected this
    request. We applaud IHS and the Department for their support for the
    Joint Venture Construction Program, and regret that in the scheme of
    overall budgetary priorities, fiscal year 2001 funding was not
    requested.
        Facilities construction--whether schools, water treatment, health
    care or jails and detention center facilities construction--is a huge
    unmet need in Indian Country. Understanding that need, we applaud the
    Administration's significant funding increase, proposed for fiscal year
    2001, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs for replacement education
    construction, as well as the funds requested for a new Indian school
    construction bonding initiative. We also support the Administration's
    fiscal year 2001 budget request for IHS' Construction account, of which
    total $65.2 million is requested for Health Care Facilities
    Construction, to continue construction of two hospitals and an
    outpatient facility, and $2.5 million for the Small Ambulatory Grant
    program.
        In developing its needs-based budget request for fiscal year 2001,
    IHS determined that the need for health facilities infrastructure,
    maintenance and equipment needs is more than $7 billion.--The
    facilities which are on the IHS Facilities Priority List deserve
    funding; however, if tribes' only option for a health care facility is
    to be funded under the Construction Priority System list, tribes lowest
    on the queue will not see construction begun for at least 30 years.
    Given the facilities backlog, we believe that an alternative such as
    the Joint Venture Program also deserves Congress' support for fiscal
    year 2001 funding.
        The Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe has been participating with other
    tribes in discussions on legislation to reauthorize and amend the
    Indian Health Care Improvement Act. We are pleased that legislation
    which is currently pending before the House of Representatives (H.R.
    3397) includes provisions for the IHS/tribal facilities joint venture
    program. We especially support new language included in H.R. 3397 which
    would provide that a tribe that ``has begun and substantially completed
    the process of acquisition or construction of a health facility shall
    be eligible to establish a joint venture project with the Service using
    such health facility.'' As explained below, the Tribe has expended its
    own funds and obtained non-IHS funding in order to start construction
    on a new health care facility.
        How the Joint Venture Program Would Benefit the Stockbridge-Munsee
    Tribe.--Currently, the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe has a small, 14,000
    square-foot health clinic which was built in 1973. During a typical
    month, the clinic provides medical services to over 1,200 patients,
    dental care to 200 patients, and fills over 1,000 prescriptions at the
    pharmacy. Annually, the current staff of some 42 full-time and one
    part-time employees and six full- or part-time physicians and dentists
    provides necessary and essential medical treatment to over 2,300
    people--tribal members and Indians who are members of other tribes but
    live on our reservation, and numerous non-Indians who live within the
    original boundaries of the reservation.
        The severe space limitations, existing structural problems and poor
    condition of the clinic have made providing necessary medical services
    very difficult. After two additions to the clinic, future additions are
    not economically efficient, or even practical. In 1996, the Tribe
    received a HUD Community Development Block Grant toward the
    construction of the new health clinic and wellness center. The Tribe
    paid for the costs of designing the facility out of tribal funds, and
    provided the funds to hire an architectural firm which prepared a
    preliminary cite evaluation and the design of the layout and floor
    plans of the new facility. In the fall of 1999, the Tribe began
    construction of the new Stockbridge-Munsee Community Health Center,
    which will provide direct health care services to a projected user
    population of 2,900 Indian patients. The Tribal Council also authorized
    taking tribal funds from other programs in order to fund this priority
    for the Stockbridge-Munsee Community. We estimate that the Tribe will
    have expended some $4.5 million of our own tribal funds for this
    facility construction project.
        Since the Tribe is expending these funds for construction of the
    facility, we need funding for staffing, supplies and equipment. The
    Tribe would like to be able to ``joint venture'' with the Indian Health
    Service for personnel, supplies and equipment.
        The Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe has been actively participating in the
    Tribal Nations Joint Venture Coalition for Health Facilities in
    meetings with IHS and OMB. We are aware that some issues have been
    raised--such as flexibility to negotiate terms of the project
    arrangement; scoring, especially in the outyears; and from which IHS
    account funding would come, since the Joint Venture Program would
    involve both the Services and the Facilities accounts when providing
    for personnel and equipment costs after the facility has been
    constructed or acquired. We believe these concerns can be addressed
    satisfactorily in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
    reauthorization process.
        We strongly urge the Congress to provide an fiscal year 2001
    funding level of $15 million for the IHS Joint Venture Construction
    Program. Although the IHS has made some steps toward holding
    consultations with tribes regarding the initial development of a
    methodology for how funds would be allocated under the Joint Venture
    Program, if appropriations are provided, we would also suggest the
    Subcommittee consider report language, encouraging further methodology
    discussions.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to submit this statement to
    this Subcommittee on behalf of the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe. We
    appreciate your consideration of this request, which will enable us to
    provide our people and members of the surrounding community with
    adequate health care services.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Quinault Indian Nation

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: It is my pleasure to
    submit testimony as President of the Quinault Indian Nation to this
    Committee to present the position of the Quinault tribal government
    with respect to the fiscal year 2001 BIA and HIS appropriations
    requests.
        The Quinault Nation urges this Committee and other members of the
    Senate to support the Administration's budget request for Indian
    Country. Although every additional dollar included in the
    Administration's proposal is needed and we welcome the increases
    included in the request, for too long the real needs of Indian Country
    have been neglected. The problems we must speak to as tribal leaders
    are complicated and expensive to fix: we are behind in almost any
    measure of quality of life and opportunity for our people. Although
    this budget request represents a significant increase in resources, we
    see it as one step on a long road. But that road leads to opportunity
    for our tribal members and we are determined to walk it.
        Across Indian Country two federal programs have a direct impact on
    our individual tribal members: the law enforcement programs and the
    Indian health services programs. In particular, I ask that you support
    the almost $20 million addition requested for the highly successful Law
    Enforcement in Indian Country Initiative, as well as for the $220
    million additional funds requested for Indian Health Services programs.
    Before they can take advantage of any opportunity our tribal members
    must be safe and healthy.
        In his historic visit to the Pine Ridge Reservation in July last
    year, the President called this country's attention to the conditions
    that exist in many Native communities today. The President declared
    that the federal government is asking what needs to be done in our
    communities and offered tribes the tools and support to accomplish
    those tasks for our children and their future. I am asking that this
    Committee as well as all members of Congress listen with open hearts
    and minds to what really is needed in my part of Indian Country--the
    Quinault Indian Reservation, in Washington State.

               QUINAULT INDIAN NATION REQUESTS: TRIBAL PRIORITIES

        A continuing theme you will note in this list of priorities is the
    need for facilities construction funding. There are very few sources of
    funding available through the federal government for new facilities--
    only the HUD CDBG program and the notoriously under-funded IHS and BIA
    facilities construction line items, which are primarily sources of
    funding for federal, not tribal, facilities. Within Indian Country,
    there are very few tribes that have unencumbered funds they can use to
    borrow the money needed to build new facilities nor do we have a tax
    base to turn to. Attention needs to be paid to how the federal
    government can assist tribes with their facilities construction needs.
    There are alternative approaches to financing tribal facilities, such
    as co-financing, joint ventures, loan guarantees and bonding. We urge
    the Committee to help us develop these options as a substitute for
    dependence on Congressional appropriations.

    IHS--Health Facilities Construction/Assisted Living Center--
        Increase..................................................  $500,000

        Again this year, the first priority of the Quinault Nation for the
    fiscal year 2001 is the construction of an assisted living facility for
    tribal elders on the reservation. As with all tribes, we value our
    Quinault elders and desire to provide a reservation-based facility to
    care for those elders in need of care. Because of the remote location
    of our reservation villages, there are no resources for this
    population. Therefore, we urge the Committee to support increased
    appropriations for IHS Facilities Construction to cut back on the $1
    billion identified backlog. With respect to the Quinault Nation, we
    again request that at least $500,000 be identified within the IHS
    budget for the first phase of an Elders Assisted Living Facility on the
    Quinault Reservation and to continue the planning and development phase
    for a new clinic in Taholah.

    Queets Fish Buying Station....................................  $500,000

        The Village of Queets is located on the northern boundary of the
    Quinault Reservation and is the second largest concentration of people
    on the reservation. The Queets Fish House is an important part of the
    village economy and must continue to operate to support many people in
    the village. The present structure is dilapidated and has, in fact,
    been condemned. The structure continues to be used simply because there
    is no alternative. The Nation has been seeking funding to construct a
    replacement for this building for several years. Replacement costs have
    been estimated at $500,000. We request that this amount be identified
    in the fiscal year 2001 appropriations specifically for this purpose.

    Tribal Court and Reservation Law Enforcement..................  $750,000

        The Quinault Nation supports the $1.5 million request for Tribal
    Courts contained in the Presidential Initiative on Law Enforcement in
    Indian Country. The Tribal Court for the Quinault Nation is housed in a
    trailer owned by the BIA. The Tribal Court is expected to deal with an
    expanding array of cases in a facility that is in a state of practical
    ruin. The structure itself leaks and has an unstable floor. In the
    Courts most recent annual report, the Chief Judge notes the need for a
    new courthouse and a need for additional staff to keep pace with
    increased caseloads.
        An example of the need for new court staff is the need for a
    Process Server. Presently court summons and subpoenas are delivered by
    tribal police officers. Since process service is not priority for on-
    duty officers, this sometimes means a considerable delay in delivering
    documents. This illustrates the link between law enforcement and
    judicial services. It also points to the desperate need for additional
    funding for all aspects of reservation law enforcement. In fiscal year
    2000, you approved a $20 million increase for law enforcement on
    reservations. As important as that increase was, more is needed.
        The Quinault Nation needs additional police officers and equipment
    if it is to meet its enforcement responsibilities. Currently, the
    Quinault Tribal Police Department is under the supervision of a Chief
    of Police and is comprised of seven patrol officers, four fisheries
    enforcement officers, two forestry trespass officers, one game warden,
    four corrections officers, one corrections/animal control officer, and
    support staff. The Washington State Criminal Justice Training
    Commission has certified each officer in the Quinault Tribal Police
    Department. The Nation under a Self-Governance Compact with the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs operates the Tribal Police Department.
        The Quinault Nation Police must provide all forms of law
    enforcement on the 200,000 acres reservation, 24 hours a day, 365 days
    a year. In addition to general duties in the two villages and on the
    roads and highways of the reservation, tribal police are responsible
    for enforcing tribal hunting, fishing and gathering activities on the
    reservation (including 26 miles of coastal shoreline); and in ``usual
    and accustomed places'' off the reservation. In addition, the
    Department is responsible for enforcing tribal jurisdiction on the
    Pacific Ocean out to the territorial limits. Our officers cannot
    enforce tribal or federal laws over ocean activities because of lack of
    communications and other equipment capable of reaching from shore to
    ocean-going vessels. It would be difficult to identify another law
    enforcement agency at any level of government with a more diverse set
    of responsibilities than the Quinault Tribal Police Department.
        The Police Chief has indicated that the Department needs to add an
    officer specifically to work with juvenile offenses. He has also
    requested the installation of surveillance equipment to address
    ``trouble spots'' in Taholah to reduce drug activity and vandalism. The
    Nation has not been able to access Department of Justice programs such
    as COPS due to certain restrictions placed on the program by DOJ. The
    tribe is not able, for example, to guarantee funding for new officers
    beyond the life of the COPS grant. In addition, the administrative cost
    limits imposed by the DOJ program force the tribe to defer applications
    for these funds. We must therefore request additional funds from the
    BIA to develop law enforcement capacities on the reservation.

    Addressing issues of the ``Digital Divide''...................  $200,000

        In the area of telecommunications and technology, the phrase,
    ``digital divide'' has gained prominence in recent years. The phrase
    denotes the creation of a class of ``haves'' and have-nots'' in the use
    of technology and telecommunications. The Quinault Nation has committed
    considerable effort and resources to incorporate the appropriate use of
    technology into tribal operations. However, again due to our location
    in a remote, rural area, issues of resources have created the threat of
    cutting the Quinault people off from the main flow of the information
    superhighway.
        This issue is closely related to the needs of law enforcement
    discussed earlier. For some time, the Nation has sought to improve
    communications for the police and the rest of the community by
    installing a new communications tower on the reservation. A new tower
    would enable more reliable police communication and enable the
    department to communicate with boats at sea. The tower would also
    enable other tribal operations in Taholah to communicate more
    effectively with tribal offices in Queets. The limitations of local
    telecommunications company equipment make it impossible to install
    high-speed network connections between the main tribal offices in
    Taholah and satellite operations in Queets. Developments in wireless
    networks combined with the proposed tower would permit tribal
    government to connect its various operations to its network. The nation
    seeks this Committee's support in obtaining an appropriation of
    $200,000 to install this much-needed telecommunications facility and
    related equipment.

    Disaster Relief for the Quinault Reservation..................  $250,000

        During the winter of 1999 Washington's Olympic Peninsula
    experienced extreme storm damage. On the Quinault Reservation floods
    destroyed several bridges connecting the north and south part of the
    reservation and destroying the evacuation route in the event of a
    tsunami. The Village of Queets is located 11 miles ``as the crow
    flies'' from the Village of Taholah, the seat of tribal government and
    home to most tribal services. Despite the fact that the two villages
    are fairly close together, the physical separation of the villages is
    complicated by geography and the whimsy of the public road system. As
    noted in much of this testimony, the connection between the two
    villages is important to the growth of our tribal nation. Before the
    flood damage, the trip from Taholah to Queets could be made in 30 to 40
    minutes, after the flood, it is now a 75 mile trip taking close to two
    hours.
        The floods also devastated miles of vital salmon spawning habitat.
    This environmental disaster will almost certainly result in even
    greater hardship for our already besieged tribal fisheries. Last year I
    reported to this Committee that a combined grant and loan program was
    needed to fund a program for distressed tribal fishermen. The floods of
    1999 will undoubtedly increase that need. Already this year, the
    Quinault Nation has had to restrict its own harvest to protect the few
    fish that are returning to spawn in reservation waters. The impact on
    families that have for generations depended on salmon for their
    livelihood is nothing short of catastrophic. The Quinault Nation again
    asks for fiscal year 2001 funds to design a program to retrain tribal
    fishermen by putting them to work in habitat restoration projects that
    will provide the opportunity for future generations of Quinault people
    to harvest restored salmon runs.
        Finally, as members of the Washington State delegation are well
    aware, the Quinault Nation has patiently and tenaciously worked for
    five years to resolve a dispute between the Department of the Interior
    and the Nation over the use of tribal lands for endangered species.
    Although personally I am very frustrated, I remain committed to finding
    a solution. I look forward to working with members of this Committee to
    see the proposed solution become a reality. I would like to thank the
    members of the Committee for considering the testimony of the Quinault
    Nation.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Spokane Tribe of Indians

        On behalf of the Spokane Tribe of Indians, I am pleased to submit
    to this distinguished Subcommittee our Tribe's testimony on the
    Administration's proposed fiscal year 2001 budget request for programs
    in 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.
        Let me begin by expressing the thanks and strong support of the
    Spokane Tribe for the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request,
    which contains $1.2 billion in increases over the fiscal year 2000
    enacted level for tribal programs within a number of federal agencies.
    The budget request would provide a total funding level of $9.4 billion
    in fiscal year 2001 for new and existing federal programs serving
    American Indians and Alaska Natives. While we recognize that the
    Subcommittee has many priorities which demand its attention, we urge
    you to support particularly the proposed fiscal year 2001 funding
    increases under the ``First Americans: Stewardship, Investment and Hope
    Initiative'' in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the significant $230
    million increase proposed for programs within the Indian Health
    Service. Our more specific requests are described below.

                            BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

        General.--In general, the Spokane Tribe supports the overall
    increase of $331.9 million over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level for
    programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In particular, we support
    the $5 million requested for new and expanded contracts under the
    Indian Self-Determination Fund and the additional $3.5 million for
    Contract Support for on-going contracts; the proposed increase of $2.9
    million for Operating Grants for Tribally Controlled Community
    Colleges; and the proposed increase of $18.8 million for BIA Law
    Enforcement to fund tribal personnel, equipment and detention services.

                      UPPER COLUMBIA UNITED TRIBES (UCUT)

        The Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) program serves the vital
    interests of the Confederated Colville Tribe, and the Coeur d'Alene,
    Kalispel, Kootenai and Spokane Tribes, which are the five tribal
    entities in the geographic region above the Grand Coulee Dam.
    Operations of hydroelectric facilities, as well as contamination from
    mining, industrial and sewage facilities, and 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.
        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.
        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. Despite this significant addition, not to
    mention needed adjustments for inflation, UCUT has only received the
    most modest of funding increases over the past four fiscal years.
        Within BIA's Other Recurring Programs--Resources Management
    account, Rights Protection Implementation program, the President's
    fiscal year 2001 budget requests $318,000 for UCUT, a $9,000 increase
    over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Spokane Tribe requests
    that this Subcommittee consider providing a level of $650,000 for
    fiscal year 2001 for this program. This amount would provide 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. This funding
    level would help 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.

                           LAKE ROOSEVELT MANAGEMENT

        A second program within BIA's Rights Protection Implementation
    program which the Spokane Tribe strongly supports is the Lake Roosevelt
    management program. As the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee
    knows, Lake Roosevelt was formed when the Grand Coulee Dam was
    constructed in the early 1940s. Both the Spokane and Colville Tribes
    participate in the management of the environment and the recreational
    uses of the area surrounding the Lake, pursuant to a cooperative
    management agreement entered into between the Tribes and the Department
    of the Interior.
        For fiscal year 2001, the President's budget request proposes a
    $17,000 increase for Lake Roosevelt management, for a proposed level of
    $631,000. The Tribe supports the proposed increase. For the
    Subcommittee's information, the Spokane Tribe's contract amount, which
    supports salaries and vehicle costs for three rangers is $185,000. The
    actual, documented need is $285,000, an amount which would enable the
    Tribe to fund the parks maintenance staff, vehicles and supplies.
    Therefore, the Spokane Tribe requests an additional $100,000 earmarked
    for the Tribe's management contract for Lake Roosevelt.

                WESTERN WASHINGTON TIMBER-FISH-WILDLIFE PROJECT

        For the Western Washington Timber-Fish-Wildlife Project, the
    President's fiscal year 2001 budget request does not propose to
    continue the additional funding of $3.1 million which Congress provided
    in fiscal year 2000 for the TFW Initiative.
        The Spokane Tribe has one TFW biologist who covers all forest
    practices on and adjacent to the Spokane Indian Reservation. The
    Tribe's base funds have remained flat, as have those for all the
    Washington TFW tribes, even though we are expected to be active
    participants on timber harvest activities (participating in numerous
    processes, complying with federal regulations, etc.). Given the
    importance of the TFW program to the Spokane Tribe and others, we urge
    the Subcommittee to restore funds for this program in fiscal year 2001.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        The Spokane Tribe strongly supports the proposed increase of nearly
    $230 million over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level in fiscal year
    2001 for Indian Health Service programs. This significant increase of
    nearly 10 percent is wonderful news, since virtually every health
    program now operated by the IHS, by tribes and by urban programs is
    seriously underfunded and has been for years. We hope that the
    Subcommittee will support this additional funding.
        It is easy to be overwhelmed by the extreme level of need in Indian
    communities, especially for health care. Even the strong IHS funding
    request for $2.6 billion in fiscal year 2001 gets virtually lost
    against the $15.1 billion needed to achieve parity in health care for
    American Indians and Alaska Natives with that provided to the U.S.
    population in general. A request for $60.7 million in pay-related costs
    is small compared with the need: $117 million for pay costs, inflation
    and additional medical inflation. And, ultimately, no funds were
    requested for population growth, for which $44.5 million is needed in
    fiscal year 2001. We urge the Congress to support the requested
    increases and provide additional resources--such as fully funding
    mandatory cost increases for current services--to address the critical
    health needs of Indian people.
        In particular, the Spokane Tribe urges the Subcommittee to increase
    funding for the Community Health Representatives (CHR) program to at
    least the proposed fiscal year 2001 level of $51.1 million. The Spokane
    Tribe strongly supports the CHR program, which was impacted by the
    rescissions imposed under the fiscal year 2000 omnibus appropriations
    Act. The proposed level for this important preventive health program
    represents only a 3 percent increase over the previous year's amount.
        While we appreciate the Administration's commitment to address
    racial and ethnic Health Disparities by including funding for diabetes,
    elder health, maternal and child health, and domestic and community
    violence--all of which are certainly critical issues in Indian
    country--we are concerned that those proposed funding increases are at
    the expense of current services, which, as already noted, are severely
    strained because of population growth and inflation.
        The Spokane Tribe also supports the testimony of the Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board in its entirety. The Spokane Tribe
    actively participates with the Board and in the budget formulation
    process with IHS, which we have found to be an effective dialogue in
    truly representing to the Administration and the Congress the funding
    needs for health care by tribes and urban centers.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to the Senate
    Interior Appropriations Subcommittee the fiscal year 2001 funding
    requests of the Spokane Tribe for the BIA and IHS. We hope that the
    Congress, as the Administration has proposed, will see the fiscal year
    2001 appropriations cycle as an opportunity for stewardship, investment
    and hope for the First Americans.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council

        Dear Chairman Gorton and Members of the Interior Subcommittee, my
    name is Lonnie Selam Sr. and I am the duly elected Chairman of the
    Yakama Nation Tribal Council located in Toppenish, WA. My purpose in
    writing you is to request additional congressional appropriations
    necessary for the Yakama Nation to adequately address its governmental
    functions in fiscal year 2001. Note that this full request adds to and
    slightly modifies the priorities of the March 6 request submitted to
    Kari Vander Stoep of your staff.
        The Yakama Nation has tremendous responsibility for many square
    miles of natural resources, and timber is the basis of our economy. The
    President's budget request, and the likely budget from Congress, while
    providing welcome additions to education, law enforcement, and trust
    fund reform, has left natural resources funding flat. We turn to you
    for help in arresting the decline of the these resources so important
    to the Yakama people both economically and spiritually, and to help us
    with declines in the social services that our people depend upon.
        The following requests represent our most immediate needs, and are
    listed highest priority first. Please be aware that the process of
    triage has forced us to exclude dire needs for additional education
    funding, alcohol treatment funding, adult education, scholarships,
    economic development projects, and other items relating to the
    guarantee and benefits agreed to in the Treaty of 1855 including
    hunting, fishing, grazing and gathering.
        Please include our written testimony in the permanent record.
    Background: The Spruce Budworm Infestation
        The Yakama Reservation forest is the host of a Spruce budworm
    infestation, and a related buildup of Douglas fir bark beetles, that
    presently impacts approximately 300,000 acres, or roughly \1/2\ of our
    forest. The situation is the worst Spruce budworm epidemic in the
    western United States. This infestation directly results from past
    management practices by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We have
    identified 200,000 acres in need of forest development treatment, which
    was acknowledged by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Central Forestry
    Office. Our forest management needs are also documented by a General
    Accounting Office report stating that we are not able to accomplish all
    of the regular forest development work even when approximately one-half
    of the projects are paid for with tribal funds (GAO/RCED-91-53, March
    1991).
        This situation presents the possibility of a landscape-level
    wildfire at worst and extreme loss of income from unsalvaged timber at
    best. Because this situation threatens not only the economic well being
    and sacred resources of the YN, but the forest products industry of
    central Washington as well, the YN Tribal Council declared a state of
    emergency in September 1999. The three highest priority requests below
    are directly related to the budworm epidemic.

    Signal Peak Road Repair.......................................$1,845,000

        This item is so important that we submitted it as a request for the
    fiscal year 2000 Supplemental Appropriations bill, which, according to
    the most recent news reports, may not happen this year.
        The Signal Peak road normally handles truck traffic related to the
    hauling of 90 million board-feet of timber annually. Last year, to deal
    with salvaging as many infested trees as we could before they became
    unmerchantable, the Signal Peak road handled the output of 225 million
    board-feet of timber. We will not be able to haul trees out of our
    forest if it is not repaired, and those trees will then become useless
    as a result of budworm damage. Total costs for road repair are over $13
    million, but we could make do for a period of time with the repair of
    the worst sections as identified in the study conducted by G N
    Northern, Inc. These sections are Mileposts 26-30 (through the ``Cinder
    Pit''), a section that has already failed, and Milepost 31.2, where
    springs have surfaced through the pavement. Total cost for this scaled
    back repair is $1.845 million, which includes field engineering,
    surveying, project management, materials testing, construction and
    maintenance of a traffic bypass.

    Spruce Budworm Epidemic: Field Assessment.....................  $425,000

        The YN is requesting $425,000 in new programmatic money to initiate
    forest management activities relating to the control of the Spruce
    Budworm epidemic.
        This request will focus on the planning, conditioning, and
    implementation of alternative timber sales, consistent with all ESA,
    NEPA, and tribal guidelines, in those areas impacted by the
    infestation. The funds will support a field-based inter-disciplinary
    team whose job will be to rapidly condition the budworm sale area
    consistent with the above obligations. Without this support, the gains
    in time delay accrued by the Bt spraying project of fiscal year 1999
    (thank you!) may not be realized, as the areas in need of harvest
    greatly exceed the capacity of the existing staff to structure timber
    sales.

    Spruce Budworm Epidemic: Forest Development...................  $400,000

        In order to continue sound forest management practices we ask for
    the continued appropriation of the current $600,000 Congressional add-
    on funds for this program and request an additional $400,000 of new
    funds. These monies will be used for forest development treatments on
    approximately 30,000 acres of the most severely infected Spruce Budworm
    stands. Forest development activities include reforestation, timber
    stand improvements, and related investments that enhance productivity.
    Funds for the program are used to establish, maintain, and improve the
    growth of our sacred forest. These projects create jobs, provide
    positive economic return, and aid in maintaining forest health.

    Yakama Nation Housing Assessment..............................  $250,000

        The Housing Improvement Program (HIP) program was to end in 2000,
    however only 1/3 of the program was funded and there is still need. The
    Yakama Nation is still anticipating $3,400,000, which was requested 15
    years ago. The continued lack of funding created an inability of the
    program to meet all the community's expectations. There were
    approximately 600 low-income homes built on the reservation during the
    eighties, and none since then, despite an increase in population from
    7,427 in 1986 to over 9,300 in 1999. The existing homes are now in need
    of repair, and the best estimate is that an additional 600 plus homes
    are needed to fulfill current need. The $250,000 would be used to
    assess current community needs, prioritize these needs, and provide
    repairs to homes that have health-threatening defects. The $3,400,000
    would then be used to complete a portion of the original mission. After
    the assessment and original commitment were completed, an estimate of
    unmet needs could be calculated.

    Yakama Nation Justice Department..............................$5,180,000

        The Yakama Nation is in desperate need of a new detention and court
    facility, an upgrade of the judicial computer software system, and
    recruiting and retaining high quality employees. The current facility
    is near condemnation and a new facility would benefit both the Yakama
    Nation and local municipalities, which would use the detention
    facility. The estimated total cost of the facility is $35,000,000. The
    requested $5,000,000 would be used to start the planning preliminary
    work necessary for this type of facility. Yakima County, multi-cultural
    and agrarian, has one of the highest levels of unemployment in the
    state and maintains a median household income near the poverty level.
    The proposed facility would provide jobs and community-wide service.
    $100,000 would be used to upgrade the technologies of the court, which
    are currently primitive and inefficient. The remaining $80,000 would be
    used to train and maintain staff, and to keep our wages competitive
    with the rest of the state. Good jobs keep employees here on the
    reservation.

    Contract Health Services......................................  $800,000

        The current annual funding received from the Federal Government
    has, since the early eighties, been approximately $800,000 less than we
    need each year and the Indian Health Service. Population Reports
    clearly demonstrate the dire need for additional funding. To ensure the
    health and well-being of the Native population living on and near the
    Yakama Reservation, this increase in funding will allow the Yakama
    Nation to provide adequate services. We provide services to non-members
    and welfare recipients with coupons, and all of us suffer from rising
    cost of health care.

    Support of Wapato Irrigation (WIP) Conservation Plan
        implementation............................................  $250,000

        The WIP Conservation Plan is authorized by Title XII of Public Law
    103-434, the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project. It is
    anticipated that the total dollar amount needed to fund this project is
    $2,750,000 and the $250,000 which is being requested--on a non-
    reimbursable basis--will be used for the initial implementation plan.
    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.

    Repair of the Wapato Irrigation Project (WIP) facilities......  $500,000

        To fully fund this project the total dollar amount needed is
    $9,500,000 and the $500,000 which is being requested, again on a non-
    reimbursable basis, will be used for the initial repairs needed for the
    WIP facilities. 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.

    Fish and Wildlife Resource Management.........................  $300,000

        The YN is requesting continued support of the current $560,000 in
    Congressional add-on appropriations for its Fish and Wildlife Resource
    Management program and requests an additional $300,000 in new
    programmatic money for this endeavor. The $300,000 in new programmatic
    money will be shared jointly by the Fisheries and Wildlife programs to
    further those habitat directed and watershed restoration based projects
    that lead directly to increased salmon production.
        The YN has been a regional leader in watershed restoration
    techniques and the habitat directed approach to increased salmon
    production. The technology and approach behind the recent success that
    we are realizing in the Yakima River basin can, and should, be expanded
    in this basin and exported to other areas. These funds will provide the
    technical and managerial means for the tribe to exercise its co-
    management functions and disseminate these techniques by participating
    in the myriad of local, state, and regional watershed processes'
    addressing the decline of our region's fish, wildlife, and their
    habitats. We believe this effort will be successful and will provide
    the short-term leadership required to prove the value of the habitat
    directed approach to restoring salmon.
        Thank you for your consideration of our needs.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Intertribal Timber Council

                                    SUMMARY

        Mr. Chairman, I am Fred Matt, President of the Intertribal Timber
    Council (ITC). I request that the Committee provide funding within the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) fiscal year 2001 Forestry program budget
    to support two vital initiatives:
      --Add $750,000 to Central Office Natural Resources General designated
            to initiate the statutorily required second national report of
            the Indian Forest Management Assessment Team; and
      --Add $1,950,000 to address serious deficiencies in forest management
            capabilities within the BIA.

                     INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL BACKGROUND

        The Intertribal Timber Council is a twenty-four year old
    organization of seventy forest owning tribes and Alaska Native
    organizations. Collectively, our members own 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 BIA trust management. It is
    vitally important to tribal communities that their forests are properly
    managed to meet our physical, cultural, and economic needs.
            indian forest management assessment team (ifmat) report
        The Intertribal Timber Council believes a second national
    independent assessment (IFMAT 2) is critical to the ability to credibly
    evaluate the status of Indian forests and forestry. It goes, we
    believe, to the very heart of the federal trust responsibility,
    providing a key tool for maintaining that obligation both today and
    into the future. We urge the Subcommittee to provide the requisite
    appropriation.
        Within three years of enactment of the National Indian Forest
    Resources Management Act (NIFRMA, Public Law 101-630, Title III,
    Section 312), the first Indian Forest Management Assessment Team report
    (IFMAT report) was completed, published, and submitted to Congress and
    the tribes. The seven member blue ribbon assessment team visited more
    than thirty reservations throughout the nation, providing invaluable
    information on deficiencies and corrective strategies at both the
    reservation and national levels.
        A second independent assessment is now required by NIFRMA. Based on
    the $1 million cost over two years to conduct the initial IFMAT study,
    IFMAT 2 is estimated to require $750,000 in fiscal year 2001 and
    $750,000 in fiscal year 2002.
        The Intertribal Timber Council urges the Subcommittee to initiate
    IFMAT 2 with a $750,000 appropriation for fiscal year 2001 specifically
    designated within the BIA Central Office Natural Resources General
    budget for the following reasons:
      --Section 312(b) of NIFRMA requires an independent assessment of the
            status of Indian forest lands every ten years after the
            November, 1990 date of enactment. ``On each 10-year anniversary
            of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall provide for an
            independent assessment of Indian forest lands and Indian forest
            land management practices under the criteria established in
            subsection (a) which shall include analyses measured against
            findings in the previous assessments.''
      --The U.S. has a trust responsibility to ensure that Indian forests
            are properly managed. Through its independence,
            professionalism, and comprehensive scope, the assessment will
            help assure proper management of tribal forests and help the
            U.S. avoid potential trust mismanagement lawsuits. As evidenced
            by the present crisis in trust funds management and looming
            litigation over the Bureau's trust management of oil and gas
            resources, serious deficiencies in the management of trust
            assets can lead to costly and protracted litigation and
            potential liabilities for the United States. Rather than
            waiting for tribes to file suits for mismanagement, the U.S.
            should take a more responsible approach of credibly evaluating
            the quality of its management and then taking actions as
            necessary to correct deficiencies. An independent, periodic
            assessment of a trust asset would prove to be vital in helping
            the U.S. to proactively meet its trust responsibilities for
            management of Indian forests.
      --IFMAT 2 will give the Congress, tribes and the U.S. Department of
            the Interior a current and comprehensive report on the status
            of Indian trust forests and their management measured against
            other contemporary forests and against the IFMAT 1 reported
            some ten years earlier. This comparison of change over time
            makes IFMAT 2 particularly important and significant, both as a
            means to evaluate the physical condition of the forests
            themselves, but also in the degree to which management
            practices have responded to developments in a wide range of
            activities, such as changes in the timber market, changes in
            the philosophy and science of forest management, and increased
            tribal contracting and compacting of forest management
            functions.
      --IFMAT 2 is not the ``new start'' of an activity in the Bureau's
            budget. Instead, it is the renewal of a periodic program that
            was commenced in 1991. At $750,000 for each of two years, its
            funding is a relatively modest change in the Bureau's budget.
            And because the independent assessments are periodic, their
            funding does not commit the Bureau to budget increases every
            year thereafter.
      --The regular conduct of independent, professional, and comprehensive
            assessments of Indian trust forests also advances Self-
            Determination by providing the Bureau, as trustee, with a long-
            term tool for monitoring its trust forests as tribes assume
            greater responsibilities for management direction.
            Establishment of such key oversight capacity will help
            safeguard the trust, enabling more hands-on management
            activities to be carried out by the tribes themselves.
      --Beyond serving as a national monitoring and evaluating tool, the
            assessments can have practical benefits for Indian forests. A
            reservation visit by the assessment team focuses the attention
            of the tribe on improvements that can be made for the
            management of their forest lands to meet the needs of their
            communities. As part of the initial assessment, the IFMAT team
            fostered tribal review of their forests by providing a
            reservation-specific critique to many of the tribes it visited.
            Additionally, the initial IFMAT report identified the need for
            more prescribed burning in Indian forests that directly led to
            increased BIA participation in the Department's prescribed fire
            program.

               A CONTINUING CRISIS IN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANNING

        We also request that an additional $1,950,000 be added to the BIA's
    forestry budget to address worsening deficiencies in inventory and
    analysis capabilities that are essential to support management planning
    for tribal forests.
        Today, only 27 percent of the 17 million total forest acres held in
    BIA trust (both timberland and woodland) has approved management plans.
    Among tribal commercial timberlands, only 59 percent of the 5.8 million
    acres in BIA trust have approved management plans, a decrease from
    1998's 66 percent with approved plans. This decline has been caused by:
    (1) substantially reduced Forestry T.P.A. funding; (2) a 7.2 percent
    increase in forest acres under trust management since enactment of
    Public Law 101-630 in 1990; (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 Regional Office Forestry
    personnel who provide the planning expertise for the great majority of
    smaller forested reservations.
        A November 13, 1998 Interior Solicitor's opinion determined that
    ``Indian trust timber may not be harvested until an approved forest
    management plan has been established.'' A subsequent policy directive
    issued by the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs responded by
    allowing otherwise expired forest management plans to be extended on an
    interim basis while tribes await renewal of their full ten year plans.
    This may forestall the cessation of timber harvest on those
    reservations where the ten year plans have expired, but the underlying
    cause of the problem remains unchecked. Unless funding for the
    development of new plans is increased, an increasing number of
    reservations will be forced to rely on interim plans and outdated data,
    creating a serious question with respect to the adequacy of the BIA's
    management of these trust assets. Further, the policy directive is not
    for an indefinite period, creating the situation where tribes may be
    deprived of the ability to utilize their resources as a result of the
    BIA's failure to provide essential information.
        Last year, ITC fiscal year 2000 testimony to this Subcommittee
    identified specific funding increases needed to assure that the most
    basic rudiments of forest planning can be provided tribal forestlands.
    We believe these funding needs are still critical, and again request
    that a total of $1,950,000 be added to the BIA's forestry appropriation
    for this purpose. Our request includes: (A) the addition of $300,000 to
    the Regional Office Forestry budget for four additional professional
    foresters; (B) the addition of $150,000 to the Central Office Natural
    Resources General forestry budget for two additional professional
    foresters; (C) the addition of $1 million to Forest Management
    Inventory and Planning; and (D) the addition of $500,000 to Woodlands
    Management.
        Beyond the basic funding increases needed to maintain the integrity
    of BIA's forest management planning capability, we also requested 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. We ask that the
    Subcommittee refer to the ITC's fiscal year 2000 testimony for
    additional information on those requests.
        While additional funding for improved forest management planning
    capability is essential to ensure proper management of Indian forests,
    for fiscal year 2001, we wish to underscore that our highest priority
    is the addition of $750,000 to Central Office Natural Resources General
    specifically designated for the initiation of the second Indian Forest
    Management Assessment Team report, as directed by Public Law 101-630.
    At the very least, we believe the tribes, the Department of the
    Interior, and the U.S. Congress should have a ten-year status report on
    how Indian trust forests and their management are faring.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
                                    Indians

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Eugene Bigboy, 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 2001 appropriations.

    Law Enforcement
        The Bad River Band strongly supports the President's Indian Country
    Law Enforcement Initiative. Crime in Indian country including at Bad
    River is a serious and growing problem. The Administration's Law
    Enforcement Initiative calls for an $18 million increase over last year
    for BIA/tribal law enforcement across 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 allocations of law enforcement funds. At Bad River,
    the fundamental problem in this regard is that we lack any primary law
    enforcement presence. 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 pays $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. Response time
    is also a problem. For example, depending on where an incident takes
    place, it may be up to an hour for the sheriff to arrive. In essence,
    we are a Tribe seeking to address a serious crime problem, with no
    resources available.
        During 1997 (the most recent year for which statistics are
    available), the sheriff responded to 439 calls on the Reservation. The
    calls to law enforcement involve matters ranging in severity. Recently,
    we have had incidents including a gang related vehicle arson and an
    aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 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.

    Indian Health Service
        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 $845,000, this means we have a
    per patient allocation of $280 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. For example, an individual
    with painful gall stones cannot obtain needed surgery until his
    condition deteriorates to the point that emergency surgery is needed.
    This is no way to treat our people. The Budget calls for a $41 million
    increase in contract health care. We support the increase, and urge the
    Committee to do all it can to fund contract health care.
        Diabetes.--Diabetes and the complications from this disease has
    been the major source of morbidity and mortality on the Bad River
    Reservation. About 30 percent of Bad River adults, ages 40 and over
    have Type 2 diabetes. Statistics show that for every member affected,
    there is another undiagnosed tribal member with diabetes. We have over
    200 diabetes patients. We have seen a marked increase in the number of
    juvenile and gestational diabetes patients, as well as a tragic
    increase in the number of amputations associated with diabetes. We
    appreciate the Committee's recognition of the scope of this problem,
    and we urge you to continue to work with the tribes to see that
    sufficient resources are provided to further reduce this problem
    throughout Indian country.
        Dental services.--Our dental program is able to pay only for
    emergency dental work for adults. With a current budget of $104,800 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 $250,000 to
    provide services to those now waiting for needed dental care.

    Education
        Mashkisibi School.--Over the years, we have learned at Bad River
    that not all of our students thrive in a typical public school
    environment. Some students particularly those with a history of
    difficulties in the public schools as a result of emotional or other
    problems need an alternative environment. At Bad River, we have taken
    the initiative to address the needs of these children by establishing
    the Mashkisibi School, an alternative school for grades 9-12. The
    School, established in 1995, serves 20 to 35 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 in the long term, we will need federal support. To
    operate the school providing salary to our fine staff we need $137,000
    for fiscal year 2001. And, to have a proper facility for our School, we
    need $240,000. 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.--In addition to the school, the
    Tribe runs a number of important education programs for our people. We
    support the President's requested increase of $2.8 million for higher
    education scholarships. We run the Higher Education Grant Program--to
    provide scholarships to needy tribal members to attend college. While
    providing higher education opportunities for our people is vital the
    future of the Tribe, we have continued to have worthy applicants who
    could not be provided with the funds they need to attend college. With
    current funding, we have been able to meet only 59 percent of the need
    of our college bound students.
        The Tribe also runs Adult Vocational Training and Direct Employment
    Assistance programs. Both of these programs have shortfalls at Bad
    River. The Adult Vocational Program provides grant funds for vocational
    training, and the Direct Employment Assistance Program 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 Tribe maintains a Johnson-O'Malley program to serve the needs
    of our students in public schools. In fact the JOM 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. There is no question that the
    personal attention provided by JOM staff has helped innumerable
    students complete high school and go on to higher education. This year,
    the President is proposing to cut JOM again this time by $352,000. 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 $260,700 for fiscal year 2001. This includes an
    inflation increase of $75,000 and $185,700 in new equipment and
    personnel.
        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.
        Our Reservation land base remains deeply fractionated. Pursuant to
    the Federal Government's failed allotment policy, the United States
    allotted about 97 percent of our Reservation lands. The legacy of this
    is a Reservation which is badly checkerboarded, in a manner that
    creates a jurisdictional nightmare. Among other things, this interferes
    with the Band's ability to zone culturally sensitive areas of the
    Reservation, and to protect tribal members from the harmful effects of
    raw sewage, air pollution and water pollution that destroy our
    fisheries, rice beds and waterfowl. In addition, the problem of
    fractionated ownership of land contributes in substantial measure to
    the BIA's inability over the years to effectively manage Indian trust
    funds. As long as trust land ownership is in disarray from
    fractionation, the BIA's efforts to properly manage trust funds will
    continue to be compromised.
        The land consolidation project is a worthy investment to promote
    tribal self-determination, to facilitate appropriate and economically
    beneficial land use, and to contribute to the long overdue reform of
    the management of trust funds. We urge the Committee to support the
    President's $12 million request for the land consolidation pilot
    project.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of 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 $60.4 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 $30.6 million for scholarships
    for Indian students to attend accredited post-secondary schools, an
    increase of $2.24 million 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.
        We are also disappointed that the BIA budget request of $17 million
    for the Johnson O'Malley program is $352,000 less than the fiscal year
    2000 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 $19.989 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
    $12.5 million for tribal courts and the DOJ's 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 $18 million increase over last
    year for BIA/tribal law enforcement for the second year of the
    President's Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative.
    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.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        The President's budget requests a total of $3.1 billion for overall
    IHS services and construction. This is a $230 million increase over the
    fiscal year 2000 level. 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 19959.1 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.

                                TRIBAL COLLEGES

        We support the Administration's request of $37.1 million for tribal
    colleges which is a $2.89 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 the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
                                   Commission

        Fiscal year 2001 Appropriations Requested.--$4,039,291 (includes
    the Administration's fiscal year 2001 base funding of $3,614,000, the
    Administration's proposed COLA increase of $63,000, and an increase of
    $362,291 to meet tribal self-regulatory needs).
        Summary of fiscal year 2001 Funding Priorities.--The Commission
    supports the Administration's proposed budget in maintaining the
    current funding base, securing $63,000 for salary cost of living
    adjustments, and providing additional funds to meet contract support
    needs. In addition, the Commission requests an increase over last
    year's funding levels to:
        Priority #1.--$146,300 to replace aging equipment, and meet
    increased operating costs to conduct ceded territory fish assessments
    and manage data.
        Priority #2.--$136,491 to replace GLIFWC's nearly obsolete law
    enforcement radio system, continue community safety programs (i.e.
    hunter safety, boater safety, snowmobile safety, ice rescue), and
    replace 3 patrol boats.
        Priority #3.--$79,500 to implement ceded territory gathering rights
    on public lands and to assist tribes in providing biologically and
    culturally based input into federal, state, and county forest planning
    processes.
        Program Justification.--GLIFWC is an intertribal organization which
    implements federal court orders and various interjurisdictional
    agreements governing tribal harvest of off-reservation fish, game, and
    plant resources within a number of Chippewa ceded territories. GLIFWC
    was established by tribal governments in 1984 as a cost efficient
    option to conserve natural resources and to effectively self-regulate
    harvests of natural resources shared among treaty signatory Tribes.

                                   BACKGROUND

        Consistent with numerous other federal court rulings on the
    Chippewa treaties, the United State Supreme Court recently affirmed the
    existence of the Chippewa's treaty-guaranteed usufructuary rights
    (Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band, Case No. 97-1337, March 24, 1999).
        To implement these federal court rulings, eleven tribal governments
    established the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
    (GLIFWC).
        GLIFWC provides an essential governmental function by enabling
    tribes to implement federal court orders and various
    interjurisdictional agreements regarding the conservation of natural
    resources and the exercise of treaty-guaranteed hunting, fishing and
    gathering rights. Under these orders and agreements, tribes must meet
    high standards for self-regulation including development and
    enforcement of tribal conservation codes, biological monitoring of
    tribal harvests, and adjudication of alleged violators in tribal
    courts.
        To meet these standards, the tribes have authorized GLIFWC to
    implement a conservation-based intertribal self-regulatory structure.
    The treaty signatory tribes share ceded territories with each other.
    Nevertheless, each tribe only has jurisdiction over its own members.
    The tribes thus recognize that no tribe on its own can effectively
    manage and regulate the exercise of ceded territory treaty rights.
    Therefore, the tribes have adopted various intertribal agreements,
    protocols and natural resource management plans that establish binding
    mechanisms and procedures for shared, intertribal management and
    regulation.
        In addition, GLIFWC serves an important role in the context of the
    tribes' relationships with other jurisdictions. At the tribes' request,
    it participates in a wide range of cooperative management activities
    with local, state, federal, and foreign governments. GLIFWC also has
    entered into partnerships and cooperative relationships with local lake
    associations, educational institutions and non-governmental
    organizations as part of the tribes' commitment to conserve and enhance
    natural resources as economically as possible.

            Budget
    Base funding..................................................$3,614,000
    COLA..........................................................    63,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Subtotal................................................ 3,677,000
            continuing the fishery assessment partnership--$146,300
        In Wisconsin, fears about the impact of tribal treaty reserved
    fishing rights were put to rest by a federal, state and tribal task
    force that studied the status of Wisconsin's fishery resource and the
    impact of Chippewa fishing.
        This joint fishery assessment of Wisconsin's ceded territory waters
    B undertaken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Great Lakes Indian
    Fish and Wildlife Commission, and its member tribes B also recognized
    the value of interagency cooperative management activities.
        The task force's report, Casting Light Upon the Waters: A Joint
    Fisheries Assessment of the Wisconsin Ceded Territory (United States
    Department of the Interior, 1991), provided information about the
    health of Wisconsin's fishery resource and the impacts of Chippewa
    spearfishing activities occurring throughout the ceded territories. Its
    conclusions are unambiguous: Chippewa fishing has not harmed the
    resource; however northern Wisconsin's fishery resources are dynamic
    and stressed by many factors, particularly environmental degradation
    and harvest by all user groups; and thus Athe fishery require(s) a
    continuation and further expansion of joint monitoring and assessment
    efforts'' (Casting Light Upon the Waters, p.93).
        The Casting Light task force was a catalyst for the development of
    the Commission/Service fishery assessment partnership. Since 1990, this
    partnership has undertaken walleye population estimates and walleye
    juvenile recruitment surveys. In 1997 GLIFWC sampled 18,793 walleye
    from 18,785 acres of water to determine the adult spawning populations
    on 16 ceded territory lakes. GLIFWC also conducted juvenile recruitment
    surveys on 100 lakes and 1 river in Wisconsin, 14 lakes in Minnesota,
    and 7 lakes in Michigan.
        The Commission must now replace aging equipment and address
    increasing operating costs of $146,300 if it is to continue this
    valuable work. A flatline budget and annually increasing costs for
    these vital fishery assessments since fiscal year 1995 have already
    compelled the Commission to reduce the number of fishery assessments
    conducted on ceded territory lakes. Inadequate equipment will further
    impede these efforts.
        This jeopardizes the cooperative success of the Casting Light task
    force. As Wisconsin's DNR Secretary noted 5 years after the Casting
    Light report, AWorking together and pooling resources, we've learned
    far more than we ever knew about the fishery resources of northern
    Wisconsin, which means for better management.@ Secretary George Meyer,
    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, ACasting Light Upon the
    Waters@ video, 1996.
     maintaining glifwc's conservation enforcement infrastructure--$136,491
        The Commission has established a community-based policing program
    to enforce tribal off-reservation conservation ordinances. Commission
    conservation wardens, who live and work within tribal communities, more
    effectively detect fish and game violations.
        While enforcement of off-reservation conservation codes is the key
    focus of GLIFWC's wardens, they have become a critical component in the
    overall law enforcement and public safety infrastructure across the
    ceded territories. When emergencies occur, GLIFWC wardens respond to
    requests from local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.
    To protect its Officers and to ensure continued coordination with other
            agencies, GLIFWC's radio system needs to be upgraded at a cost
            of $68,824
        Beyond what the Administration has requested, GLIFWC needs $68,824
    to replace 12 mobile vehicle radios and 4 radio tower repeaters used by
    its conservation law enforcement officers.
        Commission wardens are the tribe's primary ceded territory
    conservation law enforcement presence. They are cross-deputized with
    the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Given this cross-
    deputization agreement, and the fact the WDNR wardens can issue
    citations to tribal members for adjudication in tribal court, it is
    essential that adequate communications be maintained.
        GLIFWC's existing radios and associated equipment are quickly
    becoming technologically obsolete. Replacement parts are becoming
    increasingly more costly and harder to find. In addition, the FCC will
    likely require all licensed radio operators to divide their current
    frequencies from 25 kHz to 12.5 kHz (see FCC PR Docket Nos. 92-235, 92-
    257 and 96-116). This would require GLIFWC to convert its equipment to
    be compatible with the new frequencies.
        GLIFWC's law enforcement program cannot function without a viable,
    properly-functioning radio system. GLIFWC officers work throughout the
    ceded territories in rural and remote areas. Through GLIFWC's
    successful community-based policing program to enforce tribal off-
    reservation conservation ordinances, the officers live and work within
    the tribal communities they serve. In this context, GLIFWC's radio
    network is essential for both the safety of GLIFWC's officers and for
    the proper functioning of the interjurisdictional emergency mutual
    assistance networks in the ceded territories.
        The radio network enables GLIFWC officers to communicate with each
    other and with other law enforcement and emergency services
    agencies.These include the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
    Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Department of
    Natural Resources, U.S. Coast Guard, USDA-Forest Service, State
    Patrols, county sheriffs departments, local fire departments and
    emergency medical services.
        GLIFWC's radio system has been vital in numerous examples where
    GLIFWC officers have responded to a variety of emergencies:
      --as trained first responders, GLIFWC officers routinely respond to,
            and often are the first to arrive at, snowmobile accidents,
            heart attacks, hunting accidents, and automobile accidents
            (throughout the ceded territories);
      --search and rescue for lost hunters, fishermen, hikers, children,
            and elderly (Sawyer, Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, and Forest
            counties in Wisconsin and Baraga, Chippewa, and Gogebic
            counties in Michigan)
      --being among the first to arrive on the scene where officers from
            other agencies have been shot (Bayfield, Burnett and Polk
            counties in Wisconsin);
      --responding to weapons incidents (Ashland, Burnett, Sawyer and Vilas
            counties in Wisconsin);
      --assisting with drowning incidents (St. Croix River on the
            Minnesota/Wisconsin border, Sawyer county in Wisconsin, Gogebic
            county in Michigan);
      --searching for lost airplanes (Ashland, Forest and Washburn counties
            in Wisconsin);
      --organizing and participating in rescues of ice fishermen on Lake
            Superior (Ashland and Bayfield counties in Wisconsin);
      --assisting with Lake Superior boat rescues (Baraga county in
            Michigan and with the U.S. Coast Guard in other parts of
            western Lake Superior);
      --assisting sheriffs departments with natural disasters (e.g. floods
            in Ashland county).
        Simply put, investing to upgrade GLIFWC's law enforcement radio
    system will not only protect GLIFWC's officers, but it will enhance
    intergovernmental efforts to protect public safety and welfare
    throughout the region.
    To continue community safety programs and emergency responses

            CERTIFICATIONS, THE COMMISSION NEEDS AN ADDITIONAL $67,667

        GLIFWC conservation enforcement officers are certified instructors
    for hunter safety, boater safety, snowmobile safety, and ATV safety
    classes. From 1996 to 1998, GLIFWC conservation officers taught various
    safety classes attended by 361 tribal members and 454 non-Indian
    neighbors. This work directly benefits the entire region, ensuring
    ceded territory lands and waters are safe for all user groups.
        The Commission is requesting additional funds for equipment and
    training so Conservation Officers can maintain First Responder
    certification. First Responder certification ensures the Commission's
    staff are adequately trained in advanced emergency first aid techniques
    when called upon for hunting, boating, snowmobile or automobile
    accidents. Given the remote nature of the ceded territory, often GLIFWC
    conservation officers often are the first on the scene of emergencies.
        The Commission is also requesting funds to equip Conservation
    wardens with ice rescue equipment. Snowmobiling and ice fishing are
    increasingly more popular forms of recreation in the ceded territories
    and constitute an increasingly larger share of the local economy.
        Unfortunately a combination of aging equipment and increased
    operating costs will prevent the Commission from continuing these vital
    community services as extensively as in the past.

             IMPLEMENT CEDED TERRITORY GATHERING RIGHTS AT $79,500

        Also beyond what the Administration proposes, the Commission seeks
    $79,500 to implement off-reservation gathering rights on federal,
    state, and county public lands.
        The Commission has worked with community leaders and timber
    industry representatives to 34740.1 mitigate citizen's concerns
    regarding an agreement between its member tribes and the USDA-Forest
    Service. This agreement provides for the exercise of treaty-guaranteed
    gathering rights on National Forests within the ceded territories (see
    attached map) and establishing processes for government-to-government
    consultation regarding the federal government's management of those
    Forests.
        In building upon over 5 years of discussions, a number of interim
    arrangements, and various cooperative management and habitat
    improvement initiatives, a number of GLIFWC member tribes and the
    forest service ratified a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 1998.
    The tribes and the Forest Service began implementation of the MOU in
    1999.
        Tribes are also working with State Forest Managers in Wisconsin to
    implement off-reservation gathering rights and have held discussions
    regarding long range plans being prepared for these regions.
        The Commission is requesting funds to staff a Forest Ecologist who
    would not only assist the tribes in the implementation of the gathering
    rights but also in providing biologically- and culturally-based input
    into the Federal, State, and County Forest planning processes. Forest
    management plans have far reaching effects on the abundance of natural
    resources harvested by tribal members and upon tribal culture.
    Providing tribes with the ability to address issues of concern will
    help prevent resource and cultural conflicts.
        Funding is also being requested to:
      --purchase GIS/GPS computer equipment and software that will be
            compatible with what the Forest Service uses;
      --conduct a cooperative field study with the Forest Service to assess
            future impacts of selective logging practices upon understory
            plants; and
      --undertake public education efforts regarding the MOU.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
                                Chippewa Indians

        The Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, located
    in Wisconsin is submitting this written testimony which reflects the
    needs, concerns and issues of the Tribal membership arising from the
    President's fiscal year 2001 Budget.
        In general the Lac du Flambeau Band supports the President's
    funding initiatives in his Budget submitted to Congress and hopes that
    the Appropriations Committee will support the increases in Indian
    education, health, law enforcement and Tribal Priority Allocation. The
    Band is concerned with the lack of increases in appropriations within
    the Wildlife and Parks, Tribal Management and Development and Tribal
    Fish Hatchery Operations line items of the Bureau of Indian Affair
    budget. We hope Congress increases this portion of the budget in
    response to the needs of the Tribes.

                                INDIAN EDUCATION

        The Band is encouraged by the fact that education is one the
    primary focuses of the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget and we
    applaud this initiative. Even though this funding is not part of the
    Department of Interior bill, we urge the members of this Subcommittee
    to support the President's request.
        At the Lac du Flambeau Public School, our student population is 93
    percent Native American, yet less than 4 percent of the teaching staff
    is Native American. Currently at the Lac du Flambeau Public School,
    there are 54 professional staff, of which only two are of Native
    American ancestry. The effort to recruit Indian teachers is a priority
    for the Band and we support the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget.
    The President has requested $10 million to recruit and train 1,000 new
    Indian teachers, who will serve in public school districts with high
    concentrations of Indian children. We hope the recruitment and training
    program associated with this program will be flexible enough to allow
    applicants to be trained by local educational agencies and to serve as
    interns in the schools where they will be teaching.
        Along with recruiting new teachers, the Band also supports the
    President's $5 million American Indian Administrator Corps initiative.
    This will help recruit, train and support in-service development of 500
    American Indian and Alaska Natives to become effective school
    administrators. Currently, the Lac du Flambeau School has only one
    Native American Administrator working as the Federal Program
    Coordinator.
        The Budget proposes $1 billion (a $547 million increase) to enhance
    after school and summer school programs across the country and is part
    of the Administration's efforts to end social promotion in public
    schools. We support this initiative, but the Band urges Congress to set
    aside at least $100 million for Public School Districts with at least
    85 percent Indian student enrollment, tribal and BIA Schools. The Band
    strongly believes that the more time our children are in school, the
    better chance they will be successful.
        The Band supports the President's request for increased funding for
    Tribal Colleges and the Tribal College Endowment Fund. However, there
    is also a great need to increase funding to support Higher Education
    within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. For example, the Lac du Flambeau
    Band had 64 tribal members in fiscal year 2000 who were not able to
    receive funding for college due to funding shortfalls. Currently, a
    Higher Education Budget of $154,000 supports less than 33 full time
    college students. To fully support 97 college students an additional
    $299,000 is required for the Band alone.
        In 1988, Congress authorized appropriations through Public Law 100-
    297 for Tribal Education Departments. To date no appropriations have
    ever been allocated to Tribal Education Departments either by Congress,
    nor has any been requested by the President. The Band joins the
    National Indian Education Association in requesting $5 million to fund
    Tribal Education Departments.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        While there is a significant increase for the Indian Health Service
    in the President's 2001 Budget, the per capita funding for the health
    care of American Indian and Alaskan Native people remains far below the
    annual health expenditures of the general U.S. population. Between 1993
    and 1997, the per capita expenditure by Indian Health Service for
    health care for American Indian people in Wisconsin actually fell by 14
    percent when adjusted for inflation.
        We are concerned that Congress is not keeping pace with inflation
    in Indian health care and we urge Congress to increase funding for
    critical areas, such as community health representatives, dentistry,
    and diabetes screening.
        The Band is very concerned that little has been done to address the
    severe backlog in facilities construction. There is a priority list for
    this, but it is unlikely that we will ever see the day when we see the
    end to that list. At Lac du Flambeau we are planning new construction
    of a 50,000 square foot health facility. We are using a portion of our
    own funds to construct this desperately needed facility. We urge
    Congress to support our efforts and earmark $10 million to aid in the
    construction and equipping of this facility.

                                LAW ENFORCEMENT

        In 1999, the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Police Department logged 24,000
    man-hours answering 3,441 complaints. The 11, member Police Department
    consists of 10 full time officers and 1 administrator. The officers
    issued 1,117 citations for violations ranging from domestic violence to
    juvenile cases including runaways, burglary, fraud, battery and
    vandalism. The workload for the Tribal Police Department also increased
    dramatically, since a Tribal/State/County Agreement was enacted making
    it imperative to enforce all laws, codes and ordinances 24 hour per
    day. As a result of this Agreement, the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Police
    not only responds to tribal complaints but also provides services to
    the non-Indian community, as well. Our Police Department also aids
    surrounding community police departments (Oneida and Iron County
    Sheriffs and Woodruff, Minocqua and Eagle River Police Departments).
    The 10 officers retain their State certification, which requires 24
    hours of in service training annually, and maintain a 24-hour per day,
    7 days a week work schedule.
        Currently, our fiscal year 2000 Budget for Law Enforcement is
    $180,776 and the Band's proposed budget for fiscal year 2001 is still
    $550,000. The Band will experience a shortfall of $369,224. In fiscal
    year 1999 the Band's fiscal year base funding for law enforcement was
    $220,303 and was decreased to $180,776 in fiscal year 2000. This year
    the BIA is proposing a base of $153,000 for 2001, a reduction of
    $27,776.

                               NATURAL RESOURCES

        In past testimony, the Band has 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. The Reservation is located in the
    heart of Wisconsin's tourism and sport-fishing region. Tourism and
    related industries provide livelihoods 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 funding to assure that we can 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 Resource 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, and
    administering timber stand improvement projects on the 92,000 acre
    reservation. We urge this Committee to increase the Wildlife and Parks
    budget by $10 million 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) has been instrumental in preserving and
    rehabilitating our Nation's wetlands and waterfowl populations.
    Wetlands are important in providing flood control, clean water and
    recreation. Waterfowl are a very important source of food for tribal
    members and also support hunting opportunities for many up and down the
    Mississippi Flyway. Twenty tribes, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and
    Wildlife Commission, and the 1854 Authority have identified $936,000 in
    funding needs for this critical program. We urge the Committee to
    continue to support this initiative and increase the President's Budget
    by $342,000 for this very worthy program.

    Forestry
        Within the 92,000-acre reservation, we have 45,000 acres of
    forested land that support not only logging but hunting and gathering
    opportunities for tribal members. Proper management of the forest is
    essential to sustain our subsistence lifestyle. The Forestry Program
    now consists of two foresters and two technicians, who conduct broad
    management activities, including tree planting, prescribed burning,
    timber road design and maintenance, timber sale administration and
    integration with wildlife management. The Forestry Program is funded
    through Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) within the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs budget, and has been historically under funded. It is difficult
    for the Forestry Program to compete for TPA funds when child welfare,
    education and HIP programs are also competing for the same funds. Basic
    human needs must be met first. Thus, we request this Committee to
    provide a $70,000 increase for the Lac du Flambeau Forestry Program.
    This add-on can be supported by the increase in the President's TPA
    request.

    Tribal Historic Preservation
        The Lac du Flambeau Tribal Historic Preservation Office was
    established for the purpose of protecting and regulating our cultural
    resources. In August 1996, we assumed Tribal Historic Preservation
    Office status (THPO) through the National Historic Preservation Act. We
    are one of 20 Tribes in the Nation to assume the duties of the State
    Historic Preservation Office for all lands within the exterior
    boundaries of the reservation. Five more tribes are expected to assume
    this responsibility in fiscal year 2001. For fiscal year 2001, the
    President has requested $2,595,000 for THPO'S and Tribal Historic
    Preservation Grants within the National Park Service (Historic
    Preservation Fund). This is the same amount as was enacted in fiscal
    year 2000. As you know, there is a significant disparity in funding
    between State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) and Tribal Historic
    Preservation Offices (THPO). The smallest SHPO receives $250,000 while
    Navajo Nation only receives $89,000. By way of comparison, the land
    base of Navajo Nation is slightly larger than West Virginia's, but the
    West Virginia SHPO receives $400,000--more than 5 times the funding for
    the Navajo Nation. We urge the Committee to increase the budget to $10
    million, this increase will provide a base of $275,000 for all tribes
    currently in the program and the five more expected to join.

    Land Management
        The Tribal Land Management Department has a vast array of
    responsibilities associated with the administration and management of
    trust properties under the jurisdiction of the Band. The Department is
    divided into two programs, which include the Land Use Office and Real
    Estate Services. The Department's responsibilities include land
    acquisition, processing and monitoring leases and rights of way, estate
    management, record maintenance, and land surveys. The Department must
    coordinate its efforts with tribal members, non-tribal members, state
    and Federal agencies. The workload associated with complying with
    Federal, tribal, state and local laws, codes and ordinances is
    overwhelming. Currently, this Department is accomplishing the above
    with 4 employees.
        The Band supports the President's request for $12 million for the
    Land Consolidation Project. The Band, currently is one of the Tribes
    participating in the Pilot Land Consolidation Project. In order to
    fully implement this project in fiscal year 2001 and all of the above
    responsibilities, the Band requests an earmark of $75,000. This add-on
    can be obtained from the increase in the TPA portion of the President's
    request.

    American Indian Natural Heritage Restoration Program
        The American Indian Natural Heritage Restoration Program is a new
    collaborative initiative to reintroduce, manage, inventory and/or
    protect native fish, wildlife and plants that are threatened and
    endangered and are important to American Indian heritage and cultures.
    Thirty-three Great Lakes Tribes and organizations located in Wisconsin,
    Minnesota and Michigan are requesting Congress to provide $1.0 million
    to fund this program. The tribal fish and wildlife habitat base in the
    tri-state area includes 41.2 million acres of forested land, 2.2
    million acres of lakes, 4.7 million acres of wetlands and 9,437 miles
    of rivers and streams. These encompass ecosystems upon which numerous
    native, threatened or endangered species of fish, wildlife and plants
    depend. The Lac du Flambeau Band requests Congress to support this
    initiative by providing $1.0 million.

                        TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATION (TPA)

        Many key programs such as child welfare, courts, education, roads,
    forestry, land management, HIP are included within TPA. This allows the
    tribes to move funds from one TPA program to another, in line with the
    priorities set by the Tribe. Unfortunately, the TPA program has been
    severely underfunded, and 34582.1 has not met the needs in Indian
    country. This has forced tribes to ``rob Peter to pay Paul''--even
    though neither Peter nor Paul had enough in the first place. The
    President has requested $761.18 million for Tribal Priority Allocation.
    The Band supports this request. However, the need is much greater and
    we would urge the Committee to focus on the fact that TPA funding
    improves the lives of our elders and our children. Without this
    funding, many people would not have adequate shelter, food or an
    education.

                             CONTRACT SUPPORT COST

        The President's TPA budget includes $128,732,000 for Contact
    Support, which is an increase of $8,247,000 over last year's level.
    This is an important start but it falls well short of the need, as this
    will only meet up to 87 percent of the total BIA contract support needs
    in Indian Country. Contract support costs are a part of the promise
    made by the United States in return for tribes agreeing to take over
    responsibility for Federal programs. Unless that promise is kept by
    fully funding contract support costs, the ability of tribes to provide
    services to their people will be seriously compromised and the Self-
    Determination policy will fail. We urge Congress to fully fund contract
    support costs.

                GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION

        The Band supports the Administration request of $4,039,291 for the
    Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. We also support the
    Commission's request of $136,491 for radio replacement as per the
    revisions of the national radio frequency system, $146,300 to replace
    aging equipment and cover increased operating costs associated with
    ceded territory fish assessments and $79,500 to support a Forest
    Ecologist position needed 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 of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Ramah Navajo Chapter

        The Ramah Navajo Chapter is pleased to submit this statement on the
    fiscal year 2001 budget request of the Department of Housing and Urban
    Development (HUD). The statement focuses on providing the resources to
    adequately fund the Indian Housing Block Grant Program and a Ramah
    Navajo Chapter-specific allocation for a Housing Emergency Pilot
    Program.
        The Ramah Navajo Chapter is a certified chapter of the Navajo
    Nation government. As a governmental entity of the Navajo Nation, the
    Chapter has been authorized since 1986 by the Nation to contract
    directly with various agencies, including HUD, the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs and the Indian Health Service, to provide services to the over
    3,000 tribal members living in the RNC area. Our community, located in
    the west central mountains of New Mexico, has a land base of 154,553
    acres--comprised of a ``checkerboard'' of trust land, individual
    allotted land, and fee land purchased by or for the Chapter. According
    to a recent survey,\1\ 43.9 percent of the workforce is unemployed,
    69.2 percent of households (605 households) live in poverty, and an
    additional 81 households were found to have very low income. Forty-
    eight percent of households were found to own their own homes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 1997 Household Survey, conducted by the Chapter and Navajo
    Nation Data Resource.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Chapter's 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 of self-sufficiency through self-
    determination; and by maintaining respect for our traditional values of
    cultural heritage and family. In furtherance of our mission, the
    Chapter seeks funding to participate in a housing emergency pilot
    program.
        Housing Needs.--Housing in the Ramah Navajo Community varies
    widely, including many older log houses and hogans, owner-built houses
    of various materials, and standard HUD-built units. Some families live
    in ``shacks'' or converted outbuildings that lack electricity and/or
    running water.
        In a recent study of 587 owner-occupied housing units, 425 (or 72
    percent) were found to be substandard. Of these substandard units, 174
    units require major repairs or renovation, and 66 units are so badly
    deteriorated that they must be replaced. In addition, 200 families were
    found to be sheltering with relatives or others and therefore in need
    of a home of their own.
        A serious and complicating factor to ensuring safe and adequate
    housing for our members is the presence of Hantavirus-infected rodents.
    The Ramah area is a prime habitat for rodents carrying the Hantavirus
    and may be a reservoir area for the infection. To date three deaths in
    the Ramah area have been attributed to Hantavirus infections; one death
    in 1994 and two deaths 1999. Additionally, a fourth person contracted
    the disease in Ramah but passed away in another community.
        According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the four-county
    area within which Ramah is located has the highest rate of Hantavirus
    Pulmonary Syndrome in the United States, at a rate of three cases per
    1000,000 population per year. At that rate, Ramah Navajo Chapter could
    have expected .09 cases per year, based on its population of 3,000. In
    actuality, however, three cases within the Ramah community over seven
    years is six times the expected rate for this area, a rate which would
    be equivalent to 285,000 fatalities in the United States over the same
    period.
        Unfortunately, dilapidated housing provides habitats for these
    infected rodents and most of the homes in the Ramah community are in
    substandard condition. Cracks and openings common in the substandard
    units allow virus-carrying rodents to enter or nest in the walls and
    roof. Those most susceptible to the Hantavirus are the poorest families
    in the community, who are also those whose housing is in the worst
    condition, most likely to be living in crowded conditions, and least
    likely to afford to make substantial repairs to their homes.
        Housing Emergency Pilot Program.--To address the most critical
    renovation and repair needs of the community, the Ramah Navajo Chapter
    requested and received a planning grant from the Navajo Housing
    Authority. The Authority has provided the Chapter $408,150 from the HUD
    Indian Housing Block Grant Program funds allocated to the Navajo Nation
    to use for pre-engineering activities related to implementing a Housing
    Emergency Pilot Program. The planning grant will also help us develop
    an ongoing community housing program, the primary focus of drawing and
    coordinating housing resources from multiple sources to address the
    housing needs of the community. The Chapter is working with the CDC to
    develop its comprehensive, community-based Hantavirus prevention
    initiative, and is a key participant in the CDC's Hantavirus control
    study. The Housing Emergency Pilot Program is one portion of the
    comprehensive initiative.
        In summary, the goal of the multi-year Housing Emergency Pilot
    Program will be to rodent-proof existing units and replace those that
    cannot be repaired using construction methods to protect against rodent
    intrusion. The Chapter will ensure that: the project, designed to aid
    the low-income members of the community, follows the project priorities
    established by the community; a program plan is developed; and
    eligibility criteria for the beneficiaries is developed and
    implemented. Where appropriate, community residents will be used in
    renovation and construction of the homes.
        As part of the program, a rodent Disinfectant Response Team will be
    established to protect construction workers, and to provide clean up at
    suspected Hantavirus contamination sites. The emergency response team
    will provide education, training and supplies to community residents.
        Request.--The Ramah Navajo Chapter requests a special allocation of
    $960,000 under the fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the Department
    of Housing and Urban Develop to replace six homes and renovate 30 of
    the units most critically in need of repair or replacement. The Chapter
    will continue to seek funding from all possible sources to complete the
    multi-year Housing Emergency Pilot Program that is critical to ensure
    the health and welfare of our members.
        The Ramah Navajo Chapter thanks you for the opportunity to provide
    our comments and for your consideration of our request.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Upper Lake Pomo Rancheria

        On behalf of the Upper Lake Pomo Rancheria, I am honored to present
    to the Subcommittee our views on the fiscal year 2001 budget requests
    for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. Our
    statement will focus on:
      --$3.88 million increase for diabetes program
      --$3.5 million increase for BIA contract support costs, $5 million
            for a BIA Indian Self-Determination Fund, and a $40 million
            increase for IHS contract support costs as requested by the
            Administration
      --Additionally, we ask Congress to encourage the BIA to place more
            emphasis on the needs of the Indian Child Welfare program.
        The Upper Lake Pomo Rancheria, located in the northwest California,
    is a federally recognized tribe, with its recognition being restored in
    1979. The Rancheria has contracts programs and services from the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service under Title I of
    the Indian Self-Determination Act. The focus of the tribal government
    is to develop a strong community, provide the community much-needed
    services such as health, housing, law enforcement, and increase
    economic development opportunities to increase employment opportunities
    for the Rancheria members. The following concerns address the most
    pressing needs of the Rancheria in relation to these goals.
        Diabetes funding increase.--The Administration proposes a $3.88
    million increase for diabetes-related activities. While the Rancheria
    supports this modest increase, we are concerned that amount requested
    will not be adequate to meet the needs in Indian country. As you may be
    aware, the incidence of diabetes throughout Indian country is almost
    four times higher than the prevalence of the disease across all races
    in the U.S. and has been identified as the top health problem in all of
    the IHS Areas.
        For our community, we would like to focus on prevention education,
    early screenings, and assistance to help our diabetics control their
    conditions with lifestyle changes. However, increased costs resulting
    from medical complications that diabetics may develop and limited
    healthcare funds have forced us to direct our resources to direct
    health services.
        The Rancheria therefore requests that the Subcommittee recommends
    funding, at a minimum, the Administration's budget request for diabetes
    activities.
        Indian Child Welfare.--The Administration requests $11.5 million
    for Indian Child Welfare Act-related services, a decrease of $1 million
    from the fiscal year 2000 level. However, according to the recent BIA
    Report on Tribal Priority Allocations, there is an estimated unmet need
    of over $21.5 million to support the programs, functions and activities
    under the Housing Improvement Program. These funds are also in
    competition with other programs under the BIA Tribal Priority
    Allocation category. This means that if there is an urgent need to
    increase funding for other programs such as road repairs, employment
    and training services, or emergency burial assistance services, Child
    Welfare Assistance funds may be subject to reduction.
        Tribes rely on these funds for a myriad of services required under
    the Indian Child Welfare Act. ICWA funds are used to ``protect Indian
    children and prevent the separation of Indian families'' (BIA Budget
    Justification, BIA-55). Data collected by the Bureau indicates that
    Indian children are at risk fur abuse and neglect at a rate three times
    greater than the general population (TPA Report, p. 55). Yet, under the
    limited funding we receive, tribes must respond to all reports of child
    abuse and neglect, fulfill the tribal government responsibilities in
    adoption cases involving Indian children, provide training in dangers
    of child abuse or neglect, and other services as required by the duties
    and responsibilities required by the Indian Child Welfare Act.
        For these reasons, the Rancheria requests the Subcommittee to
    encourage the BIA to place more emphasis on the needs of the Indian
    Child Welfare program. We also note there are two bills pending which
    would help to address our concerns in the Indian Child Welfare area--S.
    1478 (Direct Tribal Access to Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
    Entitlement Funding) and S. 1213 (Indian Child Welfare Act
    Amendments)--that we ask you to support when it comes to the Senate
    floor for consideration.
        Contract Support Costs.--The Rancheria supports the $3.5 million
    increase requested by the Administration for BIA contract support cost
    funds and $5 million to reinstate the BIA Indian Self-Determination
    Fund. We note, however, the Bureau estimates that the current on-going
    shortfall is about $17 million, which will result in only about 88
    percent of a tribe's negotiated indirect cost rate being paid. We also
    support the Administration's request of a $40 million increase for IHS
    contract support costs.
        The Upper Lake Rancheria would also like to comment on two matters
    which are necessarily a part of the appropriations bill, but which are
    great importance to us. The issues are:
        Medicare/Medicaid Direct Billing.--The Rancheria supports pending
    legislation (S. 406) to extend and expand the Medicare/Medicaid direct
    billing demonstration project, which is authorized in Section 405 of
    the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Section 405 allowed four tribal
    health contractors who operate an entire IHS hospital or clinic to
    bypass IHS and directly bill for and receive payments for services
    provided to patients who are Medicare- or Medicaid-eligible.
        The project has reduced delays in receiving payments, improved
    eligibility determinations, and increased the accuracy of the claims
    submitted. The ability to be reimbursed in a more timely manner allows
    the participants to deposit and earn interest on these funds. These
    additional funds earned are used for Medicare/Medicaid-eligible
    activities.
        Labor Union Issues.--The Rancheria support the concept in pending
    legislation (H.R. 2992) which provides that states cannot require
    tribes to include a labor agreements as part of the gaming compact
    negotiations discussion. While the Rancheria is bound to follow the
    terms and conditions the compact as ``negotiated'' with the State of
    California, we firmly believe that discussion of a process for
    representation of rights for employees should be between the tribe and
    its employees (or their representatives).
        The Upper Lake Pomo Rancheria appreciates the opportunity to
    provide our views to the Subcommittee regarding the fiscal year 2001
    budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the 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 2001 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'Klallarn 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. We further recommend that you not
    consider any provisions which limit Tribal governmental discretion to
    re-design programs and reallocate funding to meet local priorities and
    needs as authorized under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act, as amended. This is consistent with the Administration
    and Congress' devolution initiatives in which the Federal Government is
    ceding more authority to local units of government.

                    TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION PRIORITIES

        $534,000 one-time funding for construction of a dental clinic to
    serve our Tribal community;
        $600,000 one-time funding for the purchase of two parcels of land,
    one adjacent to our existing reservation and one near our reservation;
    and,
        $35,000 increase in BIA Tribal base funding for unfunded Operations
    & Maintenance programs.

                  LOCAL/REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

        $300,000 for the Point no Point Wildlife Program; and,
        Support all requests and recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes
    of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and
    the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

               SELF-GOVERNANCE AND OTHER NATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

        Restore and expand $1,000,000 increase to the DOI Office of Self-
    Governance for planning and negotiation grants;
        Provide increase for BIA and IHS to fully fund Contract Support
    Cost (CSC) to address documented Tribal needs;
        Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment;
        Provide $201,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services; and,
        Support all requests and recommendations of the National Congress
    of American Indians.

    Tribal-Specific Appropriation Priorities

                Construction of a Community Dental Clinic--+$534,000

        The Tribe has recognized a need to locally provide dental services
    to Tribal members. In this isolated rural community, dentists are
    unwilling to provide services to Medicaid patients because of the low
    rate of reimbursement for those services. Clallam County in general,
    and our Tribal community in particular, has a large percentage of
    people on Medicaid. We could serve these people at our own facilities.
    If we continue to rely on private dental service providers, we will not
    have any way to acquire services for our Medicaid-eligible Tribal
    members. The Tribe is proposing to construct a 3,300 square foot dental
    clinic with 4 chairs, offices, and laboratory facilities at our Tribal
    campus. Costs include specialized equipment and furnishings, parking
    and all construction costs and fees.

                Establishment of Tribal Land Base--+$600,000

        For the past 9 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 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 in adding to 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 four acre waterfront property site, on Sequim Bay (as
    is the Tribe's reservation) still remains available for purchase at
    approximately $450,000. In addition, there is a ten acre site, near the
    reservation which is available to the Tribe at approximately $150,000.
    These land acquisitions would allow us to expand our Tribal government
    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
    contiguous 4 acre tract and a third party purchases and develops it, 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
    continues to exist. The 10 acre site would be an excellent location
    for, among other things, a Tribal health and wellness clinic. It would
    also be a good site for the placement of future additions (7-20 years)
    to the Tribe's water and wastewater infrastructure.
                Increase in BIA Tribal Base Funding For Operations &
                        Maintenance--+$35,000
        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 $35,000. 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 $35,000 annually.

    Local/Regional Requests and Recommendations
        The Wildlife Program has been funded since 1993 by a combination of
    grants. However, this source of funding is extremely precarious, and it
    is impossible to conduct long-term planning without a permanent source
    of program funding. We support funding for this crucial program in the
    amount of $300,000.
        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
        Increase Self-Governance Grants within Non-Recurring Programs by $1
    million dollars.--In order to restore planning and negotiation grants
    for tribes wanting to enter into Tribal Self-Governance and for tribes
    wishing to negotiate an annual funding agreement with a non-BIA bureau
    within the Department of the Interior. This funding for planning and
    negotiation was deleted several years ago. This increase supports BIA's
    GPRA goal: ``To provide Tribes with the resources they need to foster
    strong and stable Tribal governments and exercise their authority as
    sovereign nations.'' It also supports long-term goal #1 that states:
    ``By 2005, the Bureau will promote Indian Self-Determination by
    enhancing training and technical assistance by 50 percent and
    minimizing impediments to Tribal contracting, compacting and grants.''
    This increase will allow for 10 advance planning grants of $35,000
    each, 10 negotiation grants of $25,000 each and 10 planning and
    negotiation grants of $40,000 each for non-BIA programs.
        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 2001 includes a modest increase for CSC, an additional
    $60 million is needed in IHS and an additional $25 million is needed in
    BIA to fully fund CSC. This shortfall continues to penalize Tribes
    which elect to operate BIA and IHS programs under the self-
    determination policy. Further, this shortfall threatens to pit tribe
    against tribe as mature contractors are asked to absorb all
    inflationary increases in order to fund new contractors. 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 $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustments.--Although the
    Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2001 includes a $60.5
    million increase over fiscal year 2000, this is the second year in a
    row that 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 3.5
    percent inflation adjustment for existing Tribal programs and services.
        Provide $201,000,000 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. In fiscal year
    2000, IHS and Tribal programs had to absorb over 50 percent of
    mandatory and inflationary cost increases; in fiscal year 1999, 50
    percent was absorbed; and, in fiscal year 1998, 70 percent was
    absorbed. This has been the pattern for the past 8 years. These IHS and
    Tribal programs simply cannot afford to continue to lose real
    resources. Mandatories should be the first consideration in budget
    formulation. 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.
    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 the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

        On behalf of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC)
    member tribes, I want to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
    present testimony on our fiscal year 2001 fisheries and habitat
    management needs that fall within the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget.

               SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

        In general, the NWIFC supports the Administration's appropriation
    request that is presently before the Subcommittee. Specifically, the
    NWIFC requests funding and direction which will achieve the following
    for fiscal year 2001:
      --Support for the $6.5 million western Washington tribal shellfish
            management, and enforcement funding request to implement tribal
            treaty rights through the further establishment of tribal
            shellfish programs;
      --Continued support of the existing $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 continued earmarking of $400,000 for the Wild
            Stock Restoration Initiative;
      --Support the base funding level of $3.048 for the Timber-Fish-
            Wildlife Agreement, and increase this amount by $1.0 million to
            implement tribal obligations under new state and private forest
            practices rules and regulations pertaining to ESA obligations;
      --Support, at a minimum, existing funding levels within the Bureau
            for Trust Responsibility, Tribal Priority Allocation, and Self
            Governance that pertain to Fisheries Management and U.S.-Canada
            Pacific Salmon Treaty at fiscal year 2000 levels; and,
      --Provision of Contract Support Funding at 100 percent levels
            necessary for existing and emerging programs.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Twenty-six years ago, the U.S. v. Washington case was decided by
    the Federal court system. Just this last year, tribal rights were once
    again upheld when the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert. on our decade
    long shellfish litigation. These decisions, respecting the treaty
    rights of our member tribes, have 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 NEED CONTINUED SUPPORT

        Natural resource management in the Pacific Northwest is at a
    critical juncture. For the tribes, this circumstance comes after 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 new management obligations are many. Highly
    difficult complexities abound, many precipitated by the demands of the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). We are
    challenged, in our area, with four separate ESA listings of threatened
    salmon and bull trout populations, and over 666 water bodies listed
    under Section 303 (d) of the CWA. Treaty rights to harvest shellfish
    are thwarted due to pollution in marine waters. 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 some new
    funds 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 ensure that the Western Washington-Boldt
    Implementation and the Pacific Salmon Treaty base budgets be fully
    funded as proposed in this year's budget request.

                        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 arose, 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. After over five years in the courts,
    the tribal rights to harvest have been clarified, when the Supreme
    Court last year 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. However, Tribes need monies to implement this right, in much
    the same way as they did after the original U.S. v. Washington case was
    decided. 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. Without new resources this success will be short-lived.
        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 will not only impact fisheries
    and the resource as a whole, but will make 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
    shell fisheries industry. 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 $6.5 million to tribal fishery
    management contracts as part of the permanent base. This request is
    supported by a wide range of individuals, organizations, and
    governments and is necessary to effectively manage the shellfish
    resource and enforce laws and regulations.

      WILDSTOCK RESTORATION INITIATIVE, WATERSHED RESTORATION, NORTHWEST
             FOREST PLAN, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IMPLEMENTATION

        Last winter, 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 fall, the Bull Trout was listed
    as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This ESA listing
    process is triggering a cascading chain of events, and will culminate
    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 stocks and
    poses a threat to the individual's 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 continued support from the Subcommittee for
    additional funding beyond our base program.
        We are requesting that the Subcommittee continue to provide
    $400,000 for the Wild Stock Restoration Initiative (WSRI) 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 has been essential in developing a
    state-wide habitat inventory base that greatly affects appropriate
    salmon restoration efforts in the state. The remaining $2.6 million
    from this initiative will continue to allow tribes throughout the
    Pacific Northwest to continue to conduct watershed analysis and
    watershed restoration within their Usual and Accustomed Areas. This
    approach is identical to last year's request, which the Subcommittee
    supported.

                    TIMBER-FISH-WILDLIFE AGREEMENT EXPANSION

        We are supporting additional funding to tribes for expansion of our
    Timber-Fish-Wildlife (TFW) 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.
    Over the past two years, a series of contentious negotiations
    culminated in the development of the TFW, Forest and Fish Report. Most
    all of the tribes were extremely concerned about one or more of the key
    provisions in the report. However, most all agreed the only way to
    actually resolve these issues would be to ensure that a strong
    monitoring and adaptive monitoring process be put in place. Therefore,
    we were most appreciative when the Subcommittee provided $3.048 million
    of new funding to the tribes to facilitate our participation in
    monitoring, research, data analysis, and adaptive management processes
    that are a cornerstone to the TFW process.
        As part of this effort, the tribes have included a strong
    centralized coordination component at the NWIFC, a regional
    coordination component for eastern Washington, and are focusing their
    implementation efforts at their local watersheds. The strategy calls
    for two tracks. One is aimed at supporting the development of the
    Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) development process within the TFW
    process. A second track supports tribal participation in TFW in a
    continuing effort to shape and steer forest management practices toward
    greater fish protection.
        For fiscal year 2001, we are again requesting the Subcommittee's
    support of $3.048 million, plus an additional $1.0 million to further
    develop tribal participation in the TFW Forest and Fish effort. On a
    related note, tribes are watching closely the Commerce, Justice and
    State Subcommittee on Appropriations treatment of the Department of
    Commerce Coastal Salmon Recovery Initiative of $100 million. Without
    these monies and a set aside for the tribes, our ability to work
    through the TFW and other ESA processes will be severely constrained.

            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 forced 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 2000, 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 program
    costs (rental, telephones, support service) 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.

                                   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 the Lummi Indian Nation

        My name is William E. Jones, Sr., Chairman of the Lummi Indian
    Nation. The Lummi Indian Nation, located on the northern coastline of
    Washington State, is the third largest tribe in Washington State
    serving a population of over 5,200. On behalf of the Lummi Indian
    Nation I want to thank you and the members of the Committee for the
    opportunity to express our concerns and requests regarding the fiscal
    year 2001 BIA, IHS, and Natural Resources appropriations.
        The following testimony presents the Lummi Indian Nation's funding
    priorities, as well as regional and national concerns and
    recommendations for your consideration. Further, the Lummi Indian
    Nation strongly opposes any bill, language or legislative riders that
    undermine tribal sovereignty. The Lummi Nation stresses the continued
    implementation of Executive Memorandum 13087 which requires all
    departments of the federal government to enter into direct coordination
    and consultation with tribes on issues that directly affect the
    functions and role of tribal governments.

                 TRIBAL SPECIFIC 2001 APPROPRIATION PRIORITIES

    +$18,000,000 Replacement School Construction Program
        Lummi supports the Presidents request of $15,570,000 and seeks an
    additional $2,430,000. The increase covers construction of additional
    square footage for a permanent school facility to house a student
    enrollment level of at least 750.
    +$3,500,000 Semiahmoo Reinterment and Recovery Effort
        Provide the Lummi Nation with funding to ensure the sensitive
    recovery, handling, and preservation of ancestral human remains
    disturbed at a known traditional tribal cemetery site, Si'ke.
    +$750,000 Water & Sewer Infrastructure Planning
        Provide the IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program with
    funds tribally earmarked to support the planning of water and sewage
    system infrastructure development projects.
    +$1,300,000 Water Negotiations
        Provide for the following water negotiation costs: $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)
    +$700,000 Increase to Lummi Nation Shellfish Hatchery Operation
        Provide support to the ongoing operation of the tribal shellfish
    hatchery consistent with the expansion of the Boldt decision to
    shellfish.
    +$2,000,000 Support BIA General Assistance Program
        To assist and train Lummi fishermen suffering from the collapse of
    the Fraser River Sockeye fishery.
    +$740,000 Support Realty
        Provide the Lummi Nation realty services and managerial support
    i.e.--land consolidation, land records management, tribal probate,
    staff training.
             tribal specific appropriation summaries, justification

    Replacement School Construction Program.................     $18,000,000

        The BIA has estimated $15,570,000 to construct this school. The
    Lummi Nation requests an additional $2,430,000 for a total estimated
    cost of $18,000,000 to build this school. The Lummi Nation and the BIA
    Facilities Management Construction Center are working to resolve this
    miscalculation in the enrollment size for the new school. This request
    is concurrent to our application submitted in 1999. An estimated
    enrollment of 750 students is expected over the next five years.
    Current ISEP enrollments plus notarized affidavits justify this
    request. Current population growth on the reservation is 4.8 percent
    annually, which is double the BIA's growth rate of 2.5 percent as
    supported by the 1990 Census and housing survey in 1995. The total
    appropriation request the tribe seeks to complete the construction
    phase is $18,000,000.

    Semiahmoo Reinterment and Recovery Project..............      $3,500,000

        The Lummi Nation is requesting $3,500,000 to ensure the sensitive
    recovery and reinterment of over 100 disturbed burials that were
    removed from a traditional cemetery during the construction of a local
    sewage plant. Without tribal knowledge and/or consent, the Lummi
    community was shocked to learn the discovery of ancestral remains that
    were insensitively disturbed and eventually transported out of state.
    The expansion of the plant was financed with federal funds and
    permitted by the state-of course the disaster was not foreseen but it
    happened and the Lummi Nation needs financial assistance to implement a
    Semiahmoo Reinterment and Recovery Plan. The Reinterment and Recovery
    Plan is expected to take at least two years to complete utilizing
    sensitive archeological excavation and handling techniques to map,
    gather, identify, handle, catalog and reinter ancestral remains and
    cultural artifacts.
        The construction project involved the removal and transporting by
    dump trucks of soil which possessed human remains and artifacts to a
    site that currently comprises over 10,000 cubic meters of cultural
    deposits covering a 3.5 acre landfill. This Recovery Effort will ensure
    that the Lummi community is able to respectfully reinter all human
    remains in a culturally appropriate manner and bring closure to this
    catastrophic event.

    Water & Sewer Infrastructure Planning.........................  $750,000

        The Lummi Reservation supports a population of nearly 5,200
    persons, which has pushed water and sewer system capacities to their
    limit. Additional capacity must be obtained now to support the existing
    population. In the short-term, water and sewer systems redesign and
    upgrades will handle the problem. However, the long-term solution must
    include additional treatment capacity and water source location and
    development. Public Works infrastructure development and investments
    like these require substantial planning. The Lummi Nation is not able
    to undertake this level of planning without the assistance requested
    herein. Lummi Nation recommends the IHS Sanitation Facilities
    Construction Program to receive earmarked funds to support tribal
    planning of water delivery and sewage treatment system infrastructure
    for the existing and projected population of the Lummi Indian
    Reservation.

    Water Negotiations......................................      $1,300,000

        The Lummi Nation signed an Agreement in Principle with the Federal
    Government and the State of Washington on January 27, 1998. This
    agreement is a stepping stone toward a final settlement of 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 2001: $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. Lummi Nation recommends that the
    BIA receives a special earmark to support the increase in the Water
    Rights Negotiation/Litigation, Attorney fees and technical studies.

    Lummi Nation Shellfish Hatchery Operation...............        $700,000

        The thirty-year old hatchery supplies oyster and clam seeds to a
    majority of Northwest Washington Indian tribes and growers. The recent
    shellfish case decision to uphold the shellfish ruling supports the
    need to provide both the treaty and non-treaty growers for oyster seed,
    clam seed, enhancement projects. These dollars benefit both the tribal
    government and Washington State. The Lummi Nation recommends that
    $350,000 increase be earmarked to Lummi Nation through the BIA Hatchery
    Operational program.

    Support BIA General Assistance Program..................      $2,000,000

        The commercial harvest forecast for CY-2000 Fraser River Sockeye is
    bleak. Lummi Nation has 500 fishermen whose primary household income
    source is this valued fishery. The Lummi reservation is an economically
    distressed community due to the following events: (1) closure of the
    nation's casino 1997; (2) 1999 Fraser River Sockeye fishery
    cancellation; and (3) restrictions to fish harvest under ESA, 99-00.
    (4) Closure of major tribal commercial shellfish beds due to pollution;
    Lummi is requesting General Assistance funds to support affected
    fishers and helping tribal member's to diversify and build new
    vocational skills through education and re-training program.

    Support Realty..........................................      $2,000,000

        The Lummi Nation has a multi-year plan to address the realty
    tribulations. It's major elements include land consolidation, land
    records management, tribal probate process, revision of realty
    procedures, backlog elimination, and training. Land consolidation
    requires untangling the heirship disarray by conducting research to
    land titles, appraisals, surveys, subdivision and other technical work.
    Land records management requires development of a tribal land database
    with an electronic connection to BIA databases. The current process
    involving tribal probates is time consuming which is further
    complicated because the land is so fractionated. Development of an on-
    site process using Lummi Tribal Court is needed to shorten the
    processing time.
        Regional Requests and Recommendation.--Support the requests and
    recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, the
    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;
        Provide increase for BIA and IHS to fully fund Contract Support
    Cost (CSC) to address documented Tribal needs;
        Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment;
        Provide $201,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services;
        Law Enforcement funding: BIA $20 Million; DOJ $83 Million (Total
    $103 Million);
        Support the President's Education Initiative to increase from $133
    million to $300 million
        Increase tribal court funding to $58.4 million as authorized under
    the Indian Tribal Justice Act, Public Law 103-176; and,
        Support all requests and recommendations of the National Congress
    of American Indians.
        I appreciate your consideration of the fiscal year 2001 requests
    and recommendations of appropriations for the BIA, HIS, and Natural
    Resources on behalf of the Lummi Nation. Thank you.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe

        The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, in Washington State, has 240
    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. The requests for increases are to be added to the base budgets
    in the fiscal year 2001 on the following priority. Tribe's total
    request is $7.89 million.

                     TRIBAL LEVEL APPROPRIATIONS PRIORITIES

        +$190,000 to Tribal Budget Base for Government Operations in the
    BIA TPA Tribal Government Account for core staffing & equipment.
    Request 100 percent Contract Support (not 75 percent);
        +$3.5 million for Imminent Threat to the reservation due to (a)
    river flow change, (b) mud slides. The river has moved 1000 ft., With
    no dike protection, one high flood would flood the reservation. Due to
    the Wild & Scenic Status of the river, no changes can be made to it.
    For new land purchase and community infrastructure development;
        +$1.5 million for Safe Drinking Water, replacing the current
    360,000 gallon cement domestic water storage tank which leaks and water
    pipes that are not safe;
        +$350,000 for Cultural Research funding for anthropological study
    specific to Sauk-Suiattle. Also, for Land Acquisition Study, tribal
    history study, and restore language. To be added to the BIA Office of
    Trust Responsibility Account;
        +$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;
        +$50,000 to add to Housing Base funding for HIP and administrative
    management;
        +$1.6 million for restoring Mountain Goat Herd depletion in North
    Cascades & for a 5 yr. study. Parts of goat are used for Cultural
    purposes (horns, hoofs, etc.), last hunt was 5 yrs. ago;
        +$100,000 to BIA Law Enforcement, addition for operations, increase
    in salary, equipment, training, and jail contract funds. To be added to
    the BIA TPA, Public Safety and Justice, Law Enforcement Tribal Agency
    Account;
        +$50,000 Higher Education scholarships in the BIA Education Program
    Account;
        +$375,000 to develop economic enterprises, added to BIA Tribal
    Government Account;
        +$100,000 to do a Needs Assessment, a one-time non-recurring cost
    to TPA, BIA.
        Request streamlining of the Fee-to-Trust process, make less
    complicated. 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;
        Request to place allotments under 19638 Management and Request
    title for the Tenas Creek and Suiattle Cemetery lands, plus two
    additional 50 acres surrounding the two cemetery parcels. Need to clear
    up the ownership, multiple jurisdiction and joint responsibilities that
    now exists. It will clear up the U.S. Forest Service, BIA, or Sauk-
    Suiattle ownership.

                       REGIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PRIORITIES

    Support Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians:
        For Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board fiscal year 2001
    request on appropriations
        Contract support increase funding of 100 percent by NWPAIHB
        Support for Sovereign Immunity, against taxation, for Land-Into-
    Trust
        Contract Support Costs (Indirect Cost) Funding at 100 percent for
    Tribes.
        BIA Forest Development, Woodland Management, Northwest Forest Plan,
    $3.0 million. ``Jobs in the Woods'' initiative, from this amount
    $400,000 for Wild Stock Restoration.
        Washington Tribal Shellfish Management, Enhancement, and
    Enforcement Funding to Implement Tribal Treaty Rights through the
    Establishment of Base Shellfish Operations $6.5 million.
        Pacific Salmon Treaty at fiscal year 2000 levels.
        Timber, Fish and Wildlife Agreement $3.048 million, increase by $1
    million to implement tribal obligations per new State and private
    forest practices rules and regulations re. ESA.

                       NATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PRIORITIES

        Support the Administration's Request for BIA and for IHS
        Full Funding of Contract Support Costs, support President's budget
    for BIA $134 million & IHS $40 million.
        BIA TPA request, plus for the small and Needy Tribes Appropriation
    minimum.
        Elevate IHS Director to Asst. Sec.; Increase IHS funding for HIV/
    AIDS, Diabetes--inflation, increase of medical costs, related
    medicines, breast & cervical cancer
        Law Enforcement funding: BIA $20 million, DOJ $83 million (total
    $103 million)
        Reauthorize Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-176).
    Increase tribal court funding to $58.4 million as authorized under the
    Indian Tribal Justice Act, Public Law 103-176.
        Support the President's Education Initiative to increase from $133
    million To $300 million

                          PRIORITY REQUESTS-NARRATIVE

        Increase in Core Tribal Government Staff.--The Tribe has had a
    great turnover in its core management positions (Executive Director 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 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, not
    just 75 percent as fiscal year 1999.
        Imminent Threat.--The imminent threat to the reservation is due to
    (a) river flow change, (b) mud slides. The river has moved 1000 ft.
    within two years. With no dike protection, one high flood would flood
    the reservation. The other side is a glacial area and when it melts, it
    causes mud slides. Due to the Wild & Scenic Status of the river, no
    changes can be made to it. This will also be for new land purchase and
    infrastructure development of the Tribe.
        Safe Drinking Water.--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 17 years old, is 60 feet
    high and 20 feet across. The pipes also need replacing. Because it was
    done under one Federal agency, no other Federal agency will provide
    funds to fix or restore it, as the original Federal agency is now
    defunct.
        Cultural Research Funding & Special Appropriation for Land
    Acquisition Study.--The Sauk-Suiattle Tribe has 240 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 an increased 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 $350,000 to the BIA for the
    Sauk-Suiattle Tribe to perform a land acquisition feasibility study
    (archaeological study) on identified sites, including a tribal history
    study and report on our language and restoration of the language.
        Increase in BIA Indian Child Welfare.--Sauk-Suiattle requests that
    a $75,000 appropriation be added to the Tribe's base budget of $50,000
    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.
    There are 80 member children under the age of eighteen.
        Housing.--Addition to the Housing Improvement Program (HIP) to
    repair and improve current houses of the Tribal members, plus for
    providing for administrative costs to the housing program. The $50,000
    request would provide the funds to cover these costs.
        Mountain Goat Herd.--For the restoration of the mountain goat herd
    which has depleted in the North Cascades. The mountain goat is food
    supply and parts of the goats are used for ceremonial purposes such as
    the horns, hoofs and other parts of the goat. The last hunt by Tribal
    members was 5 years ago due to lack of sufficient number of goats. The
    $1.6 million, requested would assist in providing funds to buy and
    breed in a controlled manner the restoring of goats in the North
    Cascades range, and a five year study.
        Increase in BIA Law Enforcement.--The Tribe has only one police
    officer, jail facilities are hours away. The Tribe requests a $100,000
    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 increase the salary to comparable level of surrounding
    area, provide jail contracts for detention, training academy of one
    officer, uniform and equipment for the officer, a mobile mounted camera
    on police vehicle, car computer, software of state police, and
    operation costs.
        Increase Higher Education Program.--The Tribe's 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 $50,000 to provide
    educational opportunities to Sauk-Suiattle (60) Tribal members to
    attain their higher education. Our base budget includes less than
    $4,000, even with almost half of the population of college age.
        Increase Economic Development Enterprise.--The Sauk-Suiattle Indian
    Tribe is focused on developing economic self-sufficiency. 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 business plan, (3) developing business codes, (4) initiate a
    viable financial enterprise(s). The tribe has calculated a three year
    cost of $375,000 for this project.
        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.
        Needs Assessment.--For Social and Demographic Needs Assessment of
    the Tribal population to determine social, economic, education,
    housing, environmental and cultural preservation needs of the general
    Tribal membership which will allow for short and long term Tribal
    planning to enhance the delivery of coordinated services to Tribal
    members. This request of $100,000 is for a one-time, non-recurring
    cost.
        Fee to Trust.--The Tribe request that the Fee-To-Trust process be
    streamlined and make it less complicated . 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.
        Allotments.--There are also several thousand acres of unresolved
    Tribal allotments which should be factored into study. These lands
    (5000+ acres) were allotted to Tribal members and then taken without
    compensation in 1897 when the Mt. Baker--Snoqualmie National Forest was
    created. The cemetery sites are sacred sites and need protection. We
    need documents of Forest Service which show their ``holding in trust''
    of the reservation sites. This proposal is for 19638 management of
    these sites by the Tribe under the BIA trust status. This will clear up
    the ownership issue.
        We urge the Congress remember our small tribal government, our
    management problems and needs, and provide support with sufficient
    appropriations. We urge that funding for tribes, their programs and
    their developments be given the highest priority. Thank You.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National American Indian Court Judges
                                  Association

        On behalf of the National American Indian Court Judges Association
    (NAICJA), I am pleased to submit this testimony on the fiscal year 2001
    budget for the Interior Department's funding for the Indian Tribal
    Justice Act (Public Law 103-176) and Tribal Courts (under the Tribal
    Priority Allocations). The NAICJA is a voluntary national
    representative membership association (non-profit organization
    incorporated in 1969) of current and former tribal court judges
    throughout the United States. NAICJA, which represents more than 350
    tribal justice systems nationwide, has a thirty-year track record of
    providing quality training and technical assistance services for tribal
    justice systems.
    interior department funding indian tribal justice act and tribal courts
        Full Funding for Indian Tribal Justice Act.--NAICJA strongly
    supports full funding ($58 million) for the Indian Tribal Justice Act
    (Public Law 103-176). While NAICJA supports the Interior Department's
    fiscal year 2001 budget request of $1.3 million, we strongly support
    FULL FUNDING of the Act as promised in 1993. NAICJA actually supports
    funding at a much higher rate since the number of tribal courts and
    their needs have substantially increased since the Act was made law in
    1993--more than 7 years ago.
        Tribal Courts (under the Tribal Priority Allocations).--NAICJA
    strongly supports increased funding for Tribal Courts under the Tribal
    Priority Allocations (TPA). While we support the Interior Department's
    fiscal year 2001 budget request of $12, 585,000 (an increase of
    $1,537,000 over fiscal year 2000 level), this increase represents only
    a minimal first step towards meeting the vital needs of tribal justice
    systems. It is important to note that funding has steadily decreased
    since the passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act. The needs (as
    recognized by Congress), however, have only been compounded with the
    passage of time, the increase in tribal courts, the increase of
    caseloads, population growth, and rise in crime rate in Indian country.
        Native American tribal courts must deal with a wide range of
    difficult criminal and civil justice problems on a daily basis,
    including the following:
      --While the crime rate, especially the violent crime rate, has been
            declining nationally, it has increased substantially in Indian
            Country. Tribal court systems are grossly under-funded to deal
            with these criminal justice problems.
      --Number/complexity of tribal civil caseloads have also been rapidly
            expanding.
      --Congress recognized this need when it enacted the Indian Tribal
            Justice Act in 1993. Congress specifically found that ``tribal
            justice systems are an essential part of tribal governments and
            serve as important forums for ensuring public health and safety
            and the political integrity of tribal governments'' and
            ``tribal justice systems are inadequately funded, and the lack
            of adequate funding impairs their operation''.
      --While the Indian Tribal Justice Act promised more than $58 million
            per year in additional funding for tribal court systems
            starting in fiscal year 1994, tribal courts have yet to see ANY
            funding under this Act.
      --Since Congress enacted the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the needs of
            tribal court systems have continued to increase, but there has
            been no corresponding increase in funding for tribal court
            systems. In fact, the Bureau of Indian Affairs funding for
            tribal courts has actually decreased substantially since the
            Indian Tribal justice Act was enacted in 1993.
        As Attorney General Janet Reno stated in testimony before the
    Senate Indian Affairs Committee on, it is vital to ``better enable
    Indian tribal courts, historically under-funded and under-staffed, to
    meet the demands of burgeoning case loads.'' The Attorney General
    indicated that the ``lack of a system of graduated sanctions through
    tribal court, that stems from severely inadequate tribal justice
    support, directly contributes to the escalation of adult and juvenile
    criminal activity.''
        The vast majority of the approximately 350 tribal court systems
    function in isolated rural communities. These tribal justice systems
    face many of the same difficulties faced by other isolated rural
    communities, but these problems are greatly magnified by the many other
    complex problems that are unique to Indian country. In addition to the
    previously mentioned problems, tribal justice systems are faced with a
    lack of jurisdiction over non-Indians, complex jurisdictional
    relationships with Federal and state criminal justice systems,
    inadequate law enforcement, great distance from the few existing
    resources, lack of detention staff and facilities, lack of sentencing
    or disposition alternatives, lack of access to advanced technology,
    lack of substance abuse testing and treatment options, etc. It should
    also be noted that in most tribal justice systems, 80-90 percent of the
    cases are criminal case and 90 percent of these cases involve the
    difficult problems of alcohol and/or substance abuse.
        NAICJA has repeatedly testified concerning the needs of tribal
    justice systems. For example, see the testimony of former NAICJA
    President (and current NAICJA First Vice President) Jill Shibles before
    the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on June 3, 1998 and February 24,
    1999. Many of the remarks of Judge Shibles from prior testimony are
    incorporated below.

                          IMPORTANCE OF TRIBAL COURTS

        ``Tribal courts constitute the frontline tribal institutions that
    most often confront issues of self-determination and sovereignty, while
    at the same time they are charged with providing reliable and equitable
    adjudication in the many and increasingly diverse matters that come
    before them. In addition, they constitute a key tribal entity for
    advancing and protecting the rights of self-government. . . . Tribal
    courts are of growing significance in Indian Country.'' (Frank
    Pommersheim, Braid of Feathers: American Indian Law and Contemporary
    Tribal Law 57 (1995)). Tribal justice systems are the primary and most
    appropriate institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities.
    Attorney General Reno acknowledged that, ``With adequate resources and
    training, they are most capable of crime prevention and peacekeeping ``
    (A Federal Commitment to Tribal Justice Systems, 79 Judicature No. 7,
    November/December 1995, p. 114). It is her view that ``fulfilling the
    Federal Government's trust responsibility to Indian nations means not
    only adequate Federal law enforcement in Indian Country, but
    enhancement of tribal justice systems as well.'' Id.
        Tribal courts agonize over the very same issues state and Federal
    courts confront in the criminal context, such as, child sexual abuse,
    alcohol and substance abuse, gang violence and violence against women.
    These courts, however, while striving to address these complex issues
    with far fewer financial resources than their Federal and state
    counterparts must also ``strive to respond competently and creatively
    to Federal and state pressures coming from the outside, and to cultural
    values and imperatives from within.'' (Pommersheim, ``Tribal Courts:
    Providers of Justice and Protectors of Sovereignty,'' 79 Judicature No.
    7, November/December 1995, p. 111). Judicial training that addresses
    the present imperatives posed by the public safety crisis in Indian
    Country, while also being culturally sensitive, is essential for tribal
    courts to be effective in deterring crime in their communities.
        There is no federally supported institution to provide on-going,
    accessible tribal judicial training or to develop court resource
    materials and management tools, similar the Federal Judicial Center,
    the National Judicial College or the National Center for State Courts.
    Even though the NAICJA annually sponsors the National Tribal Judicial
    Conference, the three-day conference cannot provide the in-depth
    extensive judicial training necessary to make tribal justice systems
    strong and effective arms of tribal government.

                  INADEQUATE FUNDING OF TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS

        There is no question that tribal justice systems are, and
    historically have been, underfunded. The 1991 United States Civil
    Rights Commission found that ``the failure of the United States
    Government to provide proper funding for the operation of tribal
    judicial systems . . . has continued for more than 20 years.'' The
    Indian Civil Rights Act: A Report of the United States Civil Rights
    Commission, June 1991, p. 71. The Commission also noted that
    ``[f]unding for tribal judicial systems may be further hampered in some
    instances by the pressures of competing priorities within a tribe.''
    Moreover, they opined that ``If the United States Government is to live
    up to its trust obligations, it must assist tribal governments in their
    development . . .'' Almost ten years ago, the Commission ``strongly
    support[ed] the pending and proposed congressional initiatives to
    authorize funding of tribal courts in an amount equal to that of an
    equivalent State court'' and was ``hopeful that this increased funding
    [would] allow for much needed increases in salaries for judges, the
    retention of law clerks for tribal judges, the funding of public
    defenders/defense counsel, and increased access to legal authorities.''
        As indicated by the Civil Rights Commission, the critical financial
    need of tribal courts has been well documented and ultimately led to
    the passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et
    seq. (the ``Act''). Congress found that ``[T]ribal justice systems are
    an essential part of tribal governments and serve as important forums
    for ensuring public health, safety and the political integrity of
    tribal governments.'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(5). Affirming the findings of
    the Civil Rights Commission, Congress further found that ``tribal
    justice systems are inadequately funded, and the lack of adequate
    funding impairs their operation.'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(8). In order to
    remedy this lack of funding, the Act authorized appropriation base
    funding support for tribal justice systems in the amount of $50,000,000
    for each of the fiscal years 1994 through 2000. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3621(b).
    An additional $500,000 for each of the same fiscal years was authorized
    to be appropriated for the administration of Tribal Judicial
    Conferences for the ``development, enhancement and continuing operation
    of tribal justice systems . . .'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3614.
        Seven years after the Act was enacted, how much funding has been
    appropriated? None. Not a single dollar was even requested under the
    Act for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998 or 1999. Only minimal funds
    were requested for fiscal year 1996 and 2000. Yet, even these minimal
    funds were deleted. Even more appalling than the lack of appropriations
    under the Act is the fact that BIA funding for tribal courts has
    actually substantially decreased following the enactment of the Indian
    Tribal Justice Act in 1993.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Tribal justice systems are the primary and most appropriate
    institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities. They are the
    keystone to tribal economic development and self-sufficiency. Any
    serious attempt to fulfill the Federal Government's trust
    responsibility to Indian Nations must include increased funding and
    enhancement of tribal justice systems.
        We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Interior Department's
    Budget Request for the Indian Tribal Justice Act and Tribal Courts
    (under the Tribal Priority Allocations). Thank you very much.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Coalition for Health Funding

        The Coalition for Health Funding joins with the Friends of Indian
    Health to urge that the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Programs
    Appropriations provide $2,715,114,000 in fiscal year 2001 for the
    Indian Health Service. This request level reflects both professional
    budget judgement and tribal budget consultations.
        While the Coalition sincerely appreciates the Administration's
    unprecedented request for a 9.25 percent ($229.7 million) increase for
    health care services for American Indian and Alaska Native communities,
    we recognize that this is the largest increase in over two decades. Two
    decades of flat or small increases means that this year's robust budget
    request can only represent a good first step in an effort to ``catch
    up'' to the real needs facing these communities in the absence of
    appropriate levels of resources for a generation.
        We hear a great deal these days about health disparities and the
    increasing opportunities of a wealthy nation to address them. The
    discrepancies between health indicators for all Americans and health
    indicators for American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) show that
    the AI/AN populations suffer the greatest rates of disease and death. A
    1997 national study conducted at Harvard University and supported by
    the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the lowest
    life expectancies in the nation, including inner city areas and both
    men and women, exist in Indian populations. The Indian Health Service
    has published data showing the 1995 age-adjusted death rates for all
    Americans at 503.9 per 100,000 deaths and for Indian Health Service
    areas 699.3 per 100,000 deaths--a 38 percent difference in life
    expectancy, which translates into far less overall life expectancy for
    American Indians.
        Infant mortality rates, another basic health indicator, are less
    dramatic with recent improvements in rates for Indian Americans and
    Alaska Natives, but still lag significantly behind overall U.S. rates.
    The Indian Health Service reports that in 1995 infant mortality was 7.6
    per 1,000 live births for all U.S. babies, but 9.3 per 1,000 live
    births for those served in Indian Health Service areas.
        Other health disparities exist in higher rates of diabetes,
    alcoholism, injuries, and oral diseases for AI/AN populations. But
    because Indian health services have been underfunded for 20 years,
    fewer resources have been provided to address these greater health
    problems: the per capita health care expenditure for the whole U.S. is
    $3,147, but only $1,425 for American Indians served by the IHS; the
    physician ratio is 229 per 100,000 population for non-Indian
    communities and only 90 per 100,000 in communities served by the Indian
    Health Service.
        Because funding has not kept pace with need, the Indian Health
    Service has experienced the following reductions in basic primary care
    services:
      --20 percent decline in well child services between fiscal years
            1992-1996;
      --14 percent decline in physical exams between fiscal years 1994-
            1996;
      --18 percent decline in dental services between fiscal years 1994-
            1996.
        For all of these reasons, the Coalition for Health Funding urges
    you to exceed the President's budget request for fiscal year 2001 and
    provide $2,715,114,000 for the Indian Health Service. The additional
    funding would be used to extend clinical services; preventive health
    services; targeted health services, such as diabetes translation and
    substance abuse treatment; and support for improved sanitation and
    health care facilities construction, both neglected but critical needs
    in many American Indian and Native Alaskan communities.
        The Coalition for Health Funding is the nation's oldest, most
    broadly-based private, non-profit organization supporting the agencies
    of the U.S. Public Health Service. The 38 member organizations and
    their 40 million health professionals, lay volunteers, researchers,
    patients and families believe that improved health outcomes must be
    addressed by adequately supporting the continuum of biomedical,
    behavioral and health services research; community based prevention and
    health promotion strategies; targeted health care delivery; and health
    professions education. A list of the Coalition's member organizations
    follows.

                      COALITION FOR HEALTH FUNDING MEMBERS

        AIDS Action Council
        American Academy of Pediatrics
        American Academy of Physician Assistants
        American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy
        American Association of Dental Schools
        American Association for Dental Research
        American Association of University Affiliated Programs for Persons
    with Developmental Disabilities
        American College of Cardiology
        American College of Preventive Medicine
        American College of Rheumatology
        American Dental Association
        American Foundation for AIDS Research
        American Heart Association
        American Lung Association
        American Nurses Association
        American Optometric Association
        American Psychological Association
        American Psychological Society
        American Public Health Association
        American Society for Microbiology
        Association of American Medical Colleges
        Association of Chiropractic Colleges
        Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
        Association of Public Health Laboratories
        Association of Schools of Public Health
        Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
        Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine
        Association of Women's Health, Obstetrics, and Neonatal Nurses
        Citizens for Public Action on Blood Pressure and Cholesterol
        Community Health in Focus
        Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
        March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation
        National Association of Children's Hospitals
        National Association of Community Health Centers
        National Association of County and City Health Officials
        National Mental Health Association
        Planned Parenthood Federation of America
        Society for Neuroscience
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community
                                   of Oregon

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Kathryn
    Harrison. I am Chairperson of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand
    Ronde Community of Oregon. I am here today to testify on the budgets of
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service for fiscal
    year 2001. The Tribe's requests on these issues are as follows
    Indian Health Service
        Increasing I.H.S. mandatories by $89 million above the President's
    fiscal year 2001 budget recommendation.
        The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde support the President's
    fiscal year 2001 $40.9 million budget recommendation for Contract
    Health Services.
        Increasing Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF) funding by $18
    million above the President's fiscal year 2001 budget recommendation.
        Increasing Contract Support by $50 million above the President's
    fiscal year 2001 budget recommendation to eliminate the current
    shortfall.
        Increasing Diabetes funding by $3.8 million above the President's
    fiscal year 2001 budget recommendation to fund basic health education
    and disease prevention activities.
        Fund Alcohol and Drug Regional Treatment Centers at $10 million.
    Bureau of Indian Affairs:
        Adding funds to Tribal Priority Allocations to meet Tribal needs
    for community services, education, natural resources, and tribal court
    services.
        The Tribe is please to see that the President's budget reflects a
    9.6 percent, or about $230 million, increase in the I.H.S. proposed
    budget. However, it is estimated that I.H.S. budgets include the
    aforementioned sources above and beyond the President's requests. We
    also would like to ask for support of the Analysis and Recommendations
    of the Northwest Portland Indian Health Board for the fiscal year 2001
    Indian Health Service budget.
        In 1954, members of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde lost
    Federal recognition under the Western Oregon Termination Act. This
    legislation destroyed out Tribal Government, took away remaining Tribal
    lands, and brought about numerous socio-economic problems to our
    members. In 1983, the Tribe regained its rightful place among Indian
    Nations when Congress passed the Grand Ronde Restoration Act.
        A survey of our Tribal membership completed in 1985 revealed the
    ugly impacts of termination. The Tribe's unemployment rate was 23
    percent. 38 percent of our population 19 years or older had not
    completed high school. Finally, 34 percent of our households had
    incomes below the poverty level. The survey also revealed serious
    health issues, including many members with high blood pressure, heart
    disease, arthritis, vision, hearing, and alcohol and substance abuse
    problems.
        We have since come a long way in fighting the problems that we have
    had to face with respect to termination. Despite some of the current
    positives that are taking place in Indian Country, and specifically
    Grand Ronde, there is still a great deal of unmet need that exists with
    our Tribal community. We have the unfortunate task of trying to make up
    for 29 years without support or services, and while we do our best to
    provide for our membership, as well as the community, we still fall
    short. We will continue to strive for the best, and we are proud that
    today we are a Self-Governance Tribe with both the B.I.A. and the
    I.H.S.. Self-Governance allows us some opportunities that we are
    pleased with to use limited B.I.A. and I.H.S. dollars for Tribal
    priorities.
        We are honored one again to be able to speak in front of you about
    the status of our Tribal community. We are proud to be Native
    Americans, and we are also very proud to be Oregonians, as well as
    citizens of the United States. We look forward to continuing to be able
    to work harmoniously on a government-to-governments basis with the
    United States Congress.
        Thank you. That concludes my remarks.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Native American Fish & Wildlife Society

        Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Committee Members: My name is Ken
    Poynter, and I'm the 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 and Related Agencies. 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 2000 level of
    $491,000 for fiscal year 2001.
        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.
        At this time, the Society includes a membership of 214 tribes
    (which consists of 65 Alaskan Native villages and non-profit
    corporations), over 2,400 individual members, numerous regional
    commissions, as well as other Native organizations. All of these
    various constituents are supportive of tribal fish and wildlife
    development and of the various programs and services provided by the
    Native American Fish & Wildlife Society.
        The concept of the Society is based on the need 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.
        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 officers, and land use managers and
    planners who currently manage tribal land bases throughout the country.
        Society members are involved in technical initiatives sponsored by
    the Society, the development of tribal fisheries, as well as 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 Society's Technical Services office is responsible for
    responding to inquiries, along with the assessment, coordination and
    delivery of requested technical assistance (TA). The Technical Services
    Director has developed an informative and extensive national network of
    professionals who further enhance his ability to assist with requests
    received by his office. Due to his professional expertise, as well as
    the availability on an extensive in-house, natural resource library at
    his disposal, the organization has gained a reputation for its ability
    to provide timely and accurate information. To date (in fiscal year
    2000), the Society has provided technical services and assistance to
    over 120 tribes. In addition to direct tribal support, this department
    has assisted many Federal, state and non-governmental agencies in their
    capacity to initiate and/or enhance their work with tribal governments.
        In order to facilitate the transfer of information and provide
    essential forums that address important resource management issues, the
    Society coordinates and sponsors seven annual regional conferences, as
    well as one annual national meeting. Regional conferences generally
    address issues pertaining to the region, where as the national meeting
    brings the regions together providing an opportunity for participants
    to focus on pertinent national issues.
        Recognizing the importance of education to build and enhance tribal
    resource management capacity, the Society has made a major commitment
    to filling this otherwise un-met need. Emphasis has been placed on
    providing periodic training to professionals working in the various
    disciplines related to tribal natural resource management. The Society
    continually provides support for periodic training seminars in each of
    its seven geographical regions. These training sessions have become a
    mainstay of the organization and are a good example of our effort to
    assist tribes in the area of natural resource management and
    protection. 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.
        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 that are held at the most convenient time and location.
    As a result of utilizing this form of training identification, sessions
    are generally regionally specific and collectively diverse.
        In order to maximize financial resources and member benefits, the
    Society continues to identify and work with other entities as co-
    sponsors of these important training workshops. In fiscal year 1999
    over 30 separate training and/or educational sessions were conducted
    with a collective participation of over 1,800 individuals. This
    impressive accomplishment was made possible by working in conjunction
    with over 30 different partners. Although too numerous to list
    individually, the group included the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S.
    Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, the University of Alabama,
    Colorado State University, individual volunteers and numerous tribes
    (such as the Southern Ute, Hopi, Bois Forte and Navajo Nation to name
    just a few).
        The following list contains the titles of the majority of seminars
    conducted in fiscal year 1999 (the number in parentheses after some of
    the titles represent the total number of times that particular session
    was conducted): Hazardous Materials (Haz Mat) Awareness Level Training
    (14), Haz Mat Incident Command Training (6), Field Identification of
    Contaminants, Conservation Officer Hazardous Materials Recognition &
    First Responder, Wildlife Conservation on Indian Lands, Wildlife
    Diseases, Conservation Officer In-Service Training (2), Habitat
    Conservation Restoration and Management, Black Tailed Prairie Dog
    Management (3), Game Fish & Non-Game Management, Fish and Wildlife
    Management and Integrated Resource Management Planning.
        To augment information disbursement and exchange, the Society
    publishes and distributes four quarterly newsletters, a comprehensive
    annual report, promotional publications, informational management
    brochures and other management reports, and publications to members and
    other interested parties. The aforementioned partnerships also provided
    opportunities to further maximize the federally appropriated funds
    received by the organization by covering a portion of the printing
    costs of some of these publications.
        Native youth will someday become the Stewards of their tribal lands
    and are considered to be the culture's most precious resource. The
    Society has developed an award-winning summer program for Native Youth
    to help ensure that there will be educated, professional Native people
    available in the future to protect and manage tribal lands.
        This annual program, entitled the Native American Environmental
    Awareness Summer Youth Practicum (Youth Practicum) is designed to
    instill in its participants a respect for the natural environment, as
    well as to nurture their interest in pursuing natural resource
    management careers. This unique national program was acknowledged and
    honored by the Department of the Interior in 1999 for its outstanding
    contributions in developing Native American youth as the natural
    resource managers of tomorrow. The Society's Youth Practicum Programs
    received the distinguished Conservation Service Award from the
    Department of the Interior.
        The Youth Practicum brings thirty-five Native American youth
    together for two weeks of in-class instruction and hands-on field
    experience in virtually every aspect of natural resource management
    (NRM). Five students are selected from each region and brought to
    Colorado from all parts of the country. The Program's instructors and
    counselors are active Society members and volunteer their time to the
    program. Being Native themselves, as well as working professionals in
    some discipline of natural resource management, these volunteers serve
    as both instructors and role models.
        This year marks the 10th anniversary of this program and represents
    an important milestone for both the organization and the nationally
    acclaimed project. Organizationally, this year's annual program
    signifies the importance and commitment the Society has placed on
    educating Native Youth. For the program, this 10th year is evidence of
    its value, its strength, its success, as well as proof of the real need
    it fulfills.
        The Society is proud to share data obtained from a 1998 survey of
    former Youth Practicum students which clearly attests to the success of
    this renowned annual program. To date, over 270 students have received
    instruction in the fundamentals of natural resource management and
    environmental science. The survey, as well as personal contacts with
    former students, revealed that at least 6 former students have already
    graduated with degrees in some aspect of natural resource management.
    The survey had a 37 percent return and further revealed that at least
    25 former students have earned post-secondary degrees, with one
    currently attending law school and specializing in environmental law.
    In addition, over 60 percent have completed some college work or are
    currently in college.
        The information provided by the survey is strong evidence of the
    importance and positive impact this critical program has had on Native
    youth. It is also clear evidence that the program is successful and
    working as it was designed. To me, the most important and special event
    indicating its success is that this year, one of the program's first
    students (with a recent degree in natural resource management and a new
    position with the Bureau of Land Management) will be returning as a
    volunteer instructor and a second generation role model. The Youth
    Practicum is one of the organization's most important and successful
    programs and will continue to receive priority allocation of budget
    funds from the organization's annual Federal appropriation.
        As in past years, the Society's intent is not to ask for additional
    funds to meet the increasing cost of the programs we have developed,
    but to again express our appreciation to the Subcommittee and our
    supporters for the faith they continue to show in our ability to
    accomplish our stated goals. Focusing on raising an endowment large
    enough to completely sustain the organization was beginning to affect
    the time and focus required to successfully accomplish Society
    projects. Recognizing this, the Society formed the Native American Fish
    & Wildlife Foundation (Foundation) as the fund-raising arm of the
    organization. The Foundation will focus entirely on raising endowment
    funds, allowing the Society to concentrate on delivery of its projects
    and services.
        The Society is currently the only national Native organization that
    provides technical assistance to tribes, Federal, state and local
    Governments, as well as others working in the area of tribal resource
    management. It is also the only national Native organization providing
    valuable training for and in-direct support of tribal natural resource
    management professionals. Society programs and services clearly provide
    direct benefit to tribes and the lands they manage.
        In light of the fact that there is a short-fall of Federal funding
    available for tribal natural resource management activities, the
    Society considers itself a valuable resource positioned to support and
    assist tribes. The continued funding at the $491,000.00 level received
    last year would ensure that the Society is able to continue providing
    its beneficial services and assistance to tribes.
        To reiterate our request to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
    on Interior and Related Agencies, the Society is requesting a Total of
    $491,000.00 for fiscal year 2001.
                                     ______

              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 2001 request for $199,500 from
    programs in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and report language
    regarding the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative in the National
    Park Service's budget. The Tribe requests 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; and
      --language in the Interior Department's appropriation bill's report
            specifying that, in lieu of a designated level of funding for
            Seminole water studies, the Tribe will receive a preference in
            competition for funding from the Critical Ecosystem Studies
            Initiative (CESI) account in the National Park Service budget
            for activities related to the Tribe's Everglades Restoration
            Initiative on the Big Cypress Reservation.
        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 fiscal years 1998 and 1999, which is $12 million. Last
    fiscal year, the Administration cut the CESI account by one-third,
    despite the important research that it funds; such research helps
    support critical Everglades ecosystem restoration. In this current
    fiscal year, the CESI account was funded at $8 million. The Tribe
    requests that Congress the restore the $4 million cut to the CESI
    account.
        With the $12 million funding level, DOI allocated $1 million to the
    Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes to share. Prior to last fiscal year, the
    Miccosukees did not participate in this program, so the Seminoles
    research was adequately funded at the $1 million level. When CESI's
    funding level was cut to $8 million, the Tribal allocation was cut to
    $460,000, a disproportional reduction. Also, the Miccosukees started
    participating in the program after the funding was out. The effective
    reduction, due to reduced funding and the Miccosukees rightful
    participation, has prevented the Seminole Tribe from pursuing and
    completing scientific research necessary for ecosystem restoration.
        To address the reduced level of funding, the Park Service proposed
    that the Tribe no longer receive a dedicated portion of the CESI funds,
    but that the Tribe compete through the funding decision process with
    the provision of a preference as a Tribe, and where applicable to
    specific projects, a preference for existing, previously CESI-funded
    projects. Because, in fiscal year 2001, the Tribe anticipates only
    requesting funding for its ongoing, previously CESI-funded projects,
    the Tribe anticipates that each of its requests will get a double
    preference. The Tribe requests that the Committee include in its report
    a notation of this selection process including the preferences for the
    Tribes and for previously funded projects.
        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 South Florida ecosystem. The Seminole Tribe has been
    working with the U.S. 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. On January 7,
    2000, the Tribe and the COE signed a Project Coordination Agreement for
    design and construction of the western portion of the Big Cypress
    Reservation, along with a canal that transverses the Reservation, as a
    Critical Project under the authority of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1999. 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; a Wetland Reserve
    Program site is almost completed and another soon to begin. 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.
                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 2000. In addition, through the
    NPS, Interior provided the Tribe with $390,000 in fiscal year 1997,
    $920,000 in fiscal year 1998, and $684,125 in fiscal year 1999. A
    $460,000 appropriation was provided to both the Seminole and Miccosukee
    Tribes in the fiscal year 2000 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 ecosystem degradation and developing plans to arrest the harm.
        The Tribe has also developed a water conservation 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 working hard to realize the environmental
    benefits the Reservation and the surrounding ecosystem need. The Tribe
    is making 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 the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

        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, UTTC was
    assisting Indian people in moving from public assistance to economic
    self-sufficiency long before the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Our placement
    rate has a sustained rate of well over 80 percent. The request of the
    United Tribes Technical College Board for the fiscal year 2001 Bureau
    of Indian Affairs budget is:
      --$2,570,000 in BIA funds for UTTC, which is $140,000 over the
            Administration's request and $200,000 over the fiscal year 2000
            enacted level.
      --Increased BIA funding for contract support costs. We annually
            absorb approximately $100,00 in contract support costs and have
            unrecovered costs over the past 10 years of $1.4 million.
      --Requirement that the BIA to place more emphasis on job training and
            vocational/technical education. The Adult Vocational Training
            program, funded at $9.6 million in fiscal year 2000, is but
            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 the 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: Unique Inter-tribal Educational
    Organization.--Incorporated in 1969, 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 367 students from 32 tribes
    and 14 States. In addition, we serve 159 children in our pre-school
    programs and 148 children in our elementary school, bringing the
    population for whom we provide direct services to 654. 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. We do not
    receive funding through the TCC Act. We have much in common with the
    other tribally-controlled colleges and are part of the American Indian
    Higher Education Consortium. What distinguishes us from the other
    tribally controlled colleges is that we are chartered and controlled
    jointly by multiple numbers of tribes and our primary focus is
    postsecondary vocational education. Additionally, our campus-based
    family housing is unique.
        UTTC Course Offerings/Coordination with Other Educational
    Institutions.--UTTC offers 9 Certificate and 15 Associate of Applied
    Science degree programs (see attached list). We are very excited about
    the recent additions to our course offerings, and the particular
    relevance they hold for Indian communities. These new programs are:
      --Injury Prevention
      --Dietetics Technician
      --Tribal management, including gaming management
      --Computer Science Technology
      --Distance Learning programs for the Denver Indian Community
        Dietetics/Diabetes.--Through collaborative efforts with the
    American Diabetes Association, UTTC will develop the only accredited
    Dietetics Technician's Degree program in the State. We will meet the
    challenge of fighting diabetes through education. As this Subcommittee
    knows, the rate of diabetes is very high in Indian county, and with
    some tribal areas experiencing the highest incidence of diabetes in the
    word. About half of Indian adults have diabetes (``Diabetes in American
    Indians and Alaska Natives, NIH Publication 99-4567, October, 1999).
        Injury Prevention.--Through our Injury Prevention Program we are
    addressing the injury death rate among Indians which is 2.8 times that
    of the total U.S. population (Source: IHS fiscal year 1999 Budget
    Justification). We received assistance through the IHS to establish the
    only degree granting Injury Prevention program in the nation.
        Distance Learning.--UTTC is bridging the ``digital divide'' by
    providing critical computer and Internet skills to American Indians
    residing in the Denver, Colorado area. Technology training allows all
    American Indians an opportunity to overcome barriers such as geographic
    isolation and access to information. We take to heart the statement of
    Senate Indian Committee Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell that, ``It is
    imperative that the Digital Divide is narrowed in all communities, but
    especially in Native American communities.'' Through technology
    partnership programs, UTTC is meeting the challenge of providing
    technology skills and training to Indian country.
        UTTC is, in addition, a member of the Interactive Video Network of
    North Dakota's colleges, universities and tribal colleges since 1994.
    This allows for articulation agreements with other college and
    universities, expanding the educational opportunities for our students.
        Job Training and Economic Development.--UTTC is a designated
    Minority Business Center serving Montana, South Dakota and North
    Dakota. We also administer a Workforce Investment Act program and an
    internship program with private employers. And, thanks to a Kellogg
    Foundation grant, 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 Needy 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 childcare for 20 children of state-
    referred TANF recipients.
        In North Dakota, only 30 percent of state TANF recipients are
    allowed schooling as a work activity. And 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 take 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 to 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 Contributing to Education and Job Placement.--We
    believe that a primary reason for UTTC students' success, is that we
    serve the student's 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 145 children, ages birth to five years
            and an additional 15 elementary children for extended care.
      --The Theodore Jamerson Elementary School (grades K-8) serving 148
            students;
      --A health clinic whose services include 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 appointments. 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 to replace our aging water, sewer and gas
    system in 1997.
        Our elementary school received a competitive Department of
    Education grant for computer technology and was one of 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. And this year we received
    a $75,000 grant form U.S. West to assist in developing a series of
    distance learning classes at the Indian Center in Denver, Colorado.
    Additionally, our Injury Prevention Program has been assisted through
    IHS funds.
        The above mentioned grants are highly competitive, restrictive,
    one-time grants and they cannot provide day to day operations. We
    cannot survive without the basic operating funds which come through the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        UTTC Needs.--While we are not proposing a large increase in BIA
    funding for UTTC, below are some of the 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 any state college system. North
            Dakota salaries for higher education faculty are the lowest in
            the nation--but the average faculty salary at UTTC are even
            lower than those in the N.D. State system.
      --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.. Continuing a
            course of non-repair 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 damage caused by
            inclement weather, including blizzards and extreme low
            temperatures.
        Thank you for your consideration of our request.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Indian Child Welfare Association

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee my name is Terry
    Cross. I am the Executive Director of the National Indian Child Welfare
    Association (NICWA) located in Portland, Oregon. My statement is
    offered on behalf of the association. My comments will focus on the
    following budget items and requests:
      --Provide an increase of $4.0 million over the BIA fiscal year 2001
            Budget Request ($11.5 to $15.5) relating to Indian Child
            Welfare Act under the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) budget
            category.
      --Restore historic funding of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), Title
            II off-reservation grant programs ($3.0 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
            2001.
      --Require the BIA and IHS to provide more detailed information on
            programs that provide funding/services for children. This
            information is needed to accurately identify the need for these
            programs and how BIA and IHS budget requests respond to that
            need. The recommendations pertain to the Tribal ICWA, Title II
            grant programs, Child Welfare Assistance under TPA and the IHS
            Mental Health and Social Services and Contract Health Services
            budget categories (specific recommendations described below and
            in conclusion section of testimony.)
        Organization Profile.--The National Indian Child Welfare
    Association is based in Portland, Oregon and provides a broad range of
    services including, (1) training and technical assistance for tribal
    and urban Indian child welfare professionals, (2) consultation on
    mental health and child welfare program development, (3) by request,
    facilitation of child abuse and neglect community prevention activities
    and (4) analysis and dissemination of public policy information that
    impacts Indian children and families. 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 National Congress of American Indians.
        Measuring Need.--Under TPA 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. 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. The BIA provides only superficial data to
    justify budget requests. For example, it is virtually impossible to
    know how many clients receive child welfare services, what the outcomes
    were from services provided and how need for child welfare services
    compares to the level of services being funded. One recent improvement
    made by the BIA is the inclusion of data in their justification
    regarding child abuse and neglect referrals from 1998 and the number of
    referrals that involved some form of substance abuse (see page BIA-55).
    The caseload data on page BIA-55-57 is a potentially helpful addition
    with regards to Child Welfare Assistance, 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 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 numbers of
    children being referred for abuse and neglect.
        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).
        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.
        Tribes across the country are trying desperately to develop
    services agreements with states for Federal resources they cannot
    access directly, but are often met with reluctance by state governments
    and sometimes the BIA. 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 and tribes in an effort to get
    greater access to Federal child welfare funding and stimulate tribal/
    state agreements, but the BIA continues to provide little support or
    initiative in this area. We think that more can and should be done by
    the BIA, especially in light of BIA budget requests that continue to
    reduce funding for child welfare services.
        Tribal Child Welfare Programs.--Until fiscal year 1993 tribes had
    been forced to compete for child welfare funding from year to year.
    This competitive process was extremely disruptive and in most years
    only allowed approximately 50 percent of the tribes nationwide to
    receive any child welfare funding. Improvements in the grant process
    and small increases to ICWA in previous years and 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 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 $3.0 million. This has enabled the BIA minimally fund about 40
    programs a year serve the 65 percent of the Indian population that
    lives in primarily urban settings. These programs have also tried to
    access private foundation funding and state contracts to supplement
    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. In
    addition, reductions in state services have also left Indian children
    under state care with fewer effective options.
        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, (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 ``specialized mental health services for populations, such as
    children are often minimal. . . .'' They also admit ``many critical
    components of mental health . . . are not available . . . to Indian
    communities'' (see page IHS-49). 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 ACF to Improve Child Welfare Services and Protection for Native
    American Children'', which clearly showed that most states were either
    not willing or able to share Federal funds for child welfare services
    with tribes. This clearly demonstrates that tribes, when provided
    opportunity, are able providers of child welfare services, while
    currently not being able to depend on state funding sources or
    services.
        We must also take into consideration other factors that 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. 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:
      --Provide an increase of $4.0 million over the BIA fiscal year 2001
            Budget Request ($11.5 to $15.5) relating to Indian Child
            Welfare Act under the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) budget
            category.
      --Restore historic funding of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), Title
            II off-reservation grant programs ($3.0 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
            2001.
      --Require the BIA to provide adequate child welfare data to Congress.
            Some examples of this data are types of services provided, how
            many children and families received these services, number of
            out-of-home placements of Indian children, type of out-of-home
            placement, length of time in out-of-home care and number of
            children who are able to secure permanence through family
            reunification, guardianship, relative/kinship care or adoption.
      --Require the IHS to provide data detailing the level of funding from
            Mental Health and Social Services and Contract Health Services
            budget categories that supports mental health services for
            Indian children.
        Please consider these requests carefully and help tribal
    governments and off-reservation ICWA programs continue to offer proven,
    effective programs for Indian children and families.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Ramah Navajo Chapter

        On behalf of the Ramah Navajo Chapter, I am pleased to submit the
    Chapter's statement on the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs. The statement focuses on:
      --$880,000 for a public safety facility for the Ramah Navajo Chapter
            and support in full Committee for the Administration's request
            of $34 million for construction and rehabilitation of tribal
            jail facilities;
      --$31.8 million for the Housing Improvement Program within the TPA
            category, and support in full Committee for the
            Administration's request of $650 million for the Indian Housing
            Block Grant Program contained in the Housing and Urban
            Development budget;
      --$3.5 million increase for BIA contract support costs, $5 million
            for a BIA Indian Self-Determination Fund as requested by the
            Administration.
        The Ramah Navajo Chapter is a certified chapter of the Navajo
    Nation government. 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.
        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 of self-sufficiency through self-determination; and, by
    maintaining respect for our traditional values of cultural heritage and
    family. The following concerns address the most pressing needs of the
    community in relation to these goals.

                            PUBLIC SAFETY INITIATIVE

        The Ramah Navajo Chapter (RNC) is the only chapter of the Nation to
    operate its own police department. The RNC Police provide services to
    approximately 3,000 Navajo residents of the community, located in the
    west central mountains of New Mexico, an area covering over 154,000
    acres. The land base is comprised of a ``checkerboard'' of trust land,
    individual allotted land, and fee land purchased by or for the Chapter.
    As the closest responding unit, the RNC Police are often called by the
    several thousand non-Navajos residing in the Ramah area and provide the
    only regular, visible police presence in the non-Indian town of Ramah.
        Given the role that the RNC plays in providing critical emergency
    services for the area, we are in desperate need of a public safety
    facility to enable us to add a fire protection unit and replace our
    aging detention facility/police station. The present RNC Police station
    and detention facility was built over 25 years ago as a temporary, 48-
    hour holding facility, which also housed the tribal court. The Tribal
    Court has since been relocated to another building that better
    addresses its functional and space needs.
        Fire Protection.--Most of the Ramah community, including large
    numbers of families living in federally funded homes, lacks adequate
    fire protection service. In 1999 alone two homes burned completely
    because the nearest fire protection unit, located 12 miles away from
    the fires and outside the Chapter, arrived too late to be of
    assistance.
        Detention Facility.--Since the Ramah detention facility was to only
    be a temporary holding measure, long-term prisoners were to be
    transported to Navajo Nation jails in Window Rock and Crownpoint. These
    jails are, however, overcrowded and under court order not to accept
    additional prisoners from the Ramah Navajo area. This has resulted in a
    serious problem for the Ramah Navajo Police Department, which is forced
    to use what was a short-term holding facility for long-term prisoners.
        The three-cell detention facility, designed to hold six male
    prisoners and four female prisoners, has become substandard and found
    to be in violation of the BIA Design Capacity v. Rated Capacity
    Standards. According to the new draft ``Bureau of Indian Affairs
    Standards for Adult Detention Facilities,'' no more than five prisoners
    should be housed in this facility. However, the facility houses a daily
    average of 13 prisoners, and has ``peaked'' as high as 38 inmates over
    each of the past several years.
        The RNC Police have utilized the space vacated by the Tribal Court
    for administration, clerical and training/conferences purposes. Due to
    the space and design limitations, it is not possible to adequately
    secure police weapons, ammunition, legal files and documents, or
    provide adequate storage space for law enforcement equipment and
    supplies. The facility also lacks the necessary locker room or shower
    facilities for the officers to change uniforms, so they have had to
    make do with a used travel-trailer parked near the law enforcement
    facility.
        Needless to say, there are no secure or separate rooms for
    visitation, recreation or dining. Furthermore, security and supervision
    is a constant problem, with some cell areas invisible from outside the
    cell. In addition to the overcrowding and security issues, the facility
    is also unsafe because of susceptibility to rodents carrying the
    Hantavirus. The inability to protect against these rodents creates not
    only a health hazard for police officers, staff and prisoners but is
    also a potential source of liability for the Chapter.
        To address our detention facility and fire protection problems, the
    Chapter has withdrawn 15 acres of Chapter land and designated to the
    Police Department for the development and construction of a new public
    safety facility. We will, however, need Federal funding to achieve this
    goal. Unfortunately, the Bureau no longer requests funds for detention
    facilities construction and the amount appropriated under the
    Department of Justice for tribal detention facilities construction and
    renovation has barely begun to address the need in Indian country. We
    understand that the waiting list for these discretionary grants is long
    and under the existing criteria, there are no plans to fund community-
    based facilities, rather the goal is to construct regional detention
    facilities.
        Because of the extreme need for an adequate detention facility and
    fire protection services to ensure the safety of our community, the
    Ramah Navajo Chapter requests $880,000 to construct a safe, secure
    modern detention facility. The Chapter will continue to seek funding
    from all possible sources to complete the public safety facility that
    is so badly needed. We also urge the Subcommittee to strongly support
    the Administration's request of $34 million in Department of Justice
    formula grant funds for the construction and rehabilitation of tribal
    jail facilities.

                          HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

        The Ramah Navajo Chapter is pleased to see that the Administration
    is finally addressing the desperate state of housing in Indian country
    by proposing a significant increase for the Housing Improvement Program
    (HIP). The Bureau estimates the proposed increase of $16.3 million
    would be used to construct 147 new homes and renovate approximately 290
    existing units. We note, however, that according to the recent BIA
    Report on Tribal Priority Allocations, there is an estimated unmet need
    of over $418.7 million to support the programs, functions and
    activities under the Housing Improvement Program. (The comparison used
    the amount received by tribes under the fiscal year 1998 TPA and other
    sources of income against the amount expended by a comparable agency or
    program.)
        Further, in the fiscal year 2001 budget justification, the Bureau
    estimates the average cost to renovate a house at $17,500 and $55,000
    to construct a new home. We have found, however, that due to our
    remoteness and other factors, our estimated cost to renovate is $18,000
    per unit and $75,000 to build a new unit.
        Nonetheless, the Chapter urges the Subcommittee to support, at a
    minimum, the Administration's proposed funding level of $31.8 million
    for the HIP portion of the TPA. We also request that the Subcommittee
    support full funding of the $650 million requested for the Indian
    Housing Block Grant Program contained in the Housing and Urban
    Development budget.

                            CONTRACT SUPPORT FUNDING

        The Bureau's budget request for contract support costs has
    consistently 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 2001, the proposed contract support budget is $128.7 million, or
    $3.5 million over the fiscal year 2000 level.
        The Bureau acknowledges that, even with the increase, there will
    continue to be a shortfall in fiscal year 2001 of about $17 million to
    fully fund the contract support costs for on-going contracts. At the
    proposed funding level, only about 88 percent of a tribe's negotiated
    indirect cost rate would be paid. Since the Ramah Navajo Chapter lacks
    other tribal resources and is thus totally dependent on Federal funds
    to operate its programs, we will continue to face undue hardship to
    operate our programs in a manner that meets the needs of our members.
        We respectfully request that Congress fund, at a minimum, the
    budget request amount of $128.7 million for the Contract Support Cost
    Funds.
        The Ramah Navajo Chapter thanks the Subcommittee for the
    opportunity to provide our views and your consideration of our requests
    regarding the fiscal year 2001 Bureau of Indian Affairs budget.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Metlakatla Indian Community

        The Metlakatla Indian Community provides this statement on the
    fiscal year 2001 budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian
    Health Service. In summary our requests are:
      --$8 million for a health clinic and associated quarters for the
            Metlakatla Indian Community. This is a new proposal and is $9.4
            million less than the IHS estimate for this project.
      --$18.8 million increase for BIA law enforcement as requested by the
            Administration
      --$12.6 million for tribal courts as requested by the Administration.
      --$3.5 million increase for BIA contract support costs, $5 million
            for a BIA Indian Self-Determination Fund, and a $40 million
            increase for IHS contract support costs as requested by the
            Administration.
      --Support in full Committee of the Administration's request of $34
            million for construction and rehabilitation of tribal jail
            facilities and $15 million for tribal courts in the Justice
            Department budget.
        A New, Less Costly Proposal for Clinic and Quarters Construction
    ($8 million).--Once again, we request funding for construction of a new
    health clinic and associated quarters in our Community. But this
    request differs from what that contained in the IHS Priority
    Construction list. We have reviewed our needs against the plans
    developed by the Indian Health Service and determined that it should be
    possible to build the clinic and associated quarters to meet the
    essential needs of the Community's IHS-funded health program at
    substantially less cost than projected by the IHS Health Facility
    Construction Priority System. We have been assisted by the Yukon
    Kuskokwim Health Corporation on engineering aspects of this proposal,
    an organization which has recently built its own clinic. And we have
    been in close communications with Senator Stevens office during the
    development of this proposal.
        We propose that the facilities be constructed by the Community
    through ``force account `` (construction done with our own employees)
    with funds provided by the IHS through the Community's annual funding
    agreement under Title III of the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act. A total project cost and breakdown showing
    clinic construction and equipment, and quarters construction is
    attached. The total clinic construction cost is $6 million (in
    comparison with $11 million projected by IHS). The total quarters
    construction cost is $2 million (in comparison with $6.4 million
    projected by IHS).
        As you know, the Metlakatla Program Justification Document for our
    clinic and quarters was completed by the IHS in April 1995, and this
    project has been identified on the list of approved projects in the IHS
    budget requests to the Congress since that date. The PJD construction
    schedule included a target date for the completion of the project by
    April 2000. However, funds have not been provided to date for this
    construction.
        The present facilities in which the Community provides health
    services are woefully deficient. As long ago as 1985 the IHS (which
    then operated the program directly) reported that the facilities failed
    to meet the standards of the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of
    Health Organizations and requested immediate replacement of the clinic.
    In successive ``Deep Look'' surveys the IHS has continued to identify
    the substandard conditions in these facilities.
        The Annette Islands Service Unit Health Center--our only health
    clinic--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 keep them open.
    But we must keep our health center open. It is the sole source of
    health care on the Annette Islands Reserve which is accessible only by
    small float planes, and even then only when the weather permits.
        The Community fully supports the proposal for a model demonstration
    for the purpose of illustrating an innovative approach to address a
    situation which severely handicaps the provision of health services to
    Indians and Alaska Natives through a crash construction program which
    bypasses the IHS Health Facility Construction Priority System and
    allows tribes to construct with force account and under construction
    standards which they themselves adopt. While the model demonstration
    would not be subject to IHS construction standards, we agree that it
    should be subject to the requirements of the Joint Commission on the
    Accreditation of Health Organizations and the Uniform Building Code so
    that essential health and safety requirements apply and that our health
    program is not adversely affected by the waiver of IHS standards. The
    details of the proposed 14,500 square foot clinic, as well as a
    breakdown of construction costs, are contained in the enclosed summary
    document.
        The Community has reviewed the staffing requirements of the new
    facility in the light of the new construction approach and concluded
    that at least 16 full time employees should be added to the present
    clinic staff at a total annual staffing cost of approximately $856,426.
    See the enclosed listing of the positions to be added when the new
    clinic is operational. IHS should be requested to include staffing for
    the new facility in the budget request for the first year that the
    clinic will be in operation and thereafter. The attached quarters
    construction cost document (4 duplexes, $2 million) reflects the
    reduction in staffing requirements from that projected in the PJD.
        Finally we wish to emphasize that the plan for force account
    construction is critical to the Community not only in order to bring
    the clinic on line as soon as possible but also to address the
    unusually severe rate of unemployment at Metlakatla (85 percent)
    resulting from the closing of the Community's timber processing
    facilities. By expediting the construction of these health care
    facilities, Congress will address its responsibilities for health care
    in this Indian reservation community and alleviate an economic crisis
    while longer term economic solutions are pursued.
        We will be happy to supply further information and documentation of
    this construction request to the Subcommittee.

                                LAW ENFORCEMENT

        The Annette Islands Reserve is reachable only by boat or, weather
    permitting, by small floatplanes. Therefore the inherent difficulties
    associated with Indian reservation law enforcement, such as inadequate
    funding, poor equipment, insufficient detention facilities, and
    difficult working conditions, are compounded by our stark isolation.
    The Community's small police force and limited court system are taxed
    heavily by the needs of the resident Indian population. The Community
    does not have a resident state or federal law enforcement personnel or
    court system. Additionally, under federal law, except for fisheries
    enforcement, non-Indian residents and visitors are not subject to
    tribal criminal authority. Therefore, absent a crime taken seriously by
    state authorities, non-Indian criminal conduct is virtually free from
    jeopardy.
        Staffing.--The Metlakatla Indian Community strongly urge the
    Subcommittee to support the requested increase of $18.8 million for the
    BIA Law Enforcement program.
        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. In fiscal year
    1999, the Bureau dedicated $4 million of the $20 million increase for
    BIA Law Enforcement to hire uniform police officers, but only BIA-
    operated programs were eligible for these funds.
        The Community's primary concern in this area is recruiting and
    retaining adequate manpower to properly staff Metlakatla's police
    force. The Community simply cannot meet the salary expectations of
    trained law enforcement personnel. Isolation, inadequate housing and
    high living costs are additional obstacles we encounter.
        Further, the Metlakatla police force has the added responsibility
    of offshore law enforcement exacerbating an already under-manned and
    under-funded program. Our maritime boundary extends 3,000 feet offshore
    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. However, the Bureau dedicated over $5 million of the
    fiscal year 1999 $20 million increase to replace police vehicles
    (sedans and SUV's only with 100,000 miles or more).
        Detention Facilities.--We urge the Subcommittee to strongly
    support, at a minimum, the Administration's request for $34 million in
    Department of Justice appropriations for the construction and
    rehabilitation of tribal jail facilities.
        The Community's detention facility, built in 1966, was designed to
    hold 6 male and 4 female prisoners. In all of 1999, 213 men and 60
    women were detained at this facility. A recent compliance survey of the
    facility found numerous violations of health standards due to the age
    and overcrowded conditions we must operate under. Because of our
    isolation, we cannot transfer our prisoners to a nearby facility, if
    they had room to accommodate our needs. You can no doubt appreciate
    that our officers are at extreme risk from a security standpoint.
        While we firmly support the proposed funding level of $34 million
    for detention facilities construction under the Department of Justice,
    we also realize that it will be at least four or five years before the
    Community could receive any assistance for its detention facility
    problems. Additionally, under the existing criteria, there are no plans
    to fund community-based facilities; rather the DOJ goal is to construct
    regional detention facilities.

                                 TRIBAL COURTS

        The Metlakatla Indian Community urges the Subcommittee to support
    the Bureau's request of $12.6 million for Tribal Courts funding and the
    $15 million requested under the Administration's proposal for the
    Department of Justice.
        The increased law enforcement resources appropriated over the past
    two fiscal years have resulted in increased demands on the tribal
    justice systems. Additionally, increased federal initiatives such as
    welfare reform, Indian Child Welfare, and community policing have
    contributed significantly to the Metlakatla Indian Community's tribal
    court caseload, as have other tribal justice systems faced increased
    demands.
        As you know, BIA tribal court funding is within the Tribal Priority
    Allocations (TPA) budget category. Therefore, without a significant
    general increase to the TPA, tribal court funding increases are
    minimal-depending on its ranking within all categories of the TPA.
    Further, any increase is distributed among all tribes with tribal court
    programs, which in 1999 the Bureau reported as 250 tribal judicial
    systems (including Courts of Indian Offenses that serve multiple
    tribes). According to the recent BIA Report on Tribal Priority
    Allocations, there is an estimated unmet need of over $17 million to
    support the programs, functions and activities of tribal courts when
    the level of funding is compared to the amount received by tribes under
    the TPA and other sources of income.

                             CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        We respectfully request that Congress fund at least the amounts
    identified in the IHS; and BIA budget requests for the Contract Support
    Cost Funds.
        The Community supports the $3.5 million increase requested by the
    Administration for BIA contract support cost funds and $5 million to
    reinstate the BIA Indian Self-Determination Fund. However, the Bureau
    estimates that the current on-going shortfall is about $17 million,
    with only about 88 percent of a tribe's negotiated indirect cost rate
    being paid. We also support the Administration's request of a $40
    million increase for IHS contract support costs.
        On behalf of the Metlakatla Indian Community, we appreciate the
    opportunity to provide our views to the Subcommittee regarding the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs budget for fiscal year 2001 and regarding our
    health clinic construction proposal.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Rock Point Community School of the Navajo
                                     Nation

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Rock Point Community
    School wishes to express its appreciation for this opportunity to share
    our concerns regarding the education of our children and the education
    of the Native American Children in general.
        While the entire United States is striving to improve education, we
    at Rock Point and other Native American communities axe still far
    behind the national norm. As we reported to you last year, we continue
    to need adequate funds to train and retain qualified teachers. This
    still holds true for this school year. The funds available to us are
    considerably less than the National expenditure per student.
        Our main concerns are about funding for ISEP, Transportation,
    Administrative Costs Operation and Maintenance, and Facilities
    Improvement and Repairs are outlined as follows

                   INDIAN SCHOOL EQUALIZATION PROGRAM (ISEP)

        This appropriation provides for direct classroom instruction. The
    Weighted Student Unit (WSU) for school year 1999-2000 was $3,390.00, In
    1991, an ISEP Task Force had determined $3,499 as the minimum need per
    WSU, however, presently it is still far below what the Task Force had
    recommended. The Weighted Student Unit funding and allocation does
    fluctuate from year to year, so it is hard to plan a program if we do
    not know the amount of funding for upcoming school years. Rock Point
    Community School is far removed from the nearest major big town--we
    must travel 2 hours to town to get--needed supplies. Costs of classroom
    instruction including annual salary step increases and increased costs
    for more trained and qualified teachers is increased well over 6
    percent per year. We most emphasize that the National Per Capita
    average is estimated at $6,500.00 per student.
        Recommentation.--We recommend that the Appropriation Subcommittee
    appropriate $360.0 million for BIA-ISEP School operation. This will
    increase the WSU to $4,000 consequently, we will, be able to purchase
    updated classroom supplies, text books, library books and also purchase
    innovative instructional materials and equipment such as computers and
    relevant educational so softwares.
    School transportation
        In all these past years, all Bureau funded schools have been
    underfunded, therefore, a considerable portion of ISFP funds which is
    for classroom instruction has been used to pay for the transportation
    of students, We run. our buses on unpaved and paved roads so most of
    the buses do need constant maintenance, all maintenance is done in town
    (2 hours away), so taking buses back and forth really adds expense. The
    national average expenditure for a mile of transportation in the school
    year 1993-1994 was $2.92, but we received only $2.26 per mile in the
    current school year. The current increase in fuel costs has started to
    eat into our transportation and ISEP budget. The Cost of Living
    Adjustment (COLA) is a factor and not added into the current rate. It
    is not right to take funds away from classroom instruction and use
    these to offset school transportation costs. GSA also continues to
    raise their annual rates on leased buses, vehicles and mileage rates.
    These are added costs and are beyond our control, yet we but have to
    continue to absorb these. Moreover, extra curricular activities are
    offered to the students, these are extra costs to our transportation
    and does eat away another substantial portion of our ISEP and
    transportation budget.
        Recommentation.--We strongly request that $5O million be
    appropriated to Indian Schools so at least we are comparable with the
    national average of $2.92 per mile. We have been under funded for
    years, it is about time that Indian schools are funded adequately.
    Administrative cost grant
        The last three years Congress has ``capped'' the Administrative
    Cost Grant at $42.2 million. This has hurt all Grant/Contract schools
    financially. Every year we set our educational goals to implement
    within the 12 month period, but if we are funded at 81 percent this
    school year, we cannot fully accomplish or meet goals that we have set,
    therefore, we are hard-pressed to meet National or state standards as
    expected of us. Public Law 100-297 also gives an option to Bureau
    funded schools to become grant schools, so if more BIA schools ``go
    Grant'', the shared costs for grant/contract school decreases. The
    administrative and technical support functions previously provided by
    BIA at Agency of Area level are now mostly the responsibility of
    Contract and Grant schools. Unfortunately, This school year, we had to
    cut services as well as personnel to operate within the allotted
    funding.
        Recommentation.--Since Administrative Cost is one of the most
    pressing concerns, we strongly recommended that the Administrative
    Costs Grant be funded at $57.9 million. BIA OIEP's request is a $4.1
    million increase over the frozen level of $42.2 million for the past
    three years. This is not enough. The current appropriation language
    still. retains the ``cap'' on the amount of BIA fund, that can be spent
    on Administrative Cost Grant. Public Law 100-297 allows that the AC
    grant be funded at 100 percent. We also recommend that the ``cap'' be
    removed from the budget.

      FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AND FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND
                                     REPAIR

        Rock Point School's total square footage for all buildings totals
    161,027 sq. ft. Out of this, the elementary school complex, built in
    1963-1966, has an area of 101,027 sq. ft. These buildings are starting
    to depreciate and we contemplate that within another two to three
    years, constant maintenance will be required. For fiscal year 1998-
    1999, the facilities budget constrained at 66 percent and again this
    school year we were constrained at 66 percent. With all these budget
    constraints, all the major maintenance cannot be addressed on annual
    basis and some of these uncorrected students are moved into the
    Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R) account. Not enough funds are
    appropriated by Congress in the FI&R account, this is not enough to
    take care of the major back-logged safety items. Bureau system. wide,
    the FI&R currently is back-logged at over $800 million.
        Last year, BIA and Congress agreed to separate the school
    facilities operation and maintenance accounts into two accounts;
    ``facilities operation'' and ``facilities maintenance''. In fiscal year
    2001 budget request, BIA proposed an even more dramatic Structural
    change which might have major impact on school funding as well as any
    policy changes within the bureau--They are proposing to move $27.8
    million of Facilities Maintenance to construction and also to the FI&R
    account. There is no explanation for this proposal nor is there any
    assurance whether the FACCOM formula used to distribute Facilities
    Maintenance funds to schools will continue to be used. Recently, we
    were informed by OIEP that they will withhold 4 percent of our O&M
    funds for their administrative cost. We have protested this withholding
    and all O&M funds should be distributed to us. These are arbitrary
    decisions that axe being made by OIEP without proper tribal
    consultation.
        Recommentation.--We recommend that $57.0 Million be funded for the
    Maintenance account. This will at least take care of some of the
    maintenance cost. We also recommend $57.0 million be appropriated for
    the Operation account. Thirdly, it is requested to fund the FI&R
    account in the amount of $300 million to Lake care of some of the major
    backlog items in Bureau-wide schools.
    Family and Child Education Programs (FACE)
        We support the BIA-OIEP proposal to add twenty-two more FACE
    programs in the amount of $6 million, as requested in tile budget. This
    request will double the FACE programs. We plan to write a proposal to
    this; program enabling us to implement an Early Childhood Program which
    is an essential foundation part of child development both
    psychologically and academically. We know FACE program can strengthen
    our children's attitudes toward school and their outlook on life.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Alaska Native Health Board

        The Alaska Native Health Board (ANHB) submits this statement on the
    Administration's proposed fiscal year 2001 Indian Health Service
    budget. In summary, our recommendations are that the IHS budget be
    increased over the fiscal year 2000 level in order to address the
    following health priorities:
      --$60 million for inflation
      --$1.2 million increase for the Alaska Village Built Clinic Lease
            Program for a total of $5 million
      --Support at a minimum the Administration's proposed $41 million
            increase in Contract Health Services to help address patient
            and family housing needs in Alaska and to reduce deferred
            health services
      --Support at a minimum the Administration's proposed $40 million
            increase for Contract Support Costs, but distribute the
            increase consistent with the January 20, 2000 Circular signed
            by IHS Director Trujillo.
      --Fund design and construction of health centers at St. Paul and
            Metlakatla
      --Increase funding for diabetes
      --Increase funding for access to dental care
      --Support at a minimum the Administration's proposed $6 million
            increase (for a total of $18 million) for the Community Health
            Emergency Fund, in part to assist with emergency patient travel
            costs in Alaska
        Because the length of appropriations testimony is limited to four
    pages, we refer you to our Federal Legislative Priorities booklet of
    February 4, 2000 which describes in more detail our legislative and
    appropriations recommendations.
        Built-in Costs (Inflation).--While the proposed budget includes
    funding for required pay cost increases, no funding is provided for
    inflation. IHS indicates that approximately $60 million is needed to
    cover the cost of inflation, and we urge Congress to provide funds for
    this purpose. Tribal and IHS health care providers annually see the
    value of their program dollars diminish because they must absorb
    substantial portions of built-in costs. The proposed fiscal year 2001
    program increases are in part off-set by the lack of funding to cover
    medical and non-medical inflation.
        Village-Built Clinics.--Village Built Clinics and the Community
    Health Aide/Practitioners who staff them are the source of all health
    care in rural Alaska. Community Health Aide/Practitioners serve 169
    villages with populations ranging from 50 to 1,500.
        The $1.2 million increase we request (for a total of $4.9 million)
    consists of $965,000 for inflationary costs and to mitigate the fact
    that the lease income from the facilities is in many cases lower than
    reasonable local rates. The remaining $278,000 is requested for eight
    additional leases for village-built clinics.
        Contract Health Care: Deferred Services; Patient and Family
    Housing.--The Administration requested a $41 million increase in
    Contract Health Care for a total of $447 million. While this may seem
    like a large increase, the need in Alaska and elsewhere exceeds by far
    the budget request. In Alaska, we have a serious problem with deferred
    services and with covering the cost of patient and family housing due
    to inadequate contract health care funding.
        In Alaska alone, there were 9,416 deferred health services in
    fiscal year 1999 due to inadequate IHS contract health care funding.
        And the housing needs of patients, escorts, and family members who
    must travel away from home for medical care services are uniquely
    pressing in Alaska, where services are frequently sought hundreds of
    miles away in areas where hotels and other public lodging may be scarce
    or prohibitively expensive.
        In Anchorage, this need is partially met through the availability
    of Quyana house, a patient hostel connected to the Alaska Native
    Medical Center. Quyana House has 50 rooms and 108 beds and is almost
    always filled to capacity. Patients must seek off-campus housing in
    hotels or with family and friends. In the long term we hope that
    funding, possibly through HUD, can be obtained to build more housing on
    the ANMC campus, but in the interim we need additional funds through
    Contact Health Services to assist in the provision of patient and
    family housing in Anchorage, Sitka, Dillingham, Barrow, Kotzebue, Nome,
    Kodiak, and Bethel.
        Contract Support Costs.--We support the Administration's proposed
    $40 million increase (for a total of $268 million) for Contract Support
    Costs. But we disagree with the proposed bill language, which would
    apply the entire increase to new and expanded programs, with any unused
    funds being distributed to ongoing contracts. We believe the funds
    should be distributed consistent with the IHS contract support circular
    which was signed by IHS Director Trujillo on January 20, 2000 which
    provides one pool of funding for new contracts and another for ongoing
    contracts. And we would continue to oppose a pro-rata distribution of
    contract support funds, an idea which was considered last year by the
    Appropriations Committees.
        St. Paul and Metlakatla Clinics.--ANHB urges Congress to
    appropriate fiscal year 2001 funding for the St. Paul and the
    Metlakatla health centers so that the communities can finally begin the
    construction process for these desperately needed health facilities.
    The St. Paul and the Metlakatla Indian Community health centers and
    associated staff quarters are next on the IHS priority list to receive
    funding (assuming that Congress funds the design of the Pawnee clinic
    as requested by the Administration). St. Paul and Metlakatla are both
    island communities who are the sole source providers of health care for
    Native and non-Native populations.
        St. Paul Health Center.--The Pribilof Island of St. Paul is the
    northern most island in the Aleutian chain. It is located in the Bering
    Sea, 800 miles from Anchorage, and is arguably one of the most isolated
    communities in the nation. The current health facility at St. Paul was
    built in 1929--the oldest facility in the IHS system. The present
    clinic has many documented physical and environmental deficiencies and
    is much too small to adequately serve the Native and non-Native
    population. While the clinic serves the approximately 900 permanent
    residents of St. Paul Island, it also is the sole source provider of
    health services to 3,000 fishermen during fishing and crabbing seasons
    and to tourists who come to see the sea birds. Accident rates on St.
    Paul are very high, attributable to both the harsh environment and the
    high risk of the fishing occupation. Medical emergencies among
    fishermen is a daily experience.
        Metlakatla Indian Community Health Center.--The Metlakatla Indian
    Community of the Annette Islands Reserve has a population of over 1,500
    and a land base of 87,000 acres in southeast Alaska. Health services
    are housed in four modular units that were built in the 1970's. The
    facilities are set on pilings and are connected by open, elevated,
    wooden walkways. Over time the buildings have settled unevenly, posing
    an unsafe environment for people seeking health services (18,000+
    visits per year). The buildings continue to deteriorate. In the past
    few years the walls continued to drop or resettle, causing expensive
    emergency repairs and in some cases, evacuation of rooms. And the
    facilities are overcrowded and the utility systems inadequate to
    support the modernization of medical equipment.
        Diabetes.--The Administration requested a $3.88 million increase
    for diabetes, but given the incidence of diabetes throughout Indian
    country we urge Congress to provide an increase larger than the amount
    requested.
        According to a recent report released by the National Indian
    Council on Aging, there is an emerging epidemic of diabetes among
    Alaska Natives, who until recently had registered relatively low rates
    of the disease. While the rate of diabetes in the Anchorage Service
    Unit is relatively normal, in some areas of Alaska, the prevalence of
    diabetes is almost four times higher than the prevalence of the disease
    across all races in the U.S. In areas that have traditionally had very
    little diabetes, such as the Y-K Delta and Norton Sound, the rate of
    increase is alarmingly rapid--over 150 percent in twelve years.
        Dental Care.--We urge Congress to at least double the IHS funding
    for dental care services and education. We urge the development of a
    system for training Community Dental Health Aide Practitioners to
    provide some types of dental services in villages. And we recommend
    that dental hygienists be trained so that their duties can be expanded
    (e.g, traumatic restoration of teeth). We need additional incentives
    (e.g, through the IHS loan repayment program and retention bonuses) so
    that we can recruit and retain more dentists in Alaska.
        Access to dental services for Alaska Natives, which historically
    has been limited, has now reached crisis proportions. In almost all
    Alaska Native dental programs, the available care is tightly rationed.
    Most dental programs in Alaska have unreasonably long waiting times for
    appointments, up to a year for many services. Some programs have
    stopped making new patient appointments altogether as they are barely
    keeping up with basic preventive care for children and treatment
    already in progress for adults.
        Patients with toothaches, living in villages, sometimes suffer for
    months while waiting for the next itinerant dental visit. In some
    cases, these patients spend hundreds of dollars traveling to an already
    overcrowded dental clinic hundreds of miles away.
        Children with rampant dental decay often go untreated because of
    lack of access to dental care. It is not uncommon to see children with
    12 out of their 20 baby teeth severely decayed. The rate of decay among
    children in Alaska is 2\1/2\ times the national rate. And rates of oral
    cancer among Alaska Natives are higher than in any other IHS area. Oral
    cancers are often detectable through routine oral exam and biopsy.
    These cancers generally appear in adults, the segment of the Alaska
    Native population with the least access to dental care.
        Travel Subsidy for Patients.--ANHB recommends that an additional
    $10 million be added on a recurring basis to the IHS Hospitals and
    Clinics budget for patient travel in Alaska. Additionally, we support
    the Administration's proposed $6 million increase for the Comprehensive
    Health Emergency Fund, some of which can assist with the costs of
    emergency medical travel in Alaska.
        Due to Alaska's unique geography and the lack of a developed road
    system in most of the state, access to care is a critical issue facing
    Alaska Natives. While the Community Health Aide/Practitioner Program
    and physicians assistants ensure basic health care at the village
    level, many diagnostic services and treatment procedures are not
    feasible in village clinics. The majority of rural Alaska Natives who
    need a physician's care must travel by air to receive these services
    from regional hospitals. When rural regional hospitals are not staffed
    or equipped to provide specialized diagnostic or treatment services,
    Alaska Natives must travel further by air to the Alaska Native Medical
    Center in Anchorage.
        Citizens in other parts of the United States access health care
    through federal or state subsidized highway systems. We need comparable
    consideration in funding of access to health care in Alaska.
                                     ______

          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 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. 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 2000 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 years 1996-2000)
      --Salmon catch (age-sex-length) sampling (fiscal years 1996-2000)
      --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 years 1994-2000)
      --Eldorado River, Pilgrim River & North River salmon counting towers
            (fiscal years 1996-2000)
      --Regional subsistence harvest surveys (fiscal years 1994-2000)
      --Public forums: project planning (fiscal years 1994-2000)
                Yukon River
      --Chum salmon micro-hatchery development (fiscal years 1994-1995)
      --Toklat fall chum salmon productivity analysis (fiscal years 1994-
            2000)
      --Pilot Station main river salmon counting sonar operations (fiscal
            years 1994)
      --Anvik River terminal harvest test seine fishery (fiscal years 1994)
      --Kaltag Creek salmon counting tower (fiscal years 1994-2000)
      --Nulato River salmon counting tower (fiscal years 1994-2000)
      --Tanana Village salmon abundance test fishwheels (fiscal years 1994-
            2000)
      --Mountain Village fall chum salmon abundance test fishery (fiscal
            years 1995-2000)
      --Andreafski River coho salmon counting weir (fiscal years 1995-2000)
      --Galena village fall chum salmon abundance test fishwheel (fiscal
            year 2000)
      --Tanana River fall chum tag & recapture population estimate (fiscal
            years 1995-2000)
      --Clear Creek salmon counting tower (fiscal years 1996-2000)
      --Pilot Station sonar local Native technician (fiscal years 1996-
            2000)
      --Nenana River salmon spawning surveys (fiscal years 1996-2000)
      --Lower Yukon (Emmonak) local Native fishery technicians (fiscal
            years 1997-2000)
      --public forums: subsistence management plans & project planning
            (fiscal years 1994-2000)
                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 years 1994-1995)
      --Chum salmon migration timing and spawning distribution study
            (fiscal year 1995)
      --Kanektok, Takotna and Kwethluk salmon counting towers (fiscal years
            1996-2000)
      --George River salmon counting weir (fiscal years 1996-2000)
      --Aniak River sonar local Native technician (fiscal years 1996-2000)
      --Tatlawiksuk River salmon counting weir (fiscal years 1999-2000)
      --public forums: inseason management and project planning (fiscal
            years 1996-2000)
                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 2001 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 both the 1998 and 1999 seasons saw
    widespread salmon run failures throughout western Alaska. Not only were
    chum salmon returns weak as in the 1993 crash but chinook returns were
    unexpectedly poor and coho and sockeye returns were also below average.
    These unforeseen stock declines point 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.
        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 Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation

        The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) submits this
    statement on the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2001 Indian
    Health Service budget. In summary, our recommendations are:
      --Support the recommended increase for Contract Health Care;
      --Increase the funding and leasing authority for Village Built
            Clinics;
      --Provide funds for Patient Travel specifically for Alaska programs
            and funding for patient transport vehicles;
      --Support the recommended increase for contract support costs, which
            should be distributed in accordance with the January 20, 2000,
            IHS Circular;
      --Support continued funding for Telemedicine program; and
      --Correct unintentional effect of section 325 (Public Law 105-83).
        The BBAHC also joins in concurrence with the Alaska Native Health
    Board recommendations to increase by $60 million funding for Built-in
    Costs to cover the cost of inflation as well as increased funding for
    diabetes and access to dental care.
        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--an area covering 46,573 square miles. 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.

                          CONTRACT HEALTH CARE FUNDING

        The BBAHC supports the Administration's request for a $40.9 million
    increase for the Contract Health Care program. This funding allows us
    to ``purchase'' those health services that we are not otherwise able to
    provide at our Dillingham regional hospital or village clinics. Such
    services include OB-GYNs and other health care specialists who are not
    on the permanent staff of the hospital. Through purchasing the
    specialized services, we are able to bring the medical personnel to our
    hospital for special need patients.
        We are concerned, however, that the Administration's request does
    not include increases for inflation or other built-in costs even though
    contract health services is especially impacted by the medical
    inflation rate. Failure to provide for the increased costs due to
    inflation requires tribal and IHS programs to absorb the costs, thereby
    restricting the extent of services we could otherwise provide.

                      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. The
    lease agreements, usually with local city governments or tribal
    governments, enable us to provide health care in rural Alaskan
    villages. However, because of limited funding for the program, we have
    been unable to start up the village clinics in these two communities.
    At our existing village clinics, adequate space to perform on-going
    clinic services is often at premium. Not only are we facing increased
    patient loads, when visiting doctors are using the clinics to treat
    patients, staff must perform the regular clinic services from their
    homes.
        Additional funds of at least $1.2 million are needed to fund
    additional leases for village-built clinics, cover inflationary costs,
    and mitigate for lease income from these facilities being lower than
    the reasonable local rates. The village clinics are vital to enabling
    the Community Health Aide Practitioners, doctors, dentists and others
    to provide health services to village residents.

                   PATIENT TRAVEL/PATIENT TRANSPORT VEHICLES

        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. Further, planes coming in to
    pick up or return patients must meet Federal Aviation Administration
    regulations which require that landing strips be located further away
    from villages than in the past.
        The Community Health Aid Program and physician assistants provide
    essential basic health care at the village level. As you know, there is
    a critical lack of a well-developed highway system in Alaska.
    Consequently, those who need a doctor's care or other diagnostic
    procedures must rely on air travel to obtain those services at the
    regional hospitals or the Alaska Native Medical Center (ANMC). Not only
    are the air travel costs expensive, there are related costs such as
    lodging and meals for the patient or family member(s) accompanying the
    patient. As reported in the 1991 ``Access to Care: Crisis for Alaska
    Natives'' report, 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.
        Although the ANMC in Anchorage provides limited accommodations for
    family members accompanying a patient, it is not sufficient to house
    all those in need. At the regional hospitals, hotels or other
    accommodations are either very expensive or scarce.
        The BBAHC urges Congress provide for the Alaska health care
    programs an increase of $10 million for patient travel, added on a
    recurring basis to the IHS Hospitals and Clinics line item.
        A related patient transportation development arises from the
    aforementioned Federal Aviation Administration regulations. Previously,
    most airplane landing strips were located on the edge of villages or in
    villages. With the revised safety regulations in place, the airstrips
    now range up to seven miles away from the village clinics in our area.
    While this has resulted in less danger of airplanes hitting power
    lines, we are no longer 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 may become an
    issue for JCAHO accreditation.
        For these reasons, vehicles in which to transport patients to and
    from airstrips/airports and village clinics are necessary. The BBAHC
    estimates its need at $1.4 million to purchase 16 patient transport
    vehicles and construct heated buildings in which to store them.

                             CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        The BBAHC very much supports the Administration's proposal for an
    increase of $40 million in IHS contract support costs. Without these
    additional funds, tribes will continue to be impeded in their right to
    assume local control over federal Indian programs, such as health care,
    or be financially penalized for electing to exercise that right.
        We join ANHB in opposing the proposed bill language that would
    apply the entire increase to new and expanded programs, with any unused
    funds being distributed to ongoing contracts. Rather, we believe the
    funds should be distributed consistent with the IHS contract support
    circular that was signed by IHS Director Trujillo on January 20, 2000.
    That circular provides one pool of funding for new contracts and
    another for ongoing contracts.

                                  TELEMEDICINE

        The BBAHC urges that Congress fund, at a minimum, the
    Administration's budget request of $4 million in the IHS budget for the
    third year of the Alaska Federal Health Care Access Network (AFCAN).
    The AFCAN, a multi-year telemedicine and telehealth technology project,
    will eventually 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.

                 CORRECTION TO SECTION 325 OF PUBLIC LAW 105-83

        We urge your Committee to include in the fiscal year 2001
    appropriation act language that would correct what we believe to be an
    unintended effect of section 325 of Public Law 105-83. Under that
    section, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium is required to
    provide the statewide services of the Alaska Native Medical Center and
    the Area Office. These services are defined as those services of the
    ANMC and Area that were not under contract or an annual funding
    agreement with any other tribe or tribal organization as of October 1,
    1997. IHS legal counsel has interpreted this provision as overriding
    agreements which the IHS had previously entered into with tribal
    consortia that funds for certain Area Office programs, functions,
    services, and responsibilities (which the consortia could have elected
    to take as ``tribal shares'') could remain with the IHS until such time
    as the tribal consortia decided to assume these programs.
        If it had not been for section 325, BBAHC would have clearly had
    the right to contract for these Area Office tribal shares in fiscal
    year 2000. Instead, IHS maintained that these funds could, by law, only
    be provided by IHS to the ANTHC. Our legal counsel advised us that
    these funds remained with IHS subject to our contractual right to
    withdraw them and that the terms of our annual funding agreement
    assured that these funds should be regarded as ``under contract or
    annual funding agreement as of October 1, 1997,'' although we had not
    yet elected to assume the programs, services, responsibilities, or
    functions. The issue was not resolved in AFA negotiations for fiscal
    year 2000 but was officially memorialized as a dispute between the
    parties.
        We have not brought suit to enforce our rights to these funds. We
    do not think we should have to expend scarce resources litigating with
    the United States on the enforceability of the agreement that IHS had
    with us that these funds remained in its hands only as long as we chose
    that they should. We ask, therefore, that the provisions of section 325
    be amended by adding the following proviso at the end of the first
    sentence of section 325:

        ``Provided, However, that Area Office tribal shares retained by IHS
    as of October 1, 1997, as specified in a tribe's or tribal
    organization's fiscal year 1997 Annual Funding Agreement shall not be
    considered statewide health services under this subsection.''

        Thank you for the opportunity to share BBAHC's concerns on the
    health needs of people in the Bristol Bay Area in Alaska and of Native
    people throughout the nation.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee

        The Nez Perce Tribe is requesting the following funding amounts for
    fiscal year 2001, which are specific to the Nez Perce Tribe:
      --$875,050 through the Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Rights
            Protection account for Water Rights Negotiation and Litigation
            to enable the Tribe to continue its participation in the Snake
            River Basin Adjudication, the largest water rights adjudication
            in the country.
      --$600,000 through the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service for the Tribe's
            Gray Wolf Recovery Program.
      --$530,000 through the Bureau of Indian Affairs Law Enforcement for
            the addition of police and law enforcement staff in order to
            provide adequate, 24-hour services to our communities.
      --$438,700 for Child Welfare Grant Program and 638 Contract
            Administration Costs for Tribal Social Services Programs
            contracted through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
      --$300,000 through the Bureau of Indian Affairs for upgrading Lapwai
            water and waste water systems.
      --$200,000 through the BIA for Tribal involvement in the Federal
            Energy Regulatory Commission's re-licensing of Idaho Power's
            Hells Canyon Complex.
      --$95,000 through the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Forest Service
            Road and Trail Construction Program to provide biological
            control organisms for noxious weed control.
        The Tribe strongly supports the Administration's $9.4 billion
    Native American fiscal year 2001 Budget Initiative, with specific
    proposals in the initiative and other requests discussed below.
    Snake River Basin Adjudication Negotiations Funding: BIA--$875,050
        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 own in-house
    counsel and by the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) in Boulder,
    Colorado.
        In December of 1998, the SRBA Court ordered the parties to the Nez
    Perce claims into mediation. The mediator jointly selected by the
    parties and appointed by the SRBA Court is Francis McGovern, a law
    professor whose mediation skills are internationally recognized.
        For fiscal year 2001, the Nez Perce Tribe requests that Congress
    earmark $875,050 in the BIA's Indian Rights Protection account for
    Water Rights Negotiation and Litigation for the Tribe, enabling us to
    continue 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.
    Gray Wolf Recovery Program: Fish and Wildlife Service--$600,000
        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 developed 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 to begin delisting. Funding support has failed
    to keep pace with the needs of the people of the region as the
    population of wolves has grown from 35 released wolves to just over 150
    animals. Currently only 30 percent of the wolf population is fitted
    with radio collars. Our management plan, approved by the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, has a goal of maintaining collars on half the animals
    in the population. An increase in our funding level is needed to
    support ongoing research partnerships and to provide more collars for
    animals, more staff to collar the animals, and additional monitoring
    flights to track their movements, especially as new packs form in
    previously unoccupied wolf habitat. The data gathered is shared with
    the people most affected by the recovery so they area aware of the
    presence of the animals and can take actions as allowed under the terms
    of the program to address their concerns. The recovery effort is ahead
    of schedule but requires more staff and equipment to do this complex
    and important work. The Tribe is requesting an increase of $300,000
    annually to bring the amount appropriated for wolf recovery in Idaho to
    $600,000 annually.

    Staffing of Nez Perce Tribal Police Department: BIA Law Enforcement--
            $530,000 increase
        The Nez Perce Tribal Police Department provides law enforcement
    services to both Indian and non-Indian populations of more than 30,000
    citizens within the boundaries of the Nez Perce Reservation. The
    Reservation, which covers an area of more than 1,200 square miles,
    includes four county and five cities. In fiscal year 1999 the Nez Perce
    Tribe was able to increase its patrol officers from 6 to 12, due to
    Congress' funding increase for BIA Law Enforcement. We are grateful for
    Congress' support, but we still fall short in our staffing needs: the
    Tribe needs five more patrol officers to reach the minimum 17 officers
    necessary to perform patrol duties around the clock. The Tribe also
    lacks funding for a Communications-Dispatch center that would require a
    staff of seven; the construction of a proposed adult-juvenile detention
    center ultimately will require 13 more positions. With the addition of
    the patrol and dispatch positions in fiscal year 2001, our police
    department would be equipped to provide around-the-clock services to
    our communities and develop increased interagency cooperation between
    the multiple law enforcement organizations on the Reservation. These
    twelve positions will require an additional $530,000 in our current
    annual Public Law 638 contract with the BIA, an amount which is only
    about one half of one percent of the Administration's requested BIA law
    enforcement budget increase of $103 million from last year. We strongly
    support the Administration's request of $439 million for BIA Law
    Enforcement programs and urge that a portion of these the funds be
    provided to the Nez Perce Tribal Police Department to pay for crucial
    law enforcement services.

    Tribal Social Services Program: BIA--$438,700
        The Nez Perce Tribe has contracted with the BIA through a 638
    contract to run the Social Services Program, which administers many
    different tribal assistance programs. In the past five years, services
    to individuals on the reservation have increased by at least 300
    percent, while funding levels for contract support costs have decreased
    each year. This has seriously jeopardized the Tribe's Social Services
    Department from updating equipment and hiring adequate staff to meet
    the needs of their clients in Tribal assistance programs.
        Indian Child Welfare and BIA Welfare Assistance are just two Social
    Services programs the Tribe operates. The Indian Child Welfare Programs
    tries to prevent the break up of Indian families, as well as handle
    child abuse and neglect cases, court interventions and foster care
    placement. Because the Tribe's share for the Indian Child Welfare
    Program is only $50,200, there is only one welfare worker to provide
    services to the 75 families and children in crisis who currently
    receive services under this program. The BIA Welfare Assistance Program
    run by the Tribe services hundreds of cases under this program, yet it
    will only receive $126,500 for fiscal year 2000. The Tribe's
    established share for contract Administration costs for fiscal year
    2000 is $132,000, $2,500 less than last year. For these programs'
    overall fiscal year 2001 budget, the Tribe is requesting $438,700,
    which includes increases of $50,000 for 638 Contract Administration
    costs, $30,000 for Indian Child Welfare, and $50,000 for Welfare
    Assistance.

    Lapwai Water/Wastewater System Upgrade: BIA--$300,000
        The Nez Perce Tribe has several water systems in desperate need of
    upgrade and improvement, and several new water systems will be required
    to provide service to Tribal members currently receiving either
    insufficient or no services. Funding would be used to conduct further
    assessments of the current drinking water and waste water systems,
    upgrade existing systems, identify future needs, and further the
    Tribe's ability to independently manage the drinking water/waste water
    systems.

    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 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 the Tribe has been a
    participant in the relicensing process since it began 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. The funding requested
    would allow the Tribe to participate in this process.
    Noxious Weed Control--$95,000
        The Nez Perce Tribe has implemented a program to develop biocontrol
    agents (primarily insects) to address the problem of noxious weed
    management as part of Idaho's Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious
    Weeds. This funding, from the USDA/Forest Service, would be used to
    provide biological control organisms and technical assistance to
    Cooperative Weed Management Areas. Biological control of noxious weeds
    is seen by experts as the best way to stop the spread of many types of
    weeds. The Tribe is pursuing this project because the need for
    controlling noxious weeds throughout the Reservation. Tribal staff are
    working at all levels of government to improve noxious weed management
    through cooperative efforts. The Nez Perce Bio-Control Center's mission
    is to provide a full service biological control of weeds program to
    landowners and managers throughout Idaho. The Center will rear and
    distribute hard-to-establish biological control organisms and newly
    available organisms, to address the needs of range and wild land
    resources. The Center will become a centralized clearinghouse of
    biological control of weeds resources and information, develop and
    maintain a standardized biological control agent tracking system and
    host technology transfer workshops and informational seminars. These
    funds will enable the Center to focus upon providing desired services
    in a coordinated manner to Cooperative Weed Management Areas throughout
    Idaho as part of Idaho's Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious Weeds.
    Appropriated funds will be used to cover salary and development of
    nurseries for available agents The Center will promote and seek
    opportunities to create quality employment for Nez Perce people.

                       SELECTED ITEMS OF GENERAL SUPPORT

    Transportation
        The Nez Perce Tribe strongly supports the Administration's budget
    request of $375 million, a 50 percent increase over 2000, to improve
    roads, bridges, highway safety and transportation services on Indian
    reservations. The Tribe recommends that two percent of the request be
    set aside, separate from construction and maintenance accounts, to
    provide support for tribal transportation planning. Transportation
    planning is a critical and required first step in any Tribe's decision-
    making process regarding reservation roads. It gives us a clearer view
    of the future, guiding decision-making today. Our Tribe's
    transportation department estimates that it will cost about $150,000
    annually to do the necessary planning for future road projects. The Nez
    Perce Reservation, which encompasses more than 770,000 acres, has
    numerous roads and bridges in dilapidated or even dangerous condition
    which could be improved with funds from this request. The
    Administration's request for $32 million of BIA funds to be used to
    supplement Department of Transportation funding for Reservation roads
    and bridges is also strongly supported by the Tribe.

    Economic Development
        The Nez Perce Tribe supports the Administration's request for $54
    million in Tribal funding for the Department of Commerce, $49 million
    of which will further the Economic Development Administration's
    infrastructure, planning and public works projects on Indian
    Reservations. Last year the Nez Perce Tribe received an EDA grant for
    the joint construction of a sewer line in cooperation with the City of
    Lewiston, Idaho. This important project would not have been possible
    without EDA funding. The Tribe has plans for additional development
    which will require EDA infrastructure funding.
    Health Services
        The Nez Perce Tribe strongly supports the Administration's request
    of an additional $230 million to the Indian Health Services budget,
    totaling $2.6 billion, for fiscal year 2001, including $104 million in
    program increases for services and facilities. The Tribe is in the
    process of securing sufficient funding to construct badly-needed new
    health care facilities on our reservation. Our clinics now are
    overcrowded and outdated and Tribal members are under served; new
    clinics will provide increased and improved health care for our people.
    The Tribe also strongly supports the Administration's proposed
    ``Healthy People 2010'' initiative and its goal of achieving equivalent
    and improved status for all Americans over the next ten years. It is
    well known that Native Americans suffer from significantly poorer
    health than other citizens, and this disparity must be addressed.
    Natural Resources: Independent Forest Assessment Review
        The Nez Perce Tribe supports an allocation of $750,000 from the BIA
    to fund an Independent Forest Assessment Review as required under the
    National Indian Forest Resource Management Act. This study will provide
    a valuable benchmark in assessing the status of Indian forest resource
    management and the health of this valuable resource.
        Thank you for your consideration of the Nez Perce Tribe's
    appropriation requests for fiscal year 2001.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Rough Rock Community School

                                  INTRODUCTION

        My name is Dr. Bob Roessel and I am the Executive Director of the
    Rough Rock Community School on the Navajo reservation. For those who
    may be unfamiliar with this institution, formerly this institution was
    known as the Rough Rock Demonstration School when it started back in
    1966. At that time, it was the first school in the United States
    contracted directly between the BIA and a local community at Rough
    Rock. This first contract school has been copied by approximately 270
    other contract /grant schools located throughout Indian country. At
    that early period, the school was a leader and innovator in Indian
    education. The two principles on which this school was founded, and is
    still based today, are: First, control by an all Navajo School Board
    and second, brought into the school curriculum elements of Navajo
    history, language, and culture. The Rough Rock experiment was the
    result of interest and pressure brought by Navajo leadership and a
    local Navajo community supported by BIA people such as Area Director,
    Graham Holmes, and Bud Benham, Director of Schools for the Navajo, and
    a climate that was conducive to the formation of such a school. Today,
    the school continues to exist with its name changed to the Rough Rock
    Community School. This school continues to be a leader in both Navajo
    and Indian education. The school is an active participant in all
    matters and affairs affecting Indian education in general and Navajo
    education in particular. My wife and I started the Rough Rock
    Demonstration School and came back to this school three years ago given
    the charge to reestablish it on its original foundation of emphasis and
    respect for Navajo history, language, and culture. There have been
    great changes, not all of them for good, that differentiates the first
    contract school started in 1966 and the same school in the year 2000.
    Today, there is a far greater acceptance of the responsibility and
    right Indian people have to direct and control their education. There
    is a greater recognition of necessity for Indian people, and all people
    for that matter, to have a positive self image and to look upon
    themselves with pride. However, today there is an attack on schools
    such as ours by the BIA for reasons we do not understand. There are
    those individuals in the BIA and the Department of the Interior who
    evidently feel that the Rough Rock Community School is rocking the boat
    and saying and doing things that these individuals feel will harm or
    hurt their perception of Indian education.

                          INTENSE RESIDENTIAL GUIDANCE

        Currently, our major problem is the lack of Intense Residential
    Guidance money for our dormitory students. We have been given the
    opportunity and responsibility to recruit from throughout the entire
    Navajo reservation for students because of our exemplary Navajo Studies
    program. This meant that last year we had 74 chapters represented out
    of a total of 110. IRG moneys have been appropriated by Congress in
    recognition of the special needs of dormitory students who have
    problems in such areas as substance abuse, grades and academics,
    tutoring, recreation, and etc. The IRG funds are used to hire
    counselors, tutors, and provide these special services to students who
    need them. The Rough Rock Community School requested 241 (238) of our
    dormitory students as requiring IRG services. Important factor that
    occurred during Count Week was the murder of the individual who had the
    responsibility of tracking and keeping records on all our IRG students.
    The police cordoned off the building for a period of several weeks. We
    then had to totally refurbish the room in which she was stabbed to
    death by removing the rug, floor, wall boards, etc. which had been
    covered with blood.
        Finally, we had to have ceremonies that would allow Navajos to go
    back in there, without fear. All of this took a period of nearly a
    month. It was true that the audit occurred towards the end of October
    that we had signed all IRG folders on that date. The BIA assumed that
    no IRG services had been provided during Count Week which was not so.
    The BIA line officer which audited our student count denied all IRG
    students because of they were dated a month late. It is important to
    recognize that we told the BIA immediately after the murder of this
    individual that we would be late and they said there would be no
    problem. In any event, the BIA line officer said while she couldn't
    approve the IRG students, she thought they would readily be approved in
    Washington if we were to appeal. We then appealed to the BIA Washington
    and in conversation with one of the two people directly responsible for
    this program, that individual said there should be no doubt about your
    receiving the moneys: ``I think it's just a big mistake.'' The Appeal
    Committee asked for certain information which we provided but they
    denied our appeal. We then appealed directly to the Assistant
    Secretary, Kevin Gover, but have not heard from him. This is but one of
    a series of difficulties the Rough Rock Community School has
    experienced with the BIA. One of the top BIA officials in Washington
    said: ``It's because you are always fighting the BIA and pointing out
    its many problems.'' Whether that is true or not, it is very true that
    the BIA is not acting in a manner in which we hope they would act and
    expect them to act.
        Our testimony is aimed at pointing out the inequities of the BIA.
    They have no respect nor concern for the students and the programs and
    funds appropriated by Congress to help those students. The BIA
    continues to be in a bureaucratic mess without a heart and without a
    soul. The IRG moneys that we were to receive are for this year! Kevin
    Gover, Assistant Secretary, thought they were for next year but that is
    no so. We have not been able to provide all the services for the IRG
    students listed because of absolutely no money. We have certain of our
    IRG staff on board, we did not RIF them, and we are providing IRG
    services to them to the limit of these individuals. During the early
    fall we lost an IRG counselor to cancer and we lost another counselor
    who left. We've not replaced these individuals because of the lack of
    money. We do not know what is keeping the Assistant Secretary from
    either accepting our appeal or denying our appeal of he denies. We will
    appeal through formal channels. Why it takes months for a decision to
    be made we do not understand.
        We want the record to show that the Rough Rock Community School
    since we returned in August of 1997, have done battles with the BIA
    over issues and matters that directly effect our school and other
    Indian schools. Here is a partial list of the letters and battles we
    have been fighting with the BIA.
        Report Cards.--The BIA issues a report card which we feel is far
    too limited. We believe in report cards but only if they measure a far
    more considerable area that they currently are focused upon. They
    should utilize certain of the goals and objectives of the school and
    determine whether or not those goals and objectives are met. For
    example, as stated earlier we have an emphasis on Navajo Studies and it
    would be important for the report card to have some measure showing the
    degree whether or not we are meeting the objectives in that area. The
    report fails to accept other than short answers. We have extensive
    parent involvement programs that we reported but were left out of our
    report card.
        Line Officer's Conducting the Audit.--One of the prennial problems
    we have discussed with the BIA for the past three years is the conflict
    of interest that occurs when a BIA line officer is responsible for the
    student count and for the related audit. We have longed maintained that
    this a direct conflict of interest. The BIA line officer's job is
    dependent upon BIA schools and not contract and grant schools. This
    makes having such a person conduct the audit to be grossly unfair if
    not illegal. We have proposed that an independent, group/organization
    conduct the audit about which there would be no possible taint of
    impropriety.
        Financial Mismanagement.--Another area we have discussed and
    presented to BIA and others is that we believe there are existing laws
    that require and protect the fiscal integrity of contract and grant
    schools. We do not believe it is necessary because of the financial
    mismanagement of one, two or three contract and grant schools to
    subject all such schools to additional regulations and requirements.
    Indian Self-Determination Act, as well as in the Tribally Controlled
    Schools Act, contain provisions that require audits reports and
    criminal penalties for fiscal mismanagement. We have always maintained
    that contract and grant schools, are not as they have often been
    depicted in Washington, as a source of mismanagement and fiscal
    stealing and need to be brought under closer control. I have been on
    the Navajo reservation since 1951 and I can't begin to count the number
    of BIA schools in that period that had money stolen and had fiscal
    mismanagement. We never heard of the necessity to put those schools
    under tighter management and scrutiny. We have always stood for fiscal
    responsibility and proper money management! We just don't feel that we
    need to have additional restrictions placed on contract and grant
    schools: there are in place adequate provisions.
        Contract/Grant Schools Are Not BIA Schools.--It is vitally
    necessary to distinguish between a school operated and controlled by
    the BIA and contract and grant schools that are funded by the BIA. All
    too often the BIA and others look upon these different types of schools
    as being one and the same. When we started the Rough Rock Demonstration
    School, we announced and proclaimed that our school was totally
    different from the BIA and should never be considered a BIA
    institution. Over the intervening years, the distinction of contract/
    grant schools have become blurred and today, we are considered by the
    many people in the BIA to be one of their own. This is not so! There
    are three major systems of education on the Navajo reservation today:
    public schools (Bilagaana Yazhi Bi'olta--Little white man's schools);
    BIA schools (Washington Bi'olta--Washington's schools); and contract/
    grant schools (Dine Bi'olta--Navajo Schools). It is absolutely
    necessary not to confuse grant/contract schools as being BIA schools!
        School Construction.--Another matter we have fussed with the BIA
    over is the new school replacement priority system that currently is in
    place. The logic that laid behind the creation of a set of new
    standards and requirements were to develop in a fair and unbiased
    method of ranking school construction projects. This is an admirable
    good! The problem doesn't lie with the fact that such a list was
    developed the problem lies in that the new system did not eliminate
    politics and prejudice. The Rough Rock Community School submitted a
    request for total school construction, as were advised, involving
    certain facilities. Specifically, we requested construction of a high
    school dining room and kitchen. We requested construction of a media
    center/library and auditorium. We have neither of these structures at
    this time! These are vitally important components in any adequate high
    school facility. In addition, we included renovations to our
    Elementary, Middle School, and High School plus faculty housing. When
    the rankings came out we were listed 78 in a list of 96 projects. We
    believe that in spite of statements to the contrary the new school
    ranking system is not able to determine schools in greatest need and
    that politics and pressure still play a part in the school rankings.
    We've never had a high school auditorium, media center/library.
        We've never had a high school kitchen/dining area. We submitted our
    proposal as we were told to do that listed all of our needs. Had we
    been allowed to do so, we would have listed just these two needs as our
    most acute. Nevertheless, we were ranked 78 out of 96. This is
    incomprehensible to us. There are schools that on the top 15 will be
    funded this year that I visited in the last several months that have no
    where near the needs the Rough Rock Community School has. Why certain
    schools were allowed to submit request for a single item, for example a
    dormitory and we were forced to submit a request for everything is
    beyond me.
        We truly suspect that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is trying to get
    even with the Rough Rock Community School because we complain and
    because we raise questions and because we fight battles. We were told
    that there were representatives on the Review Committee from contract
    and grant schools and that they were involved in the rankings. We were
    given the names of Elmer Guy and Thomas Atcitty. We checked with these
    two individuals only to find they had never saw an application and they
    did not rank anybody. Who ranked these schools? We have a document sent
    to us by the BIA that explains the elaborate procedures they alleged to
    have followed. We are very unhappy over this and believe Congress
    should investigate not the procedures outlined but the manner in which
    those procedures were carried out.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the 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. I am
    pleased to submit this testimony about our work in civic education with
    students and educators from the Pacific Islands and from American
    Indian and Alaska Native communities.
        First, on behalf of all of us at Close Up, I want to express our
    appreciation for the continuing support this Subcommittee has given to
    the Foundation for its efforts with these special populations. The
    funding provided by the Subcommittee to the Department of the Interior
    has enabled us to positively affect thousands of students and educators
    who have participated in Close Up's civic education programs.
        Although progress has been made, Pacific Islanders, Native
    Americans, and Alaska Natives remain among the underserved populations
    in the United States. Close Up has used a variety of ways to reach
    these constituents through the years and has established considerable
    expertise and a solid reputation in meeting their civic education needs
        Our work with Pacific Islanders has been ongoing for seventeen
    years. Participants are from American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
    Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the
    Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. It has
    been gratifying to watch the educational progress in these emerging
    democracies and to come to understand the unique challenges that small,
    remote island nations and territories face. They have made great
    strides but much remains to be done, and a knowledgeable, active
    citizenry is vital to continued progress.
        American Indians and Alaska Natives face similar challenges to
    Pacific Islanders. They are often geographically isolated and lack
    adequate classroom resources. They must confront the issue of balancing
    and blending their traditional cultures with mainstream American
    lifestyles and modern technology. Close Up's work with these special
    populations has provided opportunities for students and teachers to
    learn more about democratic principles and to reflect on these
    principles in light of their own cultural traditions.
        Our programming with each of these special populations produces
    certain common results. Participating students gain a sense of
    efficacy. Teachers report that when students return home from a Close
    Up experience they exhibit a wide variety of positive behaviors such as
    speaking out in class, asking more questions, expressing their
    opinions, getting better grades, volunteering in the community, and
    taking on leadership roles. On their part, teachers return home
    refreshed with newfound knowledge, teaching methodologies, and self-
    esteem, and they are eager to put their new skills to work in the
    classroom.
        Based on the continuing educational needs of these special
    populations, we would like to expand our programming with them in 2001.
    Therefore, we respectfully request $1.5 million in fiscal year 2001
    funding for Pacific Islands programming and $300,000 for programming
    with American Indians and Alaska Natives for a total of $1.8 million.
        Should the Foundation's fiscal year 2001 appropriations request be
    fully funded, our programs will include: a two-week Washington High
    School Program for Pacific Islanders; local programs in the Pacific
    Islands; a Pacific teacher training institute; a ten-day program on
    technology and culture for all three special populations; and one-week
    Washington High School Programs for American Indians and Alaska
    Natives. We will elaborate on the programs in the following paragraphs.

               WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM FOR PACIFIC ISLANDS

        The fiscal year 2001 Washington High School Program for Pacific
    students includes: a week in Washington on the Close Up High School
    Program with students from around the country; 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. Overall, the program gives students opportunities to
    develop leadership skills, to consider their islands' relationships to
    the United States, and to learn about the common issues that citizens
    confront as well as island-specific issues.
        Teachers who accompany their students participate in their own
    professional development program that parallels the student program.
    The program for educators includes exposing educators to the unique
    educational, cultural, and historical resources of the capital;
    introducing them to the Washington ``insiders'' who make, shape and
    report the policy of the United States; providing them with in-depth
    resources and experiences about current foreign and domestic issues;
    and inspiring them with curriculum-building workshops. Overall, the
    program for educators is designed to rejuvenate and energize classroom
    instruction in civics and social studies.

                     LOCAL PROGRAMS IN THE PACIFIC ISLANDS

        An outgrowth of the Washington High School Program has been local
    civic education programs conducted annually in several of the islands
    and involving many more students than are able to participate in
    Washington-based programs. Not only do local programs focus students on
    the pressing issues facing their islands, but they also help prepare
    those students who participate on the Washington Program to be good
    representatives of their islands. Most local programs include face-to-
    face exchanges between students and local governmental officials and
    experts. These interactions have both empowered the young people and
    impressed the local leaders with the students' grasp of and concern for
    important current issues and their resolution.

                       PACIFIC TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE

        Teacher training consistently remains high on the needs list
    whenever Close Up has conducted needs assessments, whether formal or
    informal, in the Pacific. Although training continues as a high
    priority, it is gratifying to see that past efforts have produced
    results and that Close Up workshops have challenged teachers to use
    more active teaching strategies in their classrooms.
        In 2001, Close Up would again like to offer a teacher training
    institute. The last institute conducted was a Training of Trainers
    Institute. We now would like to focus on classroom teachers to provide
    them with an intensive experience to develop their classroom teaching
    skills, to broaden their knowledge of state-of-the-art teaching
    resources, and to provide them with a variety of teaching tools. The
    institute would be held in Washington, D.C., to take best advantage of
    the city's and Close Up's resources.

      TECHNOLOGY AND TRADITION: PRESERVING CULTURE IN THE INFORMATION AGE

        Close Up plans to initiate a new ten-day program about technology
    and culture. Technology plays a part in the blending of cultures, but
    it can also be used as a vehicle for cultural preservation. School
    officials in remote areas have brought technology to their classrooms,
    but not all educators know how to use this technology to preserve
    cultural traditions. Students are often the most technologically savvy
    residents of a community, but they do not always see the consequences-
    positive and negative-that technology can have on their culture.
        This new program will include participants from communities with
    large Alaska Native populations; from American Indian tribes,
    especially in the western region; and from U.S.-affiliated island
    entities in the Pacific. Although these traditional societies differ in
    many respects, each group faces similar challenges related to cultural
    preservation and technology.
        In a departure from other of Close Up's programs, there will be a
    higher ratio of teachers to students in this new venture. Teachers
    would attend in area teams, consisting of technology specialists and
    social studies teachers. The teacher teams would be expected to produce
    lesson plans that would be published on the Web. Meanwhile, student
    participants would produce pictures and captions for the Web,
    describing their culture.

              PROGRAMMING FOR AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

        For the past three years, Close Up has conducted a special program
    for the Unified South and Eastern Tribes (USET). Young people from
    these tribes have come to Washington at the same time as their tribal
    leaders are attending a conference in the city. The young people
    participate in a program that includes a service-learning component and
    return to their communities with a plan to conduct a community service
    project. This program has been well-received by USET.
        Close Up also has a long tradition of participation by American
    Indian students from schools on reservations as well as schools with
    large native populations. Often, these students are mainstreamed and
    participate during a regular Close Up program week. In addition, Close
    Up staff have attended the conferences of national Indian education
    organizations, and in several cases, telecast shows over C-SPAN from
    those conferences. Through the years, more and more tribes have come to
    know of Close Up's work.
        Each of the models that Close Up has used to reach Native Americans
    has yielded positive results. We would like the opportunity to continue
    to support several models of programming that have proven successful
    and have been enthusiastically received by our participants. We would
    also like the opportunity to test new models. It is particularly
    important to offer a number of options because of the differences in
    needs and interests among the various tribes and the Alaska Natives.
    One size does not fit all within this underserved population because of
    different political structures, geographic characteristics, economic
    circumstances, and the like.
        By providing program opportunities that mesh with the differing
    needs, Close Up has been able to produce similar results among students
    of each of the Native groups. Teachers say that students return home as
    more active and outgoing participants in their school and community.
    They more frequently take leadership positions than their peers who do
    not attend the program. In addition, students often are inspired to
    consider different career options based on their interactions with
    Native speakers while on program. Likewise, teachers who participate in
    our programs have been able to return to the classroom reenergized with
    new ideas and methodology to share with their students and colleagues.
        Mr. Chairman, the Close Up Foundation has always considered it a
    privilege to work with students and educators from the Pacific Islands
    and from American Indian and Alaska Native communities. We are proud of
    the programs we have conducted and believe we have had a significant
    impact on the civic well-being of these special populations. As I
    stated earlier, we recognize that much of our work with these
    underserved populations would not have been possible without the
    support of this Subcommittee. We believe our plans for fiscal year 2001
    will continue to contribute measurably to the educational progress of
    these populations regarding civic understanding and action and the
    value they place on democracy and democratic institutions. Therefore,
    we strongly believe that our work continues to justify your support. We
    would be pleased to respond to any questions and to provide any
    additional information. Thank you very much.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Wide Ruins Community School

        Wide Ruins Community School (WRCS) is located on the Navajo
    Reservation in the upper northeast portion of Arizona. This year, 1999-
    2000, the School is serving 261 students in the kindergarten through
    eighth grades.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ WRCS operates a BIA funded, Tribally Controlled School program
    for the kindergarten through sixth grades. WRCS also operates a State
    funded Charter School for grades seven and eight.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        WRCS began operation as a BIA School in 1930 and a portion of the
    School's facility was built at that time of fitted rock. A steel frame
    addition was built in 1960. On February 1, 1998, with the authorization
    of the Navajo Nation, the School began operation under Public Law 100-
    297 (the Tribally Controlled Schools Act). It is governed by a locally
    elected Board and is funded primarily though grants from the BIA.
        Despite the adverse conditions of the School's facilities, its
    students are performing well. A study in 1998 indicates that WRCS
    students scored higher on the Stanford 9 NCE averages than students in
    neighboring public schools.
        Replacement School Construction Funding is the School's most urgent
    need. The School's main facility is 70 years old. The addition is 40
    years old. Submitted with this Position Statement is a bound pictorial
    document setting forth WRCS' facilities needs.
        A 1999 school study found that school replacement construction
    costs for WRCS would be less expensive than renovation. Replacement
    cost is estimated at $4,740,517, but would save more than $11,944.691
    over fifteen years. In addition to cost effectiveness, new construction
    will ensure the health and safety of WRCS's students and staff. In
    addition, new construction would permit the creation of a more
    effective learning environment and infrastructure.
        The August 1999 ranking of replacement school applications by the
    BIA ranked WRCS 12th out of 96 schools who applied for school
    replacement. In all candor, WRCS believes that it should have been
    ranked even higher. Federal appropriations to the BIA for replacement
    school construction has been minimal for a number of years. The BIA
    system, which includes 185 schools, received only $17.4 million in
    fiscal year 1999 for replacement school construction.
        Last year, however, this began to change. For fiscal year 2000,
    Congress provided $62.8 million for replacement school construction.
    And the President has proposed $126.1 million for fiscal year 2001.
    However, even this level does not begin to adequately address the
    deficiencies that have built up over the many years of neglect. WRCS
    urges Congress to provide at least $252.2 million for replacement
    school construction for fiscal year 2001. This funding will provide for
    20 new schools, including replacement construction for WRCS.
        ISEP Funding.--Although the average per student expenditure by
    public elementary and secondary schools was $7,317 in 1996-97, the
    President's proposal is based upon $3,685 per Weighted Student Unit
    (WSU). Furthermore, the President's budget assumes a reduction in BIA
    student enrollment, when WRCS and other Tribally Controlled Schools on
    the Navajo Nation are experiencing significant increases in enrollment.
    WRCS urges Congress to appropriate $360 million for the ISEP program.
    This is based upon $4,000 per WSU and assumes no reduction in
    enrollment.
        Transportation Funding.--Per mile funding should be increased to at
    least the national average of $2.92 per mile. Transportation on
    Reservation roads is extraordinarily expensive. Furthermore, fuel costs
    are increasing rapidly. WRCS urges Congress to appropriate $50 million
    for transportation.
        Administrative Costs.--The President's proposal would fund
    administrative costs at only 75 percent. These costs should be funded
    at 100 percent WRCS urges Congress to fund the administrative costs
    portion of the Tribally Controlled School Program at $57.9 million.
    Furthermore, the caps on administrative costs should be eliminated. If
    additional costs are incurred, and if the School has other monies out
    of which those costs can be paid, the School should be able to budget
    accordingly.
        Facilities.--Appropriations for facilities operations and
    maintenance have been ``constrained'' for several years, and is
    currently only 66 percent of costs. This is a downward spiral and
    should be reversed. WRCS urges Congress to fund facility costs at 100
    percent of need, including $55.6 million for operations and $57 million
    for maintenance. Furthermore, this year the Bureau of Indian Affairs is
    withholding a portion of the funds appropriated for Tribally Controlled
    Schools to fund BIA line offices. This should be prohibited.
        FI&R.--Because of past failures to fully fund Facility Improvement
    and Repair budgets, there is an $800 million backlog of needed facility
    improvements and repairs at BIA funded schools. One-half of this
    backlog should be addressed fiscal year 2001, along with on-going
    needs. WRCS urges Congress to appropriate $471.2 million for Facility
    Improvements and Repairs--including $400 million to address the backlog
    and $71.2 million for current program needs.
        Family and Child Education (FACE) Program.--This has been one of
    the BIA's most successful early childhood programs, yet the number of
    schools permitted to participate has been artificially frozen for a
    number of years. The BIA proposes to allow 22 new school sites to join
    the program. This is a step in the right direction. WRCS urges Congress
    to approve the Administration's request of $20.6 million for fiscal
    year 2001. Furthermore, this program should not be capped. All eligible
    schools should be permitted to participate, and future funding should
    be increased accordingly.
        Therapeutic Models.--None of these programs have been established
    on the Navajo Nation. Instead, funding for traditional therapeutic
    programs is being taken to fund the new ``therapeutic models.'' If the
    BIA is going to start or expand this new program, it should seek
    special funding for that purpose. Funds should not be taken from
    existing IRG and Special Education programs for this purpose.
        Reservation Charter Schools.--The State of Arizona is
    discriminating against Reservation Charter Schools. Only Reservation
    Charter Schools are having their state funding reduced because they
    receive federal funding. Although most off-reservation charter schools
    receive federal funding, their state aid is not reduced. WRCS urges
    Congress to prohibit Arizona from reducing State Aid to Reservation
    Charter Schools if the State wishes to continue to receive federal
    funding for education.
        Last year, as a part of the Interior Appropriations Bill, Congress
    established a requirement if Tribally Controlled Schools use State
    Charter Schools to offer expanded grades with State aid, the Charter
    Schools must pay the BIA for their pro-rata share of the costs of the
    facilities, etc. used by the Charter School. Any cost reimbursement
    should go to the Tribally Controlled School--not to the BIA. These
    charter schools are fully funded by State aid and there is no
    additional expense to the BIA. WRCS urges Congress to change this
    administrative provision to require that the Charter School pay the
    Tribally Controlled School the Charter School's pro-rata share of the
    costs incurred.
        The ``moratorium.''--For about ten years, the BIA has had a
    moratorium on grade expansions at existing BIA schools. This has
    artificially restricted the ability of Tribally Controlled Schools to
    fully serve the needs of the communities they serve. WRCS urges
    Congress to abolish the moratorium on grade level expansions at
    existing BIA funded schools and to fund these schools for this
    expansion.
        Training funds.--In the past, training funds for individual schools
    has not been distributed to the schools but given to certain identified
    organizations to be used for funding. Some of these organizations have
    done well, others have not. WRCS urges Congress to require that these
    training funds be allocated directly to the schools, who can contract
    with those training organizations who most effectively meet their
    needs.
        Tribal Departments of Education.--Tribal Departments of Education
    should be funded directly. No funds should be withheld from schools for
    this purpose. WRCS urges Congress to include funding in fiscal year
    2001 for Tribal Departments of Education for those Tribes who have at
    least three schools.
        Other.--BIA funded schools serve remote areas of the Nation's
    Indian Lands. In many areas fire fighting programs are not available.
    WRCS urges Congress to provide funding for fire fighting equipment and
    programs for BIA funded schools.
        Thank you for your consideration of these requests. For further
    information call Albert A. Yazzie, Executive Director of Wide Ruins
    Community School at (520) 652-3215.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the 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 written testimony on fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the
    Department of Interior and Related Agencies.
        The Fond du Lac Reservation was established by Treaty with the
    United States on September 30, 1854 and encompasses 110,000 acres of
    land in northeastern Minnesota. There is a population of 6,500 Indian
    people that live within the service area of the Reservation with the
    Band providing employment or services to most of them.
        In 1997 the Minnesota Supreme Court held that certain traffic
    regulations including speeding, driving without a license, and driving
    with no insurance are ``civil-regulatory'' in nature and under Public
    Law 280 are 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 the roads within Indian Reservations in
    the State. In order to fill this void, the Band has undertaken the
    establishment of it's own Tribal police force. In addition, the Band
    has worked with all local law enforcement agencies to establish a cross
    deputization agreement that ensures maximum law enforcement protection
    for the Reservation and it's citizens by allowing all law enforcement
    agencies within the Reservation boundaries to enforce each others laws.
    However, because of the limited financial resources of the Band, there
    are significant unmet needs in this area. At Fond du Lac, we need long
    term monies to pay for staff and equipment to adequately ensure the
    safety of the Reservation population. We are requesting $1.4 million to
    be added to our base budget to help implement and staff the court and
    enforcement for the Band.
        We strongly support the Administration's request of additional
    funding under the Indian Country 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 dollars 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 towards
    Tribal police departments located in Public Law 280 states. We support
    the Administration's request for investment in strengthening Indian
    Country's Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice System and ask that this
    Committee consider placing these initiatives into the BIA's permanent
    base budget.
        The Band employs four police officers, six conservation officers,
    one records clerk, one prosecuting attorney, one clerk of court, one
    part time court recorder, and one part time judge. All of these staff
    positions are located within the Resource Management division. Along
    with this staff are twenty other permanent full time staff and fifteen
    full time seasonal staff housed in a building that was designed to
    house twenty. With the increased responsibility assumed by the Band
    there is an ever increasing need to expand the staff and it's
    capabilities. With this in mind we request a one time allocation of $4
    million to the Band for expansion of the office space for the Resource
    Management division.
        Under Treaties with the United States made in 1837 and 1854, a
    large portion of central and northeastern Minnesota, the Fond du Lac
    Band has reserved rights to hunt, fish and gather on the lands 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 re-affirming the Band's hunting and fishing rights
    in the 1837 Ceded Territory.
        Under established Band law, exercising these off-reservation treaty
    rights requires the Band to take the steps necessary to ensure proper
    use and management of the natural resources. This means the Band is
    responsible for member's hunting, fishing and gathering activities over
    approximately 8,000,000 acres of land. The Band has adopted, along with
    the federal courts, a code and a resource management plan that protects
    the exercise of treaty reserved rights and the resources. In order to
    proceed to the next logical step the Band is in the final phase of
    completion of the Fond du Lac Integrated Resource Management Plan. The
    Plan allowed Band members to identify and rank the natural resources in
    order of importance to them. The Band, however, needs to ensure that it
    can sufficiently complete the work identified in this Plan, which
    requires the assistance of additional conservation officers, fish and
    wildlife biologists, technicians and related equipment. To do this, we
    are seeking an additional $500,000 to be added to the Band's base
    budget.
        It is essential that the Band also manage it's on-reservation
    resources in order to meet the demands 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 the forest resources of the reservation are
    vitally important to it's members as these resources provide the
    foundation for 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 with the remaining acres being used
    by individual land owner for housing and development. The increasing
    resident population and development are placing all resources under
    great stress. The loss of wild rice acres, wildlife habitat, and the
    decline of our forest are of great concern to the Band. Therefore, we
    are seeking an additional $300,000 to be added to the Band's base
    budget for on-reservation natural resource programs to enable us to
    address the challenges we face in this critical area. It is imperative
    that we continue to protect these resources for the future generations
    on Fond du Lac.
        We ask that the Committee support the Fond du Lac Band and other
    Indian tribes in coordinating their educational activities with other
    school districts as authorized under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2010 (f), to
    expressly authorize the Secretary of Interior to use funds allotted to
    Bureau Schools to implement cooperative agreements with local public
    school districts, to expressly defer to the Band to determine the
    content of such agreements and to enact the congressional intent
    underlying the cooperative agreement provision to encourage the
    development of tribal education programs which are responsive to the
    particular educational needs of the tribal community. The Band and the
    Cloquet Public Schools are currently in their third year of an historic
    cooperative agreement that has been widely applauded for its
    innovativeness and effectiveness in providing culturally appropriate
    remedial education to American Indian students who are enrolled in a
    public school. The Commissioner of the State of Minnesota Department of
    Children, Families and Learning congratulated both the public school
    and the tribal school for their ``. . . innovative efforts in creating
    new agreements and structures to better serve students . . .''
        Additionally, the Band is in full support of Assistant Secretary
    Kevin Gover's fiscal year 2001 budget request of $2.2 billion. Within
    this budget New School Construction is a high priority in order to make
    schools safe and adequately equipped to meet the diverse needs of all
    American Indian students. We strongly support the Bureau's budget
    request of $300.5 million to replace older, unsafe, and dilapidated
    schools on reservations. We also support the Bureau's budget request of
    $103.4 million for maintenance and repair projects that would reduce
    the backlog of needed repairs to BIA school facilities. Critical health
    and safety concerns exist at many Bureau schools throughout the
    country; these poor facility conditions have a dramatic impact on the
    learners, teachers, and community members. If education is a priority,
    our building structures must convey that meaning by being safe,
    healthy, and comfortable learning environments.
        Furthermore, the Band strongly supports the Bureau's fiscal year
    2001 budget request of $761.2 million for Tribal Priority Allocations.
    Included in this budget request, Education programs such as
    Scholarships ($30.7 million), Adult Education ($2.5 million) and the
    Johnson-O'Malley ($17.1 million) Program would receive needed increased
    funds that would continue to provide the basic necessities critical to
    the quality of life on our reservation. Along with the Bureau's budget
    request of $582 million for Other Recurring Programs. Included in this
    budget request, the BIA's Education, School Operations-ISEP Formula
    Funds, is $333.3 million. These funds are critically needed in order
    for tribal schools to compensate education staff with comparable wages.
    Rising wage and fringe costs are not adequately funded in the existing
    formula, and increasing the ISEP Formula amount would begin to address
    this issue. And, lastly, we support the budget request in ISEP Program
    Adjustments ($667,000.00), Early Childhood Development ($20.6 million),
    Student Transportation ($38.6 million), Institutionalized Disabled
    ($3.8 million), Facilities Operations ($55.6 million), and
    Administrative Cost Grants ($46.3 million). These funds are critically
    needed to maintain the current level of services as provided in view of
    increased wages, inflation, and the rising cost of fuel and utility
    costs.
        The Band recently received fiscal year 2000 construction funds to
    build a New School (pre-k through grade 12) with a target construction
    date of June 2000. We express a sincere Miigwech (thank you) for the
    support, confidence and assistance received from the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, Senators, Congressman, and Committee staff, with a special
    thank you to Senator Paul Wellstone, Senator Rod Grams, Congressman
    Martin Sabo, and Congressman James Oberstar. Their continued support
    has provided the Fond du Lac Band with an historic opportunity to
    provide its community with an education facility that will dramatically
    increase educational opportunities for the entire community.
        In 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
    we enter the 21st Century with a renewed sense of hope.
        Miigwech. Thank you.

                     FOND DU LAC LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT

        Project Goal.--The establishment of a full time police force for
    the protection of all residents within the boundaries of the Fond du
    Lac reservation through increased staff and patrol capabilities.
        Project Objectives.--(1) To provide 24 hour, 7 day a week patrol.
    (2) To provide an adequate court system for the Reservation. (3) To
    staff and equip the department to provide adequate enforcement for the
    Reservation.
        Problem Statement.--In 1997, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that
    certain traffic regulations including speeding, driving without a
    license, and driving with no insurance are ``civil-regulatory'' in
    nature, and under Public Law 280 are unenforceable by state police
    officers on the Reservation.
        Justification.--The ruling left a jurisdictional void with regard
    to law enforcement on the roads within Indian Reservations in the
    State. In order to fill this void, the Band has undertaken the
    establishment of it's own Tribal police force. In addition, the Band
    has worked with all local law enforcement agencies to establish a cross
    deputization agreement that ensures maximum law enforcement protection
    for the Reservation and it's citizens by allowing all law enforcement
    agencies within the Reservation boundaries to enforce each others'
    laws. The Band currently employs four police officers, one records
    clerk, one part time prosecuting attorney, one part time clerk of
    court, one part time court recorder, and one part time judge. With
    current staffing patterns and the increased responsibility assumed by
    the Band there is an increased need to expand the staff and it's
    capabilities. Additional funding in the Band's base budget would allow
    these efforts to bring about the enforcement capabilities for the Law
    Enforcement Department.
        Fiscal year 2001 Request--$1,400,000

                     FOND DU LAC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CENTER

        Project Goal.--To provide adequate space for the Resource
    Management staff to allow for increased capabilities.
        Project Objectives.--(1) To allow for needed expansion of staff.
    (2) To keep staff centrally located for better coordination and
    communication.
        Problem Statement.--The Resource Management Staff of the Band has
    increased to 35, with expansion to 50+ in the next year, and are
    currently housed in office space designed for 20.
        Justification.--The Band is assuming more responsibility in the
    management of it's treaty reserved resources, it's on reservation
    resources, and it's civil regulatory authority. In doing so, the staff
    has had to increase in numbers and capabilities. With the increase in
    responsibility and staff has come a need for an increase in the space
    available for housing these programs. The current building does not
    allow for expansion as it is constructed in a manner that would not
    support further expansion. A new facility would allow the Band to meet
    all current needs and serve the Band with future development.
        Fiscal year 2001 Request--$4,000,000

                     FOND DU LAC CEDED TERRITORIES PROGRAM

        Project Goal.--To implement the Fond du Lac Integrated Resource
    Management Plan (FDLIRMP)to protect, manage and enhance the natural
    resources of the Ceded Territories of the Band with increased staff
    capabilities.
        Project Objectives.--(1) To implement the FDLIRMP. (2) To staff and
    equip program to complete identified projects. (3) To maintain and
    enhance the Band's exercise of Treaty reserved rights
        Problem Statement.--The population of the reservation is on the
    increase and the competition for fish, wildlife, and plant resources
    has reached an all time high. The Band must turn to the Ceded
    Territories to relive some of the pressure on the reservation
    resources.
        Justification.--Over the past 20 years the Band has experienced a
    population migration back to the Reservation. The standard of living
    has increased with the availability of housing and jobs has enticed
    many band members to return and take part in the development of the
    Reservation. This development has taken it's toll on the Reservation
    resources through a decrease in available habitat and an increase in
    pressure from an ever increasing population. The limited land base and
    natural resources of the Reservation has forced the Band to look
    elsewhere to provide these opportunities for Band members. The obvious
    place was the Ceded Territories as the Band has Treaty reserved rights
    in these areas. But, along with the exercise of these rights comes the
    responsibility to manage them. The Band has taken an active role in the
    exercise of Treaty reserved rights and management of the natural
    resources used by band members with the hiring of 2 biologists and 4
    enforcement staff. This staff was not adequate but, were able to manage
    the 1854 area now, with the addition of the 1837 area, staff is
    stretched thin and management efforts are suffering. And lastly, since
    1990 the Band has operated on stagnant base budget. In order to meet
    the increase in responsibilities and the demand from a larger
    Reservation resident population the Band is seeking additional funds be
    added to it's base budget.
        Fiscal year 2001 Request--$500,000
                     fond du lac natural resources program
        Project Goal.--To implement the Fond du Lac Integrated Resource
    Management Plan (FDLIRMP) to protect, manage and enhance the natural
    resources within the boundaries of the Fond du Lac reservation with
    increased staff and project capabilities.
        Project Objectives.--(1) To implement the FDLIRMP. (2) To implement
    the highest priority projects on Reservation. (3) To staff and equip
    the program to complete identified projects.
        Problem Statement.--The responsibility of the Band has expanded
    tremendously over the past ten years without any increase in it's base
    budget.
        Justification.--The land base of the Band is undergoing changes
    from a variety of directions. An increase in the population has placed
    greater demand for development of housing and industrial use which in
    turn are competing with the demands for cultural and traditional uses.
    The protection of these resources are dependent upon a balanced
    approach to ecosystem management which would include implementing the
    Band's IRMP. An increase in funding of the Band's base budget would
    allow the program to integrate the changes in population and the
    demands on the natural resources in a manner that will bring back
    balance to the reservation's ecosystem.
        Fiscal year 2001 Request--$300,000
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Black Mesa Community School

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for this
    opportunity to submit written testimony regarding the fiscal year 2001
    budget for Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) programs relating to school
    operations. Black Mesa Community School is a grant school, serving
    students from kindergarten through eighth grade in Kitsillie, a
    mountainous area of the Navajo Nation in Northern Arizona. We are
    pleased to see that there is an increased focus on Indian education in
    the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request. While we
    understand that the pressure on your committee to shrink the Interior
    budget is great, we hope that you will pursue the following funding for
    programs within the BIA Office of Indian Education Policy to begin to
    address recognized need:
      --$248,000 to construct a maintenance facility at Black Mesa;
      --$57.9 million for Facilities Operations, $57 million for Facilities
            Maintenance, an exploration of the reasons for shifting
            maintenance funds out of the school operations budget, and
            language to protect these funds from BIA skimming;
      --$57.9 million for Administrative Cost Grants.

                   FACILITIES AT BLACK MESA COMMUNITY SCHOOL

        In 1984, the Bureau of Indian Affairs constructed a school building
    to replace the used trailers that had served as our sole facilities for
    nearly ten years. The original building plans for the 1984 construction
    also included planning for housing facilities, a transportation
    building, athletic fields, and site improvements. We were deeply
    appreciative of your committee's 1999 approval of our request to
    utilize our surplus savings to construct employee housing, and have
    entered the planning stages of this project in cooperation with the
    BIA. In 1999 we were also granted three 2-room. modular buildings from
    the BIA to address our need for additional classroom space. But our
    dire need for transportation and maintenance facilities remains.
        Due to our remote location, we must conduct a wide range of plant
    management and school bus maintenance onsite. At present, we conduct
    all plant management activities out of a small, locally constructed
    shed. In the winter, harsh weather forces the maintenance personnel to
    conduct their work in a small janitor's closet inside the school. We
    have no protected facilities for bus maintenance.
        We ask the committee to follow through on the 1984 building plan by
    appropriating funds to allow our school to construct a small multi-
    purpose facility to serve as an operations and maintenance shop,
    emergency generator room, transportation maintenance area, fire bay
    station, and storage area. The BIA's 1984 estimate for this facility
    was $219,200, and we estimate that such a facility would cost
    approximately $248,000 to construct today. The School Board has located
    a 50, by 100, steel building available for sale at $20,000 that could
    meet these needs for a fraction of the estimated price.

                             FACILITIES MAINTENANCE

        We hope to get many years of use from our school facilities, which
    will require consistent maintenance over the life of the buildings. As
    such we are concerned both with shortfalls in funding for facilities
    maintenance and with radical structural changes that have been proposed
    in the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget.
        As directed by Congress, BIA developed the so-called ``FACCOM''
    formula to distribute facilities O&M funds to the 185 schools in the
    system. But funding for this area has fallen one-third below the amount
    needed to fund the FACCOM formula. Now, after separating the O&M budget
    into two separate line items last year, the BIA proposes that the
    entire amount for ``school facilities maintenance'' be moved from
    Operation of Indian Programs into Construction--specifically, to the
    ``Facilities Improvement and Repair'' (FI&R) line item. The budget
    materials released so far by the Bureau provide no explanation of the
    objectives or ramifications of this proposal.
        The 185 BIA-funded schools rely on facilities Operations and
    Maintenance funding to support their routine operational needs (such as
    the cost of utilities and janitors) and on-going maintenance needs (for
    boilers and building systems, water and sewer systems, etc.) for an
    enormous inventory of federally-owned buildings. FI&R funds are
    distributed on a project-by-project basis, not by formula. We can see
    no rational reason why BIA would want to combine funding for routine
    maintenance with funding for one-time projects (such as major
    renovations and repairs, asbestos removal, etc.). The purposes of the
    two funding line items are entirely different.
        Even if the formula-based distribution of facilities maintenance
    funding would continue under this structural shift, the attempted move
    could severely limit the ability of local school boards to develop
    their facilities budgets to prudently respond to their local
    circumstances.
        BIA is already this year taking steps to control facilities
    budgets. In January, more than 3 months after the fiscal year began,
    BIA told some schools that no facilities funding would be released
    until an acceptable ``annual work plan'' was provided. In effect, they
    are holding these funds hostage. They are imposing an unauthorized
    requirement on schools in order to force them to do things the ``BIA
    way'' if they want their funds for the year. We fear this inefficient
    and irrational top-down control will only increase if the proposed
    structural change in the budget is permitted.
        We hope you will retain school facilities maintenance funding in
    the School Operations budget, and assure that all appropriated funds
    are distributed by the formula. We also ask you to provide sufficient
    funding for BIA-funded schools to properly maintain the federal
    facilities we operate. Please meet the BIA's request of $57 million for
    Facilities Maintenance and increase the Facilities Operations funding
    to $57.9 million to address the maintenance needs identified by the
    FACCOM formula.

                           ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS

        Last year, Congress focused considerable attention on the
    ``contract support'' funding needs for tribally operated BIA and IHS
    programs and provided commendable increases in funding for contract
    support. But not one dollar more was supplied for Administrative Cost
    Grants--the schools' equivalent of contract support costs. In fact, the
    appropriation for AC Grant has been frozen at the same level for three
    consecutive years.
        As a result, in the current school year, we are receiving only 84
    percent of the amount dictated by the statutory formula for our
    administrative needs. That percentage will drop to 81 percent next
    school year. (Under the ``forward funding'' system, the fiscal year
    2000 appropriation, frozen at the fiscal year 1998 level, will supply
    our AC Grant funds for school year 2000-2001.) The BIA request for
    fiscal year 2001 (for use in school year 2001-2002) will only meet 80
    percent of need. 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.
        More and more schools are converting to tribal operation each year,
    but not one dollar of additional funding has been provided to support
    their administrative costs. This severely threatens the continuing
    viability of existing contract and grant schools.
        We implore your Committee to recognize that tribal schools' needs
    for administrative costs are just as great as those of other tribally-
    operated BIA and IHS programs. Please provide $57.9 million to fully
    fund AC Grants in fiscal year 2001.

                                   CONCLUSION

        All of us at Black Mesa thank you for your attention to these basic
    requests. While they represent a drop in the federal budget bucket,
    these dollars will have a dramatic effect on the day to day function of
    our school and the education of future generations in our community. We
    thank you for your ongoing work in support of Indian education, and
    look forward to working with you in the years to come to assure that
    our students have a learning environment that will empower them in
    achieving their highest aspirations.
        Thank you very much for your support.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Greasewood Springs Community School, Inc.

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The Greasewood Springs
    Community School, located on the Navajo reservation, serves the
    educational needs of 349 students from 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. I
    would like to take this opportunity to commend the Administration for
    its proposed increases for Indian programs within the fiscal year 2001
    budget. However, in the area of Indian education, a great deal more
    needs to be done simply to address widely acknowledged shortfalls in
    the areas of Administrative Cost Grants, Facilities Operations and
    Maintenance, Student Transportation, and Indian School Equalization
    Program funding. Specifically, we request the following funding levels
    within the BIA Office of Indian Education Policy:
      --$57.9 million for Administrative Cost Grants;
      --$352.2 million for the ISEP Formula program;
      --$42.2 million for Student Transportation;
      --$57.9 million for Facilities Operations and $57 million for
            Facilities Maintenance, as well as an exploration of the
            reasons for shifting maintenance funds out of the school
            operations budget and language to protect these funds from BIA
            skimming.

                           ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS

        AC Grants provide funds to tribes or tribal organizations for
    school operations 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.
        For school year 2001-2002, the BIA projects that 133 schools will
    be operated under contract or grant status. However, the requested
    increase from the Administration would only cover 80 percent of the
    need for Administrative Cost Grants. This is an unconscionable
    violation of Federal law.
        In this year's budget request, a great deal of emphasis is placed
    on alleviating the shortfalls for Contract Support within BIA and IHS,
    but there is hardly a mention of the need for increased funding for
    Administrative Cost Grants. AC Grant funding has been frozen at $42.16
    million for three years, despite the fact that dozens of additional
    tribes have contracted to take on school operations. The requested
    increase of approximately $4 million does not even cover the increase
    in schools requiring these funds, let alone begin to address the
    chronic acknowledged shortfall from the need identified by formula for
    Administrative Cost Grants.
        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.

                     FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

        Facilities Maintenance Line Item.--The Facilities Operations and
    Maintenance account was separated into two line items in the fiscal
    year 2000 budget, a decision that the BIA says was based on a February
    1998 Interior Department report on facilities maintenance issues. But
    in the BIA proposed budget for fiscal year 2001, the newly separated
    line item for Facilities Maintenance has been shifted into the budget
    for Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R). FI&R funds are
    distributed on a project-by-project, one-time basis rather than by
    formula as O&M funds are currently distributed. We hope that before
    accepting this shift your Committee will make an inquiry into BIA's
    reasons for shifting this account, and will make a critical accounting
    of what if any beneficial results will be obtained by this move. If
    this move will in any way change the formula for distributing these
    funds to schools or will reduce the desperately needed funds which
    schools receive under the current formula, we ask that you reject it.
    Any reduction in the already inadequate formula distributions for the
    accounts that used to comprise facilities operations and maintenance
    would be devastating for contract and grant schools.
        Operations and Maintenance Funding.--At present, the formula
    distributions for O&M are grossly inadequate, often insufficient to
    cover even basic utilities, let alone basic maintenance. We ask that
    funding for Facilities Operations and Facilities Maintenance be
    increased to $57.9 million and $57 million, respectively, in order to
    provide sufficient funding for BIA-funded schools to properly maintain
    the Federal facilities we operate. Adequate formula funding for
    everyday upkeep of schools is a critical element in assuring that
    schools will last longer and remain safe for students. There are an
    absurd number of BIA-funded schools in desperate need of new school
    construction at present, partially as a direct result of chronic under-
    funding of basic maintenance at existing school facilities. Congress
    can save a great deal of money in the long run by investing sensibly in
    basic maintenance today.
        OIEP ``Skimming''.--A number of Bureau-funded schools have begun to
    receive communications from the BIA's Education Line Officers in their
    area instructing that a percentage of their Program Administration
    funds will be kept by the BIA for purposes of oversight and technical
    assistance. This runs counter to the entire principle of self-
    governance and deals a devastating blow to schools that are already
    struggling to stretch inadequate O&M dollars to meet their basic needs.
    The BIA already reserves funds for these purposes, and it is
    indefensible that the OIEP has authorized ELOs to skim further funds
    from the bare-bones funding that BIA-funded schools receive for
    operations and maintenance expenses. We ask that the Committee include
    language in the fiscal year 2001 budget to disallow such ``skimming''
    of scarce school resources.

                       INDIAN SCHOOL EQUALIZATION PROGRAM

        The ISEP program, which provides basic instructional funding for
    students in BIA-funded schools, remains under-funded in the proposed
    fiscal year 2001 budget. Under the proposal, ISEP would be funded at
    $333.3 million, resulting in a Weighted Student Unit (WSU) of
    approximately $3,685. As you know, this level is far below similar
    expenditures for students in every other school system in the U.S.
    Unless additional ISEP funding is provided, our educational program
    will suffer and our students will remain at an inexcusable
    disadvantage.
        Our students need to know that they are just as important as other
    kids in the U.S., and that their education is just as important to
    Congress as the education of students in other school systems. We ask
    that you take advantage of the focus on education within the BIA budget
    to finally do something about this terrible short-shifting of Indian
    students. We support the National Indian Education Association (NIEA)
    recommendation of at least $352.2 million for the ISEP Formula program
    in fiscal year 2001, which would yield a WSU of approximately $4,000
    per unit.

                             STUDENT TRANSPORTATION

        The BIA's budget justification estimates that, given a likely
    increase of approximately 600,000 in school bus mileage in school year
    2001-2002, the $38.2 million requested by the Administration for school
    transportation will allow a payment rate to schools of $2.30 per mile.
    This is still far below the national average of $2.92 reported for
    public schools for school year 1993-1994, a figure which is likely much
    higher today. The discrepancy between funding for student
    transportation and the actual cost to schools widens every year,
    forcing many to dip into their education funds to cover unavoidable
    transportation costs.
        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 to enable us to get students to school and
    back home safely. We are perpetually short of adequate bus drivers
    under the current level of transportation funding, which leads to
    transportation problems for many students.
        Our transportation budget is hit especially hard during the winter
    months, when bad road conditions cause our buses to break down on a
    regular basis. We lack a garage or repair facility to deal with these
    breakdowns, causing small repairs to require time-consuming and
    expensive maintenance trips. For example, every single tire repair must
    be taken to Holbrook, more than 50 miles away. In addition, the lack of
    a diesel fuel pump at the school forces us to pay extremely high prices
    for fuel at the Greasewood Trading Post, the closest fuel outlet.

                                   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. We have appreciated
    your support over the years, particularly in the fiscal year 1998
    fulfillment a promise made by the BIA over a decade ago for
    construction of a new gymnasium at our school. We are nearing
    completion in construction of the new gym, and our students look
    forward to putting it to good use. The administration, school board,
    teachers, and students of Greasewood Springs Community School thank you
    for your assistance.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.

        Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony for the record
    regarding the fiscal year 2001 Bureau of Indian Affairs education
    budget. We are very pleased with the emphasis that has been placed on
    Indian education in the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget. This focus is
    long overdue and represents an important step toward addressing the
    critical construction needs of Bureau-funded schools. But despite this
    emphasis, some areas of critical concern to the educational program in
    these schools have been overlooked in the proposed budget. Our
    testimony demonstrates the need for the following changes to the budget
    for BIA Office of Indian Education Programs:
      --$57.9 million for Facilities Operations and $57 million for
            Facilities Maintenance, an exploration of the reasons for
            shifting maintenance funds out of the school operations budget,
            and language to protect these funds from BIA skimming;
      --funding to meet 100 percent of the need for Administrative Cost
            Grants;
      --at least $352.2 million for the ISEP Formula program in fiscal year
            2001;
      --student transportation funding at approximately $42.2 million.
        Like most Bureau-funded schools, we find ourselves caught in an
    annual catch-22: with every element of our budgets from the Indian
    School Equalization Program to Facilities Maintenance funded far below
    actual need, something has to give. We have no choice but to pay our
    utility bills. We have no choice but to fuel and maintain the vehicles
    that transport students to and from school. Often we have no choice but
    to address immediate facilities crises that spring up in physical
    plants that suffer from years of delay in necessary maintenance.
    Unfortunately, it is the students who ultimately pay the difference out
    of their already inadequate education funding. As we discuss below, the
    proposed budget does not address several critical, chronic budget
    shortfalls that are affecting the quality of Indian education.
        These shortfalls should not be allowed to continue for another
    year. You hold the power to make an incredible difference in the
    educational opportunities afforded our kids. We look forward to working
    with you to forge an Indian education budget that provides true
    educational opportunity for Indian youth as well as viable mechanisms
    for tribes to exercise self-determination in school operations.

                     FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS

        Facilities Maintenance.--Despite objections from many schools, the
    Facilities Operation and Maintenance line item was split into two parts
    last year. But in the BIA proposed budget for fiscal year 2001, the
    newly separated line item for Facilities Maintenance has been shifted
    into the budget for Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R). We are
    deeply alarmed by this shift, as FI&R funds are distributed on a
    project-by-project, one-time basis rather than by formula as O&M funds
    are currently distributed.
        The formula distributions for O&M are already alarmingly
    inadequate, often insufficient to cover even basic utilities, let alone
    basic maintenance. Any reduction in the already inadequate formula
    distributions for the accounts that used to comprise facilities
    operations and maintenance would be devastating for contract and grant
    schools. Adequate formula funding for everyday upkeep of schools is a
    critical element in assuring that schools will last longer and remain
    safe for students.
        We ask that you request a thorough explanation for this shift from
    the BIA, and an accounting of what if any beneficial results will be
    obtained by this move. If this move will merely result in more BIA
    bureaucratic red tape, we ask that you reject it. Please insist that
    Facilities Maintenance remain in the School Operations budget, and
    provide sufficient funding for BIA-funded schools to properly maintain
    the Federal facilities we operate. Please increase Facilities
    Operations to $57.9 million and Facilities Maintenance to $57 million
    in order to fully address the needs identified by the formula.
        OIEP ``Skimming'' of O&M funds.--We recently received a
    communication from the Education Line Officer from the BIA's Southern
    Pueblos Agency requesting that we set aside 13 percent of our Program
    Administration funds ``to allow (the line officer) to--assure
    compliance to all code and other requirements that must be met for
    facility Management Operations. This will allow (the line officer) to
    travel to these locations when necessary and on a routine basis to do
    inspections for safety compliances (sic) and other regulatory
    requirements.'' This request was made in response to a memo from OIEP's
    head office instructing that the ELOs may use their discretion in
    withholding funds for providing ``oversight and technical assistance''.
    In our view, this flies in the face of the self-determination policy
    and serves to deepen the financial crisis faced by Bureau-funded
    schools. We ask that the Committee include language in the fiscal year
    2001 budget to disallow such ``skimming'' of scarce school resources.

                           ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS

        Administrative Cost Grant funding has been held at the $42.2
    million level for three years. Despite increasing awareness of the
    importance of adequate contract support and an initiative to increase
    contract support funding in other areas of the proposed budget,
    Administrative Cost Grants received an increase of only $4 million in
    the request, for total proposed funding of $46.3 million. This is
    actually less than last year's request. According to the BIA's budget
    justification materials, this will address only 80 percent of the need
    for Administrative Cost Grants. With the possibility of new schools
    converting to grant status, shortfalls in funding for Administrative
    Cost Grants could get even worse in fiscal year 2001 if Congress does
    not significantly increase this funding level.
        We believe that it is unreasonable to ask that schools operate with
    less than 100 percent of acknowledged need for Administrative Cost
    Grants.

                      INDIAN STUDENT EQUALIZATION PROGRAM

        We are dismayed to see that the ISEP program, which provides basic
    instructional funding for students in BIA-funded schools, remains
    underfunded in the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget. Under the
    proposal, ISEP would be funded at $333.3 million, resulting in a
    Weighted Student Unit (WSU) of approximately $3,685. As you know, this
    level is woefully inadequate when compared with similar expenditures
    for students in any other school system in the U.S. Unless additional
    ISEP funding is provided, we will continue to lose our best teachers to
    salary freezes or teacher layoffs, and our students will suffer
    decreased instruction hours and inadequate instructional materials.
    There is no reason that the discrepancy between funding for BIA schools
    and Department of Defense or public schools should be accepted as a
    given.
        We ask that you take advantage of the focus on education within the
    BIA budget to finally do something about this terrible short-shifting
    of Indian students. We support the National Indian Education
    Association (NIEA) recommendation of at least $352.2 million for the
    ISEP Formula program in fiscal year 2001, which would yield a WSU of
    approximately $4,000 per unit.

                                 TRANSPORTATION

        In the 1999-2000 school year the Bureau-funded transportation rate
    was $2.26 per mile, still far short of the nationwide average of $2.92
    that was reported for public schools five years earlier. Under the
    proposed budget, transportation would be funded at $38.3 million, an
    increase of approximately $2 million from the fiscal year 2000 enacted
    level. With wear and tear and repair costs well above average due to
    the remote locations and inadequate infrastructure of tribal
    communities, we believe this request would fall short of addressing the
    actual cost of student transportation for schools like ours.
        Despite the shortfalls in ISEP funding which we have described, the
    Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., Pine Hill School has been forced to
    use $100,000 to $150,000 of its annual ISEP funding to cover the
    discrepancy between funding and actual costs for its transportation
    program in recent years. This should not be a trade-off that schools
    are forced to make. We ask that you increase the BIA budget for student
    transportation to a level that can at least support a per-mile rate
    equivalent to the last computed national average of $2.92 per mile,
    which the NIEA estimates would require at least $42.2 million.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Lukachukai Community School Board of
                                Education, Inc.

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Phillip
    Belone. I am the Executive Director of the Lukachukai Community School
    Board of Education, Inc. (LCBE, Inc.), which oversees a BIA-funded
    school serving 400 students from grades K through 8 in our area of the
    Navajo Reservation. On behalf of the Lukachukai Community Board of
    Education, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you
    regarding the fiscal year 2001 budget.
        We wish to highlight several aspects of the President's request in
    the area of School Operations for which we believe that additional
    funds or different funding mechanisms are needed. Particularly, we hope
    that your Committee will expand upon the President's request for
    funding for new school construction in Indian Country, so that the full
    backlog of pressing school construction needs, including the dire need
    for new facilities at Lukachukai, may finally be addressed.
        Facilities Construction Needs at Lukachukai. School Facilities.--We
    commend the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for requesting funds to
    construct the first six of the schools included on its most recent new
    school construction priority list. This request would fund the three
    schools that have waited on the list for construction since 1993, as
    well as three of the 10 new schools on the list. The Committee should
    act favorably on this request at a minimum, and would be well within
    reason to seek funding for additional schools beyond the BIA request.
    Further delay seems unconscionable given the extend of acknowledged
    need in this area--we should not wait until the current generation of
    students are parents themselves before addressing the terrible
    condition of Indian Country's schools. Behind this short list wait
    dozens of schools like our own with pressing facilities needs that have
    yet to even be considered. We believe there is no room for years of
    delay when the health and safety of young people is at stake.
        The structures and utility systems of the existing school
    facilities at Lukachukai are in extremely poor condition. While most
    educational facilities are built to last for only thirty years, the
    newest of our facilities are over thirty-six years old. Our facilities
    are not in compliance with disabilities accessibility codes. Our
    parking lot accommodates only 18 cars for a school with a staff of 86,
    and lacks lighting of any kind. Our limited space forces us to load
    students into school buses on the main road. The school's fire alarm
    system is outdated and rings in only one section of the building. The
    existing waterlines are completely rusted and dispense orange-colored
    water from water fountains, forcing us to import bottled water for
    student and staff consumption. Last March, severe winds blew off the
    Kitchen, Residential Hall, and Gymnasium roofs. The repair and
    maintenance of the roofs cost $140,000 and resulted in two weeks of
    school closure.
        High-density archaeological and burial sites on the existing school
    grounds make construction to update or expand existing facilities
    extremely difficult to undertake. Nevertheless, severe overcrowding at
    our school and our low ranking on the list for new school construction
    have pushed us to explore renovating the four 1914 native sandstone
    classroom buildings on our campus that have been condemned by the BIA.
    We are projecting that it will take approximately three to five years
    just to get this project through the bureaucratic maze of BIA, tribal,
    and historic preservation requirements.
        Research has demonstrated that poor facilities such as ours
    distract significantly from the educational program of a school, and we
    believe that our students deserve better in their formative years. To
    address the health, safety, and educational risks posed by these
    deteriorating facilities as well as the school's inevitable expansion
    needs, the Board of Education for Lukachukai School proposes to
    construct a new grant school on 44.28 acres of land on the former
    Lukachukai airstrip in Lukachukai, Arizona.\1\ This facility would
    serve 450 youths from kindergarten through eighth grade from
    Lukachukai, Round Rock and Tsaile/Wheatfields Chapters. The land is
    currently used for grazing purposes and has been withdrawn form that
    use for the construction of the proposed school.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The new campus would consist of classrooms and administration
    buildings, a residential hall, gymnasium, playground, basketball court
    and football field, parking lot, bus garage, traditional hogan,
    greenhouse, cafeteria, and staff housing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We have conducted archaeological, environmental, and cultural
    resources inventories of the proposed site, and have found that no new
    impacts would be imposed on wildlife, vegetation, cultural resources,
    or socioeconomic factors. The proposed new grant school at Lukachukai
    is project ready and should receive high priority ranking on the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs Priority List for new school construction. But to our
    dismay, we are ranked 66th on the list at this time.
        Unfinished BIA renovation project at Lukachukai.--Some of our
    immediate needs for classroom space could be alleviated if the BIA
    would complete renovation of a large building on our campus (formerly
    used as a dormitory) that was begun several years ago but never
    completed. This building has sat in its partially renovated state since
    1992. The work needed to be done to make it suitable for occupancy
    includes installation of floors, ceilings, restrooms and electrical
    fixtures. We estimate this work could be accomplished for under
    $200,000. It is a waste for this building to sit unfinished and
    unoccupied, particularly since BIA has already devoted substantial
    Federal dollars to the renovation.
        Staff Housing Improvement and Repair.--The Lukachukai Community
    Board of Education has 47 housing units for 85 employees, all of which
    contain asbestos in the floor tile and tile mastic. Of these, three
    units have been vacated due to facilities problems and all must be
    renovated to meet minimum safety requirements and to provide adequate
    protection from the elements in winter months. Because of these
    conditions we ask that new staff housing be considered as part of the
    new school construction application, including 10 to 15 new units to
    address overcrowding and replacement of the 47 existing unsafe units.
        Facilities Operation and Maintenance.--Despite objections from many
    schools, the Facilities Operation and Maintenance line item was split
    into two parts last year. But in the BIA proposed budget for fiscal
    year 2001, the newly separated line item for Facilities Maintenance has
    disappeared, reportedly merged into the budget for Facilities
    Improvement and Repair (FI&R). We are deeply alarmed by this shift, as
    FI&R funds are not distributed by formula to schools but are doled out
    on a project-by-project, one-time basis.
        Any reduction in the already inadequate formula distributions for
    the accounts that used to comprise facilities operations and
    maintenance would be devastating for contract and grant schools.
    Facilities Operations and Facilities Maintenance have been consistently
    underfunded for Bureau-funded schools, with the previous combined line
    item often barely covering utilities costs for schools. Most of our
    buildings at Lukachukai are nearly 40 years old and contain asbestos.
    Because we have never received adequate Operations and Maintenance
    funding, they will continue to deteriorate rapidly and soon will need
    replacement. Adequate formula funding for everyday upkeep of schools is
    a critical element in assuring that schools will last longer and remain
    safe for students.
        We hope that you will ask the BIA to explain why the facilities
    maintenance line item was removed from the school operations budget and
    what beneficial results will be obtained by this move. If this move
    will merely result in more BIA bureaucratic red tape, we ask that you
    reject it. Please insist that Facilities Maintenance remain in the
    School Operations budget, and provide sufficient funding for BIA-funded
    schools to properly maintain the Federal facilities we operate. Please
    increase both Facilities Operations and Facilities Maintenance funding
    by at least one-third in order to fully address the needs identified by
    the formula.
        Administrative Cost Grants.--Administrative Cost Grant funding has
    been held at the $42.2 million level for three years. The Navajo Area
    School Board Association (NASBA) and BIA schools in the Navajo Area
    have developed an education plan to convert 50 schools to contract or
    grant status by the year 2003. The Lukachukai Community Board of
    Education fully supports this plan, but we fail to see how it will be
    possible to take over these education functions while the ``pie'' for
    Administrative Cost Grants remains inadequate to meet the needs of even
    the existing contract and grant schools.
        Despite an initiative to increase contract support funding in other
    areas of the proposed budget, Administrative Cost Grants received an
    increase of only $4 million in the request, for total proposed funding
    of $46.3 million. This is actually a reduction from last year's budget
    request of $47.7 million, which was not approved. Present funding
    fulfills only 84 percent of the need for Administrative Cost Grants.
    The request for fiscal year 2001 is projected to cover only 80 percent
    of the need. With the possibility of new schools converting to grant
    status, shortfalls in funding for Administrative Cost Grants could get
    even worse in fiscal year 2001 if Congress does not significantly
    increase this funding level.
        Student Transportation.--Lukachukai is located in the foothills of
    the Chuska Mountains, elevation 7000 ft, with students spread among
    three Navajo chapters over a radius of 20 miles. Access to our
    community is primarily via dirt roads. During the winter months, these
    roads become extremely muddy and icy, forming deep ruts that stay
    frozen for months. These treacherous conditions place a great deal of
    wear and tear on our school buses and other school vehicles, most of
    which are old and in poor condition. The closest bus maintenance and
    service location is a 250-mile round trip.
        In the 1999-2000 school year the Bureau-funded transportation rate
    was $2.26 per mile, still far short of the nationwide average of $2.92
    that was reported for public schools five years earlier. Under the
    proposed budget, transportation would be funded at $38.3 million, an
    increase of approximately $2 million from the fiscal year 2000 enacted
    level. With wear and tear and repair costs well above average due to
    our location and GSA rental and mileage rates escalating at a rapid
    rate, we believe this request would fall short of addressing the actual
    cost of student transportation for schools like ours.
        If BIA transportation reimbursement rates continue to lag behind
    actual costs for student transportation in fiscal year 2001, we will be
    forced to continue to use a distressing 28-29 percent of our classroom
    funds to supplement our transportation budget. This shortchanges our
    students and forces us to stretch our extremely limited education
    dollars even further. We ask that you increase the BIA budget for
    student transportation to a level that can at least support a per-mile
    rate equivalent to the last computed national average of $2.92 per
    mile, which the NIEA estimates would require at least $42.2 million.
        Indian Student Equalization Program (ISEP).--The ISEP program,
    which provides basic instructional funding for students in BIA-funded
    schools, has been consistently underfunded. The proposed fiscal year
    2001 funding level of $333.3 million would result in a Weighted Student
    Unit (WSU) of approximately $3,685. As you know, this level is woefully
    inadequate when compared with similar expenditures for students in any
    other school system in the U.S. Unless additional ISEP funding is
    provided, we will continue to face a large turnover of qualified and
    experienced teachers, decreased instruction hours, teacher layoffs, and
    teacher salary freezes.
        We support the National Indian Education Association (NIEA)
    recommendation of at least $352.2 million for the ISEP Formula program
    in fiscal year 2001, which would yield a WSU of approximately $4,000
    per unit. By funding ISEP at this level Congress could come closer to
    offering real educational opportunities to Indian students that are
    more comparable to those enjoyed by other children in this country.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We thank you for your support for Indian Education programs and of
    the Lukachukai Community Board of Education, Inc. We hope that this
    testimony will prove useful to your efforts to craft a fair and
    reasonable budget for BIA education programs. We would be pleased to
    provide you with any additional information about our school and our
    priorities and concerns, and we look forward to working with you over
    the coming years to assure that every Indian child gets the education
    they need and deserve. Thank you.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Alamo-Navajo School Board, Navajo Nation,
                             Magdalena, New Mexico

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Burton
    Apache. I am President of the Alamo-Navajo School Board, a tribal
    organization of the Navajo Nation.
        While called a ``School Board'', our organization does much more
    than run a BIA-funded school. Our 10-square mile reservation is
    isolated in south-central New Mexico, 250 miles from the Big Navajo
    Reservation. Because of our remote location, the Navajo Nation and its
    political subdivision, the Alamo Chapter, authorize the School Board to
    administer the education, health care, road maintenance, job training,
    Head Start and other community programs that serve our nearly 2,000
    Navajo people. On an annual basis, we operate over $9 million of
    Federal and state supported programs.

                              SUMMARY OF REQUESTS

        Obtain further details about BIA proposed re-location of school
    facilities maintenance funds into the Construction/Facilities
    Improvement & Repair account
        Fund school facilities maintenance at $57 million
        Fund school facilities operations at $55.6 million as requested by
    BIA
        Fund Administrative Cost Grants at $57.9 million
        We support the budget request for Education Facilities Improvement
    & Repair
        Provide $150,000 for a replacement fire truck for the Alamo Navajo
    Reservation

                             BIA SCHOOL OPERATIONS

    Facilities operations and maintenance funding
        We are concerned about the BIA's proposed alterations in the
    structure of school facilities funding. Last year BIA asked and
    Congress agreed to separate the single ``school facilities operation
    and maintenance'' account into two--``facilities operation'' and
    ``facilities maintenance''. There was no advance consultation with
    tribal and school officials about this change (as required by law), and
    little explanation of its objective in the budget justification.
        Now in the fiscal year 2001 budget, BIA proposes a more dramatic
    structural change. It seeks to move the entire amount for ``school
    facilities maintenance''--$27 million--from the Operation of Indian
    Programs into Construction--specifically, to the ``Facilities
    Improvement and Repair'' (FI&R) line item. The budget materials
    released so far by the Bureau provide no explanation of the objectives
    or ramifications of this proposal.
        The 185 BIA-funded schools rely on facilities operation and
    maintenance funding to support their routine operational needs (such as
    the cost of utilities and janitors) and on-going maintenance needs (for
    boilers and building systems, water and sewer systems, etc.) for an
    enormous inventory of federally-owned buildings. These run the gamut of
    schools, dorms, administrative offices and gyms to bus garages and
    repair shops, storage units, fire stations, and utility systems.
        As directed by Congress, BIA developed the so-called ``FACCOM''
    formula to distribute facilities O&M funds to the 185 schools in the
    system. While the Congressionally-supplied funding has fallen one-third
    below the amount needed to fund the FACCOM formula, at least the
    schools could expect to be equally treated in the formula distribution
    of the funds made available.
        The attempted move of ``school facilities maintenance'' funds to
    the FI&R line in the Construction account is of concern for several
    reasons:
        (1) It could severely limit the ability of local school boards to
    develop their facilities budgets to prudently respond to their local
    circumstances. With combined facilities operation and maintenance
    funds, we can apportion our funds to meet our most pressing needs--such
    as paying our electricity, heating and water bills and janitor
    salaries. Sometimes this means that some facilities maintenance needs
    have to be put off. If, however, the facilities maintenance functions
    are moved from the ``Operation of Indian Programs'' account to the
    ``Construction'' account as BIA proposes, our ability to make needed
    budget apportionment decisions at the local level would be limited
    solely because of this structural change in the organization of the BIA
    budget.
        (2) The BIA budget justification does not indicate whether the
    Congressionally-ordered formula-based distribution of facilities
    maintenance funding would continue. Funding for maintenance is already
    dangerously low. If the school system were to lose some $27 million
    from the amount available for formula distribution, school boards would
    not have the ability to do even routine maintenance; this would
    jeopardize the government's investment in these facilities and the
    well-being of the students and staff who occupy them.
        (3) FI&R funds are distributed on a project-by-project basis, not
    by formula. Therefore, we can see no rational reason why BIA would want
    to combine funding for routine maintenance with funding for one-time
    projects (such as major renovations and repairs, asbestos removal,
    etc.) The purposes of the two funding line items are entirely
    different. If, however, they are combined into one account, BIA will
    make the sole decision as to how they are spent. If formula
    distribution is not used any semblance of equality between schools will
    be destroyed. And it will be difficult, if not impossible, for Congress
    to adequately supervise the expenditure of these funds.
        (4) BIA bureaucrats would control the flow of funding to schools
    and decide what the money would be spent for rather than having these
    decisions made at the local level where school authorities know
    precisely what their building needs are. BIA is already this year
    taking steps to control facilities budgets. In January, more than 3
    months after the fiscal year began, BIA told some schools that no
    facilities funding would be released until an acceptable ``annual work
    plan'' was provided. In effect, they are holding these funds
    ``hostage''. They are imposing an unauthorized requirement on schools
    in order to force them to do things the ``BIA way'' if they want their
    funds for the year. We fear this inefficient and irrational top-down
    control will only increase if the proposed structural change in the
    budget is permitted.
        BIA has for years ``skimmed'' considerable funding off the top of
    the facilities O&M funds, further reducing the amount made available to
    the individual schools. These funds are used to pay BIA staff and
    support roads and other projects at BIA's discretion, without any input
    or agreement from the schools whose formula funds were ``skimmed'' and
    without any direction from Congress.
        As we reported in our fiscal year 1999 budget testimony, an
    internal draft of the budget justification for that year admitted that
    even a $77 million appropriation (the amount requested that year for
    facilities O&M) 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.'' This admission was deleted from the final
    justification sent to Congress so you did not get to read it.
    Meanwhile, our facilities costs--especially utilities and heating oil--
    continue to out-pace both budget requests and appropriations.
        Any reduction in the already inadequate formula distributions for
    the accounts that used to comprise facilities operations and
    maintenance would be devastating for all schools in the system.
        Please require that the BIA first comply with the law requiring
    consultation with tribes and school officials before you agree to
    consider their budget restructuring. We and you need to know what
    objectives BIA hopes to achieve and whether those objectives have
    beneficial results. If this move will merely result in more centralized
    control and bureaucratic red tape, it should be rejected..
        We hope you will retain school facilities maintenance funding in
    the School Operations budget, and assure that all appropriated funds
    are distributed by the formula. We also ask you to provide sufficient
    funding for BIA-funded schools to properly maintain the Federal
    facilities we operate. Please increase the Facilities Maintenance
    funding to $57 million in order to fully address the maintenance needs
    identified by the FACCOM formula.
    Administrative cost grants
        Last year, Congress focused considerable attention on the
    ``contract support'' funding needs for tribally operated BIA and IHS
    programs and provided commendable increases in funding for contract
    support. But not one dollar more was supplied for Administrative Cost
    Grants--the schools' equivalent of contract support costs. In fact, the
    appropriation for AC Grant has been frozen at the same level for three
    consecutive years.
        As a result, in the current school year, we are receiving only 84
    percent of the amount dictated by the statutory formula for our
    administrative needs. That percentage will drop to 81 percent next
    school year. (Under the ``forward funding'' system, the fiscal year
    2000 appropriation, frozen at the fiscal year 1998 level, will supply
    our AC Grant funds for school year 2000-2001.) The BIA request for
    fiscal year 2001 (for use in school year 2001-2002) will only meet 80
    percent of need. 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.
        We implore the Congress to recognize that tribal schools' needs for
    administrative costs are just as great as those of other tribally-
    operated BIA and IHS programs. Please provide $57.9 million to fully
    fund AC Grants in fiscal year 2001.
        More and more schools are converting to tribal operation each year,
    but not one dollar of additional funding has been provided to support
    their administrative costs. This severely threatens the continuing
    viability of existing contract and grant schools.
        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.
    School facilities improvement & repair
        We applaud the BIA for the larger budget request for school FI&R
    projects, but we would point out that the budget request figure of
    $171.2 million is somewhat inflated because BIA has transferred the
    school facilities maintenance activity and funding into the FI&R line
    item:
      --$27.8 million of fiscal year 2000 appropriations for school
            facilities maintenance has be ``moved'' to the FI&R line item
            and is included in the ``2000 enacted to date'' amount of $67.8
            million (the actual fiscal year 2000 appropriation for FI&R was
            $40 million); and
      --$37.8 million of the fiscal year 2001 FI&R budget request is
            identified for school facilities maintenance (which we hope
            will continue to be distributed to all schools under the
            existing formula).
        Thus, the actual amount requested for FI&R projects at schools is
    $133.4 million, a laudable increase over the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation of $40 million for these projects.
        Alamo enthusiastically supports this requested increase. We are
    well aware that there is a tremendous need for FI&R projects throughout
    the BIA school system. At Alamo alone, our backlog of identified FI&R
    needs is $1.5 million. Some of the work we need done includes
    replacement of the school HVAC system, replacement of water heating
    units and roof repairs.

                                  FIRE SAFETY

        The Alamo Reservation, geographically the size of the District of
    Columbia, has only one fire truck. This vehicle is more than a quarter
    of a century old, and carries only 500 gallons of water. It might be
    laughable were it not the sole means of fire protection for $25 million
    in Federal facilities and more than 1,000 homes. We again urgently
    request the Committee's assistance in obtaining a new fire truck for
    the Alamo Reservation.
        In its Construction budget (Public Safety and Justice/Fire
    Protection), the BIA requests funding to purchase new fire trucks for
    three locations. We hoped that Alamo Navajo would make the list, but we
    did not. Our need for a new fire truck is critical.
        We are puzzled that the Bureau's estimate for each fire truck to be
    purchased in fiscal year 2000 is $170,000 (BIA Budget at p. 275), while
    its estimate cost per truck in fiscal year 2001 is $160,000 (BIA Budget
    at p. 280). It seems unlikely the per-truck cost would decrease.
        Alamo asks the Subcommittee to add us to the list of locations that
    would receive a new fire truck and fire safety equipment in fiscal year
    2001. If Alamo Navajo does the purchasing itself, we probably could
    obtain what we need for approximately $150,000, somewhat less than
    either of the BIA's per-truck cost estimates.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Pinon Community School Board, Inc.

        Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony regarding the
    fiscal year 2001 Bureau of Indian Affairs education budget. We are
    pleased with the long-overdue emphasis that has been placed on Indian
    programs in the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget. But despite this
    emphasis, some areas of critical concern to the educational program in
    Bureau-funded schools have been overlooked in the proposed budget. In
    our testimony, we request the following programmatic changes and
    funding increases for the BIA's Office of Indian Education Policy:
      --$57.9 million for Administrative Cost Grants;
      --$360 million for the ISEP Formula program;
      --$50 million for Student Transportation;
      --$20.6 million for Early Childhood Development;
      --$126.1 million for New School Construction;
      --$57 million for Facilities Operations and $57 million for
            Facilities Maintenance, an exploration of the reasons for
            shifting maintenance funds out of the school operations budget,
            and language to protect these funds from BIA skimming.

                           ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS

        Administrative Cost Grant funding has been held at the $42.2
    million level for three years, despite ever-increasing numbers of
    schools converting to grant status. The BIA's 2001 budget justification
    admits that even the Administration's proposed $4 million increase
    would only cover eighty percent of the amount that the Federal
    Government is required to be providing to schools for Administrative
    Cost Grants. The effect of this ongoing shortfall is simply devastating
    in our school.
        We do not understand how this gap between Federal obligations and
    actual appropriations can be allowed to widen further, despite
    increasing awareness of the importance of adequate contract support and
    an initiative to increase contract support funding in other areas of
    the proposed budget. The Administration's request of $46.3 million is
    actually less than last year's request. This unconscionable
    underfunding represents a de facto abandonment of the Federal
    Government's self-determination policy. How can tribes even consider
    taking on school operations when the administrative costs associated
    with operating the schools for the Federal Government will only be
    funded at 80 percent of the need?
        We believe that it is unreasonable to ask that schools operate with
    less than 100 percent of the acknowledged need for Administrative Cost
    Grants. We ask that at least $57.9 million be appropriated to address
    this critical Federal obligation. We also ask that you reject 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.
        Finally, we ask that no new schools be added to the overstrained
    budget in this area until the Federal Government fulfills its
    commitment to fund Administrative Cost Grants at 100 percent of its
    obligation for existing schools. Schools should not be converted to
    grant status only for their new operators to find themselves all but
    doomed to failure as a result of inadequate funding.

                     FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS

        OIEP ``Skimming'' of O&M funds.--We recently received a
    communication from the Education Line Officer for the Chinle Agency
    informing us that four percent of our Operations & Maintenance funds
    will be withheld for ``oversight and technical assistance''. This
    effort to ``skim'' off of our O&M funds will further diminish our
    already desperately inadequate Operations and Maintenance formula
    distributions. In addition, the agency has requested that we ``submit a
    written Budget Plan and Annual Work Plan for the said funds before
    distribution is made''. We feel that this is an outrageous and improper
    reassertion of BIA control over our school, creating unnecessary
    paperwork for funding that is obviously critical to our school and
    needs no justification. We ask that the Committee include strong
    language in the fiscal year 2001 budget to disallow such ``skimming''
    of scarce school resources appropriated by Congress, and we ask that
    the BIA be discouraged from requiring more bureaucratic work to justify
    receipt of funds that Congress has appropriated.
        Facilities Maintenance.--The formula distributions for O&M are
    alarmingly inadequate, often insufficient to cover even basic
    utilities, let alone basic maintenance. As directed by Congress, BIA
    developed the so-called ``FACCOM'' formula to distribute facilities O&M
    funds to the 185 schools in the system, but funding for this area has
    fallen one-third below the amount needed to fund the formula.
        Despite objections from many schools, the Facilities Operation and
    Maintenance line item was split into two parts last year. But in the
    BIA proposed budget for fiscal year 2001, the newly separated line item
    for Facilities Maintenance has been shifted into the budget for
    Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R). We are very concerned by this
    shift, as FI&R funds are distributed on a project-by-project, one-time
    basis rather than by formula as O&M funds are currently distributed.
    Any reduction in the already inadequate formula distributions for the
    accounts that used to comprise facilities operations and maintenance
    would be devastating for contract and grant schools. Adequate formula
    funding for everyday upkeep of schools is a critical element in
    assuring that schools will last longer and remain safe for students.
        We ask that you request a thorough explanation for this shift from
    the BIA, and an accounting of what if any beneficial results will be
    obtained by this move. If this move will merely result in more BIA
    bureaucratic red tape, we ask that you reject it. Please insist that
    Facilities Maintenance remain in the School Operations budget, and
    provide sufficient funding for BIA-funded schools to properly maintain
    the Federal facilities we operate. Please increase both Facilities
    Maintenance and Facilities Operation funding to $57 million each to
    address the needs identified by the FACCOM formula.

                      INDIAN STUDENT EQUALIZATION PROGRAM

        The ISEP program, which provides basic instructional funding for
    students in BIA-funded schools, remains underfunded in the proposed
    fiscal year 2001 budget. Under the proposal, ISEP would be funded at
    $333.3 million, resulting in a Weighted Student Unit (WSU) of
    approximately $3,685 in school year 2001-2002. As you know, this level
    is far below similar expenditures for students in public schools and
    Department of Defense schools. Unless additional ISEP funding is
    provided, we will continue to lose our best teachers to salary freezes
    or teacher layoffs, and our students will suffer decreased instruction
    hours and inadequate instructional materials. We ask that you take
    advantage of the focus on education within the BIA budget to finally do
    something about this discrepancy. We ask that Congress fund the ISEP
    Formula program at $360 million in fiscal year 2001, which would yield
    a WSU of approximately $4,000 per unit.

                                 TRANSPORTATION

        In the 1999-2000 school year the Bureau-funded transportation rate
    was $2.26 per mile, still far short of the nationwide average of $2.92
    that was reported for public schools five years earlier. Under the
    proposed budget, transportation would be funded at $38.3 million, an
    increase of approximately $2 million from the fiscal year 2000 enacted
    level. With wear and tear and repair costs well above average due to
    the remote locations and inadequate infrastructure of tribal
    communities, we believe this request would fall short of addressing the
    actual cost of student transportation for schools like ours. We ask
    that you increase the BIA budget for student transportation to a level
    that can at least support a per-mile rate equivalent to the last
    computed national average of $2.92 per mile, which we estimate would
    require at least $50 million.

                          EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT

        We strongly support the President's request for $14.95 million in
    increased funding for Early Childhood Development, of which $6.8
    million would be dedicated to doubling the number of FACE sites in
    Indian Country and $8.2 million would be used to initiate the
    Therapeutic Residential Model at six pilot sites.
        FACE (Families and Children Education).--Research has demonstrated
    that each dollar spent on early childhood and family literacy programs
    comes back six fold in savings on remediation, welfare, and teen
    pregnancy. FACE is not only an innovative program, but a wise Federal
    investment. We are preparing to assume a FACE program here at Pinon
    Community School, and we hope that you will assure that this effort to
    invest in our future becomes a reality by meeting the Administration's
    request in this area.
        Therapeutic Residential Model.--We strongly support the
    Administration's proposal to implement the Therapeutic Residential
    Model at six pilot sites. The program as proposed would represent a
    similarly wise investment in addressing the special needs of young
    people in BIA schools. The Centers for Disease Control report that
    American Indian students attending BIA schools are at very high risk
    for problems associated with substance abuse, depression, poverty,
    neglect, homelessness, and physical abuse. We believe that this program
    would serve students at Pinon well, and we hope to be considered as a
    future site for implementing this model program.

                               PROGRAM EXPANSION

        We urge the Subcommittee to lift the current moratorium barring
    schools from offering instruction to grades other than those that were
    approved by the Secretary as of October 1, 1995. We would like to
    expand our programs to include a K-6 grade program, and have been
    unable to do so as a result of this moratorium. We believe that schools
    should be empowered to make decisions about grade expansion where it is
    warranted to address the needs of students in their area, as well as
    geographic and other factors that may make such expansions advisable
    for a community.

                            NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

        We strongly support the Administration's request of $126.1 million
    for new school construction for fiscal year 2001. While this may seem
    to be a steep increase to stomach in a tight budget year, it is an
    absolute minimum step toward addressing the shameful backlog of school
    construction needs in Indian Country. Many dozens of schools with
    facilities that are unfit or even unsafe await new construction, and at
    the rate that Congress has been funding this area, the current
    generation of students will be grandparents before many of these
    crumbling facilities are replaced. It is time for concerted action to
    address this backlog of need.
        While we believe that new, creative means by which to approach this
    massive need are well warranted at this time, we are concerned that the
    School Bond Initiative contained in the President's request would not
    be guaranteed by the Federal government. It would be very difficult for
    poor tribes to make any significant contribution of tribal revenues to
    pay back bond principal. The fact that these bonds would not be
    guaranteed by the U.S. would make it very difficult for tribes without
    a good bond rating to find buyers for their bonds. Some tribes may not
    even have a bond rating. Because of this, we ask that the President's
    $126.1 million request be dedicated entirely to direct school
    construction at this time until an improved bonding proposal can be
    generated.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Thank you for your attention to these concerns. We realize that you
    have a difficult job before you, and that your allocations for this
    year are extremely limited. However, the needs discussed in our
    testimony are not pie in the sky-they are very real, concrete needs for
    the day to day function of our schools, the health and safety of our
    students, and the development of our future leaders. We feel very
    strongly that it is time to put aside the politics of budget crunching
    and live up to the Federal commitment to educate Indian children. We
    thank you for your efforts to support this end.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the Navajo Nation

        The Navajo Nation welcomes this opportunity to support the proposed
    bipartisan federal fiscal year 2001 budget that acknowledges critical
    needs in Indian Country from health care to education to economic
    development. The recommended Executive Branch fiscal year 2001 budget
    is commendable as a first step in bridging the disparity between Indian
    communities and the rest of the United States.
        The Navajo Nation commends the BIA and IHS for being strong
    advocates of Indian Self-Determination. However, the Navajo Nation
    challenges the BIA to go beyond providing basic services and look
    toward developing strong economies.
        The traditional ``Indian funding'' within the Department of the
    Interior budget does little to compliment the bold economic development
    initiatives elsewhere within the fiscal year 2001 budget.
    Understandably, this Subcommittee oversees Interior appropriations, yet
    the Navajo Nation concerns are comprehensive with respect to other
    federal Departments' budgets. The Navajo Nation agrees with Congress in
    that Indian Self-Determination is inextricable from economic
    development. ``The Congress declares that a major national goal of the
    United States is to provide the quantity and quality of educational
    services and opportunities which will permit Indian children to compete
    and excel in the life areas of their choice, and to achieve a measure
    of self-determination essential to their social and economic being.''
    25 U.S.C. Section 450a(c).
        The 17.5 million-acre Navajo reservation presents many challenges
    in providing access to services that are otherwise readily available to
    most Americans such as water, electricity and telecommunications.
    Further, there are only 21 grocery stores, 42 restaurants and or fast
    food facilities, 13 hotels, 6 banks and 77 gasoline convenience stores
    to serve a population of approximately 231,000 Navajos. Many Navajos
    have no option but to travel hundreds of miles to off-reservation
    grocers, automobile dealers, clothing retailers and banking
    institutions. With these challenges in mind, the Navajo Nation Branch
    Chiefs identified economic development as one of eight priorities for
    the next three years. However, in order to attain economic development
    there must be infrastructure.

                                 INFRASTRUCTURE

        The Navajo Nation is all too familiar with the challenge of
    attracting businesses to an economic environment that has little or no
    infrastructure. Each month several businesses explore the possibility
    of locating to the Navajo Nation before realizing the obstacles of
    inadequately paved roads and the lack of electricity, water,
    telecommunication services, not to mention police and fire protection.

    Roads
        The Navajo Nation currently has 6,184 miles of roads within the
    BIA's Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program. Of this amount, 1,373
    miles are paved with 4,811 miles, or 76 percent, of the roads being
    unimproved dirt roads. The Department of Transportation and BIA
    administer the IRR program. The Navajo Nation supports the proposed
    budget in the amount of $349 million for the IRR program, an increase
    of $117 million over fiscal year 2000. This funding will provide road
    and bridge construction in Indian Country. The Navajo Nation
    additionally supports the proposed budget for the road and bridge
    maintenance program within the BIA at $32 million, an increase of $6
    million over fiscal year 2000.

    Water
        There is a tremendous need for water and sanitation services within
    the Navajo Nation. Under the IHS, there is a proposed sanitation
    construction funding of $96.6 million for fiscal year 2001 for Indian
    Country. The Navajo Nation commends this proposal to help address part
    of the backlog of sanitation construction needs, commonly known as the
    BEMAR.

    IHS--Facilities
        With respect to the budget proposal of the Indian Health Service
    (IHS), Department of Health and Human Services, the Navajo Nation fully
    supports the $2.2 billion for health services and $349.4 million for
    facilities requested for fiscal year 2001. These amounts partially
    reflect the Navajo Nation's recommendations and input provided to IHS
    during last year's budget development process.
        Specifically, we support the $40 million requested for the
    construction of the Fort Defiance Hospital ($38,715,000) in Fort
    Defiance, Arizona and the design of the staff quarters ($1,400,000).
    The current facility in Fort Defiance was built in 1938 and its user-
    population surpasses the current bed capacity and level of resources.
    It's estimated that the Fort Defiance Service Unit is equal to, or
    comparable in size to the entire Oklahoma Service Units.
        The Navajo Nation is concerned with the fact that neither of the
    Navajo health centers in Red Mesa and Pinon, Arizona was considered for
    fiscal year 2001 funding. These health care facilities are needed to
    address the Navajo Nation's rural health problems. The Navajo Nation
    also requests the Subcommittee to continue to support those projects
    identified on the IHS Facilities Construction List for fiscal year 2001
    and beyond.

    Law Enforcement
        The Navajo Nation supports the full funding of $156 million for law
    enforcement for Indian Country, an increase of $18 million over fiscal
    year 2000. This funding would tremendously help address needs for the
    Navajo Nation, provided these funding increases are distributed based
    on need.
        No comprehensive plan or formal assessment has been developed
    between the BIA and the Navajo Nation to properly address funding
    standards and methodologies associated with crimes. There is a ratio of
    0.9 police officers per 1,000 population for the Navajo Nation. The
    Navajo ratio is dangerously below the necessary minimum rural-setting
    ratio of 3 officers per 1,000 population. Based on this comparison, the
    Navajo Nation lacks 402 commissioned personnel.

    Justice Systems
        The Navajo Nation continues to be concerned with the lack of
    adequate funding for Indian nation justice systems. The fiscal year
    2001 budget proposes a mere increase of $1.5 million for all Indian
    judicial systems under the Indian Self-Determination Act while
    proposing $15 million for undefined Justice Department ``Tribal Court
    Program'' competitive grants. Instead the Navajo Nation strongly
    recommends that the $15 million be appropriated for strengthening
    Indian judicial systems.
        The federal ``tribal court enhancement'' initiative began in 1988,
    and the Navajo Nation committed a large amount of resources to get the
    Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993 passed. To date, the Navajo Nation
    has not received any of the proposed benefits of the Act including
    adequate base funding. Therefore, we ask the Subcommittee to refocus on
    providing adequate funding for the day to day needs of our courts.

                              ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

        Unfortunately, the BIA's fiscal year 2001 budget does not propose
    any funding for economic development. The Navajo Nation commends other
    federal Department budgets for addressing the needs in this area.
    Specifically, the Department of Commerce proposes $49 million for its
    Economic Development Administration to assist with technology, economic
    and business development in Indian communities. In addition, the
    Community Development Financial Institution proposes a first time $5
    million set-aside for Native American tribes to establish training and
    technical assistance programs which would focus on eliminating barriers
    to capital access. In the fiscal year 2001 budget, an additional $2
    million has been requested within the Community Development Block
    Grants program to establish a Native American Economic Development
    Access Center that will link over 12 federal agencies so that existing
    expertise can be accessed through a toll-free number. The Navajo Nation
    supports the Small Business Administration's proposed $4.5 million that
    would create Small Business Development Centers to provide professional
    and technical assistance to Indian businesses.
        These innovative programs are a step in the right direction. The
    Navajo Nation suggests the Subcommittee direct BIA to begin exploring

    WAYS TO COMPLIMENT THE ECONOMIC INITIATIVES OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
                                   EDUCATION

    Construction
        The Navajo Nation strongly urges this Committee to support the
    BIA's request of $126 million for BIA Replacement School Construction
    for fiscal year 2001. The Navajo Nation appreciates the level of
    commitment the Bureau has provided to education and we hope the
    Subcommittee will support the Bureau's recommendation of $126 million
    as three of the six schools targeted for replacement serve Navajo
    students. Nearly 40 percent of the BIA schools (69 of 185 schools) are
    located on or near the Navajo Nation and the Navajo student population
    amounts to approximately 45 percent of the total BIA student
    population. The $126 million included in the School Construction
    Program will provide funds for Tuba City Boarding School, Baca/Thoreau
    Elementary and Wingate Elementary.
        In addition, $171 million is requested for Facilities Improvement
    and Repair (FIR) of schools. Many of the projects slated for FIR funds
    will affect the education of Navajo children. The combined total of
    over $300 million identified above is unprecedented and will go a long
    way towards reducing the backlog which exceeds $800 million nationwide.
        Assistant Secretary Gover's commitment to improving the educational
    facilities across Indian Country is fully supported by the Navajo
    Nation, including the Education Committee of the Navajo Nation Council,
    the Navajo Area School Board Association, the Association of Navajo
    Community Controlled School Board and the Native American Grant School
    Association. In this respect and in response to the Senate Committee on
    Appropriations recommendation to the BIA to establish a demonstration
    project to allow tribes with schools on the replacement list to cost-
    share construction costs, the Navajo Nation requests this Committee to
    work closely with the BIA to carry out the recommendations highlighted
    in S. Rpt. 106-99, and support the efforts of the Navajo Preparatory
    School. The Navajo Nation also supports the written and verbal
    testimony submitted to the Subcommittee by the Alamo and Lukachukai
    schools for fiscal year 2001

    Adult Care Rehabilitation
        The Navajo Nation also supports the $1 million request for Adult
    Care Facility Rehabilitation to improve four long-term adult care
    facilities on the Navajo Nation as budgeted in the Human Services
    portion of the Tribal Priority Allocations. Approximately, 350 Navajos,
    and their families will greatly benefit from this appropriation. Upon
    rehabilitation, these facilities will be able to access State Medicare
    and Medicaid funds. These facilities presently do not meet standards to
    be eligible for those funds.

    Tribal Education Departments
        The Improving America's School Act of 1994 authorizes
    appropriations for Tribal Education Departments through the U.S.
    Department of Education and the Department of Interior. The Navajo
    Nation recommends this appropriation be funded. Tribal Education
    Departments would advance Self-Determination by allowing tribes to
    control and maintain educational standards, policies, curriculum,
    certification, and funding.

                                    HOUSING

        The BIA's Housing Improvement Program (HIP) is slated to receive
    $31.8 million, an increase of $16.2 million. This funding presents a
    unique opportunity for Navajo individuals to access capital without
    being penalized by the TPA distribution methodology. The HIP funding is
    distributed based on eligibility of individuals. The Navajo Nation
    strongly encourages full funding of the HIP as it demonstrates
    equitable distribution of funding.

                                 GRANT FUNDING

        The Navajo Nation utilizes grant funding for a majority of its
    health, social services and justice programs. This funding is currently
    distributed through a competitive mechanism, which is inconsistent with
    the Federal Government's trust obligations. The Navajo Nation
    recommends the fiscal year 2001 funding for basic services to the
    Navajo people be based on trust principles, not create an antagonistic
    environment among the competing tribes.
        Consistent with the Navajo Nation's position on TPA distribution
    methodology, all said funding should be allocated on the basis of
    tribal population, caseloads, number of personnel, the size of the
    areas served, and like factors.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the 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, funds shall
    be directed through the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA), Wildlife and Parks, Blackfeet Tribe, for the following
    items. Listed by priority, they are: $6,800,000. to construct a Trout
    Fish Hatchery facility; $300,000. annual 638 Self-Determination
    contract for hatchery operations; $100,000. addendum 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 total $200,000. annually; $80,000. 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 total $200,000 annually; $600,000 5 year,
    Public Law 93-638 Self-determination contract for St Mary Bull Trout
    Study Project; $145,000 annual Public Law 93-638 Self-determination
    contract for Bull Trout/Westslope Cutthroat Supplementation Program.
    Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Water
    Resources, Blackfeet Tribe for the following item: $22 million. St
    Mary, Milk River Irrigation Project, Public Law 93-638 Self-
    determination contract for system modifications.
        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, irrigated crop 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
    habitat.
        The Blackfeet Tribe has identified the need for a Trout Fish
    Hatchery on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, and has initiated inter-
    agency cooperative measures for planning, development and construction
    of a facility. 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
    foster associative socio-economic interests and productively promote
    the commercial expansion of Tribal and Non-Tribal private businesses.
        The Blackfeet Tribal lake fisheries have historically produced
    trophy trout in impressive numbers and has been said to be the fly
    fishermen's best kept secret in the Northwest. The revenue generated
    through sales of Tribal fishing permits is substantial and is an
    important source of income for the Tribe. The Tribal fishery benefits
    many private enterprises locally and supports business in the
    surrounding Montana rural communities. Revenue from permit sales help
    meet the expense of conservation law enforcement and fisheries
    management. In the arena of a stressed reservation economy the revenue
    generated by the Tribal fisheries is significant and if jeopardized
    will irreparably damage the economic interest of the Tribe.
        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 the various benefits derived from this trust responsibility.
    The Tribe deems the stocking program to be successful in many economic
    categories, but has grown strongly concerned by recent USFWS changes in
    policy direction and reductions in appropriations for Federal
    hatcheries. Over time, policy and priority restructuring has had the
    effect of a disturbing decline in stocking rates which has raised alarm
    over the integrity of the Tribal fisheries. Any further reductions will
    have negative impacts creating a serious situation for the Tribe. A
    depleted fishery is a serious situation, which lends justification to
    expedite the necessary acquisition a Tribal Hatchery.
        The Blackfeet Tribe has worked cooperatively for five years with
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation to
    complete preliminary requirements for the hatchery site. Interior
    agency technical assistance has enabled the Tribe to ensure the best
    facility design for current fish culture practices and assure
    environmental and biologic quality control. The hatchery facility
    design will ensure quality production and maintain species integrity.
    The Tribe shall utilize a three phase production approach. Phase one
    shall include the engineering and design details to conform to
    production requirements. Phase two for construction shall be defined on
    the basis of phase one. Phase three shall involve operational OMB
    performance to achieve progressional development. The parameters and
    requirements for phase one have been logistically defined. Phase one
    will require a design to refine and document a final product that will
    allow the Tribe to shift to phase two and phase three. The Hatchery
    will have a 50 year operational capability, and all production shall be
    exclusively used to support closed lake systems in Indian Country. In
    addition, as the hatchery matures production capacity shall have the
    future potential to provide Fish to the other qualified Federally
    recognized Tribes residing in Montana.
        The Blackfeet have typically been regarded in terms of the Tribes
    special relationship with the buffalo, to be included, all fish and
    wildlife species were honored with equal respect and spiritual
    reverence. Specifically, the Tribal use of fish has a significant
    spiritual role where consumption of fish is used at the commencement of
    ceremonies. In addition, the advent of western society has placed
    subsistence burdens on the people of the Tribe since the late 1880's.
    To offset imposed adversity the Tribe has incorporated fish more
    frequently into daily diets, and like other western societal
    introductions, fish have evolved to portray an active culturally
    important role to the society structure. Today, within the reservations
    stressed economy the Tribe has a substantial vested interest in the
    procurement of the best stewardship for the Tribal fisheries.
        The Blackfeet Tribe Blackfeet Fish and Wildlife Department (BFWD),
    receives an annual Public Law 93-638 contract for the purpose of
    achieving fish and wildlife conservation management for purposes that
    include law enforcement, management operations, project work, and
    administrative support. The Tribe enjoys ever increasing fish and
    wildlife resource opportunities. This expansion generates new
    responsibilities and requires additional funding to support essential
    operational management needs. 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
    management 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 species of concern. The BFWD must provide the protection
    aspect of management for these ESA species. Big and small game species
    including nongame 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, and coyotes. The
    BIR's pothole system plays a very important role for waterfowl and
    migratory birds. The BFWD responsibility is for the management of all
    species within 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 strident management efforts. 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 or wolves. The TES program works equitably
    and cooperatively with Federal, State, and Tribal agencies to manage
    all threatened and endangered species.
        TES current level of funding is not adequate to maintain quality of
    service or meet federal mandates. Unlike Federal and State agencies
    Indian Tribes are not eligible for funding under section (6) of the
    Endangered Species Act. Much of the equipment is 10 years old and needs
    replacement. Costs for operations have increased while contract 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 attention. The
    TES mission dictates additional human resources and support equipment
    to meet increasing demands and facilitate Tribal Self-Determination.
        The St Mary Bull Trout Study Project has been conducted in
    cooperation with the Blackfeet Tribe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    Bureau of Reclamation, Glacier National Park, Alberta provincial
    government, and the Blood Tribe of Alberta. The study is entering its
    third year. Annually, the project is threatened by unavailable funds.
    All participants recognize the unique secular habitat conditions that
    exist within the St Mary drainage. Due to the undeveloped nature of
    large portions of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation and adjoining
    Glacier National Park nearly all necessary habitat requirements for
    recovery and sustainability are intact. The St Mary/Milk River
    Irrigation Project remains as the primary limiting factor. The study
    continues to collect data to monitor and identify parameters to assist
    recovery plans. The Tribe considers the probability of recovery of the
    Bull Trout in the St Mary drainage to have a high degree of success.
    The project area is unencumbered, experiencing very limited agriculture
    or industrial development use, with sparse residential populations, the
    St Mary Bull Trout situation is a recipe for success unlike anywhere
    else. Funding to procure the best research and management is vital to
    avoid a missed opportunity. A five year project appropriation is
    adequate to complete investigations.
        The St Mary/Milk River Irrigation Project includes water delivered
    from the St Mary River Drainage to the Milk River Drainage. The overall
    structure is dilapidated after nearly one hundred years since its
    construction. The system of water works negatively impacts the
    sustainability of the (ESA) Threatened Bull Trout and ESA candidate
    Westslope Cutthroat Trout. Renovation and reconstruction of key system
    elements would alleviate impacts on Bull Trout and reduce insufficient
    operation. Funding will allow work on four central structures;
    Modifications to the dam outlet will allow necessary ESA/NEPA instream
    flows and reduce the likelihood of 100 year rainfall event disasters;
    Replacement of the headworks to the canal system with adequate fish
    screens will prevent unnecessary Bull Trout mortalities and obstruct
    introduction of Bull Trout in the Milk River where it is a non-native
    species; Replacement of the St Mary Diversion Dam with an incorporated
    fish ladder will allow fish passage during critical Bull Trout
    Migration; Installation of a liner in the canal to reduce water seepage
    loss and increase St Mary water capacity; Engineering, planning, and
    development will be required for all structure work. The Tribe believes
    that without these improvements the Bull Trout will not be able to
    recover, and federal restrictions will be in effect for perpetuity,
    impeding advancements of Tribal interests.
        The Blackfeet Bull Trout/Westslope Cutthroat Supplementation
    Program, is the Tribes effort to work cooperatively to implement USFWS
    policy objectives which orient management towards native endemic
    species in Stream Systems. The Bull Trout and Westslope are native
    endemic species in the BIR streams. The Tribe will rely on the USFWS
    Federal trust responsibility for technical assistance in all stream
    fisheries management considerations. The BIR has 900 miles of streams
    and envisions the establishment of endemic species as a benefit to the
    Tribes economy and ensure cultural use for future generations to enjoy.
        The Blackfeet Tribe will continue to meet challenges in the best
    interest of the fish and wildlife resource with your help. The
    commitment demonstrated by the appropriation Committee strongly
    confirms a sincere pledge to promote self-sufficient efforts and foster
    realization of tangible measures towards Self-Determination.
                                     ______

                           Bureau of Land Management

            Prepared Statement of the Izaak Walton League of America

        Dear Senators Gorton and Byrd: On behalf of the Izaak Walton League
    of America and our 50,000 members and supporters nationwide, I am
    writing to submit written testimony for the record regarding the fiscal
    year 2001 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill. As a threshold matter, the League expresses its
    genuine appreciation for the Subcommittee's efforts during the past
    several years to secure additional funding for a variety of worthwhile
    programs. The stewardship of the nation's natural resources and the
    protection of its environmental quality not only provide incalculable
    benefits the current generation of Americans, but also insures a
    prosperous future for generations yet to come.
        The Subcommittee has, as always, a daunting challenge in allocating
    federal dollars among a variety of worthwhile programs. In general, we
    strongly encourage the Subcommittee to fund each of the natural
    resource management agencies under its purview at least to the level
    recommended in the Administration's fiscal year 1901 Budget Request. At
    the same time, we feel it appropriate to highlight several federal
    programs that are especially deserving of full or increased funding
    levels:

                         U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Operations and
    Maintenance.--The 93 million-acre NWRS, the only system of federal
    lands established specifically to conserve fish and wildlife resources,
    has suffered immensely from decades of deficient funding. However,
    during the last two years, the Subcommittee has provided much needed
    increases for addressing the maintenance backlog on the 516 refuges
    within the system. In order for the Service to continue its efforts
    toward eliminating the maintenance backlog, begin to effectively
    address backlogged operations projects, as well as meet the new
    requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, it
    is imperative that the Subcommittee continues to provide substantial
    funding increases for the NWRS. Consistent with the funding levels
    proposed by the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (C.A.R.E.),
    the League recommends $297 million for Operations and $69 million for
    Maintenance, for a total of $366 million (an $84 million increase above
    the Administration's fiscal year 1901 Budget Request).
        State Non-Game Wildlife Grants Fund.--The League wholeheartedly
    supports the administration's request for $100 million to fund a new
    grants program for states, tribes and U.S. Territories to utilize for
    wildlife management activities, education and recreation related to
    non-game species. In recent years, state fish and wildlife agencies
    have found it necessary to spend substantial time, manpower and money
    performing biological assessments of impacts to non-game fish and
    wildlife from proposed activities in order to comply with a variety of
    federal environmental laws. The International Association of Fish and
    Wildlife Agencies estimates that non-game fish and wildlife needs
    amount to approximately $1 billion nationwide. Currently, however, less
    than $100 million is specifically directed toward state non-game
    management programs. Non-game fish and wildlife, which comprise 85
    percent of the species that exist in the U.S., play critical, though
    often poorly understood, roles in the complex ecosystems upon which all
    species depend. Moreover, it is far less difficult and expensive to
    prevent a species from declining than to attempt recovering it after it
    has become listed as a federally threatened or endangered species.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        Wildlife & Fisheries and Threatened & Endangered Species.--The 264
    million acres managed by BLM supports a diverse array of fish and
    wildlife, including more than 250 species listed or proposed for
    listing under the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately, staffing and
    funding shortfalls have severely impaired the ability of the BLM to
    restore, protect and enhance the fish and wildlife resources under its
    care. The League believes the President's request of $26.7 million for
    Wildlife, $14.1 million for Fisheries and $23.7 million for Threatened
    and Endangered Species is insufficient for the agency to meet its fish
    and wildlife management responsibilities (a mere $9.2 million increase
    above fiscal year 1900 enacted funding levels). Therefore, we urge the
    Subcommittee to provide additional funding for BLM's Wildlife,
    Fisheries and T & E Species accounts beyond that requested by the
    Administration.
        Range Management.--Monitoring of grazing operations on public lands
    managed by the BLM continues to be a critically important, yet woefully
    underfunded, agency responsibility. Increased funding in range
    management will enable BLM to provide enhanced stewardship of rangeland
    and to reduce adverse impacts of livestock grazing operations on
    sensitive riparian and aquatic ecosystems. We urge the Subcommittee to
    fund the BLM Range Management activity at a level above the $72.8
    million requested by the President's in fiscal year 1901 in order to
    provide at least $6 million for expanding the agency's rangeland
    monitoring program.

            U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE

        Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management.--The Forest Service is
    charged with managing some of the most ecologically diverse and
    important fish and wildlife habitat in the nation. Unfortunately, the
    Forest Service has often been under-funded in areas unrelated to
    commodity production, significantly hampering the agency's ability to
    meet its multiple use mandate. In recent years, however, there has been
    an increasing emphasis on funding natural resource stewardship programs
    in recognition of the necessity to promote healthy forest ecosystems
    and the growing economic importance of recreational use of the National
    Forest System. The proposed new budget structure for the Forest
    Service, however, presents us with a great deal of difficulty in
    expressing support for particular programs and subsequently, tracking
    the expenditure of those funds. The League typically has supported and
    continues to support robust funding levels for the agency's Wildlife
    and Fisheries Habitat Management, which is now rolled into the
    Ecosystem Conservation line item. We ask the Subcommittee to provide at
    least $140 million for Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management for
    fiscal year 1901.
        Inventory and Monitoring.--The League urges the Subcommittee to
    fund the Inventory and Monitoring program (now included in the
    Ecosystem Assessment and Planning line item) above the administration-
    requested level by $6 million (for a total of $199 million) in order to
    enhance and expand rangeland monitoring on the National Forests.
    Rangelands on the National Forests not only provide forage for
    livestock, but also support a diverse array of wildlife species.
    Unfortunately, however, roughly one-quarter of the 93 million acres of
    Forest Service rangeland is not in proper functioning condition and the
    condition of another 46-percent is practically unknown.
        Forest Legacy Program.--The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is a
    federal program created in 1990 and extended under the provisions of
    the 1996 Food Security Act (``Farm Bill'') to provide funding for
    efforts to protect the long-term integrity of the nation's non-
    industrial private forestlands. The primary objective of the program is
    to identify environmentally important forestlands that are threatened
    by present or future conversion to non-forest uses and to protect them
    from conversion. For example, the FLP provides funds to States to
    acquire forested properties or to purchase conservation easements on
    forested lands at fair market value from interested landowners.
    Typically, Congress has appropriated less than ten percent of the
    funding needed to address identified project opportunities. This
    pattern of annual funding level is simply insufficient to allow for
    maximum realization of the program's potential conservation benefit.
    Accordingly, the League strongly supports the requested funding level
    of $60 million in fiscal year 1901.

                       LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND:

        Although generally considered a landmark piece of natural resource
    legislation, the promise of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
    has been largely unfulfilled during the past two decades. Multi-billion
    dollar paper balances for the fund are meaningless, as inadequate
    annual appropriations have prevented federal and state acquisition of
    ecologically significant lands and allowed vital fish and wildlife
    habitat to be lost forever. Full funding of the LWCF at the $900
    million authorized level is essential for local, state and Federal
    Government agencies to protect natural resources and provide the full
    range of outdoor recreational opportunities that many Americans expect
    and all Americans deserve.
        Although it should go without saying, the League also urges the
    Subcommittee to vigorously resist any efforts to attach legislative
    riders to the fiscal year 1901 Interior Appropriations bill. The
    American public has grown increasingly frustrated with this deceptive
    practice and given the complications associated with the appropriations
    process during the last few years, it would be unwise and inappropriate
    to allow it to reoccur.
        In closing, I wish to thank you for your thoughtful consideration
    of these views. As the appropriations process moves forward, the League
    looks forward to working with you and your staff to insure conservation
    of the nation's natural resources and preservation of our outdoor
    heritage. If you have any questions or require additional information,
    please contact me at (301) 548-0150, ext. 225.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Calpine Corporation

         GEOTHERMAL POWER PLANT DEVELOPMENT IN THE GLASS MOUNTAIN AREA

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Joseph
    Ronan, and I am Vice President of Calpine Corporation. With me today is
    Dr. L.R. Lawrence, Jr, President of Bob Lawrence & Associates, a
    consulting firm which supports us in Washington, DC. Calpine is the
    nation's largest generator of electric power from geothermal resources.
    We are also leading the nation in new, natural gas fueled electric
    power plants. We are proud of our role in providing the cleanest, most
    efficient electric power available from both fossil and renewable
    resources, using the finest, most efficient, cleanest, state of the art
    generation technology available.
        We come before you today to discuss a significant problem which
    poses a substantial and needless threat to our nation's environment.
    We, and our geothermal colleagues CalEnergy Corporation, are presently
    attempting to develop just under 100 Megawatts of geothermal electric
    power in the Klamath/Modoc Forests in accordance with the National
    Forest Plan and all associated, applicable laws. We have been involved
    in the project for a number of years now, following all necessary legal
    requirements; however, we have presently encountered an extra-ordinary
    obstruction by the Forest Service which is causing the unnecessary
    emission of many thousands of tons, per year, of nitrogen oxides,
    sulfur dioxide, and carbon. Specifically, from the EIA Annual Energy
    Outlook 1999, Electric Generation in 1997 was 3192 Billion Kilowatt
    Hours of Electricity, responsible for 532.4 Million Metric Tons of
    carbon emitted, 12.31 Million Short Tons of Sulfur Dioxide emitted, and
    5.89 Million Short Tons of Nitrogen Oxides emitted. Using these numbers
    as a reference, the impact of the 100 Megawatts of geothermal
    generation to be implemented at Glass Mountain, assuming 8000 hours per
    year of operation at full capacity, would be annual emissions savings
    of about 133,000 metric tons of carbon, 3,080 short tons of Sulfur
    Dioxide, and 1,470 short tons of Nitrogen Oxides. In other words, each
    year that implementation of our geothermal power plants is delayed
    causes the unnecessary emission of these amounts of pollutants that our
    geothermal power would, otherwise, offset.
        According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a nominal
    carbon removal rate from the atmosphere by an acre of trees is 2.77
    metric tons of carbon per year. Trees remove neither Sulfur Dioxide nor
    Nitrogen Oxides from the atmosphere. Therefore, the atmospheric benefit
    of the 100 MW of geothermal power is the equivalent of 48,014 acres of
    trees in terms of atmospheric carbon removal. The geothermal power
    offsets substantial quantities of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide,
    on which trees have no effect at all. Therefore, one year of delay of
    geothermal power plant implementation is the equivalent of the
    destruction of 48,014 acres of forest, not including the sulfur dioxide
    and nitrogen oxides effects.
        Calpine owns geothermal leases issued by the BLM for utilization of
    geothermal steam resources within federal lands in the Glass Mountain
    Known Geothermal Resource Area (KGRA) in Northern California. To
    utilize these resources, Calpine seeks to construct and operate a
    geothermal power plant, well field, and a transmission line, known as
    the Fourmile Hill Geothermal Development Project (Project). The Forest
    Service (FS) administers the surface of the lands that Calpine seeks to
    use for the Project, which is located within the Klamath and Modoc
    National Forests.
        The proposed geothermal facilities are in a broad landscape area
    encompassing the Glass Mountain KGRA, known as the Medicine Lake
    Highlands which surround Medicine Lake. This area contains paved roads,
    a campground, cabins, a boat ramp, and an active pumice mine. Motor
    boat use for water skiing, fishing and other pursuits occurs regularly
    on Medicine Lake. Extensive logging has occurred in the area. Needless
    to say, it is not a ``pristine'' area.
        On October 2, 1998, the FS and BLM, as joint lead agencies under
    the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), published a final
    Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the environmental
    impacts associated with issuing permits for the Project. In addition,
    we and our geothermal colleagues, CalEnergy, invested over $180,000 in
    an ethnographic study, carefully coordinated with the Forest Service,
    to ensure that we would not desecrate any historic or traditional
    Native American cultural or religious sites. However, after more than
    18 months of delay, the FS and BLM have not yet issued a Record of
    Decision (ROD) authorizing the required permits.
        The leases now owned by Calpine were originally issued by the BLM,
    consistent with federal law and policy on geothermal leasing, and in
    cooperation with the FS to predecessor lessees, between 1981 and 1988.
    The agencies then prepared environmental assessments (EAs) and
    supplemental documents for issuance of the leases, and identified
    resource protection measures in relation to potential development,
    production, and utilization at that time. The EAs identified the
    Medicine Lake Highlands as an area used by Native Americans for
    cultural and religious practices, but no surface occupancy restrictions
    were required in the leases. The EAs determined that consultation would
    be an appropriate mitigation measure to reduce potential conflicts.
        In 1994, Calpine completed drilling a temperature core hole well at
    the location of the proposed Fourmile Hill power plant. In 1995,
    Calpine submitted a Plan of Operations to BLM for an exploration well
    drilling project at the current development Project location. The
    exploration project encompassed the leases and five well pads and
    related roads which are part of the proposed current development
    Project. An EA for the exploration project was issued in December 1995,
    addressing, among other issues, potential impacts and mitigation
    measures for cultural resources and Native American concerns. The
    exploration project was approved by the BLM and FS in April 1996, with
    a finding of no significant impact on the environment (FONSI).
        In 1996, Calpine submitted to the FS and BLM a proposal to develop
    the Project on its geothermal leases. The Calpine 49.9 MW power plant
    and well field area would be located about three miles northwest of
    Medicine Lake, within the Glass Mountain KGRA on Calpine's Federal
    geothermal leases CACA 21924 and CACA 21926.
        The formal process for preparing an EIS for the Project began in
    June 1996. The Bonneville Power Administration (``BPA''), which is
    expected to purchase the electricity produced by the Project, was a
    cooperating agency in completion of the EIS. The EIS also served as an
    environmental impact report (``EIR'') for state and local agency
    authorizations and for compliance with the California Environmental
    Quality Act (``CEQA''). Environmental groups which have supported the
    project in writing include the Center for Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Technology (CEERT), Renewable Northwest Project, Natural
    Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Coalition, Northwest
    Environmental Associates, and the Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon.
        Meetings with affected tribal groups between October 1995 and April
    1996 indicated concerns about impacts on spiritual/religious use of the
    area and cultural resource sites. These concerns were addressed
    throughout the EIS process. During the EIS and ethnographic study
    process, the lead agencies and/or the ethnographer met and consulted
    with the affected tribes at least 19 times. The final EIS includes
    mitigation measures that reflect Calpine's ability and intent to
    complete the Project in a manner that will minimize its impact on
    traditional cultural values of tribes with interests in the area as
    well as other public resources and uses.
        The final EIS documents the low overall level of environmental
    impacts of the Project. The powerplant itself is not large and will not
    be visible from Medicine Lake or any other key areas. Similarly, the
    well drill pads and related facilities occupy little surface area and
    present limited visual impact.
    Calpine Agreements with Tribes and Tribal Bands
        Calpine has directly pursued consultation and agreement with the
    various interested tribes to resolve Native American concerns regarding
    the Project. Calpine completed an agreement with the Shasta and Upper
    Klamath River Canyon Tribes in April 1999 and with the Klamath Tribes
    in November 1999. The Hewise Pit River Band agreed to support the
    Project in June 1999 and assisted Calpine in discussions with several
    of the other Pit River Bands from the Alturas area. These agreements
    provide for protection of Native American cultural sites and burial
    grounds, the hiring of tribal monitors during construction, Native
    American sensitivity classes for the Project workforce, preferential
    hiring for project construction and operation, job training and
    scholarships. Calpine is also discussing with the Tribes the
    establishment of a fund from a portion of the Project cash flows to
    provide scholarships and grants for cultural and educational
    activities. The fund would be independently managed and available to
    all Native Americans in the area, including those who oppose the
    Project. As a result of these and other efforts during and after the
    EIS process, the majority of the tribal groups in the area now support
    the Project. These Native Americans--the Klamath Tribes, the Shasta and
    Upper Klamath River Canyon Tribes and the Hewise Band of the Pit River
    Tribe--understand that Calpine will complete the Project in a manner
    that will protect their traditional cultural uses. They recognize the
    employment and other economic benefits of the Project, the
    environmentally responsible production of energy that the geothermal
    project represents, and the serious and substantial measures that
    Calpine is taking to accommodate cultural resources and other concerns.
    This is reflected in several letters in favor of the Project. A single
    group, the Pit River Bands from the area around Burney, California
    (some 35 miles away from the project site), remain the principal
    Project opponents, and have been hostile to attempts to open a dialogue
    with them. We respectfully suggest that, while all views on such issues
    deserve consideration, this group represents a distinct minority of the
    Native Americans which may be affected by the Project.
        It is wrong, unreasonable, and substantially environmentally
    harmful for the FS and the BLM to withhold Record of Decision (ROD)
    approval of the project.
        Congress and the Council on Environmental Quality (``CEQ'') have
    not required universal time limits for completion of an EIS and
    issuance of a ROD. However, NEPA and its implementing regulations
    clearly embody a policy against delay. As stated in CEQ NEPA guidance,
    ``even large complex energy projects would require only about 12 months
    for the completion of the entire EIS process.'' Under NEPA procedures,
    the FS and BLM were otherwise free to issue ROD approval of the Project
    no later than 30 days after the October 2, 1998 publication of notice
    of the availability of the final EIS. Instead, over 18 months has
    passed since publication of the final EIS. There is no justification
    for this FS and BLM delay in ROD approval.
        In 1998, Calpine was awarded a $20.8 million incentive payment from
    the California Energy Commission (CEC) New Renewable Resources Account
    to assist the Project's economics during its first 5 years of
    operation. ROD delay has already caused Calpine to lose the first year
    of incentive funding for the Project, totaling nearly $4 million.
    Calpine faces the threat of losing over $4 million in second year CEC
    funding from impacts on the lease drilling and development schedule if
    a ROD is not issued in the Spring of this year. Continued delay in ROD
    approval threatens the geothermal energy development needs identified
    in the Geothermal Steam Act and by BPA in carrying out its statutory
    mandates. Employment and other economic benefits for the communities
    and tribes in the Project area are also at risk as well as the
    environment.
        Calpine requires a decision approving this Project prior to
    proceeding with further exploratory well drilling and other investments
    and actions critical to Project and lease development. If the drilling
    and related actions are not performed during the upcoming spring and
    summer operating season at the Project site, the Project development
    schedule will slip yet another year with all attendant, negative,
    environmental and societal impacts.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we respectfully request that you and the
    Subcommittee exert whatever authority you deem proper to enable ROD
    approval of this project immediately so that our country and its
    environment may benefit from this exceptionally important development.
    We thank you for your attention to this matter.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Pelican Island Preservation Society

        I am Walter O. Stieglitz from Micco, Florida. I am the President of
    the Pelican Island Preservation Society, a group of 80 highly dedicated
    volunteers united to support and protect the Pelican Island National
    Wildlife Refuge.
        The Pelican Island Refuge is in trouble and urgently needs the help
    of the Congress! When tiny Pelican Island, the Nation's first national
    wildlife refuge, was established in 1903 it had a staff of one. Today,
    the refuge contains over 5,000 acres and is managed as a complex with
    the nearby Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge has become
    urban in nature and is severely threatened by development. Management
    demands have multiplied many fold yet the complex still has a staff of
    one! Despite its great historical significance, the refuge has no
    public use facilities and is not even close to meeting its full
    potential. It is also totally lacking in administrative and maintenance
    facilities.
        In addition to its historical significance, Pelican Island Refuge
    is unique for the important fish and wildlife habitat it provides. The
    Indian River Lagoon, of which the refuge is a part, and its associated
    wetlands, islands and mangroves form a major ecological system that
    supports a tremendous diversity of subtropical and temperate plants and
    animals. According to the Florida Marine Resources Council, the Lagoon
    has more species of plants and animals than any other estuary in the
    United States. The refuge provides habitat for 11 listed threatened and
    endangered species. In addition, several State listed Species of
    Special Concern are found on the refuge.
        The refuge's greatest threat from development lies on its east side
    where an ongoing project to protect a 300 acre buffer area is centered.
    Up to this point 107 acres have been acquired. We wish to thank the
    Congress for appropriating a total of $6.5 million over fiscal years
    1999 and 2000 which, along with a $900,000 donation from the private
    sector, have enabled the acquisition of the 107 acres. The $6.3 million
    requested in fiscal year 2001 is urgently needed to acquire an
    additional 85 acres of strategically located lands (please see attached
    map). Willing sellers are available. The lands in question are on the
    barrier island and are highly sought after by development interests.
    Unless quick action is taken these lands will be lost forever and the
    integrity of the refuge will be threatened. We could see condominiums
    on the shoreline within \1/4\ mile of Pelican Island itself.
        The Pelican Island Refuge is badly in need of public use
    facilities. The Fish and Wildlife Service and Indian River County have
    jointly planned low impact facilities to be located on the barrier
    island portion of the refuge. These facilities will be cost shared by
    the county and the Service; however, the Service's share has not been
    funded. Because of its unique location, with easy access from major
    highways, the potential for refuge visitation is in the hundreds of
    thousands. In order to accommodate this level of visitation a
    moderately scaled visitor center is badly needed to provide information
    about the refuge as well as administrative facilities for refuge staff.
    The ideal location for this facility is the historic Kroegel Homestead
    in Sebastian. A center on this site would also provide environmental
    education opportunities for thousands of students in northern Indian
    River County and southern Brevard County. The Service has requested
    $530,000 in fiscal year 2001 to cover planning and engineering costs
    for a visitor center and we urge the Committee to support this amount.
    Ideally, funding for construction would be appropriated in fiscal year
    2002 to ensure that the center would be completed by Pelican Island's
    100th birthday on March 14, 2003.
        If the Pelican Island/Archie Carr refuge complex is to ever reach
    its full potential additional personnel must be assigned and operations
    and maintenance (O&M) funding increased substantially. To supplement
    the existing single employee, 3 additional PFT personnel are needed
    now. Completion of the visitor center and other facilities will require
    an additional 3 PFT employees. The need is to increase the current O&M
    funding of $83,000 to $400,000 in fiscal year 2001. By 2003 O&M funding
    should be increased to the $900,000 level.
        We wish to express our sincere appreciation to your Committee and
    the Congress for their providing $6.5 million over the last two fiscal
    years for acquisition of critically threatened lands at Pelican Island.
    We urge you to appropriate the full amount requested by the Fish and
    Wildlife Service in fiscal year 2001 for land acquisition ($6.3
    million) and construction planning ($530,000). We also ask that you
    consider an add on for O&M funding in the amount of $317,000 and the
    provision of an additional three permanent full time positions.
        There is very strong local support for the refuge and its
    development. In addition, 11 friends of refuge groups with over 2,500
    members, and scattered across the U.S., have endorsed the enclosed plan
    for the refuge.
        Thank you again for your past support and for the opportunity to
    provide input on the critical needs of our first national wildlife
    refuge.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the 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 and Staffing for Wildlife and Endangered Species
    Programs.--We at the Institute are very concerned about the lack of
    funding for the Bureau of Land Management, particularly its wildlife
    and Endangered Species programs. We are concerned that the President's
    requests for the Wildlife ($26.653 million and 244 full time employees)
    and the Threatened and Endangered Species Programs ($23.672 million and
    230 full time employees) are inadequate to meet the severe wildlife
    habitat problems existing on BLM lands, as evidenced by the large
    number of listed species, candidate species, and species proposed for
    listing under the Endangered Species Act.
        Nearly 100 species on BLM lands are already listed or proposed for
    listing under the Endangered Species Act. Several others are on the
    verge of being listed, including the sage grouse (petitioned), the
    lesser prairie chicken (warranted, but precluded), Columbian sharp-
    tailed grouse (petitioned), and the black-tailed prairie dog
    (warranted, but precluded). An appropriate investment in habitat
    conservation for sensitive species should yield enormous savings by
    averting future listings and the usually restrictive actions on land
    use that follow.
        To prevent future listings, the agency has identified two habitats
    for large-scale, 5-year restoration programs: sagebrush in the
    Intermountain West and the short and mixed-grass prairie in Montana,
    North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico.
        More than 70 million acres of sagebrush have disappeared because of
    past management practices and, more recently, severe wildfires that
    burned 1.7 million acres. This habitat is home for sage grouse,
    Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, gray partridge, California and mountain
    quail, chukar, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and Rocky Mountain and
    California bighorn sheep. About 80 percent of the remaining sage grouse
    habitat is on BLM lands and a listing will greatly affect how this land
    will be used and managed in the future.
        Much of the short and mixed grass prairie has been converted to
    agricultural lands. The BLM manages some of the last remaining unbroken
    prairie in the United States, which is home to more than five listed or
    potentially listed species, including the black-tailed prairie dog,
    blackfooted ferret, lesser prairie chicken, and the piping plover.
        These two initiatives also provide an opportunity for the BLM to
    proactively and comprehensively become involved in conserving a variety
    of birds species through active involvement in the North American Bird
    Conservation Initiative (NABCI). Coordination of federal land-
    management agency plans and on-the-ground work are two of the most
    important parts of this interagency, multiple partner effort. The
    agency's conservation of riparian areas has been a true success for
    declining and listed birds. Sagebrush and grasslands habitats are
    equally important in addressing declines in bird populations before
    they reach a crisis.
        We commend the Bureau of Land Management for developing long-range
    plans targeting these two large-scale habitat types. The agency has
    identified specific projects from the field and has built in
    accountability to determine whether the identified projects are being
    completed and whether they are improving habitat for the sage grouse,
    lesser prairie chicken, and many other wildlife species.
        Unfortunately for whatever reason, these two projects are
    dramatically underfunded in the agency's fiscal year 2001 budget
    request. In fiscal year 2001 alone, the Bureau identified $2 million in
    sagebrush projects that will remain unfunded. Most important is mapping
    and inventory to ground-truth GIS mapping efforts and beginning the
    inventory of all priority species in the sagebrush ecosystem through an
    interagency program. Applied research is needed to determine habitat
    relationships and the effects of disturbances from wildfire, mining
    activities, rangeland treatments, invasive plants, and disease. Other
    projects that will follow include reducing wildfire fuels, improving
    watershed and riparian areas, controlling invasive weeds, as well as
    specific wildlife and fish habitat projects.
        The prairie grasslands projects on BLM lands need an additional $2
    million in fiscal year 2001. The most immediate critical need is for an
    inventory of existing habitat and species at risk on BLM managed lands.
    Another $1 million is needed for applied research (1) to determine the
    consequences of habitat changes from land uses and lack of fire, oil
    and gas development, and other mineral extraction; (2) to control
    invasive species; (3) to develop techniques for restoring native
    grasslands; and (4) to determine the effects of habitat on plague in
    black-tailed prairie dogs. Once this is done, out-year projects include
    burning native grassland communities, improving riparian areas,
    controlling invasive species, such as leafy spurge, spotted knapweed,
    Canadian thistle, and purple loosestrife in wetland areas.
        Lastly, we are concerned that the agency is overly conservative in
    its FTE ceilings, particularly in the number of biologists of all
    categories. With the large number of species at risk in the western
    United States, staffing should be increased to address this ongoing
    problem. Currently, there is about one biologist per million acres of
    land. This is assuming that the distribution of biologists is uniform
    across all States, which it is not. With the large number of species at
    risk in the western United States, staffing should be increased to
    address this ongoing problem. We also suggest that BLM be asked to
    identify the agency's needs for specific problem species and habitats.
        Western Wyoming Gas Development.--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 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.
        A specific dilemma not addressed in the BLM budget is lack of
    monitoring for wildlife and other renewable resources as a foundation
    for major land-use decisions. Proposed gas development on the Pinedale
    Anticline will, according to a recent BLM Draft EIS, have major impacts
    on large mule deer and antelope herds, one of the largest remaining
    sage grouse flocks, and Class I trout streams. These impacts will
    likely last more than 50 years.
        To manage for these adverse impacts, the BLM suggests that
    monitoring will occur, yet they acknowledge in the Draft EIS that
    baseline monitoring called for in the existing Resource Management Plan
    has never been done because of lack of resources. We do not see this
    addressed in the BLM budget and request that it be included. Further,
    the BLM budget does not address mitigation of the impacts acknowledged
    in these decision documents. Active management to help get these herds,
    flocks, and streams through the long development period and
    comprehensive monitoring are needed if BLM is to discharge its
    stewardship responsibilities. These needs for staff and funds should be
    addressed in the fiscal year 2001 agency appropriations. Furthermore,
    these needs should be factored into future budget requests.
        Revision of Old Plans.--We support the agencies request for an
    additional $19 million and 108 full time employees in the fiscal year
    2001 budget to revise land-use planning documents. According to a
    recent report to Congress on Land Use Planning for Sustainable Resource
    Decisions, the BLM's land-use planning documents are woefully out of
    date. To quote this document, ``Of the 162 plans BLM currently uses to
    guide resource management on over 264 million acres of public lands,
    only 13 percent can be considered current to today's needs. The other
    plans are varying stages of decline and will continue to degenerate in
    usability as they continue to age . . . as they age, the more suspect
    they become and the credibility of the BLM's management effort comes
    into question as well, opening the door for costly litigation.'' We
    agree with this statement and are appalled that the agency has waited
    so long to rectify this problem.
        Riparian Management.--We support the Bureau's 2001 request for
    riparian management ($26.653 million); however, we are concerned this
    amount is inadequate. 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.
        Control of Wild Horses and Burros.--We support the Administration's
    request for the Wild Horse and Burro Program. The agency estimates that
    by next year it will have 50,600 more animals than the land can
    sustain. Overpopulation of these herds has severely affected range
    habitat and riparian areas and increases the risk that sage grouse and
    other special status species will be listed. We support the increased
    funding of $9 million as a wise investment in land stewardship.
        Challenge Cost Share.--We support the BLM's Challenge Cost Share
    Program and the $3 million request for this program; however, any
    amount earmarked for Challenge Cost Share should also be a budget add-
    on. We are concerned about the earmark for the National Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation of $1.4 million. This should be an add on to the
    current wildlife subactivity rather than an earmark. The BLM has such a
    lean budget that earmarks for specific programs under past budgets have
    caused distortion in the agency's programs.
        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, such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. So far, more
    than 800,000 acres of big game range has been improved.
        An estimated $600,000 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.
        In conclusion, we are very concerned about funding for the BLM,
    particularly its wildlife and Endangered Species 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. The current state
    of BLM lands affects all interest groups from ranchers,
    environmentalists, sportsmen and sportswomen to fishers, miners, and
    developers. If listings are to be averted, efforts to recover habitat
    on these lands will require a unified approach widely supported by
    these and other groups. If I or the Wildlife Management Institute can
    be of any assistance in this endeavor, please let me know.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California

        Dear Chairman Gorton: Support for fiscal year 2001 Federal Funding
    of $5.2 Million for the Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land
    Management's Salinity Control Program
        Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
    year 2001 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 $39,011,000 in BLM's
    budget for Management of Land and Resources--Soil, Water and Air
    Management. The Colorado River Board of California, the state agency
    charged with protecting California's interests and rights in the water
    and power resources of the Colorado River System, formally requests
    that Congress 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 Honorable Slade Gorton March
    16, 2000 Page California's Colorado River water users are presently
    suffering economic damages estimated at about $750 million per year due
    to the river's salinity. The potential impact of failing to move
    forward with the Plan of Implementation for salinity control would be
    to permit these damages in the Lower Basin to reach an estimated $1.25
    billion annually by the year 2015. The Colorado River is, and will
    continue to be, a major and vital water resource to the 17 million
    residents of southern California. 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 the Partnership for the National Trails System

        The Partnership for the National Trails System appreciates your
    support over the past several years, through operations funding and
    earmarked Challenge Cost Share funds, for the national scenic and
    historic trails administered by the National Park Service. We
    especially appreciate the substantial increase in funding you provided
    for the Trail of Tears and the first funding for the Potomac Heritage
    Trail in fiscal year 2000. We also appreciate your allocation of funds
    to support the trails administered and managed by the Forest Service.
    To continue the progress that you have fostered the Partnership
    requests that you provide annual operations funding for each of the 20
    national scenic and historic trails for fiscal year 2001 through these
    appropriations:
      --National Park Service.--$6.735 million for the administration of 15
            trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails program
            by the Washington Park Service office.
      --USDA Forest Service.--$1.99 million to administer four trails and
            $550,000 for portions of 10 trails managed through agreements
            with the Park Service and Bureau of Land Management; $1.1
            million for Continental Divide Trail construction, $250,000 for
            Florida Trail construction and $500,000 for Pacific Crest Trail
            construction.
      --Bureau of Land Management.--$280,000 for administration of the
            Iditarod National Historic Trail and $1.01 million for the
            portions of 10 trails managed through agreements with the Park
            Service and Forest Service; $1.95 million to complete
            construction of the National Historic Trails Interpretive
            Center in Casper, Wyoming.
        We ask that you increase the appropriation by $2.35 million for the
    National Park Service Challenge Cost Share Program and continue to
    earmark one-third of those funds (approximately $1,350,000) for the 15
    national scenic and historic trails it administers.
        We ask that you appropriate $650,000 to the National Park Service
    National Center for Recreation and Conservation to support an
    interagency pilot project to develop a consistent system-wide
    Geographic Information System (GIS) for the National Trails System.
        We ask that you appropriate from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund $5 million for acquisition of lands by the USDA Forest Service to
    protect the scenic quality and continuity of the Pacific Crest National
    Scenic Trail, $5 million for acquisition of land for the Florida
    National Scenic Trail, $1 million for acquisition of lands by the
    Bureau of Land Management to protect the scenic quality of the Pacific
    Crest National Scenic Trail, and $1.6 million to the National Park
    Service to acquire the site for the authorized interpretive center for
    the Ice Age National Scenic Trail.
        We also ask that you appropriate from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund $2 million to the State of Wisconsin to match state
    funds available for acquisition of land for the Ice Age National Scenic
    Trail and $500,000 each to the States of Michigan and New York to match
    funds available for acquisition of lands for the North Country National
    Scenic Trail.
        The $650,000 we request for GIS will fund the first year of a 5
    year interagency effort to develop a consistent Geographic Information
    System for all 20 national scenic and historic trails. This pilot
    project will build upon work already underway on the Ice Age,
    Appalachian, Florida, Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer and Pony
    Express Trails to develop consistent procedures for gathering, storing
    and mapping information that can be applied across the National Trails
    System. The consistency of the system will allow trail managers and
    users to share reliable information across nearly 40,000 miles of
    trails spanning 44 States, hundreds of governmental jurisdictions and
    thousands of ownership parcels. A consistent system-wide GIS will aid
    agency managers and citizen volunteers in monitoring, protecting and
    managing thousands of significant cultural resource sites, occurrences
    of threatened or endangered species, bridges, signs and other
    attributes of these trails.
        Of the $6.735 million we request for the National Park Service,
    $1.16 million will finally provide significant operational support for
    6 of the trails that have received little funding. Annual operations
    funding for the Anza, Overmountain Victory, Natchez Trace, California,
    Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express Trails ranges from $26,00 to $78,000
    and averages about $56,000, barely enough money to pay for a federal
    trail coordinator with little left for projects that nurture the trail.
    The funds we request will provide full-time management for each of
    these trails and support projects, such as marking and interpreting
    sites along the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail through the heart of
    California's largest communities, mobilizing local citizen groups and
    government agencies.
        Along the Natchez Trace Parkway and in the southern Appalachian
    mountains small dedicated organizations are patiently knitting together
    segments of the Natchez Trace and Overmountain Victory Trails so that
    someday hikers will be able to retrace the steps of citizen soldiers of
    the Revolutionary War and returning Mississippi River boatmen of the
    last century. The additional funding we request will quicken the pace
    of these efforts by strengthening the capacity for planning and
    organizing citizen-led trail making projects.
        The $577,000 increase we request for the interagency Salt Lake City
    Trails office will enable the Park Service to better support
    collaborative management with the Bureau of Land Management and the
    Forest Service of four national historic trails that stretch 11,000
    miles and extend across 11 States. With these funds the three agencies,
    working closely with citizen organizations, will revise the feasibility
    studies for the Oregon and California Trails, produce trail map
    brochures for the California and Pony Express Trails, and expand the
    GIS for all four trails. Another collaborative project, involving state
    departments of transportation, will begin to mark the auto tour routes
    for all four trails across 11 States.
        All of these trails are amazingly complicated undertakings, none
    more so than the 4,000 mile North Country Trail. With more than 600
    miles of Trail across 7 national forests in 5 States there is good
    reason for close collaboration between the Park Service and Forest
    Service to ensure consistent management that provides high quality
    experiences for hikers. Limited budgets for both agencies have severely
    hampered their ability to practice this effective management procedure.
    The $546,000 we request will give them that ability for the first time
    while also providing greater support for the trail building led by the
    North Country Trail Association, hastening the day when our nation's
    longest national scenic trail will be fully opened for use.
        The Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation has pioneered in using a
    Geographic Information System (GIS) to map and record the many natural
    and cultural resources comprising the 1200 mile Ice Age Trail. This
    work has been supported by private and Park Service funding and
    equipment and office space provided by the Wisconsin Department of
    Natural Resources. The $631,000 we request will enable the Park Service
    to expand this GIS capability to more efficiently plan resource
    protection, trail construction and maintenance to correct unsafe
    conditions and better mark the Trail for users. The funds will also
    provide assistance to the Foundation to better equip, train and support
    the volunteers who build and maintain the Ice Age Trail.
        It is equally important that the national scenic and national
    historic trails administered or managed by the United States Forest
    Service and the Bureau of Land Management receive similar budgetary
    recognition as America's Congressionally designated premier trails.
    Annual operations funding for these trails distinct from the general
    recreation program appropriations for these two agencies is essential
    to insure that these trails receive appropriate priority in annual work
    plans.
        Recognizing the special responsibility for administering three
    national scenic trails and one national historic trail, the Chief of
    the Forest Service recommended that $1 million be used for those trails
    in fiscal year 1995. As you have done for several years, consistent
    operations funding should be provided annually for these trails. We ask
    you to appropriate $1.99 million as a separate budget item specifically
    for the Continental Divide, Florida and Pacific Crest National Scenic
    Trails and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail. Recognizing the on-
    the-ground management responsibility the Forest Service has for 838
    miles of the Appalachian Trail, more than 600 miles of the North
    Country Trail, and sections of the Ice Age, Lewis & Clark, California,
    Iditarod, Oregon, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express and Santa Fe
    trails, we ask you to appropriate $555,000 specifically for these
    trails.
        Administration of four national trails, two more than 1000 miles
    long and two over 2000 miles long, each crossing many management
    jurisdictions, is a complex endeavor. Each of these long trails passes
    through tens or hundreds of thousands of acres of land with great
    variations in topography, plant, animal and human communities. Each
    trail encompasses cultural and natural resources requiring sensitive
    management. As management endeavors they are comparable in scale and
    needs to the national forests, yet the Forest Service does not
    administer them as distinct entities with annual reliable budgets.
    These Congressionally authorized trails should be administered as
    distinct entities with appropriate supervision by the Forest Service.
    We ask that you provide the funding and direction to do so. Here are
    several examples of what can be accomplished.
        Work is underway, supported by funds you provided for fiscal year
    1999 and fiscal year 2000, to close several major gaps in the Florida
    National Scenic Trail. The Florida Trail Association can now build
    Trail across Eglin Air Force Base in the Ocala National Forest and
    along the Suwannee River, adding about 100 miles to the completed
    Florida Trail. The Partnership requests that you provide an additional
    $250,000 for fiscal year 2001 to the Forest Service for trail
    construction on these and other segments of the Florida Trail.
        The Continental Divide Trail Alliance, with Forest Service
    assistance and funding from the outdoor recreation industry, surveyed
    the entire 3200 mile route of the Continental Divide Trail documenting
    $10.3 million of construction projects needed to complete the Trail. To
    continue new trail construction, begun with fiscal year 1998 funding,
    we ask that you appropriate $700,000 to plan 211 miles of new trail and
    $1.1 million to build or reconstruct 200 miles of the Continental
    Divide Trail in fiscal year 2001.
        Nearly 300 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail, an original component
    of the National Trails System, is located on 227 narrow easements
    across private land. The Pacific Crest Trail Association has surveyed
    them and identified numerous encroachments that degrade the scenic
    quality of the PCT, as well as sections of the Trail located on the
    edge of dangerous highways. A full-time multi-regional Forest Service
    Trail Administrator is needed to better monitor these easements and
    manage the 2,650 mile Pacific Crest Trail in a consistent manner across
    and near 24 national forests, six national parks, four Bureau of Land
    Management resource areas and several state and county parks. We
    request $600,000 for the Forest Service to administer the Pacific Crest
    Trail for fiscal year 2001. We ask that you direct the Forest Service
    to use these funds to provide a full-time multi-regional Trail
    Administrator and a dedicated lands team that can work with the Pacific
    Crest Trail Association and the Park Service National Trail Land
    Resources Program Center to begin to acquire safe and scenic corridor
    and provide consistent, collaborative public/private management for the
    Pacific Crest Trail.
        While the Bureau of Land Management has administrative authority
    for just the Iditarod National Historic Trail, it has on-the-ground
    management responsibility for 568 miles of two scenic trails and 3,590
    miles of eight historic trails administered by the National Park
    Service and U.S. Forest Service. However, the Bureau of Land Management
    budget does not reflect this responsibility; the agency receives no
    funding specifically for these trails. To correct this oversight you
    directed funds to these trails for fiscal year 1999. We ask that you
    continue to provide this guidance by appropriating $280,000 for fiscal
    year 2001 earmarked as a separate budget item for administration of the
    Iditarod National Historic Trail and $1,009,000 for management of the
    portions of the 10 other trails under the care of the Bureau of Land
    Management. We urge you to appropriate the $41.944 million requested
    for ``Recreation Resource Management'' to fully-fund programs and
    projects benefitting trails.
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund provides the essential means
    to protect critical resources of the national scenic and historic
    trails. There are many important historical sites and critical
    stretches of these trails that remain unprotected and vulnerable to
    destruction or loss for public use. We request that you appropriate the
    $900 million authorized to be spent annually from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund.
        The Partnership requests that you appropriate from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund $5 million for acquisition of lands by the
    United States Forest Service to protect the scenic quality and
    continuity of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail and $5 million to
    connect sections of the Florida National Scenic Trail on the national
    forests in Florida and St. Marks Wildlife Refuge. We also request $1
    million for the Bureau of Land Management to acquire lands to protect
    the scenic quality of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail in
    California, and $1.6 million for the National Park Service to acquire
    the site for the authorized interpretive center for the Ice Age
    National Scenic Trail.
        The National Trails System Act encourages states to assist in the
    conservation of the resources and development of the national scenic
    and historic trails. Florida and Wisconsin have committed millions of
    dollars to help conserve the resources of the Florida and Ice Age
    National Scenic Trails, respectively. Michigan, Minnesota, New York and
    Wisconsin have funding programs, predicated on matching funds, that can
    help acquire lands for the North Country National Scenic Trail. The
    Partnership asks that you provide grants from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund to assist and encourage Wisconsin in acquiring land
    for the Ice Age Trail and Michigan and New York in acquiring land for
    the North Country Trail.
        The essential funding requests to support these trails are detailed
    in Attachment #3.
        Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public
    agencies have been a hallmark of the National Trails System since its
    inception. These partnerships create the enduring strength of the
    Trails System and the trail communities that sustain it. They combine
    the local, grass-roots energy and responsiveness of volunteers with the
    responsible continuity of public agencies. They also provide a way to
    enlist private financial support for public projects, usually resulting
    in a greater than equal match of funds.
        The commitment of the private trail organizations toward the
    success of these partnerships as the means for making these trails
    grows even as Congress' support for the trails has grown. In 1999 the
    trail organizations channeled 553,905 hours of documented volunteer
    labor valued at $7,422,326 to help sustain the national scenic and
    historic trails. This is a 10 percent increase over the volunteer labor
    reported for 1998. The trail organizations also directly applied
    private sector contributions of $5,780,340 to benefit the trails, an
    increase of $1.4 million over the money contributed in 1998. These
    contributions are documented in Attachment #1.
        The earmarked Challenge Cost Share funds have significantly
    increased the activity along the trails administered by the National
    Park Service. For fiscal year 1999 14 of the 15 trails have reported
    using $640,790 provided by Congress to fund 72 projects with a total
    value of $1,810,670. The $1,169,880 provided by trail organizations and
    state and local government agencies to support these projects
    represents a 1.8:1 match to the Federal investment. Some projects that
    have been completed with this funding are detailed in Attachment #2.
        The Challenge Cost Share approach is one of the most effective and
    efficient ways for Federal agencies to accomplish a wide array of
    projects for public benefit while also sustaining partnerships
    involving countless private citizens in doing public service work. The
    Partnership supports the Administration's $2.35 million increase in
    Challenge Cost Share funding as a wise investment of public money that
    will generate public benefits many times greater than the appropriation
    made. We ask that you continue to direct a portion of those funds
    specifically toward the national scenic and historic trails to continue
    the steady progress underway to make these trails fully available for
    public enjoyment.

    ATTACHMENT 1.--CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 1999 TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL TRAILS
           SYSTEM BY NATIONAL SCENIC AND HISTORIC TRAIL ORGANIZATIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   ESTIMATED
                                      VOLUNTEER     VALUE OF     FINANCIAL
              ORGANIZATION              HOURS      VOLUNTEER   CONTRIBUTIONS
                                                     LABOR
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Appalachian Trail Conference...      181,521   $2,432,381    $3,262,500
    Continental Divide Trail           \1\ 1,500       20,100  .............
     Society.......................
    Continental Divide Trail          \1\ 36,000      482,400   \1\ 443,000
     Alliance......................
    Florida Trail Association......       43,618      584,481       123,500
    Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation       60,015      804,201       644,784
    Iditarod Trail Committee.......   \1\ 16,800      225,120    \1\ 75,000
    Heritage Trails/Amigos De Anza    \1\ 15,640      209,576  .............
     Juan Bautista De Anza Trail...
    Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona        1,318       17,661  .............
    Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage          27,660      179,185       168,116
     Foundation....................
    Mormon Trails Association......        4,540       60,836         3,305
    Iowa Mormon Trails Association.        4,300       57,620         4,000
    Natchez Trace Trail Conference.   \1\ 12,800       37,520    \1\ 10,000
    National Pony Express                  1,740       23,316    \1\ 14,000
     Association...................
    Pony Express Trail Association.        2,430       57,051        13,518
    Nez Perce Trail Foundation.....      \1\ 595        7,973         1,642
    North Country Trail Association       24,476      327,978       127,777
    Oregon-California Trails          \1\ 28,500      381,900       173,100
     Association...................
    Overmountain Victory Trail             9,144      122,530         2,573
     Association...................
    Pacific Crest Trail Association   \1\ 30,000      402,000       284,925
    Potomac Heritage Partnership...    \1\ 7,800      104,520       340,600
    Santa Fe Trail Association.....   \1\ 16,300      218,420        61,000
    Trail of Tears Association.....       37,208      498,587        37,000
                                    ----------------------------------------
          Total....................      553,905    7,422,326     5,780,340
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Estimate.

    ATTACHMENT 2.--1999 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CHALLENGE COST SHARE PROJECTS
                   ON THE NATIONAL SCENIC AND HISTORIC TRAILS

        Reports document 72 Challenge Cost Share projects undertaken during
    fiscal year 1999 valued at $1,810,670 on 14 of the 15 national scenic
    and historic trails administered by the National Park Service. Projects
    include:
        Trail design and construction.--Construction of several segments of
    the North Country Trail in Michigan and Wisconsin;
        Trail heads and parking facilities.--Informational kiosks and trail
    registers for the North Country Trail in New York; two trailheads, one
    with accessible parking for disabled users, on the Ice Age Trail;
        Bridges, boardwalks and shelters constructed.--Bridges on the
    Appalachian, Natchez Trace, and North Country Trails; boardwalks on the
    Appalachian and North Country Trails; shelters on the North Country
    Trail in New York and Pennsylvania and on the Appalachian Trail in
    North Carolina;
        Trail mapping and marking.--Mapping of the North Country Trail,
    initial work to develop a GIS database for the Santa Fe Trail and to
    produce maps available over the Internet for the Juan Bautista de Anza
    Trail; trail marking on the North Country Trail in Wisconsin, on the
    Lewis & Clark Trail in Montana and all known expedition campsites along
    the Snake and Columbia Rivers in Washington, and auto tour routes for
    the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer and Pony Express Trails through
    Nebraska;
        Interpretive signing installed.--Wayside exhibits for the Ice Age
    Trail in Dane County and at the Devils Lake State Park Unit of the Ice
    Age National Scientific Reserve, for the Oregon and California Trails
    at City of Rocks in Idaho, for the Lewis & Clark Trail at Fort Osage,
    Missouri and in North Dakota;
        Exhibits and brochures developed.--Museum exhibits for the Juan
    Bautista de Anza Trail in Tucson, Arizona and Monterey County,
    California; state trail brochures for the North Country Trail;
    interpretive brochure for the Lewis & Clark Trail in Montana;
        Natural resource management/Landscape restorations.--Prairie/
    grassland restorations on the Ice Age Trail with Dane County Parks
    Department; natural diversity inventories along the Appalachian Trail
    in New York and New Jersey;
        Information services and educational events.--Development of a
    trail slide show and chapter operations manuals for the North Country
    Trail Association; development of a WWWeb page for the Dallas County
    section of the Selma-to-Montgomery Trail and an audio cassette tour
    program explaining the 20 mile portage route around the Great Falls of
    the Missouri River and interpretive programs at Fort Mandan, North
    Dakota and Fort Clatsop, Oregon on the Lewis & Clark Trail; wagon train
    commemorating 150th Anniversary of the California Trail;
        Funding supported regional skills training workshops for
    volunteers, development of an interpretive plan, sanitation research
    and development of guidelines for backcountry outhouses along the
    Appalachian Trail. Funding supported organizational development
    training for the North Country Trail Association. Funding also
    supported development of a trailwide stewardship plan for the Lewis &
    Clark Trail and other preparations for the approaching Bicentennial of
    the Corps of Discovery Expedition.

        ATTACHMENT 3.--PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM FISCAL YEAR 2001 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR THE
                                                 NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FISCAL YEAR
                                      FISCAL YEAR     FISCAL YEAR        2001        PROJECT/PROGRAMS POSSIBLE WITH
             AGENCY/TRAIL            2000 APPROP.     2001 ADMIN.     PARTNERSHIP           INCREASED FUNDING
                                                        REQUEST         REQUEST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PARK SERVICE:
        Appalachian...............        $886,000        $894,000        $894,000  Law enforcement and resource
                                                                                     management by NPS Park staff
                                                                                     and support of volunteer-based
                                                                                     trail and land management;
        Natchez Trace.............          26,000          26,000         151,000  Planning, guidance & support for
                                                                                     trail development projects with
                                                                                     NTTC;
        California................          61,000          61,000         334,000  Interagency collaboration to
                                                                                     produce trail brochure, install
                                                                                     Trail markers & interpretive
                                                                                     waysides, revise feasibility
                                                                                     study and increase GIS data for
                                                                                     Trail;
        Ice Age...................         341,000         346,000         631,000  Trail corridor planning and GIS
                                                                                     mapping; Support for Trail
                                                                                     construction, maintenance and
                                                                                     resource management by IAP&TF
                                                                                     and local agencies;
        Juan Bautista de Anza.....          77,000         187,000         187,000  Guidance and coordination of
                                                                                     Trail site protection,
                                                                                     interpretation & development
                                                                                     projects with local agencies &
                                                                                     organizations;
        Lewis & Clark.............       1,174,000       1,640,000       1,640,000  Planning, coordination & support
                                                                                     for local Bicentennial
                                                                                     projects;
        Mormon Pioneer............          78,000          78,000         131,000  Coordinate interpretive exhibits
                                                                                     and route marking with 12
                                                                                     states for 4 trails;
        North Country.............         226,000         227,000         546,000  Management consistency through
                                                                                     closer collaboration with
                                                                                     Forest Service; Trail route
                                                                                     planning and mapping; Support
                                                                                     for NCTA trail making projects;
        Oregon....................         111,000         115,000         208,000  Interagency collaboration to
                                                                                     revise feasibility study,
                                                                                     interpret auto tour routes and
                                                                                     critical sites like South Pass
                                                                                     and expand GIS database;
        Overmountain Victory......          36,000          36,000         136,000  Fulltime trail administration by
                                                                                     NPS; new route signs and
                                                                                     interpretive exhibits;
        Pony Express..............          61,000          61,000         219,000  Interagency collaboration to
                                                                                     produce trail brochure, install
                                                                                     Trail markers & interpretive
                                                                                     way sides, and increase GIS
                                                                                     data for Trail;
        Potomac Heritage..........         150,000         150,000         250,000  Assistance to local agencies and
                                                                                     organizations for trail
                                                                                     planning and educational
                                                                                     projects;
        Santa Fe..................     \1\ 481,000         493,000         680,000  Coordinate systematic cultural
                                                                                     resource management and
                                                                                     interpretive program;
        Selma to Montgomery.......         100,000         261,000         261,000  Comprehensive management plan
                                                                                     developed and trail
                                                                                     interpretation begun in
                                                                                     collaboration with citizen
                                                                                     support organizations & local
                                                                                     agencies;
        Trail of Tears............         249,000         249,000         249,000  Survey, protection &
                                                                                     interpretation of critical
                                                                                     Trail sites with TOTA;
    NTS-Washington Office.........         217,000         218,000         218,000  Program coordination and special
                                                                                     projects funding;
                                   ------------------------------------------------
          Total...................       4,274,000       5,042,000       6,735,000
                                   ================================================
    Challenge Cost Share..........       1,991,000   \2\ 4,333,000        \1/3\ of  Challenge cost share grants for
                                                                     appropriation   trail projects;
    Interagency GIS Pilot Project.     \3\ 200,000  ..............         650,000  Development of GIS for National
                                                                                     Trails System starting with Ice
                                                                                     Age, Florida, Appalachian,
                                                                                     Oregon-California, Mormon
                                                                                     Pioneer & Pony Express Trails;
    BLM:
        Iditarod Trail............  ..............  ..............         280,000  Coordination and support for
                                                                                     collaborative management with
                                                                                     other Federal agencies,
                                                                                     Iditarod Trail organizations
                                                                                     and State of Alaska; bridges
                                                                                     and cabins;
        Continental Divide, Oregon  ..............  ..............       1,009,000  California Trail resource
         Pacific Crest,                                                              inventories in Wyoming and
         California, Anza, Lewis &                                                   California; Lewis & Clark
         Clark, Mormon Pioneer,                                                      Bicentennial preparations in
         Santa Fe, Nez Perce &                                                       Idaho and Montana; Archaeology
         Pony Express Trails.                                                        at Little Sandy and Dry Sandy
                                                                                     Pony Express Stations, WY;
                                                                                     Interpretive exhibits for Anza
                                                                                     Trail at Painted Rock, AZ;
                                                                                     Marking 230 miles of
                                                                                     Continental Divide Trail in
                                                                                     Wyoming and 120 miles of Pony
                                                                                     Express Trail in Nevada;
                                                                                     Pacific Crest Trail maintenance
                                                                                     in CA; Interagency management
                                                                                     collaboration;
                                   ------------------------------------------------
          Total...................  ..............  ..............       1,289,000
                                   ================================================
    Iditarod Trail................  ..............         385,000         385,000  Feasibility study for Iditarod
                                                                                     Trail Interpretive/visitor
                                                                                     Center
    Historic Trails Center........       2,600,000  ..............       1,950,700  Complete construction of
                                                                                     National Historic Trails
                                                                                     Interpretive Center in Casper,
                                                                                     Wyoming
    FOREST SERVICE:
        Continental Divide........         235,000  ..............         935,000  Assumption of full
        Florida...................         150,000  ..............         250,000   administrative responsibility
        Pacific Rest..............         410,000  ..............         600,000   and leadership for consistent
        Nez Perce Trains..........         205,000  ..............         205,000   interagency collaboration for
                                                         1,000,000                   each trail; support for
                                                                                     ongoing, consistent management
                                                                                     with trail organization and
                                                                                     local agency partners; trail
                                                                                     brochures, signs, project
                                                                                     planning etc. $700,000 for
                                                                                     planning new sections of CDT,
                                                                                     $500,000 for full time
                                                                                     Administrator & land
                                                                                     acquisition team for PCT;
        AT, NCT, IAT, IDT, CAT,            350,000         350,000         550,000  Improved trail maintenance,
         L&CT, OT, OVT, PXT, SFT.                                                    marking, interpretation,
                                                                                     archaeological studies,
                                                                                     historic site protection and
                                                                                     trailhead facilities for trail
                                                                                     segments in National Forests;
                                                                                     Liaison for collaborative
                                                                                     management of North Country
                                                                                     Trail with National Park
                                                                                     Service;
        Continental Divide Trail..         462,000  ..............       1,100,000  Trail construction projects
                                                                                     along the Continental Divide
                                                                                     Trail;
        Florida Trail.............         231,000  ..............         250,000  Trail construction projects in
                                                                                     Eglin Air Force Base, Ocala
                                                                                     National Forest, Cross Florida
                                                                                     Greenway and along Suwannee
                                                                                     River;
        Pacific Crest Trail.......  ..............  ..............         500,000  Trail construction: new bridges
                                                                                     and trail relocations in
                                                                                     Regions 5 & 6;
                                   ------------------------------------------------
          Total...................       2,043,000       1,350,000       4,390,000
                                   ================================================
    Nat. Forest System Trail            20,445,000      20,000,000      40,000,000  Trail maintenance throughout the
     Maintenance.                                                                    National Forest System.
    Nat. Forest System Trail            29,582,000      31,000,000      31,000,000  New trail construction and trail
     Construction.                                                                   re-construction throughout the
                                                                                     National Forest System.
    LWCF grant Continental Divide          700,000  ..............         150,000  USDA-Forest Service enabled to
     Trail.                                                                          acquire lands in Colorado and
                                                                                     New Mexico to establish new
                                                                                     sections of the Continental
                                                                                     Divide Trail;
    LWCF grant Pacific Crest Trail       1,500,000  ..............       5,000,000  USDA-Forest Service enabled to
                                                                                     acquire lands in southern
                                                                                     California, Oregon and southern
                                                                                     Washington to preserve the
                                                                                     continuity and scenic integrity
                                                                                     of the Pacific Crest Trail;
    LWCF grant Pacific Crest Trail  ..............  ..............       1,000,000  BLM enabled to acquire lands in
                                                                                     California to preserve the
                                                                                     continuity and scenic integrity
                                                                                     of the Pacific Crest Trail;
    LWCF grant Florida Trail......  ..............  ..............       5,000,000  USDA-Forest Service enabled to
                                                                                     acquire lands to protect 23
                                                                                     miles of threatened Florida
                                                                                     Trail corridor and connect
                                                                                     trail segments across private
                                                                                     land between National Forests,
                                                                                     St. Marks Wildlife Refuge &
                                                                                     Eglin Air Base;
    LWCF grant Ice Age Trail--           2,000,000  ..............       2,000,000  Provide assistance to State of
     Wisconsin \4\.                                                                  Wisconsin to protect threatened
                                                                                     Ice Age Trail corridor and
                                                                                     connect trail segments across
                                                                                     private land in Dane, Columbia,
                                                                                     Portage, Washington and Waupaca
                                                                                     Counties;
    LWCF grant Ice Age Trail......  ..............  ..............       1,600,000  NPS enabled to purchase site for
                                                                                     interpretive center authorized
                                                                                     for the Ice Age Trail;
    LWCF grants North Country
     Trail:
        Michigan \5\..............  ..............  ..............         500,000  Provide assistance to States of
        New York \5\..............  ..............  ..............         500,000   Michigan and New York to
        Wisconsin.................         500,000  ..............  ..............   protect threatened North
                                                                                     Country Trail corridor and
                                                                                     connect trail segments across
                                                                                     private land.
                                   ------------------------------------------------
          Total...................       4,700,000  ..............      15,750,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes $247,000 for operations of Santa Fe Park Service office, not related to the Santa Fe Trail.
    \2\ Administration request does not allocate any funds for the National Trails System. The Congressional earmark
      is needed to accomplish this.
    \3\ Congressional earmark within existing Park Service operations funding.
    \4\ This would be a grant to the State of Wisconsin to be matched at least 1:1.
    \5\ These would be grants to the States of Michigan and New York to be matched at least 1:1.

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission

                                    SUMMARY

        This Statement is submitted in support of appropriations for the
    Bureau of Land Management's Colorado River Basin salinity control
    program activities. Adequate funding needs to be appropriated to BLM
    for fiscal year 2001 for Colorado River salinity control activities. An
    amount of $800,000 is requested for specific marking for projects for
    the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, and $5.2 million is
    requested in the Soil, and Air Management subactivity of the Management
    of Lands and Renewable Resources budget line item for Bureau of Land
    Management Activities in the Colorado River Basin which will assist in
    controlling salinity from public lands.

                                   STATEMENT

        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, of which I am a
    member, is comprised of representatives of the seven Colorado River
    Basin States and has examined all of the features needed to control the
    salinity of the Colorado River. Because of the budgeting process
    utilized by the Bureau of Land Management, I can only presume that
    there are adequate dollars in the President's budget to proceed with
    water quality protection programs needed in the Colorado River Basin to
    ensure that excess amounts of salts are not contributed to the river
    system.
        The Bureau of Land Management is the largest land owner in the
    Colorado River Basin and much of the lands that are controlled and
    managed by the Bureau of Land Management are heavily laden with salt.
    When salt-laden soils erode, silt is carried along for some distances
    and ultimately settles in streambeds, reservoirs or flood plains. The
    salts are dissolved and remain in the river system causing water
    quality problems downstream, affecting the quality of water used from
    the Colorado River by the Lower Basin States and the Republic of
    Mexico. Activities of the Bureau of Land Management under its Soil,
    Water and Air Management subactivity of the Management of Lands and
    Renewable Resources budget line item assist in controlling salinity
    contributed to the Colorado River system from public lands.
        The Colorado River Basin salinity control program has been adopted
    by the seven Basin States and approved by the EPA as a part of each
    State's water quality standards. Water delivered to Mexico in the
    Colorado River is subject to Minute 242 of the U.S. treaty with Mexico,
    which sets limits on the salinity of water. By far the greatest portion
    of the naturally occurring salt load in the Colorado River Basin
    originates on federally owned or administered lands.
        I believe that the Federal Government has a major and important
    responsibility with respect to controlling salt discharge from public
    lands and the Congress has charged the federal agencies with proceeding
    with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River Basin with
    a strong mandate to seek out the most cost-effective solutions. It has
    been determined that the Bureau of Land Management's rangeland
    improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective
    salinity control measures available. In addition, these programs are
    environmentally acceptable, will prevent erosion, increase grazing
    opportunities and dependable stream run-off, and enhance wildlife
    habitat.
        The Forum believes that $5.2 million needs to be spent in fiscal
    year 2001 by the Bureau of Land Management for activities under the
    Soil, Water and Air Management subactivity of the budget line item
    titled Management of Lands and Renewable Resources. The Forum is
    particularly concerned that the line item titled Management of Lands
    and Renewable Resources is adequately funded to include the $5.2
    million. Also, the Forum requests that an additional amount of $800,000
    be marked specifically for projects for the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Program. I would very much appreciate any favorable
    consideration that you may be able to give to these requests. I fully
    support the statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Forum in support of appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management
    for Colorado River Salinity Control Programs submitted by Jack Barnett,
    the Forum's Executive Director.
        BLM has not had a history of adequately reporting its efforts, the
    associated expenditures and its accomplishments with respect to
    Colorado River salinity control. There is a bill that has passed the
    Senate and is now before the House which will require the BLM to report
    its program for salinity control to the Congress. The Forum supports
    this requirement. Also, 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 CPRA, by the Bureau of
    Land Management in such a way that the results of their salinity
    control activities in connection with expenditures of funds can be
    reviewed and measured. I fully support the Forum's position concerning
    the accounting and reporting of salinity control activities by the
    Bureau of Land Management.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program

        This testimony supports fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to accomplish Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control activities and requests Congressional Direction to the
    BLM to expend $5,200,000 on measures to reduce salinity concentrations
    in the waters of the Colorado River System. We request that $800,000 of
    the Management of Lands and Renewable Resources line-item be marked for
    the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program as has been the
    direction to the BLM from the Committee in past years.
        This testimony supports fiscal year 2001 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 2001 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 in October, 1999 and developed funding
    recommendations for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 needed for 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 2001 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 request that $800,000 from
    this line-item 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
    important, and appropriate, as 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 further, that accounting for expenditures be done to
    allow oversight on how the funds were used, what resources were
    benefited and which natural resource concerns were addressed. Wyoming
    and the other member states of the Forum have been frustrated by BLM's
    identification of where funds are allocated without identifying what
    purposes the funding will serve or how those funds will be used to
    accomplish specific activities, objectives and benefits. The same
    difficulty exists with regard to the subsequent accounting for how
    allocated funds have been expended. The BLM remains 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 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 the State of Wyoming's views,
    and those of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, as you
    carry out the important appropriation work of this Committee.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
                                   California

        Chairman Gorton and Members of the Subcommittee: The Metropolitan
    Water District of Southern California (MWD) appreciates the opportunity
    to submit testimony regarding the U.S. Department of the Interior's
    fiscal year 2001 budget, for the Hearing on Natural Resources, Energy
    and Other Programs. MWD supports the President's request of $39.011
    million for the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water, and Air
    Management subactivity contained within the Land Resources activity of
    the Management of Land and Resources appropriation. BLM intends to use
    a portion of the funds for watershed and water quality restoration in
    selected priority watersheds with a specific focus on the Colorado
    River Basin and other areas. MWD requests that Congress allocate $5.2
    million of these funds for BLM's activities that control salt
    contributions from the lands it manages. MWD urges the Subcommittee to
    specifically mark $800,000 for the Colorado River salinity control
    program to focus BLM's efforts in this regard. MWD supports the
    President's request of $39.275 million for the Geological Survey's
    Water Data Collection/Management subactivity contained within the Water
    Resources Investigations activity of the Surveys, Investigations, and
    Research appropriation. MWD urges the continued funding of the Colorado
    River system component of the National Stream Quality Accounting
    Network (NASQAN) Program as proposed by the Geological Survey to the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council in October 1999.
    In addition MWD requests funding for recreation facilities at the
    Diamond Valley Lake, located in Riverside County, California. The
    amount requested in fiscal year 2001 is $14 million.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        MWD is a public agency created in 1928 to meet supplemental water
    demands of those people living in what is now portions of a six-county
    region of southern California. Today, the region served by MWD includes
    more than 16 million people living on the coastal plain between Ventura
    and the international boundary with Mexico. It is an area larger than
    the State of Connecticut and, if it were a separate nation, would rank
    in the top ten economies of the world. Included in our region are more
    than 225 cities and unincorporated areas in the counties of Los
    Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. We
    provide more than half the water consumed in our 5,200-square-mile
    service area. MWD's water supplies come from the Colorado River via the
    district's Colorado River Aqueduct and from northern California via the
    State Water Project's California Aqueduct. The Colorado River continues
    to meet more than one-half of these supplemental water needs, and MWD
    is vitally concerned that the quality of this irreplaceable water
    supply be maintained.
        The Colorado River is a significant component of the regional water
    supply and its relatively high salinity causes significant economic
    impacts on water customers in MWD's service area, as well as throughout
    the Lower Colorado River Basin. MWD and the Bureau of Reclamation
    completed a Salinity Management Study for Southern California in 1999.
    The first phase of the study concluded that the high salinity from the
    Colorado River causes significant impacts to residential, industrial
    and agricultural water users. Furthermore, high salinity adversely
    affects the region's progressive water recycling programs, and is
    contributing to an adverse salt buildup through infiltration into
    Southern California's irreplaceable groundwater basins.
        In April 1999, MWD's Board of Directors authorized implementation
    of a comprehensive Action Plan to carry out MWD's policy for management
    of salinity. The Action Plan focuses on reducing salinity
    concentrations in Southern California's water supplies through
    collaborative actions with pertinent agencies, recognizing that an
    effective solution requires a regional commitment. Based on a 1988
    study, Reclamation estimated that water users in the Lower Basin were
    experiencing in excess of $750 million in annual impacts from salinity
    levels in the river in 1995, and that impacts would progressively
    increase with continued agricultural and urban development upstream of
    California's points of diversion. As part of the Salinity Management
    Study, the economic impacts have been refined for MWD's service area
    and have been submitted to Reclamation for its use in updating its
    Lower Basin estimate. Droughts will cause spikes in salinity levels
    that will be highly disruptive to Southern California water management
    and commerce. The Colorado River salinity control program has proven to
    be a very cost-effective approach to help to mitigate the impacts of
    higher salinity. Continued federal funding of the program is essential.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the
    interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin states'
    salinity control efforts, issued its 1999 Review, Water Quality
    Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System (1999 Review) in June
    1999. The 1999 Review found that additional salinity control was
    necessary beginning in 1994 to meet the numeric criteria in the water
    quality standards adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin states and
    approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with normal water
    supply conditions. It is essential that implementation of BLM's
    salinity control program be accelerated to permit the numeric criteria
    to be met again under average annual long-term water supply conditions,
    making up the shortfall.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        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. The $5.2
    million level of funding which MWD recommends for BLM's continued
    participation in activities that control salt contributions from BLM
    managed lands is necessary to meet the salinity control activities
    schedule that seeks to maintain the water quality standards. The Forum
    supports this level of funding. Use of these funds would be for
    immediate implementation of salinity control measures through
    improvements in rangeland management. MWD urges the Subcommittee to
    specifically mark $800,000 for the Colorado River salinity control
    program to provide BLM direction as to its intent.
        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. In concert with reducing unnecessary salt addition
    to this important water supply source, these actions are ecosystem
    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.
        MWD 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 2001.
    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.

                               GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        The Geological Survey's National Stream Quality Accounting Network
    (NASQAN) program monitors the water quality of large rivers in four of
    the nation's largest river basins-including the Colorado. Last October,
    the Geological Survey reported to the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Advisory Council (Advisory Council), that it was proposing a
    modified Program beginning in fiscal year 2001 for the Colorado River
    NASQAN program. The objectives reported are to: provide an ongoing
    characterization of the concentrations and flux of sediment and
    selected chemicals, determine the contributions of subbasin source
    materials, and determine changes and trends in selected chemicals in
    the Colorado River system. In the Colorado River Basin, the Geological
    Survey has collected water samples at eight sites through the NASQAN
    program: the Colorado River near: (1) Cisco, (2) at Lees Ferry, (3)
    above Diamond Creek, (4) below Hoover Dam, (5) above Imperial Dam, and
    (6) at the Northerly International Boundary, and (7) the Green River at
    Green River, and (8) the San Juan River near Bluff. Samples collected
    have been analyzed for suspended sediment concentrations, and
    concentrations of dissolved and selected total nutrients, dissolved and
    suspended organic carbon, dissolved and suspended trace elements, and
    dissolved pesticides and major ions.
        MWD supports the continuation of the Colorado River NASQAN Program
    as proposed by the Geological Survey to the Advisory Council. MWD urges
    your Subcommittee to support the President's budget request of $39.275
    million for the Water Data Collection/Management subactivity contained
    within the Water Resources Investigations activity of the Surveys,
    Investigations, and Research appropriation. Continued gathering of
    specific conductivity data is necessary for determining the salt load
    of the Colorado River system. Continued monitoring and analysis of the
    salt load is needed to determine whether or not the numeric criteria
    contained in the EPA approved water quality standards for salinity will
    be exceeded. In addition, MWD requests that the NASQAN program include
    monitoring and analysis for gross alpha radioactivity and uranium at
    the eight sites on the Colorado River system. This is necessary to
    monitor the impact of the uranium mill tailings near Moab, Utah on the
    Colorado River.

                              DIAMOND VALLEY LAKE

        With the recent completion of Diamond Valley Lake as a major water
    storage facility for 16 million people, the public's requirement for
    recreational facilities will need local, state and federal support. At
    the present time, MWD is working with local communities to secure
    funding for $58 million to be allocated for purposes of constructing
    and maintaining a major trail system for pedestrian and unmotorized
    vehicles in the surrounding areas; along with a Western Center Museum
    for archaeological and paleontological discoveries. The proposed
    federal cost share recommended by MWD is $14 million for fiscal year
    2001.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association

                                    ABSTRACT

        The Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA) requests a
    reauthorization of an appropriation 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. YRDFA seeks a
    reauthorization of $100,000 in base level funding plus an additional
    $50,000. 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)].

                                  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 in 1999, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has, at the
    direction of the U.S. section of the Panel and the negotiation
    delegation, entered into cooperative agreements with YRDFA in the
    amounts of $10,000 and $25,000, respectively, to assist the agencies in
    educating the public about the ongoing negotiations with Canada. Funds
    were utilized to pay for an annual 4-day fishermen's meeting and for
    informational newsletters distributed to nearly 3,000 recipients. In
    the fiscal year 2000 budget Congress authorized a $100,000
    appropriation to YRDFA for the program. With this appropriation YRDFA
    sponsored a 4-day meeting in March 2000 and plans to organize 3 one-day
    meetings as well as publish 4 newsletters.
        For fiscal year 2001 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:
        Bi-monthly 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, Athabaskan 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.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the 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 2001. 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
    than previously. 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 the 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 1999 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. 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.
        BLM has not had a history of adequately reporting its efforts, the
    associated expenditures and its accomplishments with respect to
    Colorado River salinity control. There is a bill that has passed the
    Senate and is now before the House which will require the BLM to report
    its program for salinity control to the Congress. The Forum supports
    this requirement.

                 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 be
    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 the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge

        Dear Subcommittee, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Department
    of Interior) is currently requesting $6 million for land acquisition in
    the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge (ACNWR) in the fiscal year
    2001 budget. I urge you to appropriate these badly needed funds in
    order to fulfill the 1989 U.S. Congressional mandate to establish and
    complete the refuge. The refuge is located in Brevard and Indian River
    Counties on the southeast coast of Florida. Thousands of people have
    worked for years to make the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge a
    reality. Without these funds lands within the refuge will continue to
    be sold and developed as private homes and commercial establishments.
    Once these beach front parcels within the refuge are developed it will
    make the overall management of the refuge increasingly difficult while
    also decreasing the quantity and quality of the beachfront sea turtle
    nesting habitat the refuge was designed to protect.
      --The importance of the Archie Carr Refuge can not be understated.
            The ACNWR is this nations only refuge dedicated to the
            protection of sea turtles. The coastal lands within the refuge
            are home to the most important loggerhead sea turtle nesting
            beaches in the western hemisphere and the most important
            nesting beaches for green sea turtles in the continental United
            States. Over 90 percent of all sea turtle nesting in the North
            America occurs in Florida and the ACNWR encompasses the most
            important nesting beaches in that state.
      --According to the USFWS's 1996 Status Review of Sea Turtles Listed
            Under the Endangered Species Act, ``The major U.S. nesting area
            for Loggerhead sea turtles is in eastern Florida, which may be
            the second-most important worldwide nesting concentration.
            Within this subregion, the greatest density of nesting activity
            occurs in south Brevard County'' (the ACNWR).
      --Because of the highly migratory nature of these animals, the
            protection of Florida's nesting beaches is internationally
            significant. After hatching on Florida's beaches they travel
            throughout the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, and the Atlantic
            Ocean in search of food.
      --Sea turtles often take up to 30 years to reach their sexual
            maturity. Then, after plying the world's oceans, they have a
            remarkable ability and requirement to return to their natal
            beaches they emerged from as hatchlings several decades
            earlier. These giant turtles require undeveloped, unarmored,
            quiet and dark beaches in order to nest successfully in
            significant numbers.
      --There is substantial acreage within the refuge that still must be
            purchased in order to be able to effectively and efficiently
            manage the refuge and ensure protection of the nation's most
            important sea turtle nesting beaches. The refuge is currently
            only about 60 percent complete.
      --All unprotected lands in the refuge and buffering the refuge are in
            imminent threat of development. Additionally, land values
            continue to increase rapidly along the Florida coast. It is
            only prudent to aggressively purchase lands as they become
            available, if the refuge is to be completed. The refuge area is
            currently dotted with ``For Sale'' signs.
      --State and local governments and private foundations have committed
            more than their fair share of direct funds and staff support
            for land acquisition surrounding and within the congressionally
            dedicated refuge. This remarkable and unique partnership is a
            testament to the state and local support for the refuge and the
            need to protect the ecological integrity of this barrier island
            ecosystem (see enclosed resolutions from Brevard and Indian
            River Counties). The Federal Government has a commitment and a
            responsibility to more aggressively support this partnership
            effort. To date the Federal Government has contributed less
            than 20 percent of the total amount that has been spent on
            buying these critical beachfront and adjacent upland
            properties.
        Because of the considerable funding provided by local and state
    government and private foundations, which now greatly exceeds dollars
    expended for land acquisition by the federal government, substantial
    amounts of land buffering the 4 core areas of the refuge have been
    purchased. Funding from non-federal sources has peaked and is now
    declining significantly. While this wonderful partnership has gone a
    long way to securing the lands surrounding the refuge, it is critical
    that the federal government recognize its full responsibility to
    continue the funding for and purchase of lands within the Archie Carr
    National Wildlife Refuge boundaries.
        For the last two years the U.S. Congress has not provided any
    additional funding for land acquisition in the Carr Refuge. The current
    $6 million budget request would go entirely to the purchase of critical
    beachfront habitat in the refuge. It is worth noting that by protecting
    these refuge lands for sea turtles and their nesting habitat we are
    also protecting the fragile coastline from increased potential for
    erosion that often results from coastal development, thereby ensuring
    that these beaches will also be available to the public.
        I hope you will work with your colleagues in the House and Senate
    to ensure at least $6 million in funding in fiscal year 2001 for land
    acquisition in the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy

        As Mayor of Palm Desert, California, and the City's representative
    on the Governing Board of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, I
    appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony in support of a $1
    million appropriation to the Bureau of Land Management for acquisitions
    in the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area.
        I have some great news to share with you. Then I'll get to the
    asking for money part. The great news is that the voters in California
    have passed a major park and open space bond measure, from which the
    Conservancy will receive $5 million for acquisition. In addition, we
    are optimistic that additional funds will be forthcoming for
    acquisition by the state through the Wildlife Conservation Board. And,
    to sweeten the pot a little more, my city has committed another $1.3
    million to acquire land at the toe of slope of the Santa Rosa
    Mountains.
        The mountains rise with breathtaking steepness from the floor of
    the Sonoran desert in southeastern California to an alpine environment
    atop San Jacinto Peak at 10,800 feet. The endangered peninsular bighorn
    sheep and four other endangered species inhabit these mountains.
    Cultural resources from Native American village sites to rock art and
    ceremonial sites abound. Palm oases dot the landscape and hidden
    waterfalls reward those who follow some of the more rugged trails. 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. For all these reasons, my colleagues and I at the city,
    the Conservancy, the BLM, the Friends of the Desert Mountains, the
    Building Industry Association, and the residents of the valley are
    strongly committed to protecting the Santa Rosa Mountains National
    Scenic Area for posterity.
        Since the National Scenic Area was designated in 1990, BLM, the
    state, the Coachella Valley cities, the County of Riverside, the Agua
    Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and local non-profits have
    cooperated in an acquisition program that has protected more than
    17,000 acres. While prior to 1990 the state was doing the heavy lifting
    in land acquisition, since 1990 BLM has been the biggest contributor to
    the acquisition program, although collectively the local entities, the
    Conservancy, and the Tribe have come very close to matching BLMs
    efforts.
        Now, we're ready to shift gears. For several decades, we've been
    running a marathon to protect the mountains. We've been pretty
    successful, though not 100 percent so, at staying ahead of the threats
    to the mountains. With the passage of Proposition 12 in California, the
    listing of the peninsular bighorn sheep as endangered, the progress on
    completing the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
    Plan, Congresswoman Bono's bill to designate the Santa Rosa and San
    Jacinto Mountains as a National Monument, and the dramatic upswing in
    development pressure in the valley and the accompanying enhanced
    recognition that we are in a race against time to conserve this natural
    and national treasure, we are ready to start the race for the finish
    line. With more state funds available, and cities like Palm Desert, and
    the Agua Caliente Band stepping forward, this local, state, and federal
    partnership can kick into high gear for the next few years and win this
    race to protect the irreplaceable.
        The Coachella Valley will be experiencing very rapid growth in the
    next 5 to 10 years, and the pressures on the mountains will be
    escalating. We need to step up the pace of acquisitions, and we're in a
    position to do that with the highest level of local, state, and federal
    partnership yet. It's vital that the Federal Government remains a
    strong partner. That's why I urge you to support the $1 million
    appropriation to BLM for the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area,
    as proposed in the Presidents budget.
        Years from now, any one of our grandchildren or great
    grandchildren, or even their great grandchildren could be taking a hike
    in the Santa Rosa Mountains on a fine spring day, enjoying the palm
    oases, the wildflowers, a hidden waterfall, the dramatic views of
    snowcapped peaks, and the sheer solitude of these mountains, so close
    and yet so far from the hectic bustle of our everyday urban world. It
    won't really matter whether he or she knows that we did our job today
    and conserved lands like this for all time; it will matter
    tremendously, however, that she or he can be there and savor the beauty
    and tranquility of these mountains.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan

        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 2001.
        First, the Coalition supports the Department of Interior's budget
    request for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund--
    especially funding for HCP land acquisition.
        Second, the Coalition urges the Subcommittee to appropriate
    additional funding for land acquisition above the funding requested by
    the President.
        Third, the Coalition requests that the Appropriations Subcommittee
    earmark $1 million to the Kern County program to be used for purposes
    of acquiring and maintaining habitat preserves.
        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 by the beginning of calendar 2001. In 1997 the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allocated $500,000 of federal Endangered
    Species Act Section 6 funds to assist in program implementation. The
    California State Government has authorized $1 million to augment the
    federal funds. In order to secure the $6 million total necessary for
    full implementation of the plan, we will require $2.25 million for
    fiscal year 2001 and $2.25 million for fiscal year 2002.
        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 that 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 and Wildlife Service,
    Bureau of Land Management, California Energy Commission, California
    Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources, California Department
    of Fish and 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.
        Kem 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 represents a departure from traditional endangered
    species conservation programs which utilize prohibitory controls to
    assure conservation of species habitat. Instead, it is based on an
    incentive-based system of selling or trading habitat credits in an open
    market. This innovative approach, 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 KCVFHCP is in
    the final stages of development and is scheduled to be completed in
    2001. The HCP document and an Environmental Impact Statement will
    shortly be released, and the Implementing Agreement with the wildlife
    agencies is being developed.
        Numerous agencies, in concert with the State of California and
    local government entities, as well as the private oil and gas and
    agricultural industries have contributed funding, time and other
    resources toward developing the KCVFHCP. The KCVFHCP program will be
    completed in early 2001, provided there is the necessary federal
    funding for the acquisition of habitat to mitigate for agricultural and
    oil and gas operations and development. Additional funding is critical
    to completing the HCP. This is one of the final steps necessary to
    implement the conservation strategy. Because of the extensive private,
    local and state government financial support that went into the
    development of this program, federal participation in program
    implementation will demonstrate that the burden of ESA compliance is
    not being placed exclusively on private property owners. Program
    funding will also contribute to eventual species recovery.

                             PROGRAM FUNDING NEEDS

        In order for the KCVFHCP to be implemented, the program requires
    funding in the amount of $4.5 million (augments the $1.5 million in
    state and federal funding received in 1997) that could be funded in
    increments over the first several years of the program. A breakdown of
    the purpose and amount of this funding is as follows:
    Long Term Fallow Land Issue
        Agricultural practices and the variable availability of water have
    resulted in situations where substantial amounts of cultivated farm
    land are placed in a fallow state. If the fallow state persists for
    several years, endangered species can re-colonize some of these lands
    (currently estimated at 5,000-10,000 acres) and create potential ESA
    compliance problems when the land is returned to agricultural
    production. Many farmers are forced to unnecessarily disc fallow lands
    to prevent endangered species re-colonization.
        The KCVFHCP has devised a strategy that includes the purchase and
    set aside of approximately 3,000 acres of endangered species habitat to
    mitigate for species loss resulting from reuse of long-term fallow
    agricultural lands. The program strategy allocates $3.0 million for
    acquisition and perpetual maintenance of species reserve areas. With
    this strategy, farmers would no longer have to be concerned about ESA
    violations when fallow land is reused. Furthermore, the regulatory
    incentive to disc fallow lands would be substantially reduced, and
    foster efforts to increase the temporary endangered species habitat
    benefits of long-term fallow lands.

    Oil Development Issue
        A mitigation strategy has been devised that is intended to
    acknowledge existing oil field activities within Kern County. The
    strategy proposes to acquire 3,000 acres of endangered species habitat
    to mitigate for species loss resulting from oil field development
    outside of established oil field production areas, but within proximity
    of those areas. This is to allow for reasonable expansion of oil field
    activities over the life of the HCP program. The program strategy
    allocates $3.0 million for acquisition and perpetual maintenance of
    species reserve areas. With this type of strategy, oil field expansion
    activities would be provided for in the program. This strategy would be
    of great benefit to the small independent oil and gas companies within
    the program area,
        Together the $6.0 million required for the agriculture and oil
    field strategies would provide a method to satisfy the programs'
    endangered species conservation goals, while also providing for
    continued economic growth of Kern County's oil and agricultural
    industries. Protected species would benefit from a comprehensive long-
    term program that creates permanent habitat pressures.
        Numerous industries, in concert with the State of California and
    local government entities, are attempting to do their part, and we come
    to the appropriations process to request assistance in obtaining a fair
    federal share of financial support for this important effort. This
    unique cooperative partnership involving state and local government, as
    well as private industry, has contributed substantial funds to date, to
    assist in the development of this program.
        The California Industry and Government Coalition appreciates the
    Subcommittee's consideration of this request for a fiscal year 2001
    appropriation to support implementation of this significant program.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of Conservation
                                   Districts

        The National Association of Conservation Districts is the
    nonprofit, nongovernment organization that represents the nation's
    3,000 conservation districts and more than 16,000 men and women who
    serve on their governing boards. Established under state law,
    conservation districts are local units of state government charged with
    carrying out programs for the protection and management of natural
    resources at the local level. Conservation districts work with nearly
    two-and-half million cooperating landowners and operators each year and
    provide assistance in managing and protecting nearly 70 percent of the
    private land in the contiguous United States.

                                 FOREST SERVICE

        Conservation districts are key partners with both the Forest
    Service and state foresters in carrying out programs to promote the
    health and productivity of the nation's private forestlands--both urban
    and rural--and related economies. With the nation's growing dependence
    on goods and services derived from these lands, the role of private
    forestlands, both nonindustrial and commercial, is becoming
    increasingly important.
        State, local and tribal governments, and private individuals and
    organizations, own nearly two-thirds of forestland in the U.S. These
    nonfederal lands are managed by millions of individual owners with
    diverse goals and objectives. Thus, it is important that the Forest
    Service, through its cooperative programs, provide for a coordinated
    approach in maintaining the health of our nation's forests so that they
    continue to produce the many values desired by the American people.
        Recent comprehensive reports indicate that critical trends are
    emerging on this vast landscape, which, taken together, raise important
    concerns for the nation. We believe there are crucial national
    interests at stake. The State and Private Forestry programs of the
    Forest Service are designed to address these issues by providing
    technical and financial assistance to promote voluntary stewardship and
    use of state and private forestlands. Although conservation districts'
    funding recommendations propose modest increases for these programs,
    even these levels are not nearly adequate to meet the challenges facing
    the nation.
        To provide needed surveys and technical assistance for insect and
    disease suppression programs on both federal and cooperative land,
    conservation districts recommend funding Cooperative Lands Forest
    Health Management at $28.0 million for fiscal year 2001. This level is
    necessary to provide adequate cost-share and technical assistance
    needed by forestland owners in all phases of forest health.
        Rural fire protection is a critical component of our present forest
    management program. As our population continues to expand into rural
    America, the urban/rural interface continues to grow in terms of fire
    danger. While states and their political subdivisions have primary
    responsibility for basic fire protection, the Cooperative Lands Fire
    Management Program ensures sharing fire protection for cost-effective
    operations. To assist states in protecting nonfederal wild lands and
    rural areas from wildfire, we recommend funding this program at $40.0
    million for fiscal year 2001. This level of funding is the minimum
    amount needed to train and equip rural volunteer fire departments to
    help fight the increasing number of wildfires on private lands.
        The programs and partnerships of Cooperative Forestry provide a
    vital link between federal resource management expertise and private
    land managers' needs for technical and financial assistance to properly
    manage and protect private forestlands. Bringing together both
    traditional and nontraditional interests from the public and private
    sectors, the Forest Stewardship Program seeks to enable the nearly 10
    million nonindustrial private forestland (NIPF) owners--who own 44
    percent of the nation's forestland--better manage and use their forest
    resources. Every state in the nation has a State Stewardship Committee
    that includes representatives from the fish and wildlife, conservation
    and recreation communities. Every state has also developed and is
    implementing a comprehensive management program that, in the long run,
    will ensure that millions of acres of nonindustrial, private
    forestlands are managed under stewardship plans. The Forest Stewardship
    Program, cost-shared with the states, provides high quality technical
    and stewardship planning assistance. The resulting plans enable
    landowners to manage their lands for multiple uses, while maintaining a
    robust forest ecosystem. The number of landowners requesting assistance
    constantly outstrips the ability to provide assistance. We recommend an
    increase of funding to $50.0 million for fiscal year 2001.
        The Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP) is a companion to the
    Forest Stewardship Program and provides cost-share assistance to help
    private landowners implement multi-resource management practices. SIP's
    intent is to help landowners establish resource management practices
    that are not covered by other incentive programs. In fiscal year 1998,
    these practices were implemented on nearly 200,000 acres of forestland.
    SIP was not funded in fiscal years 1999 and 2000. To provide needed
    assistance to forestland owners, conservation districts recommend this
    program be restored in fiscal year 2001 and funded at $25 million.
        Urban and community forestry programs have become increasingly
    important as American population demographics have shifted. Trees and
    forests provide many important benefits and are a vital component of
    healthy urban and suburban ecosystems. In the summer, trees help cool
    the urban ``heat island,'' resulting in tremendous energy and cost
    savings--some sources estimate up to $2 billion each year. Trees also
    help reduce air pollution, retard polluted runoff and provide
    psychological benefits for residents. The Urban and Community Forestry
    Program provides the leadership, in cooperation with states, for
    improving and expanding urban forest ecosystems in the nation's 45,000
    towns and cities where 80 percent of our population resides.
        The program also provides leadership for state of the art
    technology and grants to urban areas to improve their quality of life
    through tree planting, maintenance and urban tree protection actions.
    More than 8,000 communities and 7,000 volunteer organizations
    participate in the program with requests for assistance exceeding
    program capacity by a factor of eight. Conservation districts recommend
    funding for Urban and Community Forestry at $50.0 million for fiscal
    year 2001.
        The Forestry Legacy Program is intended to conserve environmentally
    important forests under threat of conversion to nonforest uses. From
    1978 to 1994, private forestland tracts of 10 acres or less increased
    from 11 million to 16.6 million acres. A well funded Forest Legacy
    Program, through which landowners sell development rights while
    retaining other rights in private ownership, can help prevent the
    fragmentation of our forestlands. It operates on a willing seller-
    willing buyer concept. Conservation districts support the Forest Legacy
    Program at a funding level of $50.0 million for fiscal year 2001.
        Economic Action Programs, begun in 1992, benefit the 72 percent of
    all counties in the nation that are rural. Of those, 70 percent are
    highly dependent on natural-resource-based earnings that are often
    directly associated with public lands activities. This collection of
    targeted programs--Economic Recovery, Rural Development and Forest
    Product Conservation and Recycling--develop the business and community
    knowledge necessary to sustain a locally driven natural-resource-based
    economy. Conservation districts believe it is entirely appropriate for
    the Federal Government to catalyze local problem-solving actions and
    recommend $25 million for Economic Action Programs for fiscal year
    2001.
        Conservation districts recognize that if the forestlands held in
    private ownership, which presently produce 80 percent of our timber
    supplies, are going to remain healthy and productive, we must be
    willing to invest for long-term gains. Upward-bound population demands
    reinforce the critical role Cooperative Forestry plays, not only in
    rural America, but also for all our communities.

                         U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program offers technical and
    financial assistance to private landowners to voluntarily restore
    wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitats on their land. The
    program emphasizes the reestablishment of native vegetation and
    ecological communities for the benefit of fish and wildlife while
    meeting the needs and desires of private landowners.
        Since 1987, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish
    and Wildlife Program (PFWP) has worked with more than 21,557 landowners
    to restore 464,816 acres of wetlands, 447,953 acres of native prairie,
    grassland, and other upland habitats 2,769 miles of riparian and in-
    stream aquatic habitat. In fiscal year 1999, PFWP engaged nearly 2,300
    private landowners to help restore fish and wildlife habitats on more
    than 4,056 distinct sites, including 55,646 acres of wetlands, 106,222
    acres of native prairie and grassland, 739 miles of riparian and in-
    stream aquatic habitat. 8,571 acres of other trust species habitats.
        No other Interior Department program is more effective in bringing
    together private landowners, conservation districts, and the Federal
    Government to address environmental issues. More than 2,000 landowners
    are on waiting lists for assistance under the Partners for Fish and
    Wildlife Program. Conservation districts recommend raising the funding
    level for Partners for Fish and Wildlife to $32 million in fiscal year
    2001 to meet the needs of landowners and fish and wildlife on
    nonfederal lands.
        The National Wildlife Refuge Fund was created to fully fund
    ``payments in lieu of taxes'' (PILT). These payments were designed to
    offset revenue lost by localities when refuge acquisition results in
    land being removed from tax rolls. A funding level of $20 million is
    needed to fund agreed-to levels of PILT.

                             BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

        The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is the lead federal
    agency for supplying water to agricultural producers in the seventeen
    Western states. Reclamation initiated a Water Conservation Field
    Services Program (WCFSP) in 1997 to encourage the efficient use of
    water on federal projects, assist water districts develop and implement
    effective water conservation plans, and complement and support other
    federal, state, and local conservation program efforts. Working through
    local irrigation districts, Reclamation's WCFSP is designed to provide
    technical and financial assistance in conservation planning,
    conservation education, demonstration of innovative conservation
    technologies, and implementation of effective conservation measures. In
    concept, Reclamation's WCFSP, and the assistance opportunities it
    provides to Western water districts and others, is, in many ways,
    modeled after the on-farm success of incentive-based conservation
    programs pioneered by local conservation districts, and their federal
    technical partner, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
        In 1998, Reclamation, NACD, the National Association of State
    Conservation Agencies and the Natural Resources Conservation Service
    initiated a ``Bridging-the-Headgate'' conservation partnership to
    promote collaboration through the WCFSP, and create new opportunities
    for working together between traditional ``on-farm'' and ``off-farm''
    conservation assistance programs throughout the seventeen Western
    states. The initiative's purpose, in short, is to find ways to work
    together on the common goal of efficient water management. To support
    this initiative, conservation districts recommend funding the WCFSP at
    $16.282 million in fiscal year 2001.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        Last year, at the urging of NACD and others, the Interior and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Act expanded the use of the Forest
    Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund (FEHRF) within the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM) to include forestry activities such as forest release
    from competing vegetation, density control treatments and forest health
    monitoring. This, combined with increased funding for prescribed
    burning, has tremendous potential for maintaining and enhancing fish
    and wildlife habitat, supporting species diversity, and producing other
    multiple forest benefits.
        In spite of the availability of funding under FEHRF for projects,
    BLM lacks the personnel necessary to plan and administer projects
    authorized under last year's congressional action. Conservation
    districts have witnessed a steady 65 percent decline in the BLM
    forestry management budget since 1981. Adjusted for inflation over the
    same period, the entire Management of Lands and Resources Budget has
    declined 10 percent. Conservation districts believe that BLM needs to
    increase its forest management expertise to take advantage of FEHRF and
    refocus its efforts on forest restoration. Conservation districts
    recommend earmarking $1.6 million to support the equivalent of 24
    forestry positions to plan and administer forest health improvement
    activities under FEHRF.

                             OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

        In 1977, Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and
    Reclamation Act (SMCRA) to regulate the mining industry and to address
    the problem of abandoned mine sites--those sites mined before 1977. At
    the time of its enactment, there were more than one million acres of
    abandoned sites. In addition to prohibiting companies from abandoning
    mined sites, SMCRA also required coal companies to reclaim the lands
    after mining. SMCRA also requires that all active mining operations pay
    a tax on each ton of coal they produce; at a rate of 35 cents per ton
    for surface mined coal and 15 cents per ton for deep mined coal. The
    funds collected from this coal production tax goes into the Abandoned
    Mine Reclamation Fund and are intended to be used to finance the
    reclamation of abandoned coal mine sites.
        The Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP), administered by the USDA
    Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), addresses health, safety
    and environmental hazards created by abandoned mine lands. These
    hazards, which include dangerous highwalls, contaminated water, severe
    erosion and sedimentation, dangerous mine openings and abandoned
    structures, are problems in many areas with abandoned mine lands. Over
    the past 20 years, only about 40 percent of these lands have been
    reclaimed.
        RAMP has a proven track record in cleaning up hazards and pollution
    from abandoned mine lands. It also improves rural economies by
    stimulating job creation. A portion of the funds from the Abandoned
    Mine Reclamation Fund (AMRF) are to be transferred to NRCS to help
    defray the costs associated with mined land reclamation activities.
    Although the portion of the AMRF targeted for RAMP stands at $250
    million, no funds have been transferred in the past 4 years.
        Conservation districts strongly support appropriating fully 100
    percent of the fees collected from current mining activities for mine
    land reclamation programs. We recommend funding RAMP at a minimum level
    of $25 million in fiscal 2001.
        Additional detailed recommendations are found in the attached
    chart.
        I appreciate the opportunity to share our funding recommendations
    for the natural resource programs of the Department of the Interior and
    related agencies.

      FISCAL YEAR 2001 RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY THE U.S.
                                     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Fiscal Year 2000         Fiscal Year 2001
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Admin.     NACD     Enacted   Admin.     NACD
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service:
        State and Private Forestry:
            Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management............    21.400    28.000    21.850    21.118    28.000
            Cooperative Lands Fire Management.....................  ........    40.000    28.010    32.504    40.000
            Forest Stewardship....................................    28.830    43.000    29.430    29.407    50.000
            Urban & Community Forestry............................    39.540    43.000    31.300    39.471    50.000
            Stewardship Incentives Program........................    15.000    20.000  ........     3.250    25.000
            Watershed Initiative..................................  ........  ........  ........  ........    20.000
            Smart Growth Loans....................................    10.000    10.000  ........     6.000    10.000
            Economic Action Programs..............................    16.305    25.000    20.119    17.267    25.000
            Forest Legacy.........................................    50.012    50.012    30.000    59.768    50.000
        National Forest System:
            Wildlife & Fisheries Habitat Manage-  ment............   123.800   124.000   100.376   135.542   135.542
            Rangeland Management..................................    65.000    65.000    57.050    72.494    72.494
            Soil, Water & Air Management..........................    67.000    67.000    56.097    69.371    69.371
    U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service:
        Partners for Fish and Wildlife............................    21.017    29.770    27.157    31.838    31.838
        National Wildlife Refuge Fund.............................    18.776    11.100    19.311    18.798    20.000
        Coastal Program...........................................     8.811     8.811     8.771     8.665     9.000
        National Fish & Wildlife Foundation.......................     7.000     7.210     6.724     6.724     7.210
        North American Wetlands Conservation Fund.................    15.000    15.450    15.943    31.000    31.000
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation: Water      14.086    15.000     9.600    16.282    16.282
     Conservation Field Services..................................
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management:
        Soil, Water and Air.......................................    32.000    32.000    33.256  ........    35.256
        Range Management..........................................    67.000    67.000    66.667  ........    68.000
        Range Improvements........................................    10.000    10.300    10.000  ........    10.300
        Wildlife & Fisheries Habitat..............................    35.000    35.000    36.538  ........    37.000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Trout Unlimited, Inc.

        On behalf of over 117,000 TU members, we appreciate the efforts of
    this Subcommittee to fund many federal programs that protect and
    restore trout and salmon resources. As we look to the fiscal year 2001
    Interior bill, we encourage you to support the following programs, many
    of which leverage non-federal funding. Trout Unlimited believes these
    programs represent sound investments in the health of aquatic
    resources. We also ask for your help in stopping harmful riders that
    undercut the very gains in resource conservation that are achieved by
    programs funded in your bill.

                         U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

    Whirling Disease Research.--$2 million
        TU strongly urges the Subcommittee to restore the $1 million cut
    proposed by the Administration for whirling disease research. Over the
    past three years, Congress has provided the FWS $2 million per year for
    whirling disease research and other fish health work. Whirling disease
    remains among the greatest threats to the health of wild trout
    fisheries in the U.S. TU particularly supports the National Partnership
    (the primary target of the Administration's proposed cut), which has
    awarded more than $920,000 in competitive grants to support research
    and leveraged over $880,000 in matching funds.

    Partners for Fish and Wildlife.--$33 million
        Stewardship on private land--people restoring and protecting
    streams, wetlands, prairies, and wildlife habitat--is the best long-
    term solution for many conservation problems. The Partners for Fish and
    Wildlife Program provides financial and technical assistance for those
    voluntary efforts. This is a very popular and cost effective program.
    Last year it was unable to meet all the requests for assistance made,
    despite 40 percent of costs coming from non-FWS sources.
    Coastal Program.--$8.7 million

    Anadromous fish management program.--$8.7 million
        Trout Unlimited supports these two programs which directly aid
    Atlantic salmon restoration.

    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF).--$8 million
        Trout Unlimited requests an $8 million allocation for the
    Foundation's work with the FWS. We have worked closely with the
    Foundation on a variety of projects around the nation that have been
    beneficial to aquatic resources. The Foundation's hallmark is its
    leveraging of other funding sources and its effective use of
    partnerships to accomplish conservation objectives. A good example is
    the funding it provides in Maine aimed at improving riparian habitats
    on key Atlantic salmon restoration rivers. This type of work is
    essential for restoring Atlantic salmon.

                             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

    Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program.--$12 million
        Building on the base increase last year, Trout Unlimited strongly
    supports additional funding for this invaluable community-led NPS
    program. We encourage you to view $12 million of funding for RTCA as
    worthy investment in communities. RTCA's staff excels at increasing
    local investment, securing foundation grants and garnering business
    support for community projects. This program is a model for how the
    Federal Government can successfully cooperate with communities. This
    small, effective program yields big benefits to communities nationwide,
    provides them with essential technical assistance and protects valuable
    fish habitat.

    Elwha River Restoration.--$31 million
        We urge you to including funding for the Elwha River Ecosystem
    Restoration at the $31 million level in the President's budget request.
    This funding will pay for the removal of the Elwha Dam on Washington's
    Olympic Peninsula. Adequate funding is critical to continued
    implementation of the 1992 Elwha Act, and to honor the treaty rights
    guaranteed to the Elwha Klallam people and 3 other Indian tribes.
    Restoration of the Elwha River may be the single greatest immediate
    opportunity for successful salmon restoration anywhere in the Pacific
    Northwest.

                              U.S. FOREST SERVICE

    Fisheries Management Programs
    Inland Fisheries.--$28 million

    Anadromous Fisheries.--$30 million
        Trout Unlimited is grateful for your past support of the Forest
    Service fisheries programs, as more than half of the nation's trout and
    salmon habitat lies within Forest Service land boundaries. This program
    includes the Inland Fisheries Management Program, which protects and
    restores fish habitat of inland species such as trout, bass, and
    walleye; and the Anadromous Fisheries Management Program, which
    protects and restores fish habitat primarily for Pacific and Atlantic
    salmon.

    Road Decommissioning.--$18 million
        TU recommends $18 million in fiscal year 2001 for road
    decommissioning and obliteration, as poorly maintained forest roads
    contribute to erosion and degradation of otherwise valuable wild fish
    habitat.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

    Fisheries and Riparian Management Program.--$38 million
        Trout Unlimited supports the Administration's requests for funding
    the BLM fisheries program at $14 million and the Riparian program at
    $24 million. BLM manages some of the most valuable trout and salmon
    habitats in the west, but also faces some major riparian restoration
    challenges. Lack of fisheries biologists and other resource
    professional is a major problem for the BLM as it tries to protect and
    restore aquatic habitat. The modest increases requested by the
    Administration will help to keep BLM moving forward on conserving its
    aquatic resources.

    Land and Water Conservation Fund.--$900 million
        Trout Unlimited strongly supports full, permanent funding for the
    LWCF. Encroaching development, jeopardizing water quality, open space
    and critical habitat for threatened and endangered species threaten
    environmentally sensitive lands across the country. Fully funding the
    LWCF will help preserve these lands. As part LWCF funding, we request
    $500,000 to purchase 177 acres on Whittlesey Creek, Wisconsin and
    funding to acquire Silsey Creek, Michigan on Lake Superior, which
    support coaster brook trout.

                            U.S. GEOLOGICAL SERVICE

    Streamgage Monitoring Program.--$25 million increase
        The USGS is the nation's premier source of information about the
    life's blood of rivers, water. The streamgage-monitoring program
    provides absolutely critical information needed to help reduce the $3
    billion per year losses from flooding. But it also provides absolutely
    critical information needed to assess and restore the health of rivers.
    Providing more and better streamgaging data is a cost-effective way to
    reduce flood loss and provides added conservation benefits--a win-win
    for appropriations. Yet the streamgaging network has been greatly
    reduced in the last decade. We believe the Administration's request
    does not begin to address the need. Therefore we request an increase of
    $25 million.

    Columbia River Aquatic Resource Program.--$4 million increase
        Trout Unlimited supports the Administration's request for a $4
    million increase for the Biological Resources Division's program on
    Columbia River Aquatic Resources.

    Biological Research & Monitoring.--$1 million increase
        Trout Unlimited requests this increase to develop immunologic
    detection systems for infectious salmon anemia (Atlantic salmon) and
    diagnostic tools to address whirling disease.

    Community Federal Information Partnership.--$30 million
        Trout Unlimited supports the Administration's request for a
    substantial investment in cross-cutting agency research programs that
    enable communities to make informed decisions by using the most
    accurate biological, hydrological, and geologic data about their
    natural resources. We are especially interested in the $2 million
    increase in funding to increase Water Information Delivery through
    watershed based mapping and the request for an increase of $4 million
    to expand of Gap Analysis Program to include invertebrates and fresh
    water aquatic environments.

                            OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING

    Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative.--$12 million
        Trout Unlimited requests a funding level of $12 million for this
    restoration program under the Office of Surface Mining. Acid runoff and
    drainage from abandoned coal mines have destroyed over 7500 miles of
    streams, primarily in Appalachia. ACSI targets streams that need
    immediate clean up where there is active local support for restoration
    projects. A watershed-based partnership program, ACSI gives grassroots
    organizations, federal and state agencies, and local residents' full
    participation in the restoration process.

                                   HYDROPOWER

    Fish and Wildlife Service.--$11 million
    National Park Service.--$2.0 million
    Bureau of Land Management.--$2 million increase
    Bureau of Indian Affairs.--$3 million

        A large number of FERC licensed hydropower projects are in the
    process of being relicensed, with more on their way. Relicensing is a
    once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to balance the energy needs of the
    country, the economic desires of private hydropower project owners, and
    the conservation of river resources. In order for the relicensing
    process to work efficiently and fairly, and to achieve the best
    results, the resource agencies participating in relicensing must have
    the financial resources to do their job. The NPS does a particularly
    good job in helping Trout Unlimited chapters across the country
    participate in watershed protection projects, on rivers scheduled for
    hydropower relicensing. These projects rehabilitate stream flows
    artificially controlled by hydropower dams by returning natural flows
    to otherwise pristine rivers, allowing for natural spawning of wild
    fish like Atlantic salmon and shad. The demand for assistance from the
    Park Service for these projects has increased substantially, and we
    request additional funding.
        Trout Unlimited is a national fisheries group dedicated to the
    conservation, protection and restoration of our nation's trout and
    salmon resources, and the watersheds that sustain those resources. We
    appreciate your support of these programs in the past and urge you to
    increase funding so these programs can work to their full potential to
    restore and protect fisheries resources across the United States. Thank
    you for the opportunity to present our recommendations to the
    subcommittee.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Ornithological Council

        The Ornithological Council submits the following written testimony
    regarding the fiscal year 2001 funding for the following agencies: U.S.
    Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Forest
    Service. The Ornithological Council consists of ten leading scientific
    ornithological societies--the American Ornithologists' Union,
    Association of Field Ornithologists, Secc'on Mexicana Consejo
    Internac'onal 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.
        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 request
    for the U.S. Geological Survey of $895.4 million, including the
    requested of $82 million, and in particular, the requested 13.6 percent
    increase for the Biological Resources Division (BRD). Particular
    programs that we feel are especially worthy of additional support in at
    least the requested amount are:
      --DOI Science Support--$13 million
      --Place-based Studies--$1.3 million
      --Community/Federal Information Partnership--$30 million, including
            $8 million to BRD for expansion of the Gap Analysis Program,
            the National Biological Information Infrastructure, and
            cooperative programs with state agencies and local communities
      --BRD--$700,000 to achieve full staffing for the Cooperative Research
            Units Other Department of the Interior requests that are
            particularly well-justified are:
      --U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Migratory Bird
            Management--$1 million for migratory bird management and
            conservation
      --U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of International Affairs--
            $1.3 million for neotropical migratory bird management and
            conservation We also support the Department of Agriculture's
            request for the Forest Service, and particularly:
      --USDA Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Research Program--$13.314
            million In addition, we recommend allocations above the
            administration's request as follows:
      --USGS BRD--$15 million/year for three years, to be allocated to the
            Science Centers
      --USFWS--$10 million for migratory bird management
      --USDA Forest Service--$7 million for additional full time employees
            and research funding

                              FUNDING FOR THE USGS

    New funding for the DOI Science Support and Place-based Studies
            programs

        USGS has developed two multidisciplinary programs that are designed
    to meet the research needs of the DOI land and resource management
    agencies--Place-based Studies, for which an additional $3.8 million is
    requested and the DOI Science Priorities Program, for which an
    additional $9.5 million is requested. The Place-based Studies program
    is particularly worthwhile, as it helps to correct unforeseen problems
    that occurred when the research biologists were removed from the
    agencies to form what was then known as the National Biological Survey.
    Land managers, some with little or no scientific training, have
    difficulty identifying research priorities and interpreting scientific
    data made available to them by BRD researchers. Place-based Studies not
    only puts biologists back into this critical role, but also brings
    hydrologists, mappers, and geologists to these same public lands,
    where, as a team, they help managers identify the research needs of a
    public land unit and develop an appropriate research program. At
    present, the areas under study are the San Francisco Bay/Delta, South
    Florida, the Chesapeake Bay, the Platte River, the Greater Yellowstone
    area, the Mojave Desert, the Great Lakes, and the Salton Sea. The DOI
    Science Priorities program is also deserving of funding, as it would
    fund research identified by the DOI agencies as their highest research
    priorities. The seven projects identified are national in scope and,
    like Place-based Studies, would be addressed by multidisciplinary teams
    from all four divisions of USGS. We encourage the Congress to fund this
    scientifically-sound approach to developing the information needed to
    address these pressing problems of natural resource management.

    Community/Federal Information Partnerships (C/FIP)
        Land use planning is a central function of local and state
    agencies, which need information collection and interpretation for
    their planning efforts.These partnerships are needed in all 50 states,
    to give the state and local partners the information and tools needed
    for land use planning and resource management. We support the requested
    increase of $30 million for this program. Two exceptionally critical
    components of C/FIP are the Gap Analysis Program and the National
    Biological Information Infrastructure.

    Gap Analysis (GAP)
        GAP provides regional assessments of the conservation status of
    native vertebrate species and natural land cover types and to
    facilitate the application of this information to land management
    activities. The information is made available to land managers and
    planners at the federal, state, and local levels. It has proved to be
    an invaluable planning tool. The requested increase would allow GAP to
    expand to include invertebrate species and aquatic habitats--including
    our valuable wetlands and other waters.
    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 organization and delivery of information to resource
    managers through the NBII. Private conservation organizations,
    academicians, and others can share their information through this
    system. NBII could be of use to industry, education, policy makers, and
    management agencies. We therefore support the requested increase of $4
    million for NBII.

    Cooperative Research Units
        The Cooperative Research Units have proven to be extremely
    effective at addressing the information needs of BRD state partners. We
    support the proposed increase of $700,000, which will bring existing
    CRUs up to full staffing for the first time.

    Biological Resources Division
        We would like to again call the Committee's attention to the need
    for funding for the BRD Science Centers, where the all biological
    research for the Department of Interior land and natural resource
    management agencies is actually conducted. 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 fiscal year 1994 to a low of $139 million in
    fiscal year 1996. The fiscal year 2001 request of $182 million is,
    therefore, just approaching 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.
        The DOI natural resource and land management agencies have
    substantial research backlogs and new research needs that are not met
    because of the chronic shortfall in BRD funding. For instance, the
    Bureau of Land Management's wildlife and Endangered Species Programs
    have recognized that nearly 100 species on BLM lands are already listed
    or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Several
    others are on the verge of being listed. An appropriate investment in
    habitat conservation for sensitive species should yield enormous
    savings by averting future listings and the usually restrictive actions
    on land use that follow. To prevent future listings, the agency has
    identified two habitats for large-scale, 5-year restoration programs:
    sagebrush in the Intermountain West and the short and mixed-grass
    prairie in Montana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado and New
    Mexico. For fiscal year 2001, BLM identified $2 million in sagebrush
    projects that will remain unfunded. Most important is mapping and
    inventory to ground-truth GIS mapping efforts and beginning the
    inventory of all priority species in the sagebrush ecosystem. Applied
    research is needed to determine habitat relationships and the effects
    of disturbances from wildfire, mining activities, rangeland treatments,
    invasive plants, and disease. The most immediate critical need is for
    an inventory of existing habitat and species at risk on BLM managed
    lands. Another $1 million is needed for applied research (1) to
    determine the consequences of habitat changes from land uses and lack
    of fire, oil and gas development, and other mineral extraction; (2) to
    control invasive species; (3) to develop techniques for restoring
    native grasslands; and (4) to determine the effects of habitat on
    plague in black-tailed prairie dogs.

    Funding BRD at more than the requested level
        The Ornithological Council supports the fiscal year 2001 Budget
    Request for BRD, and in fact encourages the Committee to consider
    appropriating $15 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 2003. All or substantially all of this money should be directed to
    the base funding of the Science Centers.

      U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, OFFICE OF MIGRATORY BIRD MANAGEMENT
                                     (MBMO)

        The Ornithological Council supports the requested $1 million
    increase for migratory bird management, but notes that it is not nearly
    adequate to meet the monitoring and management needs for the 836
    species of birds for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has legal
    responsibility. The information needs for migratory bird management far
    exceed the amount requested by the administration The true need is in
    the range of $50-60 million over a period of several years. We
    recommend that MBMO funding be increased by an additional $10 million
    above the requested increase.

        U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

        The Office of International Affairs is highly effective, but
    little-known in the United States. It has implemented a number of
    programs that have achieved an extraordinary level of conservation with
    relatively little funding, particularly because it focuses on training
    graduate students, local resource managers, providing technical
    literature, and promoting environmental education. We strongly support
    the request for an additional $5.131 million for its International
    Conservation Program, and, in particular, for the additional $1.3
    million for Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation. These funds are
    leveraged with a 3:1 match of funds and in-kind services and will
    provide training for conservation organizations, protected area
    managers, and others throughout Central and South America.

           USDA FOREST SERVICE FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH PROGRAM

        We are particularly concerned about the ability of the USDA Forest
    Service to conduct the research needed to maintain healthy forests--for
    wildlife, watershed protection, recreation, and timber resources. The
    administration's requested increase of $13.3 million for FS research
    (exclusive of economic research) for fiscal year 2002 covers four
    categories: vegetation management and protection; wildlife, fisheries,
    watersheds and air; resource valuation and use; and inventory and
    monitoring. The research budget has been flat for the past two years
    and under the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget, would remain flat. More
    than half the 6 percent requested increase represents uncontrollables.
        It is easier to understand the implications of this research budget
    by looking at the magnitude of the research that is needed for the 192
    million acres managed by the FS. Southern forests are being destroyed
    by a non-native invasive insect known as the woolly adelgid, introduced
    fungi are also devastating the forests, many birds of the grasslands
    are declining at a precipitous rate, the ability of the forests to hold
    carbon and protect rivers and streams is becoming increasingly
    critical, recreational demands are increasing by leaps and bounds. The
    Forest Service has a laudable Land Bird Conservation Program, which
    identifies research as one of six key strategies, yet there are only a
    handful of ornithologists in the Forest Service. The five research
    stations and one experimental station have a herculean task that they
    must meet with staffing levels that do not approach that needed. For
    instance, of the 151 researchers at the Southern Research Station, only
    seven are wildlife biologists. There is one hydrologist. Two scientists
    study forest health issues and two others study plant pathology. (Nine
    are in the social sciences and economics; approximately 60 are involved
    in forest inventory and forestry research). In the Pacific Northwest,
    there are 11 wildlife biologists, 5 fisheries biologists, 4
    entomologists, and 5 ecologists (along with 25 forestry researchers and
    6 economists). Nationally, there are 550 scientists in the Forest
    Service; of these, only 39 study vertebrates (mammals, birds, turtles,
    reptiles) and nearly half are forestry researchers concerned primarily
    with timber yield. The Forest Service has identified $60.4 million in
    unfunded research needs.
        If the proposed Forest Management Planning regulations are made
    final, the FS scientists will have a substantially heavier burden, for
    those regulations call for significant input from the FS researchers.
        For these reasons, we recommend that the Congress increase funding
    for the Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Research Program by at
    least 10 percent ($21.8 million) over fiscal year 2000 enacted.
                                     ______

         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
    7.3 million supporters nationwide. As the largest animal protection
    organization in the country, we urge the Committee to address these
    priority issues in the fiscal year 2001 budget.
           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. For that reason,
    The HSUS strongly supports the Administration's request of $52 million
    for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Operations and
    Maintenance, an increase of $12.6 million. Of that amount, $1.8 million
    is specifically requested for the Clark R. Bavin Wildlife Forensics
    Laboratory. In addition to the Administration's request, The HSUS asks
    that additional funds be appropriated as necessary to address the
    burgeoning trade in bear parts.

    RHINO & 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 C including live capture
    for trade, captive breeding, and entertainment to meet the demand of
    the public display industry C under the guise of conservation for these
    endangered animals.

            WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM/FERTILITY CONTROL RESEARCH

        Wild horses and burros are a public trust greatly beloved by the
    American people. Consequently, we strongly believe that the Bureau of
    Land Management (BLM) should be given the direction and resources it
    needs to assure the health and prosperity of wild horse and burro herds
    and the public lands they inhabit. During the last two years, under the
    tenure of the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board (for which The HSUS
    was privileged to provide a representative), the BLM has made important
    progress. There was very significant improvement in the management and
    administration of the Adopt-a-Horse-or-Burro Program, in the
    exploration of alternative methods for improving the marketing and
    adoptability of horses, and in the development of strategies for
    improving the management of wild horses and burros on the range.
        One of the Advisory Board's most important sets of recommendations
    asked the BLM to develop strategies for setting and attaining
    appropriate management levels on all herd management areas. The fruit
    of these recommendations is the ``Strategy to Achieve Healthy
    Rangelands and Viable Herds,'' incorporated into the BLM's
    ``Restoration of Threatened Watersheds'' initiative. This initiative
    requests a funding increase of $9 million per year above current
    funding levels for each of the next four years to allow the removal of
    additional (mostly older) horses from the range. With this funding, the
    BLM believes it can reach appropriate management levels on all herd
    management areas.
        With some trepidation, The HSUS supports this funding increase. At
    this time, we see no other way out of the bind in which the BLM Wild
    Horse and Burro Program finds itself. Past mismanagement and the
    tendency of the adoption program to drive on-the-range management have
    led to damage to some parts of the range, and produced an unhealthy
    predominance of aging horses in many wild herds. Importantly, the
    initiative should help restore a healthy age balance, reversing the
    effects of past policies of selectively removing younger animals for
    adoption. But our support for what could be a massive reduction in the
    number of wild horses on the range rests on several conditions. First,
    there must be thorough NEPA review of livestock grazing permits on
    public lands, so that range deterioration associated with livestock
    grazing can be stopped, and wild horses and burros not be falsely and
    fruitlessly blamed for harm to the range caused by livestock. Second,
    the BLM must justify all removals of horses or burros with current
    monitoring data, as the law requires. Third, the BLM should protect the
    viability of small, isolated populations of wild horses and burros,
    increasing forage allocation to horses and burros or expanding herd
    management areas if neccessary. Finally, the BLM should revisit its
    decisions to exclude horses or burros from historically occupied herd
    areas, and consider reestablishing herds where current conditions allow
    it. More generally, we recommend that the BLM:
      --Fully implement all recommendations of the Advisory Board;
      --Assure the public a voice in wild horse management decisions by
            limiting its use of the ``full force and effect'' regulations
            to true emergencies; and
      --Use qualified volunteers when possible, to enhance the system for
            screening potential adopters, perform more post-adoption
            compliance checks, and investigate what factors lead to
            successful, long-term adoptions.
        Regarding fertility control, since 1992, the BLM has funded
    research on the use of immunocontraceptives to help control wild horse
    populations. As a result of that investment, a management tool is
    almost in hand: there is now a usable, one-shot immunocontraceptive
    vaccine that prevents pregnancy in wild horses for one year. BLM models
    indicate that, while the current vaccine is helpful, management use of
    a one-shot vaccine that prevents pregnancy for two years will
    significantly reduce both program costs and stress on horses by
    reducing the frequency of round-ups and reducing the number of horses
    that must enter the adoption program. Testing of a one-shot, two-year
    vaccine began in November 1999, and a research assistance agreement
    with BLM is in place to complete the study. We urge the Committee to
    specifically provide the Biological Resources Division of the USGS
    (which now administers this research) with the $200,000 needed to
    complete the study, so that BLM will have this vital management tool.
    The HSUS looks forward to continuing to work with the BLM on all these
    issues.

                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 year 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 1999, 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, South Dakota, and California, providing over 50
    days of clinics. In 2000, HSUS hopes to expand its program to provide
    some assistance to more than 15 reservations in Montana, North Dakota,
    South Dakota, California, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, 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); and grants to
    Native Nation animal control agencies for facilities improvement or
    construction. The requested funding could be allocated as follows:
      --$200,000 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/day honorarium for 3 veterinarians. This honorarium is
            necessary to recruit local veterinarians who could then be
            called upon for annual follow-up services.
      --$380,000 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 appreciates the acknowledgment of these problems in the
    fiscal year 2000 Senate Committee Report and Conference Report, and
    also in the President's justifications accompanying his proposed budget
    for fiscal year 2001. We urge the Committee to make this much-needed
    modest investment.

                     TRAPPING ON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

        Last year, the House approved an amendment, offered by
    Appropriations Committee member Sam Farr, to bar the use of tax dollars
    to administer or promote the use of steel-jawed leghold traps or neck
    snares for commerce or recreation on units of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System. The amendment allowed the use of these traps for the
    purposes of research, subsistence, conservation, or facilities
    protection. The House approved this measure by a bipartisan vote of
    259-166, with a majority of the members of the House Subcommittee on
    Interior Appropriations favoring the amendment. Unfortunately, the
    Senate rejected an identical amendment offered by Senator Robert
    Torricelli, and the Conferees chose not to include any restrictions on
    trapping in the fiscal year 2000 Interior Appropriations Act.
        The House approval came in spite of Interior Department opposition,
    which was later recanted as the Administration more closely considered
    the actual reach of the amendment. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt
    indicated, in a July 26th letter to Senator Torricelli, ``After careful
    consideration, I can advise you that your amendment would not impact
    the ability of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage refuges
    under the Organic Act of 1997.'' Similarly, F&WS Director Jamie
    Rappaport Clark stated in an October 1, 1999 letter to Representative
    Farr that, ``we conclude that the amendment will not impair the mission
    of the National Wildlife Refuge System or individual refuge purposes.
    Your amendment will eliminate the use of leghold traps within National
    Wildlife Refuges when the use of those traps has no specifically
    identified wildlife management, facility protection or public safety
    purpose C i.e., purely recreational or commercial trapping.''
        We urge the Committee to incorporate the language of last year's
    Torricelli/Farr amendment in the fiscal year 2001 Interior
    Appropriations Act. It is a sensible, humane, and narrowly crafted
    provision. According to a June 1997 report to the Congress, ``Mammal
    Trapping within the National Wildlife Refuge System: 1992-1996,'' the
    Fish and Wildlife Service administered 487 trapping programs on 281
    refuges; thus, more than half of the nation's 520 refuges permit some
    trapping. According to the report, ``[e]ighty-five percent of the
    mammal trapping programs on refuges were conducted primarily for
    wildlife and facilities management reasons. The remaining 15 percent
    occurred primarily to provide recreational, commercial, or subsistence
    opportunities to the public.'' The Torricelli/Farr amendment would not
    have an impact on the wildlife and facilities management programs or
    the subsistence programs. Thus, the amendment would affect less than 15
    percent of the trapping programs on the refuges.
        The American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal
    Hospital Association, and the World Veterinary Organization have all
    declared leghold traps to be ``inhumane.'' These traps are designed to
    slam closed and grip tightly an animal's leg or other body part.
    Lacerations, broken bones, joint dislocations and gangrene can result.
    Additional injuries result as the animal struggles to free itself,
    sometimes chewing off a leg or breaking teeth from biting the metal
    trap. Animals caught in leghold traps sometimes die from dehydration,
    starvation, exposure to the elements, or predators. An animal may
    suffer misery for several days before a trapper returns to check a
    trap. These traps are as indiscriminate as they are inhumane. Any
    animal unlucky enough to stumble across a trap will be victimized by
    it. In addition to catching ``target'' animals, traps catch non-target,
    or ``trash,'' animals, such as family pets, eagles, and other protected
    species. A number of studies conducted by professionals from management
    agencies reveal that for every target animal caught in a steel-jawed
    leghold trap, there are from one to ten non-target animals caught. This
    is an unacceptable level of by-catch.
        National Wildlife Refuges should not allow commercial and
    recreational trapping with inhumane traps. Refuges are the only
    category of lands specifically set aside for the protection and benefit
    of wildlife. If we can't protect wildlife from commercial exploitation
    by cruel means on National Wildlife Refuges, where can we provide
    protection for these creatures? Voters in Arizona, California,
    Colorado, and Massachusetts have approved ballot measures to ban
    leghold traps. New Jersey and Florida have also banned the use of these
    traps, and many other states have severe restrictions on their use,
    including Connecticut and Rhode Island. Citizens are now gathering
    signatures in Oregon and Washington to place measures on November 2000
    ballots to restrict these devices. A May 1999 national poll conducted
    by Peter Hart Research Associates, Inc., revealed that 84 percent of
    respondents oppose the use of steel-jawed leghold traps on National
    Wildlife Refuges. There are dozens of wildlife refuges in Arizona,
    California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Florida. There
    have been no adverse impacts on those refuges from the statewide bans.
        The Torricelli/Farr amendment would not bar trapping on refuges.
    Other traps, including foot snares, Conibears, and box and cage traps,
    could be used for any purpose consistent with law and regulation on the
    refuges. The Torricelli/Farr amendment would not forbid the use of
    steel traps or neck snares. It would ban those two devices just for
    commercial and recreational purposes. We urge your favorable
    consideration of this language for fiscal year 2001.
        Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views and
    priorities for the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of
    fiscal year 2001. 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 the Frontera Audubon Society

        Frontera Audubon Society requests appropriation of $5 million from
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year 2001 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 is America's biological treasurehouse--
    containing greater biological diversity than any similar-sized area of
    the country.
        This richness stems from the Valley's location and variety of
    ecosystems. The Valley lies farther south than any other parts of the
    country than Hawaii and the southern tip of Florida. It sits at the
    junction of four climatic zones--western desert, northern temperate,
    coastal, and tropical. The result is a mingling of the animals and
    plants from all those regions. The biodiversity is further enhanced by
    the joining of two major migratory bird flyways.
        There are 465 bird species that reside in or migrate through the
    Valley--half of all bird species found in the United States. Sixty of
    these birds live nowhere else in the country. Also living in the Valley
    are more than 200 species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish,
    as well as 300 species of butterflies, and 1,200 species of plants. In
    fact, more species make their home in the Lower Rio Grande Valley than
    in any other similar-sized area of the country.
        Twenty years ago, visionaries including then-Representative Kika de
    la Garza recognized the importance of protecting this biological
    treasure. They decided to create a ``wildlife corridor'' that would
    protect an estimated 250,000 acres--owned by a variety of public and
    private entities and laid out so that wildlife could travel among the
    protected plots to utilize the various habitats that they need.
        The keystone of this network of protected areas is the Lower Rio
    Grande National Wildlife Refuge. It makes up more than half of the
    planned total protected area. And by protecting vital strips along the
    river and its tributaries, and connecting otherwise isolated pockets of
    habitat, it provides the ``corridors'' that link habitats ranging from
    the thorn and riparian forests in Starr County to the wetlands of the
    coast.
        For twenty years, Frontera Audubon Society has asked the Congress
    to fund land acquisition for the Lower Rio Grande NWR--and the Congress
    has responded. Currently, the Refuge has acquired 86,246 of its planned
    132,500--leaving 46,254 to be acquired. In the current fiscal year,
    Refuge staff should complete the purchase of approximately 5,000-6,000
    acres. (Because funds are available, the Refuge has signed purchase
    agreements with the owners; as appraisals are completed, the Refuge
    makes formal offers.) These purchases will bring the total area
    purchased to above 90,000 acres.
        Now is the time to press for rapid purchase of the remaining 40,000
    acres.
        The Refuge is positioned to continue acquisitions at a pace of
    approximately 5,000 acres per year. Refuge staff have discussed with
    willing sellers possible purchase of 48 additional tracts totalling
    21,566 acres--lands that meet the Refuge's biological and other
    criteria. These tracts include 5,684 of Loma Tidal Flats; 4,800 acres
    of Coastal Brush and Potholes; 220 acres of the unique Sabal Palm
    Forest; 5,182 of Mid-Valley Riparian Forest; 1,480 acres of Mid-Delta
    Thorn Forest; 1,100 acres of Woodland Potholes and Basins; 1,356 acres
    of Upper Valley Flood Forest; 980 acres of Ramadero; and 763 acres of
    Chihuahuan Thorn Forest. These wildlife lands are worth approximately
    $22 million.
        We are particularly pleased that the Refuge is actively buying
    acreage in the Coastal Brush and Potholes, Upper Valley Flood Forest,
    Chihuahuan Thorn Forest, and Ramaderos ecosystems. To date, obtaining
    examples of these unique habitats has lagged far behind goals laid out
    in the Refuge's Land Protection Plan. The Refuge recently obtained
    1,400 acres of Upper Valley Flood Forest, which include 12 miles of
    river front. Purchases in calendar year 2000 should include another
    1,000 acres of riparian woodland and 650 acres of Chihuahuan Thorn
    Forest. As already noted, Refuge staff are negotiating with owners of
    approximately 7,800 additional acres belonging to these previously
    neglected ecosystem types.
        By the beginning of fiscal year 2001, the Refuge will have
    exhausted available funds. If the Congress does not appropriate a
    reasonable sum--we suggest $5 million, land acquisition will virtually
    cease--again. Appropriation of $5 million for the Lower Rio Grande
    Valley National Wildlife Refuge will allow it to purchase approximately
    4,000 acres selected from among the tracts described here. Furthermore,
    negotiations, preparation of contracts, appraisals, and other work
    aimed at future purchases can only continue when Refuge staff have
    funds in hand.
        Completing the Refuge enjoys the support of many interest groups in
    the Valley because of the importance of nature tourism to the region's
    economy. Tourism is the third largest industry in Texas, worth more
    than $25 billion. Texas is the number one birding destination in the
    United States and the Lower Rio Grande Valley is one of three ``birding
    hotspots'' in the State. Most tourists now go to Brownsville,
    Harlingen, and McAllen; we anticipate that expansion of Refuge holdings
    in the Upper Valley Flood Forest, Ramadero, and Chihuahuan Thorn Forest
    ecosystem types can help to draw tourists to the western end of the
    region, Starr County, which offers interesting historic towns and
    buildings as well as these unique ecosystems and their associated bird
    life.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the World Wildlife Fund

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of World
    Wildlife Fund (WWF), thank you for the opportunity to submit our views
    on the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for the Interior Department
    and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). WWF strongly supports the
    Administration's request for increased funding of natural resources
    management and conservation programs.
        As the centerpiece of our Living Planet Campaign, WWF has
    identified endangered spaces, the world's most outstanding harbors of
    biological diversity, which we call the Global 200 ecoregions. Thirty-
    two of 116 ecoregions located in North America were found by WWF
    scientists to be globally outstanding. See Ricketts, et al.,
    Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment
    (1999). Five of these ecoregions have been targeted by WWF as immediate
    priorities for our own efforts: South Florida (Everglades and Keys);
    Southeastern Rivers and Streams; Chihuahuan Desert; Klamath-Siskiyou
    Forests; and the Bering Sea.
        In addition to endangered spaces, WWF is also working to conserve
    endangered species, particularly tigers, rhinos, giant pandas, and
    whales. Furthermore, WWF is working to address global threats to
    biodiversity. These include unsustainable logging; overfishing; climate
    change, and toxic chemicals.
        Through the Living Planet Campaign, WWF seeks to challenge
    governments, global institutions, business, and people everywhere to
    make conservation of threatened species and shrinking habitats a
    universal goal for the sake of future generations. This Subcommittee
    can help meet that challenge by approving the President's funding
    request for natural resources management and conservation.
        I will now turn to specific budget proposals that WWF believes are
    especially important to achieving our goal of leaving our children a
    living planet.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    Everglades Ecosystem Restoration
        The Everglades is one of the planet's only flooded grasslands--a
    rain-driven wetland that once flowed from Lake Okeechobee to Florida
    Bay. This River of Grass is also one of the country's most imperiled
    ecosystems, a globally outstanding ecoregion which scientists believe
    must be protected. By restoring the Everglades, we will be ensuring
    that there is water in sufficient quantity and quality to support life,
    human and wild, throughout South Florida and beyond.
        This is a critical time for the Everglades. With the completion of
    the Comprehensive Plan for Everglades Restoration by the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers last July, authorizing legislation for the
    Comprehensive Plan and its projects will be a high priority during this
    session of Congress.
        Accordingly, the Administration has requested $143.7 million for
    its fiscal year 2001 Everglades Interior budget, including $80 million
    for land acquisition. WWF believes this funding level is adequate given
    the Department's proposed fiscal year 2001 activities for the
    Everglades. We believe land acquisition continues to be among the most
    urgent priorities of the restoration plan. WWF also urges the
    Subcommittee to support the Administration's $30 million request for
    land acquisition in seven of South Florida's national wildlife refuges.
    We also urge the Subcommittee to approve the Administration's $47
    million request for matching-funds for the land acquisition program
    with the State of Florida. This important matching grant program will
    allow the Federal Government and the State of Florida to cost-share
    acquisitions necessary to implement the Everglades Restoration Plan.
    The Florida Legislature is expected to pass a funding bill this session
    to meet the state's commitment to restoration.

                         U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

    African Elephant, Asian Elephant and Rhino/Tiger Conservation Funds
        WWF supports the President's request for $1 million each for the
    African Elephant, Asian Elephant, Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation
    Funds. Past funding has been of considerable help in arresting the
    decline of these animals and in encouraging local and international
    matching contributions from governments, non-governmental
    organizations, and others. However, additional funds are urgently
    needed for protected area conservation, anti-poaching efforts,
    monitoring populations, translocating animals, and mitigating human/
    wildlife conflicts. Consequently, WWF urges you to fully fund the
    Administration's proposed increase to $1 million each for the three
    funds.

    Endangered Species
        WWF strongly supports the President's $7 million increase in
    overall funding for endangered species programs for fiscal year 2001.
    In particular, WWF supports the $7 million increase for Endangered
    Species Act Section 7 consultations and Section 10 habitat conservation
    planning. These procedures have been successful at reconciling species
    conservation with development projects. At the same time, monitoring
    the impact of the incidental take of species resulting from such
    projects has been inadequate. Accordingly, WWF urges the Subcommittee
    to dedicate a large percentage of this budget increase to monitoring
    existing habitat conservation plans and Section 7 incidental take
    statements. Such monitoring is essential to ensure that incidental take
    does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery
    of the affected species.
        WWF also supports the Administration's increasing emphasis on
    incentives for voluntary species conservation by private landowners,
    reflected in proposed increases for Safe Harbor agreements and a $5
    million request for the landowner incentive grant program. Providing
    incentives to the nation's private landowners to conserve endangered
    species and habitat is vitally important to successful endangered
    species conservation.
    Law Enforcement
        WWF is very concerned about the budget crisis currently facing the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Law Enforcement. Though
    long recognized as a world leader in wildlife law enforcement, the
    division has not seen a significant budget increase in over 15 years.
    Because of chronic underfunding, the division presently can only
    support 303 agents and inspectors, more than 40 fewer than have been
    authorized. This disparity will only increase due to dozens of
    mandatory retirements in the next few years. Despite a funding and
    workforce shortfall, the division is now asked to enforce more statutes
    and regulations, and protect more species than ever before. Further,
    the division is increasingly called upon to provide enforcement
    training and forensics support by states and foreign governments in the
    global fight to protect endangered species.
        The Administration is seeking an increase of $12.6 million for law
    enforcement operations and management in fiscal year 2001, and $1.8
    million to update and expand its world-renowned forensics lab. WWF
    urges the Subcommittee to approve these critically important funding
    increases, to support the Division of Law Enforcement's efforts to
    pursue wildlife crime at home and lend its expertise abroad.
    Environmental Contaminants
        WWF believes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of
    Environmental Contaminants (DEC) is woefully underfunded. At the
    proposed funding level of $10.3 million for fiscal year 2001, the
    program will not meet its objectives of investigating and assessing the
    effects of environmental contaminants on wildlife and maintaining a
    scientifically credible program through proper program support,
    training, and technical assistance.
        It is important to note that a large number of wildlife populations
    have been extirpated and currently many populations are severely
    affected by contaminants. Environmental contaminants have caused
    widespread feminization and demasculinization of male fish, birds,
    reptiles, and mammals; reproductive loss in populations of fish and
    bald eagles; inability of young animals to reach adulthood; rupturing
    thyroid glands in Great Lakes fish; immune suppression in birds and
    animals; and bird kills caused by legal pesticide use. At the current
    budget level, the DEC cannot possibly afford the technological advances
    that would allow it to deal with such immense threats. It is imperative
    that the DEC's budget be increased to enable it to adequately address
    these serious environmental problems.
        The importance of the DEC's work on environmental contaminants is
    increased even more by recent recommendations from a federal advisory
    Committee on screening and testing chemicals and by the National
    Academy of Sciences. In response to Congress's mandate for the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a screening and
    testing program for hormone-disrupting chemicals by August 1999, the
    federal stakeholder advisory Committee (consisting of industry,
    environmental, and other representatives) reached strong consensus-
    based conclusions on how such a program should be designed. The
    National Academy of Sciences, whose report on hormone disruptors cites
    substantial evidence of impacts on fish and wildlife, has endorsed
    these recommendations.
        In addition to EPA, which focuses on human health impacts of
    contaminants, the DEC has an essential role to play in providing
    information on exposures and effects in wildlife from such chemicals in
    the environment. However, unless the DEC is given the necessary
    resources, the impacts of contaminants on wildlife will not be
    adequately measured. At last year's budget hearings, Representative
    James Moran asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's witness about
    this issue. The official responded that the fiscal year 2000 budget
    proposal did not include any additional resources to address wildlife
    contaminants associated with endocrine disruptors. Unfortunately, this
    appears to be the case in fiscal year 2001 as well.
        Under its proposed budget of $10.3 million, the DEC cannot
    adequately respond to the increasing demands for investigation and
    public education. Even if its proposed budget were doubled, it would be
    inadequate. Other nations are taking the lead away from the United
    States in the field of wildlife toxicology. Indeed, without
    substantially increased funding, the DEC is unlikely to be able to
    comply with the requirements of the Government Performance and Results
    Act. WWF urges the Subcommittee to provide substantially increased
    funding for the DEC.

                              U.S. FOREST SERVICE

        WWF strongly supports the Administration's roadless area
    initiative. The USFS should not build new roads in roadless areas.
    Instead, it should invest in environmentally beneficial activities such
    as watershed restoration and maintenance of existing roads. The USFS
    indicates that it only receives about 20 percent of the funding it
    needs each year to maintain existing roads to federal safety and
    environmental standards. Road failures continue to be a major forest
    health problem on public lands and have contributed to slope
    destabilization and the degradation of fisheries, water quality.
    Accordingly, WWF supports the Administration's request for $129.5
    million for the national forest road system. WWF also supports
    increased funding for planning and monitoring because it provides
    critical information necessary to the implementation of the Northwest
    Forest Plan.
        WWF endorses the cooperative activities of the Forest Service
    through the activities of state and private forestry programs. Thus, we
    support the agency's Forest Stewardship, Stewardship Incentives, Forest
    Legacy, and Urban and Community Forestry programs. These highly-
    regarded programs highlight for the public forestry operations and land
    protection principles that are based on sound stewardship. However, our
    experience suggests these programs are largely underfunded and will not
    be able to keep up with growing demand.
        WWF urges the Subcommittee to appropriate $80 million for the
    Forest Legacy program. The program has a proven track record of
    protecting environmentally significant privately owned forests from
    conversion to other uses through purchase of permanent conservation
    easements. For northern New England alone, the Northern Forest Alliance
    has identified tens of millions of dollars of specific, high priority
    Legacy projects that need funding.
        We strongly support the new mandate to carry out the USFS Forest
    Inventory and Analysis (FIA) updates on an annual basis, and we support
    full funding to carry them out effectively. The FIA is an important
    process that provides useful data to forest managers and
    conservationists.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In closing, WWF urges you to approve the President's proposed
    fiscal year 2001 budget for these important natural resources
    management and conservation programs. In addition, WWF asks that you
    oppose any efforts to attach harmful riders weakening environmental
    protection to any appropriations measures this year.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Defenders of Wildlife

        On behalf of our more than 380,000 members and supporters Defenders
    thanks you for the opportunity to testify.

          LANDS LEGACY/LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (MULTI-AGENCY)

        Defenders urges full funding of the President's Lands Legacy
    Initiative, a total of approx. $971 million under the Subcommittee's
    jurisdiction.--$450 for federal LWCF (DOI/FS), $65 million for the
    Cooperative Endangered Species Fund (FWS); $150 million for state land
    acquisition grants (DOI); $50 million for state open space planning
    grants with the caveat discussed below under USGS (DOI); $60 million
    for Forest Legacy (FS); $40 million for Urban and Community Forestry
    (FS); $6 million for the smart growth revolving loan program (FS); $20
    million for Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (NPS); $30 million for
    the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund (FWS); and $100 million
    for State Non-Game Wildlife Grants (FWS). We urge the Subcommittee to
    fund Lands Legacy at the requested level and to work with the Budget
    Committee to establish the new budget category proposed to dedicate and
    protect the total $1.4 billion level for Lands Legacy for future years.
    Broad support exists in Congress and across the nation for permanent
    funding for these programs at predictable levels, as evidenced by the
    array of permanent funding bills pending that have the combined support
    of hundreds of cosponsors. The Subcommittee has the opportunity to take
    the initiative and establish this critical new fund.
        We wish to highlight several components of Lands Legacy. First, the
    $450 million for federal land acquisition is needed to protect numerous
    areas in our Refuges, Forests, Parks, and BLM-managed special areas.
    Defenders will soon be completing a report that highlights the
    importance of using LWCF for biodiversity conservation; in it, based on
    scientific analysis, we will recommend funding of key projects in the
    President's budget that will contribute to the conservation of
    endangered ecosystems as identified in Defender's 1995 report,
    ``Endangered Ecosystems: A Status Report on America's Vanishing Habitat
    and Wildlife.'' 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, and for land acquisition to support both HCPs and species
    recovery. Third, the new $100 million funding request for State Non-
    Game Wildlife Grants is critically needed to provide some reliable
    funding for conservation of the roughly 90 percent of species that are
    neither hunted or fished nor federally listed as threatened or
    endangered. Annual state funding spent on conservation of non-game
    species is less than one-tenth the amount spent on hunted species. In
    funding the non-game program, we also strongly urge the Subcommittee to
    include report language stipulating that each state that has not
    already done so develop a plan for prioritizing fund expenditures that
    includes assessing species population status and distribution, habitats
    essential for their conservation, factors contributing to the decline
    of the identified species and habits, and actions to address these
    factors. These non-burdensome planning requirements are almost
    identical to those in the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980,
    passed to conserve non-game species but never funded; such plans would
    be extremely cost-effective in providing a comprehensive blueprint for
    states to more strategically conserve biodiversity and avert new ESA
    listings. Several states (Florida and Oregon) have already completed
    plans.
        Defenders continues to strongly support Pima County's landmark
    Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and related efforts, one of the
    largest and most complex multi-species conservation plans in the
    nation, and a model for funding under various components of Lands
    Legacy such as planning, easements, and state and federal land
    acquisition. A preliminary plan will be released this summer and an
    additional $2 million will be needed for fiscal year 2001 to continue
    and expedite the planning process. Integral to SDCP efforts is
    continued acquisition for Saguaro National Park West expansion
    (approved by Congress in 1994 without a funding source) and initial
    acquisition for Ironwood National Monument; $16 million is needed to
    complete Saguaro West acquisition and purchase conservation easements
    and $14.9 million is needed for initial Ironwood NM acquisition and
    easement purchase. We are extremely concerned that the Administration
    has not requested any fiscal year 2001 funding for Saguaro NP and
    Ironwood NM and urge funding for fiscal year 2001, particularly for
    biologically rich wildlife corridors and ancient ironwood forests
    threatened by development. Given that this is one of the fastest
    growing areas in the U.S., if not purchased soon, lands will no longer
    be available nor affordable.

                         U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        Endangered Species.--At the very least, Defenders urges full
    funding of the President's fiscal year 2001 $115.3 million request for
    the Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) four main endangered species
    accounts: Candidate Conservation ($8.4 million), Listing ($7.2
    million), Recovery ($55.3 million), Consultation ($39.4 million), and
    the ESA Landowner Incentive Program $5 million). We also urge full
    funding of the $65 million request for the Cooperative Endangered
    Species Fund, discussed under Lands Legacy (above).
        Defenders supports the increase for Candidate Conservation, but has
    serious concerns with the FWS implementation of this program. The
    increased money is needed for status surveys on approximately 265
    candidates, development of additional Candidate Conservation Agreements
    (CCAs) when appropriate, and necessary monitoring of CCAs and technical
    assistance to current partners to ensure biological improvement of
    covered species and reduction of threats. We cannot, however, support
    the continued use of these funds to illegally avoid listing species
    that clearly meet the ESA's criteria for listing. We also question FWS
    priorities in requesting over a million dollars more for Candidate
    Conservation than that requested for listing and critical habitat,
    given that the current resource needs for the latter two program
    elements is substantially greater than that of the former. FWS funding
    requests are clearly reflective of a fundamental and what we consider
    to be improper shifting of ESA program priorities. In its budget
    justification, FWS considers ``[m]aking listing species unnecessary''
    as one of its three Endangered Species Program's priorities. Noticeably
    absent from that list, however, is the ESA's most fundamental and
    important provision--the listing of species determined to be endangered
    or threatened.
        The Listing increase is clearly needed but is inadequate to process
    listings on species requiring the Act's protection in fiscal year 2001,
    and to designate critical habitat for the nearly 90 percent of listed
    species that currently do not have it. The fact that FWS continues to
    operate under its Listing Priority Guidance, nearly 4 years after the
    listing moratorium was lifted, is the clearest indication that the
    agency is failing to request or receive enough money to process needed
    listing and critical habitat actions. We urge this Committee to
    appropriate funding for the listing and critical habitat program
    element that is commensurate with the substantial and growing backlog
    for these activities. We continue to oppose the Administration's
    request for statutory language to cap the listing program which is
    clearly an attempt to avoid having to comply with statutory mandates
    and court orders. The FWS should instead request an amount for listing
    and critical habitat that accurately reflects its workload.
        The Consultation increase will help address the growing Section 7
    consultation workload (more than 40,500 actions projected for fiscal
    year 2001 and annually thereafter) and continually expanding use of
    Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs--more than 550 new and ongoing HCPs
    projected for fiscal year 2001) 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 is fundamentally flawed and in need of
    regulatory modifications. The Administration has failed even to
    finalize its so-called 5-Point Plan which would make modest,
    nonregulatory changes to the HCP program. We urge this Subcommittee to
    include report language directing the Administration to remedy the
    numerous deficiencies in its HCP program and at a minimum to finalize
    its 5-Point Plan.
        The Recovery request will help address the backlog of more than 300
    species still without final recovery plans as well as recovery
    implementation and monitoring for the nearly 1300 listed species
    expected by the end of fiscal year 2001, a 42 percent increase just
    since 1995. Recovery is the goal of the Act yet recovery implementation
    continues to be critically underfunded. 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
    needed efforts in the NE on recovery of lynx which has just been
    listed, $50,000 is necessary. For the successful red wolf program in
    North Carolina, $1 million will support continued captive propagation,
    monitoring, and reintroduction. FWS needs $1.2 million to ensure
    continued Mexican wolf restoration success, specifically to: provide a
    full-time biologist for the White Mountain Apache tribe; provide
    funding for biologists from AZ and NM Fish and Game Departments;
    increase law enforcement; and equipment to manage wolves in remote and
    difficult to access areas. For the Northern Rockies wolf recovery
    program, $1.325 million is needed for the FWS of which $600,000 will be
    passed through to the Nez Perce tribe, while an additional $220,000
    (NPS) will pay for management of the program in Yellowstone National
    Park. At least $380,000 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 Defenders of Wildlife--Page for reintroduced
    populations. FWS will need $1.65 million in fiscal year 2001 to conduct
    critical research necessary to identify the cause of a precipitous 17
    percent decline in southern sea otter populations over the past 4
    years. Finally, for the grizzly recovery program which covers 30,000
    square miles in four states, $1.3 million is needed of which $400,000
    is for Bitterroot reintroduction (our highest priority), $550,000 is
    for the base program, $250,000 for an EIS on grizzly recovery in the
    North Cascades, and $100,000 for enhanced monitoring and nuisance bear
    work in the Northern Continental Divide ecosystem. Defenders has
    opposed attempts to derail the Bitterroot grizzly reintroduction in the
    last few years' appropriations bills and will work to ensure that
    $115,000 of the grizzly recovery budget will be will be used for
    finalization of the EIS, issuance of a ROD and final rule and creation
    of a citizen management Committee in fiscal year 2001.
        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 2001
    budget request of $22.8 million for critical activities such as
    conservation plan implementation, monitoring, and use of scientific
    information in designing management strategies. Twelve critical
    projects will be funded with increases including: development of the
    West Coast Seabird Conservation and Management Plan; strengthening of
    bird habitat and population evaluation teams; and integration of
    national objectives into refuge comprehensive plans.
        International Affairs.--Under General Administration, Defenders
    endorses the $11.4 million 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 $600,000 (split evenly between
    International Wildlife Trade and International Wildlife Conservation
    within that line item) for personnel and/or contracts to enable FWS to
    assist the CITES Parties in strengthening national legislation that
    implements CITES and improving wildlife law enforcement.
        National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Operations and
    Maintenance.--We deeply appreciate the Subcommittee's strong support
    for the Refuge System and its leadership in providing critically needed
    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
    again reviewed FWS expenditures and concluded that fiscal year 1999
    funds were used as intended, 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 to address the $953 million
    in operations needs and the $578 million maintenance backlog. FWS is
    currently working to separate its Refuge Operating Needs System into
    two tiers as directed by the Subcommittee last year with completion
    projected for June. The largest portion of Tier One is expected to be
    the minimum staffing needs estimated to require an additional 1400 full
    time employees. In its five year plan, CARE has identified a target O&M
    level of $495 million necessary to bring the Refuge System into a state
    of health by its 100th anniversary. An additional $85 million over the
    President's request is needed for fiscal year 2001 to keep pace with
    the CARE plan; of this $68 million should be focused on operations
    increases which have not kept pace with those for maintenance. These
    Operations increases are critically needed to carry out the
    requirements of the new National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
    and to implement the FWS blueprint for strengthening the Refuge System,
    ``Fulfilling The Promise--Visions for Wildlife, Habitat, People and
    Leadership.''
        Law Enforcement.--We urge a $5 million increase over the
    President's requested $52 million for Law Enforcement. The current
    budget does not cover the basic needs of existing staff which total 42
    fewer than authorized; pending retirements could reduce staff to 75
    percent of the authorized level by the end of fiscal year 2000. The $5
    million over request should be allocated as follows: $3 million and an
    additional 3 full time employees to bring the number of inspectors up
    to authorized strength and provide resources necessary to monitor
    increasing wildlife trade flows; and $2 million and an additional 3
    full time employees to increase the level of anti-poaching training,
    CITES enforcement workshops, and technical assistance to countries
    around the world. Over the years, Defenders has partnered with the FWS
    on law enforcement efforts by contributing nearly $100,000 in rewards
    to apprehend illegal killers of wolves, bears, eagles, and cormorants.

                              U.S. FOREST SERVICE

        In general, while Defenders does not pretend to be expert in
    improvements needed to address FS accountability problems, we have
    examined the proposed simplification of the FS budget structure and are
    concerned that tracking and oversight of funding for resource
    management needs will be more difficult. Major priorities for Defenders
    for fiscal year 2001 are again 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. Under Forest and Rangeland Research Wildlife,
    Fish, Water, and Air program, Defenders is concerned that the $43.8
    million requested will be inadequate to carry out needed efforts,
    particularly for TE&S research. The agency has identified $27 million
    in Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air research opportunities that will go
    unfunded at this level, including critically needed work on forest
    carnivores (lynx, wolverine, marten, fisher), bats, plants, amphibians,
    mussels, and crayfish. This program continues to be 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. We therefore
    recommend a $10 million increase over the President's request for
    Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air Research to be targeted at TE&S efforts.
    Given that the lynx has recently been listed, sound scientific
    information on this species is more crucial than ever. We opposed
    language initially included in the fiscal year 2000 Senate report that
    would have reduced funding for research and targeted it on forest and
    rangeland health and productivity and targeted Wildlife, Fish, Water,
    and Air research for deep cuts or termination. We will continue to
    oppose any similar efforts in the Senate this year. Defenders also
    strongly urges full funding of the President's requested $33.5 million
    for TE&S Habitat Management under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation
    program; however, even the request falls $67 million below identified
    need. Increases are critically needed to provide for key activities
    such as: recovery activities for listed species; conservation
    strategies and agreements for highest priority species where continued
    viability is of grave concern; and establishment of inventory and
    monitoring protocols for highest priority TE&S species.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        Defenders strongly supports, at the very least, the requested
    levels in three important areas.--Wildlife and Fisheries Management
    ($40.7 million), Threatened and Endangered Species Management ($23.6
    million), and Rangeland Management ($72.8 million). BLM manages some of
    the most ecologically diverse habitat in the U.S., including habitat
    for 241 listed, 46 proposed, 55 candidate and 1500 sensitive species.
    To pro-actively deal with final listing decisions expected soon on a
    number of proposed species as well as continued recovery efforts for
    listed species, BLM has selected for coordinated conservation efforts
    two critical ecosystems where habitat for many of these species
    overlaps: the sagebrush ecosystem affecting sage grouse, Columbian
    sharp-tailed grouse, Great Basin redband trout and Lahontan cutthroat
    trout; and the prairie grasslands ecosystem affecting black-tailed
    prairie dog, black-footed ferret, lesser prairie chicken, piping
    plover, swift fox and numerous other species. Increases in Wildlife and
    Fisheries Management and Threatened and Endangered Species Management
    will be crucial to these comprehensive ecosystem level initiatives;
    moreover, BLM has identified an additional $4 million in unmet needs
    for these two efforts even at the level requested. Finally, the request
    for Rangeland Management will support needed environmental reviews for
    expiring grazing permits; we opposed the rider in the fiscal year 2000
    bill allowing renewal of permits without reviews and will continue to
    oppose any such riders in the fiscal year 2001 bill.

              U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIVISION

        Defenders supports the President's fiscal year 2001 level of $158.8
    million for BRD, as well as increases under other USGS divisions for
    BRD related activities such as.--Amphibian research and monitoring; DOI
    science priorities; Livable Communities/Lands Legacy; Decision Support;
    Aquatic Systems-Columbia River; Place-Based Studies; Science Support;
    and Facilities. BRD increases are critically needed to allow important
    research to move forward on amphibians and other declining species like
    sage grouse and mountain plover; even at the fiscal year 2001 request
    level, funding will still be about $20 million below the fiscal year
    1994 level adjusted for inflation. We wish to note however, that while
    we support the increase for Livable Communities/Lands Legacy, we are
    concerned that all of the increase--even for matching grants to
    communities--seems to be focused on information collection, transfer,
    and delivery. Increases for efficient transfer of useful data and its
    integration into important on the ground conservation planning are
    needed; but we also believe that at least some portion of the matching
    grant funds should be available to communities for other important
    activities related to conservation and smart-growth planning. Defenders
    maintains its strong support for the Gap Analysis Program (GAP), a
    collaborative effort involving the states and multiple partners to map
    our nation's biological diversity and areas currently managed for its
    protection; increases requested will be used to expand the current
    program to include invertebrate species and aquatic environments.

                            BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

        Defenders believes that increased funding should be provided for
    tribal conservation efforts on reservations. The Nez Perce Northern
    Rockies wolf program (under FWS) has been chronically underfunded (as
    evidenced by staffing and monitoring shortfalls) and two additional
    tribes, the Umatilla (OR) and White Mountain Apache (AZ) want to manage
    wolves in their areas. Defenders has contributed or secured funding for
    all three efforts, but federal funding is needed as well. In addition,
    the Blackfeet people need $125,000 through BIA for listed species
    management. Finally, with the determination that listing of the black-
    tailed prairie dog was warranted but precluded, Northern Great Plains
    Indian tribes have united to work collaboratively on prairie
    conservation under the newly formed Inter-Tribal Prairie Ecosystem
    Restoration Consortium. Tribes have requested the following amounts for
    prairie conservation plans: Consortium Coordinator, $145,000; Northern
    Cheyenne tribe, $156,650; Pine Ridge, $98,580; Rosebud Sioux, $248,000;
    Crow Creek Sioux, $16,800; Lower Brule Sioux, $18,980; Fort Belknap,
    $100,000; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Bethold Reservation,
    $37,250; Standing Rock Sioux, $93,600; and Crow Tribe, $100,000. The
    Cheyenne River Sioux have requested $8 million over the next 4 years to
    implement Phase II of their Prairie Management Plan at $2 million a
    year.

                     EVERGLADES RESTORATION (MULTI-AGENCY)

        Defenders urges full funding for Florida Everglades Watershed
    Restoration, a total of $143.8 million.--(FWS $37 million, NPS $97.5
    million, USGS $8.5 million, and BIA $0.4 million). These funds are
    vital for carrying out the first phases of the most ambitious and
    critical ecosystem restoration project in history. In July, the Army
    Corps of Engineers submitted to Congress its Comprehensive Plan to
    restore the Everglades, a successful collaboration between federal,
    state and local partners that truly represents an investment in the
    future of South Florida. Both Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida
    legislature have indicated that the State will deliver on its
    commitment to provide half the funding. We urge you to stay the course
    and fully fund this historic project, which has such unprecedented
    bipartisan and multi-agency support.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association

                                    ABSTRACT

        The Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA) requests an
    appropriation to facilitate the participation of Yukon River village
    fishermen in the recently-imposed Federal subsistence fishery
    management process in Alaska. YRDFA seeks an appropriation of $100,000
    in fiscal year 2001 funding. 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 Section 809 of the Alaska National
    Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Beginning in October 1, 1999 the Federal government through the
    U.S. Department of the Interior assumed authority in Alaska to provide
    for a rural subsistence priority in the use of fishery resources. This
    has lead to the imposition of a cumbersome regulatory structure on top
    of the existing state structure.
        The current State of Alaska regulatory system is structured as
    follows:
      --80 local Fish & Game Advisory Committees (12 of these are in the
            Yukon River drainage) Members are elected by their communities.
            Makes recommendations to Board of Fisheries.
      --Board of Fisheries (7-member board appointed by the Governor). Sets
            regulations Regulatory proposals for a specific region such as
            the Yukon are addressed every 3 years.
        The new Federal subsistence fishery management regulatory system is
    structured as follows:
      --10 Regional Subsistence Advisory Councils (3 of these have
            jurisdiction over the Yukon River; the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta
            Council, the Western Interior Council and the Eastern Interior
            Regional Council). The members of these councils are appointed
            by the Secretary of the Interior. The opinions of these
            councils on regulatory proposals and research projects are to
            be given serious consideration by the Federal Subsistence
            Board.
      --Federal Subsistence Board (composed of one representative each from
            the National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish &
            Wildlife Service, Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
            Management plus one subsistence user). Sets regulations for
            subsistence fisheries and, if necessary to protect the rural
            subsistence priority on Federal lands, overrides state fishery
            management actions.
        While Federal subsistence management staff have made a good effort
    to get information to villagers and the regional councils have held
    some meetings in the villages there is a serious need to improve
    fishermen participation in the Federal rule-making and regulatory
    process.--There are more than 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.
        Most of all fishermen need a chance to work directly with the
    regional councils in the formulation of research and regulatory
    proposals.--This can take the form of regional telephone conference
    calls followed by village-based workshops at the local level. Final
    consensus-building would be achieved through a 4-day Annual Fisheries
    Conference involving all 3 regional councils, the Board of Directors of
    the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association, chairman of the 12
    Yukon River State Fish & Game Advisory Councils and the public at
    large. Finally, rank-and-file fishermen need a chance to interact
    directly with the members of the Federal Subsistence Board who will set
    any final policy or regulations.
        Unless the residents and fishermen of the Yukon River understand
    how the new Federal subsistence management system works and most
    importantly has a chance to participate directly in that system it will
    be very difficult for Federal regulatory schemes to be accepted by the
    users themselves.--Without adequate public participation mistrust will
    build between the rank-and-file and the Regional Councils members who
    represent them and the Federal agency staff working in the subsistence
    management program.
        Since the Federal Government took over authority for subsistence
    fisheries management in October 1999 YRDFA staff has been in frequent
    consultation with both Federal staff and the three regional councils.
    YRDFA's resources are limited however and therefore we seek this
    funding for the following activities to improve the participation of
    village fishermen and women in the Federal decision-making process:

    Travel costs for participation at meetings of 3 regional
        councils with jurisdiction over Yukon River and meetings
        of Federal Subsistence Board..............................   $40,000
    Telephone conference calls between village representatives and
        Federal subsistence fisheries management staff............    10,000
    Annual Yukon River Fisheries Conference to facilitate dialogue
        between 3 regional councils, state advisory committee
        chairs, YRDFA and village fishermen and women.............    30,000
    YRDFA staff support to organize meetings, calls and conference    20,000

        Through such a comprehensive effort the fishermen and women of the
    Yukon will be fully informed and involved in working with the Federal
    subsistence fishery management program.

             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, Athabaskan 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 a quarterly 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.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Wood River Land Trust

        The Wood River Land Trust (WRLT) would like to submit this letter
    as written testimony regarding several programs funded under the fiscal
    year 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
    Specifically, we want to express our support for the USDA Forest
    Service's Forest Legacy Program, funding for the state grants program
    of the Land & Water Conservation Fund, and the requested appropriation
    for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act grants program.
        The WRLT uses voluntary methods to work with interested private
    landowners in central Idaho that wish to conserve their land in
    perpetuity. To date we have helped landowners protect over 2,300 acres
    of land in three counties. Federal funding for land conservation is
    critical in our efforts to advance voluntary land conservation. We ask
    that you consider appropriating the full amount requested by the
    Administration for these important programs that provide willing
    landowners with financial incentives to conserve their land.

                             FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

        We respectfully request that you allocate $60 million for the USDA
    Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program. This program provides grants to
    states for the purchase of conservation easements on commercially
    important and/or environmentally sensitive private forestland.
        Idaho is currently working to become enrolled in this program.
    Funding it at this level will allow the state--in partnership with
    entities such as land trusts--to develop several projects that will
    protect important riparian forest areas as well as sustaining the
    private forest base for continued timber production.

              LAND & WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE GRANTS PROGRAM

        We respectfully request that you allocate $150 million for the
    state grants program of the Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). This
    program assists states and localities in protecting important
    recreational resources for their citizens. The required minimum 1-to-1
    match means that each federal dollar is highly leveraged, resulting in
    more conservation activities that benefit the quality of life for
    taxpayers.
        The LWCF state grants program has had a positive impact across the
    country. A specific example can be found right here in Blaine County.
    LWCF funds were instrumental in allowing the City of Ketchum, Idaho, to
    purchase and develop Atkinson Park--a popular recreation resource in
    the heart of Ketchum. The park provides the community with soccer and
    baseball fields, tennis courts, a playground, and a picnic area. Such
    amenities help to improve the quality of life for residents and were
    made possible through the LWCF state grants program. Increasing the
    program's funding will allow more such beneficial conservation
    successes to occur.
            north american wetlands conservation act grants program
        We respectfully request that you allocate $30 million for the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act grants program. This program
    provides matching grants for the acquisition, improvement, and/or
    restoration of wetlands. It is designed to enhance and protect habitat
    for migrating waterfowl and promote these wildlife resources for the
    public's benefit.
        In Idaho, the program has been used for a wide array of purposes.
    In Teton County, the Teton Regional Land Trust is working with local,
    state, and federal agency personnel to purchase and protect critical
    wetlands on agricultural lands. Here in Blaine County, the WRLT intends
    to use the program to help restore a riparian area that will serve as
    community greenway situated in the heart of one of the most highly
    developed parts of the Sun Valley.
        I hope that you will fully fund the Administration's request for
    these important programs.
        Thank you for your consideration of our views.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of The American Association of Museums

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: I am Jason Hall,
    Director of Government and Public Affairs for the American Association
    of Museums, presenting written testimony on behalf of a consortium
    consisting of the American Association of Museums, the Association of
    American Universities and the Society for Historical Archaeology.
        As you know, Section 10 of the Native American Graves Protection
    and Repatriation Act (Public Law 101-601--``NAGPRA'') authorizes the
    Secretary of the Interior to ``make grants to Indian tribes and native
    Hawaiian organizations for the purpose of assisting such tribes and
    organizations in the repatriation of native American cultural items''
    and to ``make grants to museums for the purpose of assisting the
    museums in conducting the inventories and identification required under
    sections 5 and 6.'' While we appreciate the Congress and the President
    agreed in the Interior bill to provide funding of $2.496 million for
    fiscal year 2000 to allow the statutorily-mandated repatriation process
    to proceed, we respectfully urge Congress to increase the appropriation
    to $4 million for fiscal year 2001. We present the following reasons in
    support of this request.
        As you are aware, NAGPRA is remedial legislation. Congress enacted
    the law in 1990 in large part to assure that Native American remains
    and funerary and other objects retained by the Federal Government and
    museum community are returned under the law to appropriate tribes and
    organizations for reburial or other appropriate treatment. As remedial
    legislation, NAGPRA will not remedy the problem Congress sought to
    resolve unless adequate dollars are appropriated so that tribes and
    museums can complete the repatriation process--which is now under way
    but which necessarily proceeds slowly in many cases because of
    essential museum-tribe consultation and other factors. Repatriation is
    a high priority of the museum and tribal communities, which do not have
    adequate funds to do the necessary work required by NAGPRA.
        Since repatriation is the subject of Federal legislation as well as
    regulations and administrative guidelines, the U.S. Government has a
    trust responsibility to Indian tribes and their members in the area of
    repatriation. This trust responsibility imposes strict, binding
    fiduciary standards on the conduct of executive agencies, here the
    National Park Service and the Department of the Interior, in its
    treatment of tribes in repatriation matters. Adequate funding for
    tribes, museums and universities in necessary to carry out the
    statutory mandates of Congress.
        At the same time, it is clear that the communities and sovereign
    Indian tribes represented by the consortium have been called upon to
    take a much increased role in implementing Public Law 101-601 in the
    past several years, as the mandated summaries and inventories of museum
    holdings were largely completed by museums and sent to the tribes in
    mid-November, 1993, and mid-November, 1995, respectively. Activity has
    intensified immensely in recent years and will continue to do so as the
    number of actual repatriations continues to increase. The consortium's
    testimony provides information on how the requirements of the law are
    creating significant costs for our communities and seeks your support
    for funding for the grant program authorized in the law, so that we can
    continue to comply with it in a timely and responsible way. Let me
    start by addressing in generic terms the needs of the museum community.
    In order to comply with Public Law 101-601, museums have to engage in
    activities falling into four categories: (1) preparation of
    inventories, in the case of human remains and associated funerary
    object, and written summaries, in the case of unassociated funerary
    objects, sacred objects and cultural patrimony; (2) notification and
    consultation with Native American groups and visitation by those groups
    to museum collections; (3) research to identify cultural affiliation of
    human remains and objects; and (4) repatriation.
        To prepare the inventories of human remains and funerary objects
    which were due by November 16, 1995, museums have needed to: physically
    locate every item within the museum's storerooms; locate and review
    existing records to compile information necessary to determine whether
    a funerary object is ``associated'' or not, and to determine the
    cultural affiliation of the objects; catalog any remains ad objects
    that are not catalogued; document (e.g., measure and photograph) and
    analyze the human remains and funerary objects; and compile an
    inventory of human remains and funerary objects containing the
    information required under Public Law 101-601, including cultural
    affiliation. The delay in promulgation of the final regulations, and
    the late start and low level of grant funding for repatriation grants
    to the tribes and museums, have slowed the process such that a
    significant number of museums were not able to prepare inventories by
    the November 16, 1995 deadline, despite timely and continuing good
    faith efforts, and had to appeal for extensions.
        With respect to unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects and
    cultural patrimony, museums were required to and did, prepare a written
    summary by November 16, 1993 rather than an itemized inventory of their
    collections. Nevertheless, many museums needed to undertake many tasks
    similar to those noted above in order to collect the required
    information. Throughout all of this, museums have needed to consult
    with native American tribes which might have an interest in the
    objects. The time and funds spent on consultation with Native American
    peoples varies according to the physical proximity of the museum to the
    particular group.
        Once the inventory and written summary are complete, the museum
    must identify the tribal representatives authorized to accept
    repatriable objects and formally notify those representatives. Tribal
    representatives must travel to the museums to examine the objects and
    consult with the museum. Remains and artifacts must be packed and
    shipped to the appropriate Native American group. During this process,
    disagreements may arise as to the disposition of items covered by
    Public Law 101-601, and these issues must be resolved.
        Let me turn to some specific cases. On December 6, 1995, the Senate
    Committee on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing on the
    implementation of NAGPRA. Final NAGPRA regulations, with some sections
    still incomplete, were published two days prior to the hearing. Two
    years later, the Interior Department published an interim rule on one
    of those incomplete sections, the civil penalties section. But as of
    April 2000, there have been no final regulations issued on the three
    remaining sections (future applicability, culturally unidentifiable
    remains, and unclaimed items from Federal or tribal lands.)
        Representatives from the National Park Service, the NAGPRA Review
    Committee, three affected tribes, and a witness representing both the
    American Association of Museums and an affected museum, testified about
    compliance with the law. NPS witness Katherine Stevenson noted that the
    NPS had made 83 NAGPRA grant awards totaling $4.37 million since the
    beginning of the program, but that over that time, they had received
    337 grant proposal requests totaling nearly $30 million, and she
    conceded that the Interior Department's $2.3 million request for fiscal
    year 1996 did not meet the valid needs demonstrated in the grant
    applications from museums and the tribes. Since that 1995 testimony,
    the situation has remained much the same in terms of funding needs. As
    of April 2000, the NPS has been able to make 247 NAGPRA grant awards
    totaling $13.05 million since the beginning of the program, but during
    that time, it has received 660 grant proposals totaling more than
    $47.69 million, and funding has essentially been flat at $2.3 million,
    and more recently $2.5 million annually. The $2.5 million appropriation
    continues to fall short of valid needs.
        The witness representing museums, William Moynihan, President of
    the Milwaukee Public Museum, testified about the effort of his museum
    to comply with the law. He noted that the ``Milwaukee Public Museum
    will have committed well in excess of half a million dollars by 1997 to
    deal with the legislation. Existing staff in our Anthropology/History
    Section have been reallocated from their normal duties to NAGPRA-
    related activities, a large team of volunteers assembled, and trained
    student interns and work-study students hired.'' He noted that the
    Museum has been collecting anthropological and archaeological materials
    for over 100 years, that included in the holdings are the remains of
    1,500 individuals, and that the collections are not computerized.
    Despite these difficulties, the museum had completed a physical
    inventory of over 22,000 Native American ethnographic objects, and a
    preliminary inventory of 50,000 archaeological objects; sent summaries
    to 572 tribes and native Alaskan and Hawaiian groups; followed up with
    hundreds of calls to tribes; and taken a variety of other actions to
    comply with the law.
        On a broader scale, we have results from the American Association
    of Museums' 1994 repatriation survey of 500 of its member institutions,
    including all of its natural history museums and a selected sample of
    its art and history museums. The survey response rate was 43.6 percent.
    Of those responding, 76 percent of the natural history museums, 43
    percent of the history museums and 23 percent of the art museums had
    Native American objects. Those respondents--a little more than 200--
    alone had almost 3.5 million objects which fell into NAGPRA categories,
    and that does not include 15 responding natural history museums,
    including 3 large institutions, which could not give an estimate of
    their NAGPRA-related holdings. An overwhelming number of these
    institutions noted how lack of final regulations and of NAGPRA grant
    funding had hindered or prevented their repatriation efforts.
        Estimating aggregate costs is not possible from the survey data,
    given the great disparities in how institutions calculated their own
    costs. It is clear, however, that thousands of institutions across the
    country are affected to some degree by NAGPRA costs.
        The Native American community is also incurring major expenses in
    attempting to comply with the requirements and deadlines of NAGPRA. As
    you know, the repatriation process involves sacred items and, most
    importantly, human remains, not just artifacts. In this light we must
    approach the funding issues related to the Act. A 1994 repatriation
    survey done by the National Congress of American Indians indicated that
    some tribes had received hundreds of NAGPRA summaries from museums, and
    that the need for outside funding to hire experts to help them analyze
    these materials and subsequent NAGPRA inventory materials is virtually
    universal. From the dozens of responses to the survey, it is apparent
    that most tribes do not have the capacity to comply with the Act. For
    example, the Shingle Springs Rancheria/Miwok/Maidu tribe reported,
    ``Our tribe has been well versed in the purpose and intent of NAGPRA.
    The response from museums (the sending out of surveys to the tribes at
    the November 1993 deadline) has been astounding. We have received over
    100 notices. However, we cannot respond or take advantage because of
    lack of funds.'' This tribe estimated its financial needs at
    approximately $35,830. And at the December 1995 Senate oversight
    hearing, Cecil Antone of the Gila River Indian Community noted that the
    Community had received over 150 letters from various museums and
    Federal agencies about the disposition of NAGPRA-related collections.
    The needs of the tribes vary depending on the number of responses they
    have received, their present and future ability to comply with the Act,
    and what, if any, experience their tribe has had with projects of this
    sort. In fact, tribal responses estimating funding needs ranged from
    ``unknown'' to ``very much'' to ``$2 million.''
        In October 1990, the Congressional Budget Office estimated NAGPRA
    implementation costs to museums of $40 million and to tribes and native
    Hawaiian organizations of $5-10 million over 5 years, assuming that
    museums and Federal agencies hold between 100,000 and 200,000 Native
    American remains and that the cost to inventory and review each remain
    would be $50-150. Those estimates now appear to be very low in light of
    our experience since that time. As a result, viable tribal and museum
    request for grants continue to exceed available funds by a large
    margin. In addition, museums cannot repatriate to the tribes until
    appropriate notices go into the Federal Register, and there is
    currently a backlog of about 150 such notices at the NPS, about a
    year's worth, due to lack of staff to process them.
        In closing, let me add that while the museums and tribes must have
    this grant program funded simply to comply with the requirements of
    NAGPRA, it is also true that the grant program will accomplish far more
    than compliance. Museums and tribes have discovered that the exchange
    of data required under NAGPRA is yielding new information that helps us
    all. In the process of identifying sensitive cultural items, museums
    are learning much more about their entire collections. Delegations of
    elders and religious leaders have supplied valuable new insights about
    many objects in the repositories they have visited, and in turn they
    are discovering items of immense interest to their own tribes, the
    existence of which had been unknown in recent generations. Few items in
    these categories are being sought for repatriation; it is simply that
    access to the collections has led to much better mutual understanding
    and exchange of knowledge. While the repatriation process will
    eventually end as the transfer of materials is completed, the long-term
    relationship created between museums and tribes will continue.
        Thus, this funding will not just support expenses mandated by law.
    It is also an excellent investment that serves the public interest
    now--and will continue to pay dividends in the future--through more
    accurate and respectful exhibits and education programs that are the
    fruits of long-term collaborations.
        Finally, we respectfully urge you to keep in mind that we are
    talking in large part about the reburial of the remains of human
    beings, and that under a reasonable and dignified standard, such
    repatriation and reburial should occur with all due haste. Certainly
    the United States Government has acted urgently with due regard to
    repatriation of remains of American soldiers killed in foreign wars or
    missing in action. Native American repatriation and reburial should be
    treated with the same priority and dignity.
        The consortium appreciates this opportunity to testify on this
    issue.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Marietta College

                THE SLACK SPECIAL COLLECTION AT MARIETTA COLLEGE

        Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    Board of Directors of Marietta College and the State of Ohio, I would
    like to thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the
    Public Witness Hearing Record regarding an endeavor to foster a
    partnership with the Federal Government to preserve and digitize a
    portion of the State of Ohio's tremendous archives, which are housed at
    Marietta College in southeast Ohio. We sincerely appreciate this
    Committee's attention to our request for a ``Saving America's
    Treasures'' or ``Millennium Program'' grant of $500,000 to maintain and
    digitally catalog the collection of documents at Marietta College.
        Because of its position in the oldest settlement in the Northwest
    Territory, at the confluence of the Ohio and Muskigum Rivers, Marietta
    College has been the recipient of a largess of unique historical
    materials over many years. The entire collection contains 35,000 books
    and 28,000 manuscripts, as well as maps, photographs, artwork and
    archives dating back to the second half of the 18th century. This
    collection, known as the Slack Research Collection, contains first-hand
    accounts of the settlement, expansion and development of southeastern
    Ohio from the arrival of the settlers of the Ohio Company of Associates
    in 1788 through the nineteenth century, as well as related incidents on
    the state level. While each collection is historically significant
    within itself, the collections, considered together, enhance and
    complement each other, providing researchers with a fascinating and
    informative view of life on a new frontier in a developing community
    and state.
        Among the individual collections are:
        The Manuscripts and Documents of the Ohio Company of Associates,
    which include the original book of minutes of the directors, the record
    book of deeds, the survey plats, and the field notes of surveyors. This
    collection is unique in that no other depository holds the information
    in these documents. The history of the Ohio Company is interwoven with
    that of the new nation; many of its members had been comrades-in-arms
    during the American Revolution, and through the opportunity for
    westward land, sought to recover from personal and financial woes
    caused by the war. The lessons of how events on a national level can
    affect life on the local level are evident in the struggles of the Ohio
    Company to gain the land on which to make their settlement. The Land
    Ordinance of 1785 and the later Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which
    provided for government in the Old Northwest, were crucial to the
    settlement of the Ohio Country.
        The Putnam Papers, which is a collection of 450 items of
    correspondence, documentation and memoranda of General Rufus Putnam,
    brigadier-general during the American Revolution, superintendent of the
    Ohio Company of Associates, and surveyor general. Included in the
    papers are correspondence from George Washington, Secretary of War and
    Revolutionary War General Henry Knox, and Secretary of the Treasury
    Albert Gallatin, among other notable figures of early America.
        The Charles Gates Dawes Collection contains documents signed by
    George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, as well as world-famous
    statesmen, artists, authors, kings and queens, musicians, philosophers,
    and scientists.
        The Rare Book Collections consist of a library of more than 19,000
    volumes of Americana, including published materials on the Northwest
    Territory and Ohio, Civil War, and Native Americans. The collection
    also contains volumes dating from 1489. Included are three incunabula,
    rare dictionaries, 19th century textbooks, and numbers of historical
    first editions, such as Newton's Opticks. Marietta College has been
    identified as the holder of 465 titles published before 1800.
        With the approaching bicentennial of the State of Ohio in 2003, it
    is important that these documents be preserved in a fashion that will
    allow the exhibit to travel and, through digitization, become available
    to researchers nationally. Sharing resources is a long-standing
    tradition with libraries. While collections have traditionally
    participated in this concept by mounting exhibitions, today's
    technology offers an excellent new method to share primary resources.
    By developing a searchable special collections web site, researchers
    could learn more about the resources held by the College, and the use
    of original documents could be incorporated into courses on a far
    greater scale than is currently possible. In addition to providing
    increased access to the materials in special collections, the web site
    would also provide an opportunity for students to learn new skills. For
    example, families seeking genealogical information on ancestors would
    no longer need to travel to Marietta to utilize the resources of the
    collection. Photographs from the Fischer and Hoag collections provide a
    visual of the Marietta area. Students could not only help with
    digitization of materials, but also be involved with the design of the
    web site and writing the commentary to accompany the images. Digital
    reformatting is an integrated preservation strategy that achieves the
    College's dual goals of preserving the collections and offering broad
    public access to at-risk materials. Marietta College's digitalization
    program will preserve the collections, both through converting and
    reducing the handling of fragile and vulnerable materials and by
    ensuring that the process of scanning is safe for the collections.
        The College has already begun much of the work with its own
    resources, but cannot undertake this endeavor on its own. The documents
    must be preserved by experts and the process will require many hours of
    work by College personnel to complete it within the time frame allowed
    by a Federal grant. In addition to the preservation and digitization of
    the documents, a suitable repository with appropriately regulated air
    quality and adequate shelving and storage is needed in order to
    preserve the collections for use by future generations. Along with the
    space for collections, adequate research areas and workspace would aid
    staff and patrons in utilizing the available resources.
        Mr. Chairman, as your Subcommittee deliberates funding requests
    from many qualified candidates seeking your assistance this year, I
    urge you to review and consider our request for a $500,000 ``Saving
    America's Treasures'' or ``Millennium Program'' grant to carry out just
    the first phase of preservation of Marietta College's exceptional
    collection. This undertaking is extremely important for its historical
    significance to the State of Ohio and to the nation, and the ensuing
    results will bring a distinction to Marietta enjoyed by few small
    colleges.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the American Hiking Society

                          TRAILS AND RELATED PROGRAMS

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon. I am
    Mary Margaret Sloan and I represent American Hiking Society's more than
    10,000 members and the 500,000 members of our 130 affiliated
    organizations. American Hiking Society is a non-profit recreation-based
    conservation organization operating from Maryland for almost 30 years.
        My testimony today will focus on two points. First, federal land
    managers are struggling to keep up with the dramatic increase in trail
    use in America. The solution is not, I think, to just throw more money
    at the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest
    Service, but to couple directed increased funding with increased on-
    the-ground trails coordinators and volunteer coordinators.
        Second, American Hiking urges you not to make the fee demonstration
    program a permanent one just yet. As a demonstration project, the
    program is not entirely a success. Last month, our board unanimously
    approved a policy supporting the fee demonstration program in concept
    but vigorously opposing making that program a permanent one unless and
    until the agencies redressed the problems our members are raising with
    the program. Our concerns with the program are three-fold: inconsistent
    implementation, agency accountability, and equity issues.

                                 TRAILS FUNDING

        According to the 1995 National Survey on Recreation and the
    Environment, hiking and backpacking are the fastest growing forms of
    recreation. In 1995, 48 million Americans hiked and 15 million
    backpacked. Hiking increased by 93 percent from 1982 to 1995, and over
    70 percent of Americans walked for recreation in 1995. Despite these
    trends, federal funding for recreation on public lands has not kept
    pace with demand.
        Last fall, alarmed by low recreation budgets and increasing
    recreation on federal lands, American Hiking Society and ten other
    national non-motorized recreation organizations compiled the attached
    Recreation and Conservation Funding booklet. We urge Congress to think
    boldly about providing increased funding for America's natural heritage
    as we begin the 21st century. As the uses and the economics of public
    land shift from extractive industries to recreation, human-powered
    recreationists believe a similar shift is needed in the budgets of our
    land management agencies. We make the following recreation and
    conservation funding recommendations for fiscal year 2001:
    USDA Forest Service:
      --Recreation Management: $270 million
      --Trail Maintenance: $40 million
      --Trail Construction/Re-Construction: $30 million
      --Wilderness Management: $50 million
      --Recreation Research: $12.5 million
    National Park Service:
      --Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program: $12 million
      --National Trails System: $7 million
      --Geographic Information System Network for National Trails: $650,000
      --Challenge Cost Share Program: 1/3 of total to National Trails
            System
      --Recreation Research: $7.5 million
    Bureau of Land Management:
      --Recreation Management: $50 million
      --Wilderness Management: $30 million
      --Visitor Safety on Public Lands: $42 million
    Land and Water Conservation Fund--$900 million
      --Continental Divide National Scenic Trail: $150,000
      --Florida National Scenic Trail: $5 million
      --Ice Ace National Scenic Trail: $3.6 million
      --North Country National Scenic Trail: $1 million
      --Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail: $6 million
        I'd like to select out several of these requests and discuss them
    in greater detail. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Global
    Positioning Systems (GPS) can provide national scenic and historic
    trails with high-powered tools for managing their resources and
    integrating a wide variety of data sources. The need to maintain
    accurate cultural and natural resource information, and constantly
    changing land use or political boundaries poses problems for managing
    trails over long distances. These factors, together with development
    threats, such as the proliferation of telecommunication towers and
    continual urban sprawl, all suggest the need for accurate locational
    data, not only for the trails themselves, but all associated resources.
        Through GPS, trail staff and volunteers can map centerlines and
    associated resources from signs to trees, to nearby cultural resources.
    Once captured, trail specific data can be combined with additional map
    information through GIS to provide a complete picture of each trail.
    With an established and populated GIS application, trail agencies and
    staff can provide the necessary data to their partners and actively
    participate in the planning process, helping to better manage and
    protect all trail resources and landscapes.
        The National Park Service has conducted a needs assessment for the
    20 national scenic and historic trails and recommended the following:
    Map the trail centerlines; establish a GIS program for each trail and
    for the National Trails System office; define GIS trail applications;
    create GIS Trail Internet; implement these recommendations using an
    incremental approach of four trails per year. American Hiking Society
    strongly agrees with these recommendations.
        The recommendations should be implemented over five years. One of
    the four historic trails that pass through Salt Lake City, plus the Ice
    Age, Florida, and Appalachian National Scenic Trails, should be the
    first to implement these recommendations. Each subsequent year, four
    more trails will be added until all twenty trails of the National
    Trails System are on-line. At the end of five years the trails system
    would have a fully functioning GIS both at the trail and at the
    national level. The total five year cost is currently estimated at
    $5.655 million, with Year One costs (fiscal year 2001) at $650,000 for
    the National Park Service.
        We support an increased level of funding for two Forest Service
    trails programs--Trail Construction/Re-construction and Trail
    Maintenance. The agency is the largest recreation provider in the
    United States, managing 133,000 miles of trails. The current investment
    in Forest Service lands does not match the role recreation plays in the
    agency. Many facilities are poorly maintained and deteriorating and
    recreation staff shortages are severe.
        We are concerned, as well, that despite the increased emphasis that
    Chief Dombeck is placing on recreation through the FS' Natural Resource
    Agenda, that this conversation at the top is not translating to the
    ground. Very few national forest have even one full time trails
    coordinator. And despite the number of hiking and other recreation
    organizations that want to volunteer to build and maintain trails in
    national forests, very few forests have a volunteer coordinator. Last
    year, Congress passed a bill directing national wildlife refuges to
    institute a pilot project for volunteer coordinators at individual or a
    complex of geographically-related refuges. This could be a great model
    for the other land managing agencies.
        In the National Park Service budget, we strongly support increased
    funding for the 15 national scenic and historic trails administered by
    NPS. These include such national treasures as the Appalachian, North
    Country, and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails as well as the Lewis
    and Clark, Pony Express, and Selma to Montgomery National Historic
    Trails. For most of the national scenic and historic trails, barely
    one-half of their congressionally authorized length and resources are
    protected and available for public use. Most offices are understaffed,
    hindering the ability of the agencies to properly administer and manage
    these 15 trails. Understaffing also hinders the abilities of the
    volunteer-based organizations to work with the federal agencies to
    complete these trails. Increased funding will enhance the volunteer
    partnerships so critical to the protection of these national treasures.
    In 1999, volunteer organizations contributed $5.8 million in financial
    resources and over 550,000 volunteer hours with an estimated labor
    value of $7.4 million. Congress should at least match the private
    contribution with $7 million of federal monies. American Hiking Society
    endorses the specific figures being submitted today by the Partnership
    for the National Trails System.
        One federal agency normally associated with land management, the
    National Park Service, is at the forefront of offering technical
    assistance to the states so that they can determine their futures for
    themselves. This is through the Rivers, Trails and Conservation
    Assistance program. I'll offer an example: RTCA played an integral role
    in the revival of Chattanooga, Tennessee, from a city in the early
    1980s that was economically depressed, polluted and losing its middle-
    class, to what it is today-vibrant and connected by trails and green
    spaces. RTCA was approached in 1989 to help build a greenway along the
    20-mile Chicamauga Creek, then, at the invitation of Chattanooga city
    officials, it helped develop a greenways plan for the city and regional
    greenways plan for eight surrounding counties. Last year, the Committee
    increased RTCA's budget by one half million, and, on behalf of the 30
    member Rivers and Trails Coalition: thank you. The coalition requests
    an annual appropriation of $12 million for RTCA, and we urge you to
    signal your strong support for this program by appropriating that
    amount.
        The Bureau of Land Management manages 85 percent of the National
    Historic Trails System and requires sufficient funds to manage the
    rapidly expanding recreational use of public lands and protect the
    wealth of natural and cultural resources under its jurisdiction. We
    support increased funding for Recreation Management, primarily so the
    BLM can begin to address all-terrain recreational vehicle (ATV) usage.
    The BLM reports that approximately 40 percent of all BLM field offices
    have identified management of motorized recreation as a priority for
    recreation. Many offices are experiencing conflicts between ATV
    recreation and non-motorized uses as well as damage to resources
    resulting from the recreational use of motorized vehicles.
        Annual appropriations through Land and Water Conservation Fund has
    created the longest greenway in the world-the Appalachian National
    Scenic Trail. Now that the acquisition program for the AT is complete,
    we urge you to turn your support toward the remaining national scenic
    and historic trails, and label them as high priority projects under the
    LWCF. This year, American Hiking Society strongly supports LWCF funding
    for the Continental Divide, Florida, Ice Age, North Country and Pacific
    Crest National Scenic Trails, in the total amount of $15.75 million.
    This amount is almost exactly the figure Congress appropriated solely
    for the Appalachian Trail in fiscal year 1999.

                      RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

        In March 2000, the American Hiking Society Board of Directors
    unanimously approved a policy that supported the recreation fee program
    in concept, but strongly opposed a permanent program because of on-the-
    ground problems with implementation, agency accountability, equity
    issues, and on-going concerns about both administrative and
    congressional funding offsets. American Hiking does not oppose
    recreation fees per se. Entrance and user fees provide much needed
    revenue to agencies with severe budget shortages. Yet there are simply
    too many unanswered questions that raise concerns about the execution
    and efficacy of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (RFDP).
        The agencies manage and implement RFDP inconsistently. These
    inconsistencies pertain primarily to limited interagency coordination,
    confusing fee policies and multiple fees, limited innovation by NPS,
    and the varied policies for volunteers. For example, most regional and
    annual passes cover entrance fees only. In some parks, hikers must pay
    entrance fees plus backcountry impact fees for overnight visits. In
    other areas, backpackers using lands under different agency
    jurisdiction may have to pay trailhead parking fees, wilderness fees,
    park entrance fees, and backcountry fees. Also, volunteers contribute
    hundreds of thousands of hours in support of the national scenic and
    historic trails each year, yet the agencies do not uniformly recognize
    these contributions through fee discounts or annual passes.
        Equity concerns remain one of the primary causes of fee demo
    opposition. Equity issues pertain to the effects of fees on low-income
    populations, different recreation user groups, and non-commercial/non-
    consumptive users versus commercial users of public lands. NPS claims
    that displacement of low-income populations is not a major issue,
    despite the fact that fee surveys focus on park visitors rather than
    potential visitors. The agencies also contend that the lowest income
    groups do not participate much in outdoor recreation to begin with and
    thus are not directly affected by RFDP. The agency responses to equity
    concerns are simplistic and do not fully address the effects of fees on
    individuals or households at the margin who may reduce or eliminate
    their recreation visits to public lands.
        Equity concerns regarding different user groups vary and survey
    results are equivocal. One example is the additional backcountry impact
    fees that backpackers pay at certain national parks (e.g. Olympic,
    Glacier), while frontcountry users pay no additional fees for utilizing
    extensive infrastructure (e.g. parking lots, visitor centers, etc.).
    Equity issues also surround fees charged to non-consumptive, non-
    commercial users of public lands versus commercial interests or
    extractive industries such as logging, grazing, and mining.
        We applaud the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for continuing
    to vigilantly oppose any appropriations offsets with fee revenues, and
    urge you to continue your vigilance both within your own ranks and
    within the federal agencies. But, until the program runs its course
    through the end date, Congress should not hastily authorize permanent
    RFDP status.

                                   CONCLUSION

        On June 3, 2000, American Hiking Society will coordinate its
    seventh ``National Trails Day,'' the goal being to raise public
    awareness of and appreciation for trails and trail volunteers
    throughout the year. In 1999, over 1 million people participated in
    more than 3,000 National Trails Day events nationwide, and American
    Hiking expects an even greater turnout for National Trails Day 2000.
    Clearly, trails are important to Americans. By increasing the focus and
    funding of the recreational programs outlined in this testimony, we
    believe Congress will protect the American investment in outdoor
    recreation.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. American
    Hiking Society's members and outdoorspeople nationwide appreciate the
    Subcommittee's support in the past and look forward to continued strong
    support.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in
                                Higher Education

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I am
    Dr. Henry Ponder, Chief Executive Officer and President of the National
    Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO). I want
    to thank you for allowing me to appear before you today as you consider
    funding priorities relevant to the fiscal year 2001 Interior
    Appropriations bill. In the time that I have, I would like to highlight
    many of the accomplishments of NAFEO as well as an initiative that we
    support and are looking to expand upon in the new millennium.
        NAFEO is the national umbrella organization representing the
    nation's 118 predominately and Historically Black Colleges and
    Universities (HBCUs). Our mission is to champion the interests of HBCUs
    through the executive, legislative and judicial branches of Federal and
    state Government and to articulate the need for a system of higher
    education where race, ethnicity, socio-economic status and previous
    educational attainment levels are not determinants of either the
    quantity or quality of higher education. The organization takes lead
    responsibility for the development and dissemination of public policy,
    programmatic efforts, and strategic and educational materials that: (1)
    enhance the role of HBCUs generally, and (2) promote minority student
    enrollment and attainment specifically. NAFEO is comprised of
    institutions of higher education that represent a broad spectrum of
    interests--public and private, large and small, urban and rural,
    liberal arts, agricultural, research, scientific and technology
    development. Of all of the HBCUs that belong to NAFEO, 46 percent are
    public and 54 percent are private. The organization's membership is
    comprised of 2-year and 4-year institutions, as well as schools that
    offer advanced and professional degrees.
        Since the organization's inception in 1969, NAFEO has played an
    indelible and pivotal role in expanding access to higher education for
    a community whose greatest resource can be classified as an
    underutilized reservoir of talent and ingenuity. NAFEO institutions
    historically are responsible for educating the vast majority of African
    Americans. Today, while NAFEO institutions enroll approximately 18
    percent of all African American college students, they confer about 40
    percent of all bachelors degrees awarded to African Americans
    nationally. In some disciplines, such as engineering and teacher
    education, the number is significantly higher. Moreover, these schools
    produce the largest number of African American baccalaureate recipients
    who eventually go on to receive doctorate degrees, especially in the
    sciences. They are situated in every quarter of the country: in
    fourteen Southern states, six Northern states, three Midwestern states,
    one Western state, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.
        The National Historic Preservation Act has established a program to
    provide matching grants to the states and other entities for the
    preservation and protection of properties on the National Register.
    Under the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management (OPPLM) Act of
    1996, Congress authorized $29 million in funding for the restoration of
    historic properties at selected HBCUs. To date, $22.3 million has been
    appropriated for this purpose. Only those historic properties that are
    either on the National Register or have been determined eligible for
    listing on the National Register as a result of state historic
    preservation officer (SHPO) surveys are eligible for federal grant
    assistance under the National Historic Preservation Act or the OPPLM
    Act of 1996.
        In response to a request from Congress, the General Accounting
    Office (GAO) conducted a study of historic preservation needs at HBCUs
    entitled Historic Preservation: Cost to Restore Historic Properties at
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities (GAO/RCED-98-51, February
    1998). GAO concluded that 712 properties on the 103 HBCU campuses
    surveyed were in need of repairs or structural renovations. Of these
    712 properties, 672 (94.4 percent) are buildings, with the remainder
    being sites, structures or objects, such as smokestacks and courtyards.
    An estimated $755 million is needed to address these historic
    preservation needs. The report noted that approximately 8 percent of
    the total amount had already been set aside to pay the restoration
    costs for specific properties.
        The needs at many of the facilities consist of making the
    properties more accessible to people with disabilities, replacing leaky
    roofs, removing health threats such as asbestos and lead-based paint,
    or wiring for new technologies. It should be noted that in recognition
    of their historic and present importance, the Park Service in June of
    1998 listed all 103 HBCUs on the National Register of Historic Places.
    This action makes each of the properties identified by GAO eligible for
    historic preservation funding.
        The Department of Interior did note that the magnitude of the
    repair cost estimates reported by the schools is substantial in terms
    of the limited level of appropriations available from the Historic
    Preservation Fund for matching grants available to HBCUs pursuant to
    the OPPLM Act of 1996. Additionally, any funding for increased
    appropriations for grants to HBCUs in furtherance of this effort would
    be subject to authorization. As a result, there are budgetary
    limitations that must be addressed when considering the restoration of
    historic properties at these schools. For this reason, in addition to
    supporting the Administration's request of $7.2 million, the remaining
    authorized amount under OPPLM, NAFEO also requests report language
    supporting the development of a long-term strategy to address the
    findings in the above-mentioned report. It is our recommendation that
    this report be submitted to Congress no later than April 1, 2001 and
    that it have a detailed timeline about how the National Park Service
    plans to address these critical needs on all HBCU campuses in the
    future.
        In order for these institutions to be able to compete with larger,
    more heavily endowed schools, they need to preserve and renovate these
    historic facilities which are a part of American history, so they will
    have the infrastructure needed to meet the complex challenges of the
    new century, many of which are technology-based. Providing sufficient,
    long-term funding in the National Park Service's Historic Preservation
    Fund would enable a significant number of HBCUs to begin preservation
    activities on the most dilapidated campus facilities. Additional
    funding would be made available for new projects not currently listed
    in the 1996 Parks bill. Moreover, including the requested report
    language directing the Park Service to prepare a plan identifying a
    timeline and resources needed to address these critical preservation
    needs at HBCUs will ensure that attention is provided to all of the
    facilities identified in the GAO report and not a select few which were
    identified as being at risk over a decade ago.
        This concludes my statement for the record. Again, on behalf of the
    National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, I want
    to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to this
    subcommittee.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Center for Marine Conservation

        The Center for Marine Conservation requests that this statement be
    included in the hearing record for the fiscal year 2001 Interior
    Department Appropriations Bill. Specifically we recommend the Interior
    Subcommittee provide for the following funds to the Department of
    Interior: $12 million for land acquisition within the Archie Carr
    National Wildlife Refuge; full funding of the administration's request
    for Endangered Species Act activities, and $11 million to implement the
    southern sea otter recovery plan; $143.8 million for Everglades
    Watershed Restoration; and, $10 million for the Coral Reef initiative.
        The Center for Marine Conservation (CMC) is committed to protecting
    ocean environments and conserving the global abundance and diversity of
    marine life. Through science-based advocacy, research and public
    education, CMC promotes informed citizen participation to reverse the
    degradation of our oceans. CMC is a nonprofit conservation organization
    with 120,000 members with offices in Washington, DC, California,
    Florida Alaska, Virginia and Maine.
        The importance of the Department of the Interior to the protection
    of the Nation's living marine resources and marine ecosystems cannot be
    understated. Units of the National Park Service and the National
    Wildlife Refuge system, as well as territories administered by the
    Office of Insular Affairs contain critical coastal habitat for
    threatened and endangered species and invaluable marine ecosystems. We
    therefore make the following funding recommendations for the Interior
    Subcommittee's fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill.

                    THE ARCHIE CARR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

        CMC urges the Appropriations Committee to approve funding at or
    above the Administration's request of $6 million in fiscal year 2001,
    out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, for the acquisition of
    vital sea turtle nesting habitat in the Archie Carr National Wildlife
    Refuge.
        The Carr Refuge is one of the most important nesting sites for
    threatened loggerhead sea turtles in the world. It is also the most
    significant area for endangered green turtles in North America, and an
    occasional nesting site for the largest and one of the most endangered
    of all sea turtles, the leatherback. Every summer, threatened female
    loggerheads lumber ashore the pristine beaches at Archie Carr laying
    their eggs at between 12,000-16,000 nests, while endangered green sea
    turtles lay eggs at several hundred nests. Of thousands of eggs laid,
    only a few last the 60-day incubation period to become hatchlings due
    to predators like raccoons, poachers and increasing shoreline erosion.
    Once they become hatchlings, artificial lighting from increasing
    coastal development may lead them astray from their journey to the
    water, and then they face natural predators. When and if they finally
    reach adulthood, sea turtles encounter mortality from fishing gear,
    over-exploitation, dredging machinery, oil slicks, plastic pollution
    and loss of suitable nesting sites due to extensive coastal
    development.
        Sea turtles face an uphill battle, but it is clear that continued
    survival of these ancient marine animals depends in large part on the
    number of nests females create during their short nesting season. To
    nest successfully, females need dark, undisturbed beachfront such as
    the coastline at the Archie Carr Refuge. To date, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service has only acquired 128 acres of the 516 acres designated for
    acquisition at the Carr Refuge, while coastal development is constantly
    encroaching on its boundaries. Unless Congress provides funds to buy
    this land, rapid coastal development, ensuing beach erosion and
    disruptive lighting will destroy nesting habitat, pushing these
    magnificent creatures closer to extinction.
        It is critical that the Archie Carr Wildlife Refuge receive
    generous funding in fiscal year 2001 for acquisition. Because the
    Refuge was not funded for the past two years, we strongly recommend
    that you provide $12 million for this critical habitat in fiscal year
    2001. Local and state governments have contributed over $80 million to
    purchase land within this federal wildlife refuge. However, the total
    Federal contribution to date is just over $13 million. It is time that
    the Federal Government makes a substantial investment to preserve a
    resource that is essential to the survival of sea turtles worldwide.
        We deeply appreciate the $2 million the Committee and Congress
    provided for the Carr refuge in fiscal year 1998. However, efforts to
    protect sea turtle habitat have been hampered because Congress did not
    fund the Refuge at all in fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1999 and 2000. At
    the same time, coastal development has been on the rise. Beachfront
    property along the east-central coast of Florida is becoming
    increasingly expensive and less available for purchase. If Congress
    waits too long there will be no more nesting habitat left to purchase
    and protect. We trust that the Committee recognizes the urgency of this
    situation and that you will fund the Carr Refuge at an amount in
    accordance with its global significance. At the very least we urge you
    to provide the Administration's budget request of $6 million for fiscal
    year 2001. We appreciate your consideration of sea turtle protection as
    you make Federal funding decisions this appropriations cycle.

                             ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

        CMC supports the Administration's requested increases for
    Endangered Species Act activities within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service. We urge the Appropriations Committee to provide for the
    President's proposed increases and to approve $11 million to implement
    the southern sea otter recovery plan, including $3 million of dedicated
    funding for the implementation of the priority activities in the
    recovery plan.
        The southern sea otter was exploited to near extinction and listed
    as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1977. Although the
    population increased from the mid-1980's to mid-1990's, it has been in
    decline since 1995 at a rate of approximately 5 percent per year. The
    primary threats to the southern sea otter include habitat degradation--
    from oil spills and other contaminants--and incidental and intentional
    take by entanglement in fishing gear and shooting. Because of the low
    numbers and limited range, this population is especially vulnerable to
    oil spills along the central California coast--a single spill could
    cause catastrophic declines posing the risk of extinction. In addition,
    contaminant levels may decrease resistance to disease and reduce
    reproductive rates, further hampering the population's ability to
    recover. Finally, food availability may be a limiting factor in
    population growth: both habitat destruction and fishery practices could
    be factors affecting prey abundance.
        To save the southern sea otter, its numbers and range must
    increase. It is vital that immediate actions be taken to implement
    recovery efforts. To make effective management decisions about this
    population, scientist must have access to the most current and complete
    information available on abundance and distribution, overall health,
    and factors that may be causing the decline or hindering recovery.
    Therefore, funds are needed to continue population surveys to determine
    size, rate of change, and distribution, and to conduct investigations
    of food web interactions and affects of possible food limitations.
    Funds are also needed to assess the health of the population and
    research the sources and levels of contaminants in sea otters and their
    habitat and how this might be contributing to the decline. Federal
    programs to monitor and enforce activities to eliminate intentional
    take, efforts to reduce incidental mortality due to commercial fishing,
    including funding for observers in coastal gillnet fisheries and
    investigations of how trap and pot fisheries are affecting the
    population must continue. Finally, it is important to provide
    sufficient resources to implement management and contingency/response
    plans to reduce the risk to these otters from oil spills.

                        EVERGLADES WATERSHED RESTORATION

        The Center for Marine Conservation also urges the Appropriations
    Committee to provide for the full $143.8 million requested by the
    Administration for Everglades Restoration within the Department of
    Interior budget. Of particular concern, to CMC is the health and
    protection of Florida Bay and the coral reef tract of the Florida Keys.
    These very important marine ecosystems are downstream of the Everglades
    and are dependent on the proper flow of clean water from the Everglades
    for their health and survival.

                             CORAL REEF PROTECTION

        We urge the Committee to provide the full funding for the
    Department of Interior's $10 million to support the critical needs and
    priority actions identified by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. To help
    ensure that they have resources needed for coral reef, and other living
    marine resource, research and protection we also urge the Committee to
    fully funding the Administration's request for the operating budgets of
    the National Parks, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuges and the Office
    of Insular Affairs.
        The Department of Interior has tremendous responsibilities for
    protection of living marine resources through units of the National
    Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. territories under the
    responsibility of the Office of Insular Affairs. It is estimated that
    these bureaus have stewardship responsibilities for over 625,000 acres
    of coral reefs, and most of the Nation's estimated 4.2 million acres of
    coral reefs has yet to be mapped or assessed. It is for this reason
    that the President named the Secretary of Interior as the co-chair of
    the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force established under Executive Order 13089,
    signed at last the National Ocean Conference in 1998. Coral reefs are
    rightly known as ``rainforests of the sea'' are among the most complex
    and diverse ecosystems on earth. Coral reefs provide habitat to almost
    one third of marine fish species, serve as barriers to protect coastal
    areas and important to the tourist industries of many States and
    territories. Coral reefs also extremely fragile and are facing serious
    threats from overutilizaiton and pollution around the world and in U.S.
    waters, making the work of the Coral Reef Task Force and Department of
    Interior extremely important and worthy of the Administration's funding
    requests.
        Specifically we support: the $2.7 million requested for the Fish
    and Wildlife Service to increase protection, monitoring and site
    acquisitions; the $3.6 million requested for the National Park Service
    to improve management of special reef areas; the $3.2 million requested
    by the U.S. Geological Survey for research and mapping of coral reefs;
    and, the $500,000 requested by the Office of Insular Affairs to support
    territory coral reef initiatives.
        We appreciate the Appropriations Committee's consideration of our
    views.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, Florida

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Interior and Related Agencies
    Subcommittee:
        The city of Miami Beach, Florida, respectfully submits a community
    enhancement and parks/open space project for a discretionary fund set-
    aside through the fiscal year 2001 Urban Parks Restoration and Recovery
    Program. The city-proposed set-aside of $15 million will be used toward
    the implementation of a citywide network of bicycle/pedestrian/greenway
    trails, known as the Atlantic Corridor Greenway Network, which will
    become natural extensions of the Municipal Parks System. The cost of
    implementing the network is $35 million, of which approximately $20
    million has already been funded by or awarded to local government. Only
    the $15 million requested herein remains unfunded.
        The Atlantic Corridor Greenway Network encompass the trails along
    the Atlantic Ocean and Indian Creek Waterway, and several inland trails
    that will provide direct access to the city parks, beaches and
    waterways, from the residential, entertainment, and tourist areas of
    the city. One such trail will span a residential causeway over Biscayne
    Bay and into downtown Miami, affording spectacular vistas of the
    downtown skyline, the seaport, and Miami Beach. A listing of the
    elements of the Greenway Network is provided as an exhibit to this
    testimony.
        This integrated network of Greenway Trails will snake its way along
    the city's parks, beaches, waterways, and other natural ecosystems, and
    will include rest areas, vistas areas, and water recreation areas, and
    interpretive signage throughout the Greenways, to provide enhanced
    heritage and eco-tourism amenities and recreational opportunities for
    trail users.
        The city of Miami Beach park's master plan places great emphasis on
    preserving and enhancing the Coastal Dune System, Native Vegetation and
    Sea Turtle Hatchery Program, as well as the creek and waterways natural
    environment and vegetation. Exotic species will be cleared and new
    native plantings are proposed for purposes of Dune and seawall
    stabilization, creation of a visual link from land to sea, and
    provision of a much needed sense of openness and security.
        Two of these greenway trails are presently funded and nearing
    construction--the North Beach Recreational Corridor Project/Phase One,
    and the Beachwalk Corridor in South Beach. The North Beach project
    begins at the North Shore Open Space Park, which, at 34.61 acres, is
    the largest park in Miami Beach and a highly treasured natural resource
    by the seashore. Reaching southward, this trail will go through Altos
    Del Mar, North Shore (Band Shell), and Allison Parks. The other
    project--the beachwalk trail will connect an existing Oceanfront
    Boardwalk, Collins Park, and the Cultural Arts Campus, to Lummus Park
    at Ocean Drive. Subsequently, the Beachwalk Trail will be extended
    further southward through Ocean Front Park and South Pointe Park, which
    affords spectacular views of the Atlantic Ocean as well as the Cruise-
    ship Channel, and Miami.
        The Greenway Trails will allow for beachfront and marine access
    facilities, as well as improved access to local and regional transit
    stops. A listing of the elements of the Atlantic Greenway Network is
    provided as an exhibit to this testimony. We wish to emphasize that a
    $15 million fiscal year 2001 discretionary fund set-aside by the Urban
    Parks Restoration and Recovery Program is essential to the completion
    and interconnection of the Miami Beach-proposed Atlantic Corridor
    Greenway Network, to enhanced eco-tourism opportunities, and to an
    increased parks and trails cross-utilization by residents and visitors.
        Your consideration is sincerely appreciated.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Alachua County, Florida, Board of
                                 Commissioners

        Mr. Chairman: Thank you for allowing the Alachua County Board of
    Commissioners to submit written testimony before your Subcommittee
    regarding a major initiative for which the County seeks your support.
        Alachua County has embarked on a local land conservation program,
    which the County Commission has selected as one of its highest program
    priorities for 2000. A separate citizen-initiated referendum called
    Alachua County Forever is anticipated to raise $17 million from ad
    valorem property taxes to match federal and state land acquisition
    funds. The County's Land Conservation Advisory Committee (appointed in
    November, 1999) is finalizing a system to prioritize which local lands
    should be conserved, and is creating the tools to accomplish these
    goals. Eastern Alachua County has been included in the St. John's River
    American Heritage River designation, with three suggested projects. A
    number of eco-tourism and recreational opportunities are being pursued
    to capitalize on the County's protection of its natural areas. The
    County, in cooperation with the City of Gainesville, is actively
    seeking federal and state partnerships to achieve its land conservation
    goal of an emerald necklace comprising gems of conserved natural areas
    throughout this part of ``the Real Florida.''
        Land acquisition priorities.--Alachua County has five large-scale
    projects (5000+ acres) on Florida's Conservation and Recreation Lands
    (CARL) acquisition list. These include:
      --Paynes Prairie additions (a large freshwater wetland and watershed,
            operated as a state preserve)
      --San Felasco Hammock additions (a mature hammock and sandhill
            forest, with ravines)
      --Watermelon Pond (an upland sandhill and scrub forest with important
            ephemeral wetlands)
      --Newnans Lake (a diverse flatwoods forest surrounding a lake with
            declining water quality)
      --Lochloosa Forest (a flatwoods forest, largely in commercial
            production surrounding two large lakes)
        Each of these CARL projects has outstanding land acquisition needs,
    with state matching money available from Florida Forever (formerly
    Preservation 2000). The lack of a local source of matching funds has
    hurt the ability of Alachua County's projects to compete favorably with
    other local governments which have local land conservation programs, so
    Federal matching funds (either grants or loans) would greatly assist in
    finishing the acquisition of these lands before development further
    fragment them. If the Alachua County Forever referendum passes in
    November 2000, the County will have a source of matching funds. Federal
    agencies could help by ``challenging'' the County with the promise of
    matching funds for projects of national significance, such as Paynes
    Prairie.
        For this initiative, the City of Gainesville and Alachua County
    have identified three project areas. The first is Newnans Lake, a large
    lake in a semi-wild setting with mysteriously increasing
    eutrophication, yet spectacular recreational and scenic resources.
    Specific projects requiring funding assistance include: investigations
    into water quality issues, remedying muck build-up (possibly through a
    draw-down or mechanical removal), land acquisition (including less-
    than-fee opportunities with large forestry companies), a multi-user
    trail system circling the lake and connecting two existing rail-trails,
    and the designation and enhancement of an informal, but exceptional
    canoe trail connecting Newnans and Orange Lake down Prairie Creek and
    the River Styx. The St. Johns River Water Management District is a
    willing partner, having made substantial commitments in the past and
    with expressed interest in continuing to conserve the lands and waters
    of this area, while enhancing public access.
        The second project is to clean-up and mitigate Sweetwater Branch,
    and its impacts on Paynes Prairie (a National Natural Landmark) as well
    as the Floridan Aquifer. As one of the major watersheds flowing through
    eastern Gainesville, this creek has all the problems of urban
    stormwater and wastewater outfall into natural areas. While substantial
    funds have been received from federal sources for the Depot Stormwater
    Park, the cost of cleaning up this brownfield area is considerably more
    than the local governments can handle.
        The third project is to clean-up and mitigate impacts to Hogtown
    Creek, the major watershed in western Gainesville. The City and State
    have acquired over $3 million of property comprising the Hogtown Creek
    Greenway, however funds are needed for development of recreational
    trails, and for sedimentation control. We are seeking $10 million in
    federal support.
        We hope that the Subcommittee will find this critically important
    project worthy of your support.
        Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the City of Gainesville, Florida

        Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the City of Gainesville, Florida, I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this written testimony to you
    today. The City of Gainesville is seeking Federal funds in the fiscal
    year 2001 Appropriations bill to assist with our East Side Community
    Recreational Facility. This facility will provide for recreational and
    other programs and services to serve at-risk youth and their families
    and a substantial population of low-income citizens in the surrounding
    area.

                 EAST SIDE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER PROJECT

        The City of Gainesville is seeking a funding strategy for a multi-
    purpose community-based recreational facility on the east side of our
    city. The site for this project is in one of our highest poverty and
    minority-populated areas. Once completed, the center will provide a
    wide range of programs and opportunities to at-risk youth and their
    families. It will also provide needed facilities and services for the
    substantial population of low-income elderly in this area of our
    community, as well as to all our community.
        The demographics of the surrounding service area include the
    following statistics: (a) Population of approximately 12,000 residents
    living in 4,000 households, with a median family income of $14,708; (b)
    41.1 percent of the families have household incomes below the poverty
    level; (c) 25.3 percent requiring public assistance of some type, and
    (d) 84.2 percent of the citizens are African-American.
        This is a public/private initiative estimated to cost $2.5 million.
    Funding has been received or pledged in the amount of $1.5 million. The
    initiative is being led by a grassroots partnership of business
    leaders, community leaders, professionals and interested/concerned
    citizens who have organized themselves as the East Gainesville Park
    Development Group.
        The public agencies involved in this effort include the City of
    Gainesville, Alachua County, the School Board of Alachua County, and
    the University of Florida. So far, the project has received
    considerable financial support or pledges from the City, the County,
    and private individuals. The University of Florida has pledged to
    provide coaches and mentors. Additionally, the School Board of Alachua
    County has expressed an interest in this facility to help meet its own
    recreational facility shortfalls.
        The plan for this project is based on the need to provide
    recreational facilities for families and on the desire to provide our
    youth with such advantages as leadership skills, team participation
    skills, and computer skills as well as opportunities to participate in
    physical and mental exercise, arts and crafts, and social activities,
    and to receive mentoring and after school tutoring. The educational
    component will include after school tutoring sessions, computer, anger
    management, life skills, and teen parenting and pregnancy prevention
    classes. Parental involvement will be encouraged for all activities.
        The facility will be sited on a 36-acre parcel of land zoned for
    park use. The site amenities will include a multipurpose building
    (estimated at 6,500 square footage in area), serving as a learning
    resource center and community center. The facility will house the
    computer lab with computers promised by IBM, and rooms for after school
    homework and tutoring. Accommodations for indoor recreational and
    cultural programs will also be provided. The active outdoor amenities
    will include an interactive water fountain play area, playground and
    tot lot, picnic areas, two softball fields, two soccer/football fields,
    three basketball courts, \1/4\ mile track, \3/4\ mile jogging/fitness
    trail, \1/4\ mile interpretive nature boardwalk and a concession
    facility. The City of Gainesville will own and operate the park and
    improvements.
        In closing, Federal support is critical for this initiative. We
    respectfully request that the Subcommittee give our request every
    consideration throughout the fiscal year 2001 appropriations process.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
    on Interior and Related Agencies, I want to thank you for the
    opportunity to talk with you today concerning two proposals that we at
    Colonial Williamsburg are excited about and feel could help to re-
    calibrate our national compass and engage future generations in a
    stimulating discussion about the basic principles of democratic
    government that have made this country a world leader.
        You may know Colonial Williamsburg as John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s
    famous restored eighteenth century town. But the significance of this
    town goes far beyond the bricks and cobblestones. We are the nation's
    largest outdoor living museum. Our conservancy museums have one of the
    largest collections of eighteenth century Antiquities in the world.
    There are over 600 original and restored eighteenth century buildings
    in our 173 acre Historic Area. We also have a large and talented
    interpretive staff who can bring American history and the democratic
    principles of our forefathers to life in a fun and stimulating learning
    environment. Quite simply, Colonial Williamsburg is an educational
    institution. Its significance is both public and personal, educational
    and experimental. Its mission is to tell the story of a diverse group
    of people who fought to create a new community in a new land, based on
    new ideals.
        Our living history approach creates the environment of the past--a
    colonial town--and populates the streets, homes, and shops with
    costumed interpreters. Visitors can actually touch history. They can
    talk with tradesmen, ask them questions, and examine their crafts. They
    can sit as a local magistrate at the colonial county courthouse. They
    can eat a meal in an authentic eighteenth century colonial tavern, help
    make bricks for the foundation of a house, even engage in a political
    discussion with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or the royal
    governor. They hear the echoes of Patrick Henry's denunciation of the
    Stamp Act resonate throughout the halls of the Colonial Capitol.
    Visitors can literally immerse themselves in the past. The result is a
    dynamic method of history education that generates an excitement for
    learning about the ideas and principles upon which our democracy is
    based.
        Over three million people visit our site each year from all 50
    States and from many other countries. But our goal of fulfilling
    Jefferson's objective of an educated populace does not stop with just
    those guests who are able to visit Colonial Williamsburg in person.
        Colonial Williamsburg has long been the leader in providing
    distance learning with a variety of educational programming activities
    for over fifty years. Today, with the best technological communication
    resources at our command, we are able to reach millions of students and
    teachers throughout the country through broadcast, internet,
    interactive media and digital satellite. One of the results of these
    advances in technology is our award winning Electronic Filed Trips that
    allow students and teachers to ``visit'' Williamsburg via interactive
    television programs, while our www.history.org web site offers
    convenient access to our educational and research resources on the
    Internet.
        Our Electronic Field Trips provide a live, interactive format by
    Colonial Williamsburg to over one million registered students. These
    programs are also viewed by another three million students on a delayed
    basis courtesy of local PBS stations. We provide seven Electronic Field
    Trip programs each year. The programs deal with a variety of topics
    from methods of travel in the eighteenth century, to slavery,
    apprenticeships, and indentured servitude, to tradesmen rebuilding the
    houses and structures of Colonial Williamsburg. Schools that register
    for the program receive printed lesson plans, resource materials,
    internet activities, and other materials to prepare students during the
    month preceding the program. The program comes live into the classroom
    and registered students can phone in questions to interpretive staff
    who appear in the program segment. Over 30 other interpretive and
    research staff take calls, email, and internet messages and respond to
    the students. Material remains on our web site for 30 days after the
    program. During one of our most recent programs, over 1,300 calls from
    across the country were received.
        While we currently reach over four million students with these
    award-winning, state-of-the-art programs, we feel we have an obligation
    to help more schools and students meet national standards of learning.
    We have been informed that in schools using the Electronic Field Trips
    these scores have gone up. The programs address more than just history
    SOL's--they cover science, math, and other subjects as well.
        We would like to be able to offer our Electronic Field Trips, free
    of charge to an additional 10,000 schools across the country. This
    would mean reaching an additional five million students a year. We have
    already developed the facilities and the high tech programmatic
    infrastructure for these programs. We have proven how successful they
    can be in exciting and educating students. We believe that if we can
    reach these additional 10,000 schools, the programs will become self-
    supporting. We believe we can convince these schools and others that
    the seven programs are worth $500 a year. As stewards of an important
    segment of our American heritage, we are asking for a one-time
    appropriation of $3 million to reach an additional five million
    students and to help students, teachers, and schools in all 50 States
    provide the type of state-of-the-art programs that teachers want and
    that will use twenty-first century technology to develop an
    understanding in the students of timeless eighteenth century
    principles.
        We want to expand our educational programs to many more areas and
    students across the country. The Electronic Field Trips offer
    stimulating, state-of-the-art, fun, yet challenging programs. They have
    allowed millions of students and teachers to learn and understand the
    events that have shaped the nation's history. They also ensure we keep
    alive John D. Rockefeller Jr.'s goal for Colonial Williamsburg ``that
    the future may learn from the past.''
        You may accuse me of bias, but I believe Mr. Rockefeller would be
    proud of our educational programs. He would also encourage us to do
    more with his vision in mind. The advent of the twenty-first century
    provides an appropriate time to reflect on America, the democratic
    values that have influenced representative government, and the legal
    principles that have always protected a free society. Indeed, the onset
    of the new century in an opportune time to focus on the History of
    America.
        Responding to the challenge to learn from the past and prepare new
    generations of American leaders, the College of William and Mary and
    Colonial Williamsburg, two of the most prestigious educational
    institutions in America and preeminent stewards of early American
    history, are collaborating to establish a unique and challenging
    residential program for scholarly historical research at Virginia's
    Colonial Capital. We are tentatively calling it the Institute of
    American History and Democracy.
        The goal of the institute will be to assist the nation in re-
    calibrating its internal compass to enhance the understanding of
    college and high school students in our nation's historic journey and
    to encourage the ongoing review of America's founding principles. The
    Institute would be open to visiting undergraduates from colleges and
    universities across the United States and from the international
    community. Academic credit would be provided by the College of William
    and Mary.
        Joint William and Mary and Colonial Williamsburg faculty, as well
    as nationally-recognized historians would develop the curriculum and
    present the courses. Course topics would include early American
    history, constitutional history, governmental institutions, social
    history, military history, archeology, and museum-related fields.
        During the summer, this joint faculty would provide a similar
    program of courses for outstanding high school students from across the
    country. Summer high school students would be able to earn advance
    college credit for these courses. Colonial Williamsburg has been
    providing a similar program for teachers for the last ten years. Our
    Teacher Institutes have helped to avoid teacher burnout and have
    instead rekindled the passion for history and raised the teaching
    skills of those attending, several of whom have later been named
    teacher of the year in their States.
        Both Colonial Williamsburg and the College of William and Mary have
    developed some of this country's most advanced and interactive methods
    of education. College and high school students who attend the proposed
    Institute would become involved in interactive and hands-on learning
    experiences, as well as being exposed to extensive original research
    materials. These teaching methods along with state-of-the-art
    technology will engage the students and bring history alive. It is our
    hope that the curriculum developed for the Institute could also be
    adapted to our outreach capabilities and thereby made available to an
    even wider audience.
        We are seeking a one-time award of $5 million to cover the initial
    start-up costs for the Institute including curriculum development,
    staff training, program marketing, and facility modifications. Housing
    will be provided by Colonial Williamsburg at existing facilities.
    Classroom space will be provided by Colonial Williamsburg and the
    College of William and Mary at existing facilities. Once established,
    the program will be self-supporting through tuition and private
    donations.
        I should note that Colonial Williamsburg has never sought this type
    of Federal funding support before. We are seeking this assistance now
    because we believe these two programs will add significantly to future
    generations' understanding of basic democratic principles and will help
    to keep those principles alive and well for many generations to come.
    We want to help keep the ship of state pointed in the right direction
    by ensuring all of our citizens understand and can apply the basic
    principles and ideals of democracy that were established in this
    country in the late 1700's by the founders of our nation.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to talk with you here today
    about what we believe are two very exciting proposals. We hope you will
    agree and will help us make them a reality.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the National Association of University Fisheries
                             and Wildlife Programs

        The National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife
    Programs (NAUFWP) provides this statement on the proposed fiscal year
    2001 appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), especially
    the Biological Resources Division (BRD), U.S. Department of Interior.
        Fifty-four universities dealing with natural resources share
    membership in the NAUFWP. They seek to advance the science and practice
    of fisheries and wildlife ecology and management, and enhance public
    understanding and multiple benefits from natural resources.
        The NAUFWP is pleased to see the proposed increase (13.6 percent)
    in funds for the BRD, including $700,000 for the Cooperative Fish and
    Wildlife Research Unit Program. This proposed overall increase for BRD
    is the first since fiscal year 1994. But because of past constrained
    budgets, the fiscal year 2001 budget proposal remains nearly 10 percent
    behind the rate of inflation between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year
    2001. Nevertheless, the proposed increase is welcomed warmly after the
    recent trend of overall decreased funding.
        We are especially pleased to see continued attention devoted to
    filling all staff vacancies in the existing Cooperative Research Units
    and to providing some additional financial support for operations of
    this essential cooperative program. All of your past efforts to rebuild
    the staff and provide support for the program are deeply appreciated.
        As you and your Subcommittee members know, many activities carried
    out through the Cooperative Research Units generate essential
    information, facilitate outreach to the public, and yield graduates
    required to strengthen management of natural resources in the U.S.,
    particularly by the state and federal agencies, as well as private
    interests. We believe this unique model of cooperative partnerships
    among Federal and state governments, universities and private
    interests, such as the Wildlife Management Institute, should continue
    to be supported firmly. Cooperative Units should be expanded to meet
    well-documented needs in the 13 states lacking Units and also in the
    three states having a Fishery Unit, but no Wildlife Unit.
        Another gratifying proposal calls for continuing studies to support
    Food And Drug Administration approvals and U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency registrations of drugs and other chemicals for use in
    fish husbandry and management. BRD's Upper Midwest Environmental
    Science Center at La Crosse, Wisconsin is the only laboratory in the
    U.S. with facilities for this specialized research on chemicals needed
    in fish management. This important work will take another four years to
    provide compounds critical to federal, state and private fish hatchery
    programs.
        While the total BRD budget proposes a 13.6 percent increase, we
    have grave concern about the $3.8 million decrease being advanced in
    science programs and all Research and Science Centers to offset
    increases in operations (e.g. salaries, benefits, rent, and telephone).
    This proposed reduction will only further restrict the already
    financially constrained needed science programs at the Research and
    Science Centers. Adjustments are needed in handling these
    uncontrollable costs without further limiting the scientific work at
    these important Centers. Continued erosion of base funds for BRD's
    Research and Science Centers will limit expertise and capabilities
    substantially, at a time when greater production is needed from all
    Centers.
        Proposed increases in the USGS and BRD budgets seek to strengthen
    some partnership activities, beyond those carried out through the
    Cooperative Research Units. The $30 million USGS proposal, including $8
    million for BRD, will fund cooperative activities with state agencies,
    universities and others to collect and integrate essential ecological
    information into their respective information systems. We understand
    all of BRD's funds will go directly to these cooperating partners. The
    Gap Analysis Program and the National Biological Information
    Infrastructure are two projects that would be advanced through these
    funds. The NAUFWP supports this partnership and its funding at the
    requested level of $30 million for USGS, of which $8 million would be
    for BRD.
        The proposed increase for BRD of $2 million for amphibian research
    and monitoring, and $1 million for studies of fish and wildlife
    diseases is supported by the NAUFWP. Improved information on a number
    of diseases, including the deadly encephalitis-causing West Nile virus,
    avian vacuolar myelinopathy, and infectious salmon anemia, is needed to
    help develop better understanding of these threats and approaches to
    prevent their expansion and outbreaks. More information also is
    required to understand causes of widespread declines of amphibians.
        The following recommendations identify specific actions needed on
    BRD's and USGS's fiscal year 2001 budget:
      --That $700,000 be provided for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
            Research Unit Program to fill all remaining vacant staff
            positions and enhance operational support. This addition would
            be instrumental in finally rounding out the Unit Program and
            enable it to be more responsive to the pressing needs for
            information and technical services.
      --That $775,000 be provided to continue the critical work to achieve
            registration of drugs and other chemicals required in fish
            husbandry and management. Congress should state that BRD is
            expected to continue to fully fund this research for another
            four years to complete the essential work at the Upper Midwest
            Environmental Science Center.
      --That the proposed $3.8 million decrease in BRD's science programs
            and all Research and Science Centers to offset increases in
            operations be avoided. As stated earlier, it is recommended
            that the adjustments in these uncontrollable costs be funded
            without further limiting scientific work. Continued erosion of
            base funds for the Research and Science Centers will further
            limit expertise and research capabilities at a time when
            greater production is needed from each Center.
      --That the proposed $30 million for USGS, including $8 million for
            BRD, be provided to fund cooperative activities with state
            agencies, universities and others to collect and integrate
            essential ecological information into their respective
            information systems.
      --That the proposed increases for BRD of $2 million for amphibian
            research and monitoring, and $1 million for studies of fish and
            wildlife diseases, be granted. Better understanding of these
            threats, such as the West Nile virus which infected dozens of
            people in 1999 and caused the death of seven, is needed.
            Similarly, more information is required to understand causes of
            widespread declines in certain amphibians.
        Please include this statement in the official record on the fiscal
    year 2001 appropriations for the Department of the Interior. Your
    positive response will be appreciated.
                                     ______

                        United States Geological Survey

       Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources

        Mr. Chairman, I am Jon Bartholic, President of the National
    Institutes for Water Resources and Director of the Michigan Institute
    of Water Research at Michigan State University. This statement is in
    support of the Water Resources Research Act in the U.S. Geological
    Survey budget. We are requesting program support of $6.562 million in
    fiscal year 2001. This represents a $1.5 million increase over the
    fiscal year 2000 appropriation. Further, we support the fiscal year
    2001 USGS budget request, particularly expansion of the long-term
    monitoring network and expanded watershed planning and management
    products.
        Stresses on our water resources have never been greater. Our water
    resources are continually being impacted by human activities fueled by
    population growth. Agriculture, development, municipalities, industry,
    and innumerable additional human enterprises and activities must
    utilize and may potentially contaminate water resources. Complex water
    quantity and quality issues remain to be addressed by state and local
    government as well as the private sector. These include urban storm
    water discharges, salinization of irrigated lands, increasing municipal
    and industrial discharges, and non-point source runoff from agriculture
    and forestry. EPA data shows that 12.9 million acres of lakes and
    estuaries and 291,000 river and shoreline miles are impaired. By nearly
    any measure, these are rapidly expanding water quality and quantity
    problems for citizens, industry, and government.
        The framers of the 1964 Water Resources Research Act in their
    farsighted vision created legislation to establish and support a water
    resource research and technology transfer center in each state,
    territory, and the District of Columbia. The state institutes and their
    national network were deployed as part of a partnership to perform
    critical linking of federal and state agencies to local needs;
    integrating discipline research into meaningful knowledge; and
    facilitating the transfer of knowledge and expert assistance. This
    organization of state water resources research institutes now provides
    a strategically placed network to efficiently address the multiple and
    complex water resource problems of our Nation.
        Legislation reauthorizing this program for fiscal year 2001 through
    fiscal year 2005 has been introduced in the House by Representative
    Doolittle (H.R. 4132) and in the Senate by Senator Crapo (S. 2297). I
    understand the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is
    expected to mark up S. 2297 next week. The Resources Committee is
    likely to act in the near future.
        State institutes link with the university and government research
    community to tap into the knowledge being generated for addressing
    critical priority water needs. Since each institute enlists a state-
    wide advisory Committee who represent Federal, state, public,
    industrial, agricultural, and local government, their activities remain
    focused on specific issues of local, state, and national importance.
        This program produces research of practical value to local
    government and water resources stakeholders. The focus provided by each
    institute's advisory Committee helps insure that their research address
    real world problems and that the research has an immediate audience
    available to utilize their findings. Research products are disseminated
    as part of the technology transfer function. As new knowledge is
    generated, there is a system in place to facilitate the transfer,
    adoption, and use of the new findings to better manage our water
    resources. Thus, the results and benefits from this program are
    effective and rapid.
        We are emphasizing research on water quality and quantity from a
    watershed approach to protect, manage, and effectively utilize our
    water resources. Institutes are assisting states in the process of
    developing total maximum daily loads (TMDL). Institute resources can
    help with TMDL modeling and the implementation of appropriate
    management practices. The institutes can also facilitate the
    development and implementation of watershed plans. This effort will aid
    in empowering communities to make wise land use decisions which will
    positively impact water quality and quantity. Working cooperatively
    with USGS, the institutes can assist local and regional community
    leaders in achieving sustainable growth. Through research and analysis,
    the institutes network can bring unbiased scientific observation and
    data to bear on complex issues related to land use and urban growth
    impacts on watersheds.
        Many institutes are currently involved in the development of
    decision support and resource management efforts. This is a priority
    area for USGS, a goal that can be achieved more efficiently through an
    integrated, synergistic partnership between the Survey and the national
    network. One of our strengths is that we have experience in assisting
    local units of government in developing and integrating base map data
    with geologic, biologic, hydrologic, soils, land cover, and social/
    economic data for local land use planning that emphasizes
    sustainability.
        The focus of my discussion today has been on groundwater quality
    and watershed management, but other key research areas include water
    supply, biological sciences, climate and hydrological processes,
    engineering, and groundwater flow and transport.
        One measure of the program's success is the amount of additional
    revenue that the institutes generate. They attracted over $17 for every
    appropriated dollar with about $6 coming from other Federal funds and
    $11 coming from non-federal sources. Thus, a $5 million program was
    leveraged into over $71 million. Because each operates with different
    amounts of state and local funding, total revenues per institute range
    from approximately $200,000 to over $6.8 million. Revenues also include
    in-kind contributions made by state universities. None of the Federal
    appropriated funding is used to pay overhead costs.
        The program includes on-campus professional and academic training,
    and off-campus continuing education. Students receive professional
    training by participating in institute-sponsored research and
    information transfer projects. Seminars and specialized course work for
    graduate and undergraduate students are also sponsored. Over the past
    five years this program has been responsible for contributing to the
    education of 665 undergraduate students, 672 students pursuing masters
    degrees, and 311 doctoral candidates. This is the next generation of
    water scientists and engineers. During the same period, it has produced
    2750 research publications on water-related topics.
        On average, the institutes receive four or five proposals for each
    project selected for funding under the base state program funded
    through the USGS. Likewise, in the 1999 national competition for
    regional or interstate research grants, 70 proposals for approximately
    $8.2 million were received but only 10 proposals for $1 million could
    be funded. The number of proposals received demonstrates this program
    is uniquely positioned to tap the research capacity to meet expanding
    needs. This high level of interest continues to be reflected in this
    year's competition presently underway, proposals for over $14 million
    have been received, but the program is able to provide only $1 million
    to fund grants.
        The National Institutes for Water Resources requests an additional
    $1 million above the budget request for base grant or the Section
    104(b) program. These funds will be used to strengthen the research,
    collaboration, integration, and technology transfer activities. We are
    asking for a modest $0.5 million expansion of regional and interstate
    competition, also known as Section 104(g) grants. This funding will
    strengthen research for improving management options on a watershed
    basis to reduce nutrients, sediment, bacteria, toxins, and ecological
    degradation, plus enhance water use efficiency and conservation
    research.
        I want the Subcommittee to know that cooperation between the
    institutes and the Geological Survey has never been better. The
    leadership of the Survey recognizes there is a significant role for we
    have to play in meeting the Nation's water resources needs. For our
    part, we are looking forward to building on additional partnership
    opportunities with the Survey.
        Mr. Chairman, few people recognize the fact that the Geological
    Survey fosters much important scientific research. Frequently it is
    overshadowed by other Federal agencies that support science, such as
    the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health,
    etc. However, the research the Survey supports in the natural sciences,
    particularly water science, is vital to our national well-being. I want
    you to know that the professional water science community appreciates
    the fact that this Subcommittee has helped to foster and advance the
    Survey's important scientific mission. We believe that mission merits
    significant growth at a time when Congress and the public are pursuing
    the commendable objective of doubling funding for our national
    scientific enterprise.
        The national network of state water resources research institutes
    supported by this program is strategically placed and effectively links
    research and outreach. It can use existing capacity in the academic
    community in partnership with government agencies and end users for
    meeting expanding needs. Achieving the potential for meeting critical
    water needs will require that existing appropriation levels be rapidly
    increased. The impact from this investment will be rapid with positive
    and far-reaching results.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Weston Observatory of Boston College

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, as a Professor of
    Geophysics at Boston College and the Director of Boston College's
    Weston Observatory, I appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony
    on behalf of Weston Observatory in support of the National Earthquake
    Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP). Weston Observatory is a seismological
    and geological observatory that is dedicated to the study of
    earthquakes and earthquake hazards in the northeastern United States.
    Weston Observatory's very successful earthquake monitoring and research
    program has been supported in the past and present by NEHRP funding,
    and future advancements in understanding the earthquake hazard and in
    stimulating earthquake hazard mitigation activities in the region
    depend critically on continued NEHRP support in the future. In this
    testimony I discuss several reasons why continued and expanded NEHRP
    funding will lead to improved safety from future earthquakes.
        In this testimony, I will briefly describe three reasons why
    increased NEHRP funding, particularly funding for the new Advanced
    National Seismic System, will lead to improved earthquake hazard
    mitigation, both in the northeastern U.S. where I work as well as
    throughout the rest of the country as a whole. The convergence of
    sophisticated new seismological analysis techniques, ever-better
    computer systems, and new seismic instrumentation along with the
    phenomenal growth of the Internet present an unprecedented opportunity
    to develop an Advanced National Seismic System that will provide the
    public with much better information on the potential for and perhaps
    even the prediction of future damaging earthquakes.

                      THE ADVANCED NATIONAL SEISMIC SYSTEM

        The Advanced National Seismic System, as described in U.S.
    Geological Survey Circular 1188, is designed to bring to seismology the
    level of seismic instrumentation and communications that is necessary
    to greatly advance our understanding of how and why earthquakes happen.
    Two aspects of the Advanced National Seismic System, if fully funded,
    are particularly important. First, it will have a much greater number
    of weak motion and strong motion seismic stations in the seismically
    active parts of the country than we have at present. Greatly increasing
    the number of seismic stations in places like the northeastern U.S.
    means that, for the first time, scientists will be able to locate
    earthquakes with pinpoint accuracy. High quality earthquake locations
    are essential if we are to learn which are the seismically active
    faults, something that is generally not known at present outside of a
    few States like California in the western U.S. A greater number of
    seismic stations in the northeast will make it much easier to develop
    automated systems to locate earthquakes and to provide that information
    to the public within seconds or a few minutes after an earthquake
    occurs. The present low number of seismic stations means that each
    earthquake in the region must be analyzed by hand before the best
    location and magnitude measurements are made. In many cases this can
    take more than an hour, frustrating the public and the media who have
    much other information at their disposal effectively instantaneously.
        A second important aspect of the Advanced National Seismic System
    is that the high speed of the system will enable seismologists to carry
    out research to develop rapid earthquake warning systems and perhaps
    even earthquake prediction systems. No longer are either scientists or
    the public satisfied just to know the location and magnitude of an
    earthquake. They expect immediate warning that an event is occurring or
    will occur. The rapid data communications system coupled with the large
    number of seismic stations of the Advanced National Seismic System will
    enable seismologists for the first time to conduct research to develop
    systems that can warn people of the coming of strong earthquake
    shaking. At present, only in California are there enough seismic
    stations that such early warning systems are feasible, but even there,
    much research and development must still be carried out to make such
    systems work with reliability. Likewise, short-term earthquake
    prediction schemes will work only if seismologists can both record
    signals that precede earthquakes and properly interpret those signals
    before the strong earthquake occurs. Scientists are still trying to
    understand what diagnostic signals precede earthquakes, and this
    requires high quality data from future earthquakes. Only after such
    signals have been recognized, can prediction schemes be designed and
    implemented.
        The funding for the Advanced National Seismic System is needed as
    soon as possible to begin meeting these goals. Funding levels for
    earthquake monitoring in many parts of the country, for instance in the
    northeastern U.S., have decreased over the past decade. This has
    decreased scientists' abilities to acquire important data for seismic
    hazard studies. For example, in 1988 a strong earthquake (magnitude 6)
    was centered in Quebec, north of Quebec City. Strong ground motion
    instruments, the type of instrumentation used to measure the ground
    shaking that is damaging to buildings, recorded this earthquake both in
    Canada and in the U.S. Those data have been very important to
    seismologists for determining how strong the ground shaking might be
    from future earthquakes. More such data are needed, since the
    instrumental records from one earthquake do not reflect the wide
    variety of earthquakes that can take place in the region.
    Unfortunately, today there would be no strong motion data in the
    northeastern U.S. if a similar earthquake occurs. Most of the strong
    motion stations operated in the northeastern U.S. in 1988 have been
    closed due to lack of operational costs. The Advanced National Seismic
    System is needed to reverse this situation and to provide new data on
    earthquakes that take place in the future.

           IMPACT OF NEHRP ON WESTON OBSERVATORY EARTHQUAKE RESEARCH

        Weston Observatory carries out earthquake monitoring and research
    on the causes and effects on earthquakes that take place in the
    northeastern U.S. and nearby Canada, and it has been engaged in this
    work for over 70 years. The seismic monitoring stations of the
    Observatory encompass seven northeastern States. All of the direct
    funding of the earthquake monitoring and research activities of the
    Weston Observatory in New England and vicinity has come from NEHRP
    through the U.S. Geological Survey. Some indirect support of the Weston
    Observatory effort has come from some of the States of the region, who
    have provided some manpower assistance for specific tasks as well as
    access to facilities and equipment. It is vital that NEHRP funding for
    Weston Observatory's earthquake monitoring and research operations
    continues for this important work to be carried on in the future.
        The NEHRP funding to Weston Observatory has been used not only to
    monitor the earthquake activity of the New England region but also to
    study the earthquakes that have been recorded. For example, the
    earthquakes at Amesbury, Massachusetts in January, 1999 have been used
    to learn more about the earthquake in 1727 that damaged northeastern
    Massachusetts and was felt over all of the New England States and to
    the southwest past Philadelphia. From comparisons of the January, 1999
    earthquakes with the reports from 1727, an earthquake epicenter for the
    1727 earthquake near Amesbury has been inferred. The magnitude of the
    1727 earthquake has been estimated as 5.6. Recent research on the
    possible ground shaking generated by the 1727 earthquake has indicated
    that the levels of ground shaking at the towns immediately surrounding
    the epicenter were probably greater than the seismic design levels in
    the modern Massachusetts building code. It is through the comparisons
    of modern earthquakes and older, historic earthquakes that we can
    understand how strong a region like New England will shake in future
    earthquakes. In turn, this information can be used to recommend
    improvements in the building codes of the region.
        Weston Observatory welcomes the opportunity to work with the U.S.
    Geological Survey and with other seismological institutions in the
    northeastern U.S. to develop and implement the Advanced National
    Seismic System. The new instrumentation, better data communications,
    and data archiving of the Advanced National Seismic System will provide
    Weston Observatory with vastly superior seismic data to study the
    earthquakes of New England and vicinity. Weston Observatory is
    particularly pleased that the U.S. Geological Survey report
    Requirements for an Advanced National Seismic System calls for a
    significant increase in the funding available for the operation of the
    system. It is imperative that NEHRP funding to Weston Observatory
    increase substantially over current levels to ensure that there are
    seismic experts available locally to oversee, analyze and study the
    local earthquake data from the region. It is the local scientists who
    best understand the past data from the region, who are best able to
    analyze the future data, and who have the best backgrounds to make
    important future discoveries about the seismic hazard of the region in
    which they live.
        It is also important to recognize that government officials in a
    region like New England as well as the general public rely on local
    experts for their information on earthquakes and how best to cope with
    them. For example, in December 1999 and January 2000 there was a series
    of minor felt earthquakes that took place in Maine and New Hampshire.
    The public was understandably concerned when so many earthquakes were
    felt over such a short period of time, and Weston Observatory handled
    numerous inquiries, both from the press and from private citizens,
    about this earthquake activity. The offices of emergency management in
    Maine and New Hampshire were also curious about the importance of this
    earthquake activity. Time and time again Weston Observatory has been
    the first place the people of New England look to for information about
    earthquakes and earthquake hazards in the region. Increased NEHRP
    funding for the Weston Observatory earthquake monitoring and research
    will enable the Observatory staff to better educate the people of New
    England about their earthquake hazards. From past experience, I can say
    that the more education of the public that is carried out, the more
    earthquake hazard mitigation measures that people will engage in.

                     NEHRP IS SEEN AS AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM

        In my mind, one of the most important aspects of the NEHRP is that
    it is viewed by the general public as a program that has had a positive
    impact on reducing earthquake hazards throughout the country. Seismic
    design criteria in building codes throughout the country have improved
    steadily due to the efforts of NEHRP. The awareness of earthquakes in
    the seismically active parts of the country as well as the potential
    for future strong earthquakes has increased noticeably in many parts of
    the country. Educational programs about earthquakes and earthquake
    safety are no longer an afterthought; they are being included in an
    increasing way in schools throughout the country.
        The earthquake monitoring and the scientific research that have
    been carried out under NEHRP, particularly that funded through the U.S.
    Geological Survey, has been one of the primary reasons for the success
    of NEHRP. As a research scientist, I am struck over and over again by
    how new research results, especially research results that illustrate
    some new or previously unknown aspect of the earthquake threat,
    stimulate people to take action to minimize the effects of future
    earthquakes. People are much more likely to include seismic design in
    structures if they understand why that design is necessary. The
    availability of research results that the public can easily understand
    is especially important in this regard, and the world-wide web is
    providing an exciting new avenue through which scientists can present
    their information to the public.
        The implementation of the Advanced National Seismic System will
    provide an pportunity for NEHRP researchers like those at Weston
    Observatory to further raise the level of earthquake awareness in the
    region. Increasing the number of weak motion seismic stations (useful
    for earthquake locations and magnitude determinations) and strong
    motion seismic stations (important to collect data about damaging
    earthquake ground shaking) will undoubtedly uncover new information
    about heretofore unrecognized earthquake faults as well as a better
    understanding of earthquake zones already under study. If the public
    perceives that there is an increase of local research on the causes and
    effects of local earthquakes, they will respond with greater interest
    in the results of the research and with greater efforts to plan for the
    possibilities of future strong earthquakes.
        I am aware that the president's budget requests $2.6 million in new
    NEHRP funding for fiscal year 2001 to be used for the Advanced National
    Seismic System. I am pleased to see this effort to get this system off
    the ground, but I would urge your Committee to consider funding at
    least twice this level. It will take time and careful work by a number
    of dedicated scientists to establish the Advanced National Seismic
    System in a comprehensive and effective way. We need to get started
    now, before the next damaging earthquake strikes somewhere in the
    United States.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

        The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
    organization created 19 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has important responsibilities
    in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, including land management and
    coordination with other federal, state, and local agencies on river-
    related ecological issues. Yet Region 3 has been struggling to meet
    even the most basic needs in the region. The UMRBA strongly supports
    additional funding to enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to fulfill
    its responsibilities in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
        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 National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
    (NWFR), 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 ecosystem
    and a nationally significant commercial navigation system.''
        Under the President's fiscal year 2001 budget, the refuges on the
    Upper Mississippi River are expected to receive approximately $5
    million, including $3.164 million in base funding for operations.
    Despite the fact that the President's budget proposes an increase of
    more than $20 million for refuge operations, there is no scheduled
    fiscal year 2001 increase in base funding for the three refuges on the
    Upper Mississippi River. Of particular concern to the UMRBA is the fact
    that the refuges on the Upper Mississippi River have responsibility for
    the operation and maintenance (O&M) of projects that the Corps of
    Engineers constructs under the authority of the Environmental
    Management Program (EMP). The current annual O&M costs of these
    projects is about $330,000. If the refuge operations budget is not
    increased to accommodate EMP habitat projects, the future of the EMP,
    which Congress just reauthorized last year, will be in jeopardy. The
    Fish and Wildlife Service must be able to maintain its partnership role
    in planning EMP projects as well as operating and maintaining them once
    they are constructed. In addition, there is a critical need for
    additional personnel to address law enforcement, biological needs,
    floodplain forest management, environmental education, and other refuge
    management needs. For example, the Upper Mississippi River NWFR
    currently operates with only 33 full time equivalents (FTEs) even
    though the refuge Master Plan calls for 56 FTEs to properly manage this
    261-mile linear refuge. The UMRBA thus supports an increase in the
    refuge operations funding for the three refuges on the Upper
    Mississippi River.
        The UMRBA also supports the President's proposed increase of $8.8
    million for operational projects prioritized through the Refuge
    Operations Needs System (RONS). The UMR refuges are expected to receive
    $377,000 in RONS funding, a portion of which will be used on a one-time
    basis for operation of some EMP habitat projects. While this is an
    increase of $137,000 over fiscal year 2000 RONS funding, there are
    still over $15 million in needs.
        Under the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget, the refuges on
    the upper river expect to receive $340,000 for annual maintenance
    funding and $1.118 million for backlog maintenance. The backlog funding
    for fiscal year 2001 is over twice what was provided last year. Yet it
    falls well below the $14 million maintenance backlog that must be
    addressed. The President's proposed increase in funding for the
    Maintenance Management System (MMS) is a step in the right direction.
        The UMRBA also supports the President's proposed increase in
    funding for land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes $1 million to acquire 3,279
    acres from willing sellers for the Mark Twain NWR. However, a $2
    million shortfall will make it difficult to acquire currently available
    strategic and sizeable tracts. In addition, there are land acquisition
    needs (35,000 acres) for the Upper Mississippi River NWFR that require
    funding.
        Ecological Services.--Funding from the Ecological Services account
    supports the field offices in Rock Island, Illinois; the Twin Cities,
    Minnesota; and Marion, Illinois that provide most of the ecological
    services work on the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) and tributaries,
    including work on threatened and endangered species, environmental
    contaminants, and habitat conservation. Despite a five percent proposed
    increase in the Service's fiscal year 2001 Ecological Services budget,
    there is no scheduled increase for the Ecological Services program on
    the Upper Mississippi River. Funding in fiscal year 2001 is expected to
    be $428,000, which is the same amount allocated in fiscal year 2000.
        The UMRBA supports this base funding for Ecological Services
    offices on the UMR and urges Congress to provide additional funding for
    the following specific UMR efforts: $650,000 to support the Habitat
    Needs Assessment in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
    $300,000 to support water quality related studies; $1.5 million for
    habitat restoration in UMR watersheds; $500,000 to support mitigation
    activities associated with federal navigation and flood control
    projects; $400,000 for needs related to the Endangered Species Act; and
    $100,000 for administrative support of the Upper Mississippi River
    Conservation Committee.
        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) Fisheries Resource Offices. Fish stocking is
    done from the 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 proposed for the Fisheries Account in fiscal
    year 2001. Approximately $853,000 in base funding is anticipated to be
    provided for fisheries work on the Upper Mississippi River in fiscal
    year 2001. In addition, $164,000 from the Maintenance Management System
    is proposed for deferred maintenance work at the Genoa Hatchery.
    However, there are many unmet needs remaining as identified in the
    Fishery Operations Needs System (FONS). Additional funds are needed for
    work on paddlefish, sturgeon, and aquatic nuisance species such as
    zebra mussels.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        The President's budget request includes an $82.0 million, or 10
    percent, increase for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in fiscal year
    2001. This would bring the USGS budget to $895.4 million. Despite the
    Administration's proposed increase for the important work of USGS, the
    budget still reflects difficult decisions and tradeoffs. As a partial
    offset for $86.1 million in program increases and $18.1 million for
    uncontrollable cost increases, the President has identified $22.2
    million in program reductions.
        Given these constraints, the states are particularly pleased with
    USGS' efforts to enhance coordination across its divisions.
    Interdisciplinary approaches among the divisions promise to make the
    most efficient, effective use of the Survey's considerable scientific
    expertise. Similarly, an agreement among the Interior Department's
    bureaus will foster the integrated scientific research and information
    needed to make sound land and resource decisions. There are several
    specific research and monitoring programs in the Water Resources
    Division (WRD) and Biological Resources Division (BRD) that are of
    particular interest to the UMRBA.
        Water Resources.--The Water Resources Investigations account
    includes an increase of $4.0 million to upgrade the USGS stream gaging
    network. The UMRBA strongly supports this proposed increase. The stream
    gaging network is an essential tool for flood and drought forecasting,
    navigation system management, water quality evaluation, recreational
    boating, and other activities. A November 1998 report to Congress
    identified critical gaging needs and Congress responded by providing a
    $2 million increase in fiscal year 2000. This was the first real
    increase in federal funding for stream gaging in over a decade. The
    President's $4.0 million fiscal year 2001 request would build on this
    increase. It would allow USGS to establish 25 new stream gaging
    stations, reactivate 25 former stations, and upgrade 100 existing
    stations. The upgrades would include ensuring that gages can withstand
    200-year floods, installing equipment for real-time data transmission,
    and improving the rating curves used to assess flood potential. In
    combination, the fiscal year 2000 and 2001 increases would support 17
    new or reactivated gaging stations in our five States, including one on
    the Mississippi River and several more on key tributaries. An enhanced
    national gaging network is vital to local, state, and Federal
    Government in protecting public health and safety. In particular,
    increased support for federally funded gages is imperative if the
    integrity of a national network is to be maintained over time.
        The UMRBA continues to support funding for the National Water
    Quality Assessment (NAWQA). NAWQA is designed to answer basic questions
    about the status and trends in the quality of our nation's ground and
    surface waters. The public expects and deserves answers to these
    questions. By assessing 59 study units on a rotating basis, NAWQA is
    providing the data needed for broad scale assessments and comparative
    analyses. National synthesis reports have already been produced on
    priority water quality issues, including pesticides and nutrients.
    Local, state, and federal water managers are also using the data to
    address more local concerns. Moreover, trends in individual study units
    will become apparent as the assessment process is renewed on its 10-
    year cycle. The first study units, initiated in fiscal year 1991, are
    scheduled for reactivation beginning in fiscal year 2001. Among these
    first NAWQA units are Western Lake Michigan in Wisconsin and the Ozark
    Plateaus unit in Missouri. The Upper Illinois River Basin unit will be
    completing its first round of data collection next year. The Upper
    Mississippi River Basin's three other units (i.e., Upper Mississippi,
    Eastern Iowa, and Lower Illinois) will all be in the ``low intensity''
    phase, awaiting reactivation in fiscal year 2004. The UMRBA urges
    Congress to provide the continued funding needed to implement the NAWQA
    protocol.
        In addition, the UMRBA supports the modest, but important, $2.3
    million increase proposed for the Federal/State Coop Water Program. The
    Coop Program is an essential tool in meeting state and local science
    needs. In 1999, cooperators matched every $1.00 in federal funds with
    $1.53, demonstrating the value they place on the program.
        Biological Resources.--The President's budget request includes an
    increase of $2.0 million for the USGS's portion of the National Plan
    for Amphibian Monitoring and Research. Amphibians are indicators of
    overall ecosystem health, and dramatic declines in the distribution and
    health of many amphibian species are cause for concern. Federal
    agencies are working cooperatively with state and university
    researchers to understand the status of these species and to
    investigate factors that may contribute to declining populations and
    increased incidence of malformations. The USGS is a key partner in this
    effort. Of the $2.0 million increase requested by the Administration,
    $500,000 would go to the WRD's Toxic Substances Hydrology Program to
    assess environmental contaminants that may influence amphibian health.
    BRD would receive $1.4 million for monitoring and trend analysis. The
    Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC) would receive
    approximately $200,000 of the increase to support inventory and
    monitoring work on selected federal lands in the Upper Midwest,
    including refuges on the Upper Mississippi River. Some of the earliest
    work on amphibian decline was done in this region and our States have
    invested significant resources of their own investigating the problem.
    The UMRBA urges Congress to continue to provide USGS with the funds it
    needs to serve as an effective partner in this collaborative effort.
        The UMRBA also supports funding increases proposed for UMESC under
    the Interior Department's Ecosystem Monitoring Protocols category.
    UMESC would receive $100,000 for a survey of river mussels. The Fish
    and Wildlife Service and state resource agencies are struggling to
    preserve the river's remaining native mussels in the face of several
    threats, including the exotic zebra mussel. This survey work will
    provide important information about the health and distribution of
    riverine mussels. The President's budget proposal also includes a
    $95,000 increase for UMESC to conduct inventory and monitoring work as
    part of the Fish and Wildlife Service's comprehensive refuge planning
    effort. This information will help the Service manage the river's
    refuge system in a coordinated, holistic manner. As co-stewards of the
    river's resources, the states endorse both of these proposed funding
    increases for UMESC. Among the cuts identified by the Administration to
    offset uncontrollable cost increases is a $150,000 decrease at UMESC.
    This cut would primarily affect the Center's Upper Mississippi
    fisheries work, including main channel assessments and fish passage
    studies. The states favor restoration of these funds.
                                     ______

                               CULTURAL PROGRAMS

          Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History

        The American Museum of Natural History is pleased to submit this
    statement in support of the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

                  ABOUT THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

        Founded in 1869, the American Museum of Natural History [AMNH] is
    one of the nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and
    public education. Throughout its history, the Museum has pursued its
    joint missions of science and education, of examining critical
    scientific issues and educating the public about them. It is renowned
    for its exhibitions and collections, which serve as a field guide to
    the entire planet and present a panorama of the world's cultures.
    Museum collections of some 32 million natural specimens and cultural
    artifacts provide an irreplaceable record of life on earth. Its
    explorers and scientists have pioneered discoveries and offered us new
    ways of looking at nature and human civilization. The Museum's power to
    interpret wide-ranging scientific discoveries and convey them
    imaginatively has inspired generations of visitors to its grand
    exhibition halls and educated its three million annual visitors--
    500,000 of them schoolchildren--about the natural world and the
    vitality of human culture.
        Since 1887 the Museum has sponsored thousands of expeditions,
    sending scientists and explorers to every continent; currently more
    than 100 field projects are conducted each year, including ongoing
    research in such countries as Chile, China, Cuba, Madagascar, Mongolia,
    and New Guinea. Some of the most influential scientists of the
    twentieth century, including Margaret Mead, George Gaylord Simpson, Roy
    Chapman Andrews, and Ernst Mayr were either staff members of or
    affiliated with the Museum.
        Today more than 200 active Museum scientists with internationally
    recognized expertise, led by 47 curators, conduct laboratory and
    collections-based research programs as well as field work and training.
    Scientists in five divisions (Anthropology; Earth, Planetary, and Space
    Sciences; Invertebrate Zoology; Paleontology; and Vertebrate Zoology)
    are sequencing DNA and creating new computational tools to retrace the
    evolutionary tree, documenting changes in the environment, making new
    discoveries in the fossil record, and describing human culture in all
    its variety. The Museum also conducts graduate training programs in
    conjunction with a host of distinguished universities, supports
    doctoral and postdoctoral scientists with highly competitive
    fellowships, and offers talented undergraduates an opportunity to work
    with Museum scientists.
        In many ways, the AMNH is similar to a research university, with
    its scientific faculty from diverse fields such anthropology, earth and
    planetary sciences, astrophysics, and all branches of zoology. Yet the
    Museum is distinct in that its mission extends beyond research and
    training. Museum curators are also deeply engaged as exhibition and
    education advisors and as caretakers of the Museum's ever growing
    collections. They help to promote public understanding of science, of
    where we come from and where we may be headed.
        In exhibitions, which are among the Museum's most potent
    educational tools, AMNH scientific knowledge and discovery are
    translated into three dimensions. The Museum is proud to continue its
    tradition of creating some of the world's greatest scientific
    exhibitions. Last month, in one of the most exciting chapters in the
    Museum's long and distinguished history of advancing science and
    education, it opened the spectacular new Rose Center for Earth and
    Space. The Rose Center includes a newly rebuilt and updated Hayden
    Planetarium that allows visitors to journey among the stars and planets
    in our own and in other galaxies; and the Lewis B. and Dorothy Cullman
    Hall of the Universe, where interactive technology and participatory
    displays elucidate important astronomy and astrophysics principles. The
    adjoining Gottesman Hall of Planet Earth, which opened in 1999,
    explores the processes that determine how the Earth works; it in turn
    leads to the recently opened Hall of Biodiversity. Together, the new
    planetarium and halls provide visitors a seamless educational journey
    from the universe's beginnings to the formation and processes of Earth
    to the extraordinary diversity of life on our planet.
        The Museum's Education Department spearheads the AMNH's commitment
    to promoting public education, particularly in an informal setting. It
    builds on the Museum's unique resources to offer rich educational
    programming dedicated to increasing scientific literacy, to encouraging
    students to pursue science and museum careers, and to providing a forum
    for exploring the world's cultures. The Department targets its efforts
    particularly to New York City's diverse and often underserved
    communities and school districts, to those populations traditionally
    poorly served by schools, those underrepresented in science, and those
    for whom museums typically are not a welcoming destination.
        Each year hundreds of thousands of students, teachers, and schools
    participate in workshops, courses for college credit, and visits to the
    Museum. Annually, more than 500,000 students and teachers visit on
    school trips, prepared and supported by curriculum resources and
    workshops. For schools that cannot get to the Museum, Moveable Museums
    offer off-site access, free of charge. As well, Education Department
    lectures, field trips and workshops on subjects ranging from birding to
    earthquakes, gospel music to Native American culture, and Hudson River
    geology to gorilla conservation attract large audiences of adults,
    children, and families.
        In 1997 the Museum launched in partnership with NASA the National
    Center for Science Literacy, Education, and Technology to advance
    science literacy throughout the United States and to extend the
    Museum's educational reach and impact to a national audience, including
    local communities. In creating the National Center, the Museum and NASA
    recognized an opportunity to combine and leverage their incomparable
    resources, and through new technologies to bring learning and
    discovery, materials, and programs into homes, schools, museums, and
    community organizations around the nation.

            SUPPORT FOR THE INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES

        The American Museum of Natural History supports the goals and
    accomplishments of the Institute of Museum and Library Services [IMLS].
    The Museum's own collections of more than 32 million artifacts and
    specimens are considered to be the largest non-federal museum
    collection in America, and one of the largest and most significant
    biological collections in the world. Its Library houses one of the
    world's preeminent collections of natural history and anthropology
    materials. It shares IMLS commitments to increasing technological
    access to the nation's museum and library resources and to building
    partnerships to address community needs; and it urges increased
    investment in IMLS so as to advance public access to these vital
    educational institutions.

    Scientific and Cultural Collections
        The cumulative result of 130 years of exploration, collecting, and
    research, the AMNH collections are a major scientific resource
    providing the foundation for the Museum's interrelated research,
    education, and exhibition missions. They often include endangered and
    extinct species as well as many of the only known ``type specimens,''
    or examples of species by which all other finds are compared. Within
    the collections are many spectacular individual collections, including
    the world's most comprehensive collections of dinosaurs; fossil
    mammals; Northwest Coast and Siberian cultural artifacts; North
    American butterflies; spiders; Australian and Chinese amphibians;
    reptiles; fishes outside of their home countries; and one of the most
    important bird collections. Collections such as these are historical
    libraries of expertly identified examples of species and artifacts,
    associated with data about when and where they were collected. Such
    collections provide vital data for Museum scientists as well as more
    than 250 national and international visiting scientists each year. The
    collections are all located on-site to allow scientists' with ease of
    access.
        The Museum's halls of vertebrate evolution provide an excellent
    example of the relationship among science, collections, education, and
    exhibition. In these halls, visitors walk directly along a phylogenetic
    tree indicated by a pathway on the floor. At each branch in the tree, a
    visitor can stop and view fossils that exemplify sets of anatomical
    features that inform scientists about natural groups of organisms. The
    collections are also the source of the extraordinary ``Spectrum of
    Life'' exhibit in the new Hall of Biodiversity. This exhibit features
    more than 1,000 expertly mounted specimens from 28 scientific
    classifications; it is perhaps the world's most comprehensive display
    of the diversity and evolution of life. It includes interactive
    computer kiosks that visitors use to identify and interrelate organisms
    on evolutionary trees. The confluence of collections, evolutionary
    research, and beautiful exhibition makes these halls among the Museum's
    most compelling educational features.

    Natural History Library
        The American Museum of Natural History is also home to the largest
    unified natural history library in the Western Hemisphere. In addition
    to supporting the work of the Museum's scientific staff, the Library
    serves the world's scientific and scholarly communities as well as
    students from the colleges and universities in the tri-state area and
    interested members of the public. Each year thousands of users visit
    the Library, and its staff answer more than 26,000 reference questions.
        The Library contains over 485,000 volumes, including pamphlets,
    reprints, books, journals, photos, several hundred films, and rare
    books dating to the fifteenth century. It also houses the Museum's
    astronomy collections, including the Perkins Library of more than
    35,000 volumes and the Bliss Collection of rare and ancient scientific
    instruments. The archives contain more than 1,900 linear feet of
    materials and 250 reels of microfilm. Additionally, the Library
    maintains approximately 1,000,000 photographic images documenting
    specimens and scientific work, 3,000 documentary films, and over 2,700
    art objects and memorabilia.
        Other highlights of the Library collection include over 300
    manuscript collections of notable naturalists and scientists; a unique
    collection of 13,000 rare books that spans over 500 years of scientific
    and expedition literature; and diaries and logs, including Captain
    James Cook's account of Australia (1783) and Charles Darwin's zoology
    of the voyage of ``H.M.S. Beagle'' (1839-43).

    Preservation and Access
        By assuming stewardship of these irreplaceable Library scientific
    collections and Library collections, the Museum serves as custodian of
    one of the most important records of life on earth. And as steward and
    custodian, it places the highest possible priority on preservation and
    access, so that the collections will be protected and available for
    research, for exhibit, and for education for generations to come.
        The Library is engaged in a major pilot effort, with private
    foundation support, to digitize its holdings and link them to the
    scientific collections. This model project, illustrative of the
    digitization initiatives the IMLS supports, will help to pave the way
    in transforming access to and ways to use the Museum's resources. An
    expansion of the digitization project would dramatically increase
    access to them for researchers, students, teachers, and the general
    public.
        The Museum has also undertaken major efforts to improve storage,
    preservation, and access of its vast collections. This year Museum
    departments will move into a new nine-story Natural Science Building.
    This facility will significantly increase exhibition and collections
    storage space, with 30,000 sq. ft. of climate-controlled compact
    storage facilities for portions of the scientific collections, along
    with a digital imaging laboratory.
        The Anthropology Division is also nearing completion of a 25-year
    collection storage upgrade and related digitization project. Scheduled
    for completion in 2002, and with support from the National Endowment
    for the Humanities, this upgrade will ensure scholarly access to these
    vital and magnificent collections. The new digital image database and
    accompanying electronic catalog will facilitate access for staff,
    visiting scholars, and off-site researchers.

         BIOLOGICAL COLLECTION STORAGE UPGRADE AND DIGITIZATION PROJECT

        With the successful Anthropology storage upgrade and digitization
    project nearly complete, the Museum now turns its focus to critical
    improvement of other storage facilities and to digitizing the
    biological collections for upgraded preservation and wider access. The
    IMLS has a distinguished history of supporting cutting edge collection
    and technological practices. We do seek partnerships with IMLS that
    will allow us to provide leadership in collection practices and to
    serve as a national model in improving public access to museum and
    library resources through technology.

    Technological Innovation for Greater Public Access
        Biological science at the Museum centers on expert documentation of
    species and investigation of their evolutionary and ecological
    relationships. The collections therefore provide essential baseline
    data for scientific inquiry. Due to the unparalleled interest in the
    Museum's biological collections and unwieldliness of the specimens,
    comprehensive digital imaging and electronic cataloging of many of
    these collections will allow the Museum readily to share our resources
    through technology with a national and international audience. We would
    like to develop a database, with a web front end for worldwide general
    audience access, to allow digitized specimens and field data to be
    searched across many fields (for instance, by locality or age).
    Detailed digital renderings would allow ready and safe access to often
    fragile archival material and allow off-site researchers and users to
    peruse the collection and strategically plan Museum visits. If using
    the database can help researchers to plan Museum visits, the
    productivity of those visits will be significantly enhanced.

    Collection Storage Facilities
        Collections preservation and access are top Museum priorities. The
    Museum's collections are the heart and soul of our scientific research,
    permanent and temporary exhibitions, and education programs. Access to
    the collections allows undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate, and even
    high school students to conduct real research projects in intensive
    learning programs. As the collections grow, questions about how to
    curate them, including how to use limited physical storage space,
    arise. While many similar institutions house their collections
    separately from their faculty, the Museum is committed to keeping its
    scientists, educators and collections together by expanding on site.
    The new Natural Sciences Building, for example, can accommodate a
    substantial amount of new compact storage, including a unique super-
    cold storage facility to allow for the preservation of tissue samples
    for future of DNA study.
        As these endeavors demonstrate, the American Museum of Natural
    History supports the important goals of IMLS to preserve and expand
    access to library and museum resources and to reach out to broad
    audiences and diverse communities.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the American Association of Museums

        Chairman Gorton, Senator Byrd and members of the Subcommittee I am
    Edward H. Able, Jr. President and C.E.O. of the American Association of
    Museums (AAM), presenting written testimony on behalf of AAM in support
    of the fiscal year 2001 Budget requests for the Institute of Museum and
    Library Services, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the
    National Endowment for the Arts.
        For almost 35 years, the Federal cultural agencies have provided
    invaluable financial support to museums of every kind as they pursue
    their education mission to the public. While that support has declined
    significantly during the recent era of tight fiscal discipline, it has
    never faltered. We are, however, rapidly approaching the point of
    diminishing marginal utility. For example, we have heard from a variety
    of museums, including zoos, that despite their need for operating
    funds, they are no longer applying for IMLS General Operating Support
    (GOS) grants because the demand has become so great relative to the
    funding available that only a tiny percentage (currently 19 percent and
    falling) can be funded. As a result, an increasing number of museums
    both small and large are discouraged from even applying. General
    operating support funds, critical and fundamental to museum operations,
    are very difficult to obtain from foundations or corporations, who
    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, operations that could be supported significantly by
    GOS funds.
        I strongly urge you to help reverse this downward trend by
    increasing funding for the Office of Museum Services (OMS) within the
    Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) to $40 million for
    fiscal year 2001. This increase would accommodate both the president's
    budget request of $9.07 million for new technology and leadership
    initiatives and the museum community's request for $7.38 million for a
    much needed and overdue boost for core programs, such as GOS grants.
        In addition, I would encourage the Committee to fund the National
    Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National Endowment for the
    Arts (NEA) at the levels requested in the President's budget--$150
    million each. As my time is very limited, I will simply mention the
    critical support the NEH and NEA provide museums and focus instead on
    one of the core missions of museums, namely education, and the
    importance to museums of GOS grants in carrying out that mission.
        The main reason for establishing the OMS--``to ease the financial
    burden borne by museums as a result of their increasing use by the
    public'' (Public Law 94-462, Title II, Museum Services Act)--has never
    been more true than today.
        Nine-tenths of museums believe that ``funding to meet basic
    commitments'' is a critical need for the coming years, with 70 percent
    ranking this issue first among their needs. Only 8 percent believe that
    the museum community has adequate resources to cope with critical
    issues in the near future--especially funding issues.
        While need has increased, the OMS has shrunk. Funding has dropped
    dramatically since fiscal year 1995, when it was $28.7 million, to
    today's level of $24.4 million. This has meant that the General
    Operating Support program was able to fund only 19 percent of
    applications in fiscal year 1999, down from 20 percent in fiscal year
    1998, and 26 percent in fiscal year 1995, despite outside peer
    reviewers determining that 59 percent of the grants were worthy of
    funding.
        The proposed $40 million is modest relative to the overall size of
    the federal budget and the demonstrated need. It has been estimated
    that funding all of the recommended applications would cost nearly $65
    million.
        One of the other hallmarks of GOS grants is their flexibility.
    While these awards cannot be used for construction or renovation,
    museums are free to use GOS money where each institution determines it
    is most needed to improve public service. An analysis of GOS reports
    done within the last three by IMLS showed that
      --88 percent of grantees said their grants helped to improve services
            to visitors
      --77 percent said the grant helped to hire new staff
      --49 percent said the grant helped to conduct research for exhibition
            and program development
        But most importantly, 94 percent of grantees said the grant
    improved their educational programs by helping to produce educational
    kits or traveling program materials; supporting lectures, symposia and
    workshops; expanding or enhancing existing exhibitions; initiating new
    exhibitions; and producing videos and publications.
        While education has long been central to the work of museums, in
    recent years it has moved to the forefront of their public service
    mission. This boom in museum education has in part been spurred on by
    two external factors:
        First is the changing nature of American education. Who teaches,
    what is taught, where teaching takes place and how teaching occurs are
    evolving dramatically in communities across America. New developments
    in educational theory are placing greater emphasis on participatory and
    out-of-school learning, which find a natural fit in the museum setting.
        The second external factor is the emergence of good empirical
    evidence showing that arts and culture can play a vital role in
    learning.
        In 1992, AAM issued a landmark policy report, entitled Excellence
    and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of Museums, reaffirming
    museums' role in the education enterprise. To quote the report itself:
    ``Museums have a vital place in a broad educational system that
    includes formal institutions such as universities, schools and
    professional training institutes and informal agents of socialization
    such as family, workplace and community. Museums have the capacity to
    contribute to formal and informal learning at every stage of life, from
    the education of children in preschool through secondary school to the
    continuing education of adults. They add a tangible dimension to
    learning that occurs in formal settings.''
        In 1997, IMLS reinforced the importance of museum education when it
    published ``True Needs, True Partners,'' an 80-page book that profiled
    museum-school partnerships and the results of a museum survey designed
    to collect specific information about the full range of educational
    activities that museums offer to the nation's schools.
        For the first time, museums and educational professionals had
    strong statistical information that confirmed museums and schools are
    working together to better educate students at all grade levels. The
    survey found that:
      --88 percent of the nearly 10,000 museums in the U.S. provide K-12
            educational programming
      --At a minimum, museums in the U.S. spend $193 million annually on K-
            12 programming
      --The typical museum provides between 100 and 223 instructional hours
            to students each year, with a low estimate of 3.9 million hours
            collectively for all museums
      --Museums reported the substantial use of school curriculum standards
            in shaping museum educational programs for a given subject;
            survey results tallied 92 percent for math, 87 percent for
            science, 76 percent for art and 72 percent for history
        Unless a museum is financially strong, however, it cannot fulfill
    its educational potential in a way that ensures broad public access and
    benefit. That is why OMS-GOS grants are so important.
        In a powerful example of the importance of GOS funds, particularly
    for small museums, I'll like to highlight the Wyck Association. The
    Wyck Association in Philadelphia, PA preserves an 18th century house,
    home to nine generations of one family. Wyck is a small museum, with a
    budget of under $200,000 annually. OMS-GOS funds have helped transform
    a once financially struggling historic site into a leader in the
    historic house community. GOS funds have helped the Wyck develop new
    educational programs targeted to at-risk city school children and new
    interpretation programs reflective of their audience and community,
    such as the ``Abolition Movement in Germantown'', or ``Family Life in
    the 1700 and 1800s.''
        In the words of the Wyck Association's Executive Director, John
    Groff, ``IMLS has consistently been the funding that has made the
    difference as we take the next leap forward in achieving our long-range
    goals. The general operating income has given us the encouragement and
    the financial edge to make our vision begin to come true.''
        One last point note about the Wyck: recently the Wyck sought
    funding from area foundations and individuals for a capital campaign.
    Proudly citing their IMLS awards as a ``seal of approval'' from their
    peers, the campaign surpassed its three-year goal in half that time.
    Why? Because peer-reviewed OMS grants assure state, local, and private
    funders that a museum has met high national standards and is worthy of
    their additional support. In fact, it has been estimated that for every
    $.50 of public money invested, museums generate an additional $1 in
    private support.
        The $40 million we are requesting is a modest but worthwhile
    investment that would significantly increase the ability of the agency
    to help more museums. 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, funds that will help museums
    further increase and enhance their services to local school systems and
    other community organizations.
        Before I close, let me say that I've focused a good deal of my time
    on GOS grants but OMS provides enormous support to the museum community
    above and beyond the GOS.
        Our country's museums house an enormous wealth of information--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 developing interactive exhibits and
    applying new technologies to increase their accessibility through the
    world wide web.
        Since 1998, IMLS has provided grants to state library agencies and
    to individual libraries for research, digitization and management of
    digital resources. And 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 that we make the same
    advances for museum collections, if we are to maximize their potential
    impact on the education of our youth.
        Recognizing this problem, Congress appropriated money last year to
    IMLS to begin establishing a museum program to build 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. We support and applaud this action but it is not enough; the
    technological challenges faced by museums continue to escalate, and we
    need to do more.
        The President's budget calls for $7.136 million in OMS National
    Leadership Grants for Technology Advancement for museums. We strongly
    support this request and urge the Committee to continue its
    demonstrated leadership on this issue by fully funding this initiative
    and strengthening IMLS' role in providing much needed coordination and
    focus. This will greatly facilitate museums' efforts to improve their
    technological base increase public access to their collections and
    provide distance education programs
        Finally, I think it is important to emphasize that OMS, and IMLS in
    general, should not only be applauded for its effectiveness but its
    efficiency. With its staff of 20, OMS's total non-program costs--
    including research--are only 6.3 percent of requested funding, less
    than its authorized cap of 10 percent. What this means is that over 93
    percent of all dollars go directly to museums.
        OMS is a valuable agency. It provides an invaluable service to the
    museum field, and through them the American people, at a minor cost to
    the taxpayers. It has had an extremely positive impact and can continue
    to do so with your help. I urge you once again to support funding for
    the Office of Museum Services (OMS) within the Institute of Museum and
    Library Services (IMLS) at $40 million and funding for the National
    Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) the National Endowment for the Arts
    (NEA) at the President's request level of $150 million.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the City of Newark, New Jersey

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving
    us the opportunity to submit testimony about project under your
    jurisdiction that are 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 began
    construction by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers late this year; a
    minor league baseball stadium where the Newark Bears began to play last
    summer; and a planned state of the art sports and entertainment
    complex, all are changing the face of Newark. But we know that the
    renaissance of our City cannot just happen in the downtown business and
    arts center; it must also include the residents and their neighborhoods
    in meaningful, substantive ways. The proposals for economic development
    activities outlined herein may be disparate, but they all relate to
    improvements in the quality of life for residents of and visitors to
    Newark.
        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 5
    years younger than the State average. Twenty-nine percent of our
    population was under the age of 18, and 26 percent lived below the
    poverty line. For people living in these conditions, there are basic
    needs which must be met: the availability of open space and recreation
    areas, the availability of jobs, and the availability of an
    infrastructure which is conducive to the development of neighborhoods,
    business and industry.

                       URBAN PARK RESTORATION INITIATIVE

        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. In fiscal year 2000 the
    VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee recognized the importance of this
    initiative by including a listing through the Economic Development
    Initiative for $300,000. In fiscal year 2001 the City is again
    requesting funds in the amount of $4 million for this important
    community investment project.
        The City of Newark is seeking the support of this Subcommittee 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 City's renaissance. 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 location, a ``Friends Of'' park
    association is being formed of citizens who live around the park, and
    anchoring community institutions, such as schools, the faith--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 ``Friends 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.
        Federal support will be utilized to match municipal capital
    investment in improvements. 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. In addition, the Police Department has pledged to
    create walk-ride units of officers who patrol in and between specific
    parks, train watch groups who undergo association training, and
    organize police youth and adult athletic leagues to compete in the
    parks. 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.
        Specific municipal parks have been identified for participation in
    the demonstration project and unique strategies have been developed for
    each. For example:
      --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. Peter's 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. Peter's 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 NEWARK MUSEUM SCIENCE INITIATIVE

        The Newark Museum seeks $2.0 million to support its new Science
    Initiative Education. The City of Newark has committed $1.7 million
    dollars to date toward the preparatory collections care necessary to
    make this initiative possible. Additionally, The Museum is involved in
    a $5 million dollar operating endowment fund based upon a public/
    private partnership to assure adequate on-going support, of which $1.2
    million has been raised to date. Research has shown that the ongoing
    maintenance cost of science galleries is several multiples of that of
    art galleries.
        The plan calls for the creation of a major permanent exhibition
    based upon its natural science collection. The exhibition, called
    Making Sense of the Natural World, will explore scientific phenomena
    through natural history specimens and live animals. Museum audiences
    will participate in mindful science learning through stimulating and
    engaging experiences that integrate the collections, Dreyfuss
    Planetarium and Mini Zoo. This gallery, along with the Museum's plan to
    institutionalize cohesive science education programs parallel to its
    distinguished art and culture programs, is the core of The Newark
    Museum Science Education Initiative.
        The cohesive science education at The Newark Museum will entail
    greater use and dissemination of their science gallery, planetarium and
    live animal resources, thus providing new learning opportunities for
    individuals, families, schools, and community organizations. This
    initiative also allows the Museum to safeguard the thousands of
    scientific specimens, so critical to its success, in proper housing
    both in the exhibition and in technologically advanced, environmentally
    appropriate behind-the-scenes storage.
        The Newark Museum is recognized as one of the nation's leading
    cultural institutions. It is located in Newark, New Jersey's largest
    city, and within Essex County, the State's most densely populated. The
    Museum's constituency is economically and ethnically diverse,
    reflecting the distinctive character of the city, northern New Jersey
    and the metropolitan region. In 1998, The Newark Museum served an
    audience of 462,000 children and adults.
        The Newark Museum's natural science collections of 74,000 specimens
    in the areas of geology, botany and biology are being utilized today in
    programs that allow for participatory and inquiry-driven experiences,
    to engage visitors in meaningful science learning. Science-related
    programs draw more visitors to The Newark Museum than any other
    offering, despite the fact that the science galleries have been closed
    for more than a decade. Realizing the opportunity to attract larger
    audiences and better serve Newark and New Jersey residents, the Museum
    has embarked on a new science initiative. It will enable the Museum to
    reopen the science galleries and builds upon the Museum's proven track
    record of excellence in interdisciplinary arts and humanities programs.
        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 the Association of Research Libraries, the
        Council on Library and Information Resources, and the National
                              Humanities Alliance

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The Association of Research Libraries, the Council on Library and
    Information Resources, and the National Humanities Alliance, for the
    tenth consecutive year, have joined together to testify in support of
    the preservation and access activities of the National Endowment for
    the Humanities (NEH). We encourage the Interior and Related Agencies
    Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations to approve the
    $150 million budget requested by the National Endowment for the
    Humanities, and with this testimony, we pay special attention to the
    $23,400,000 requested for preservation and access activities.

               INCREASED ACCESS MUST MEAN INCREASED PRESERVATION

        Every day, the media bombard us with news about what is available
    online. More and more households have Internet access, and an entire
    generation of Americans is growing up with computer skills; for many
    Americans, the Net is the first place to look for information. Both
    Congress and the White House are of one mind in advocating the use of
    Federal resources to ensure that the Net carries high-quality
    educational materials.
        Behind the rhetoric of easy access, however, lie tough issues about
    how we make educational and research materials available. The promise
    of access can be fulfilled only if we have been responsible custodians
    of our past. What have we preserved? And how do we ensure that the
    materials we would like to use in classrooms, libraries, regional
    historical centers--either digitized and shared on the Internet or made
    available in reading rooms--survive into the twenty-second century? The
    Endowment's Rediscovering America initiative is just one of many
    outreach programs that depend on easy access to the record of the past.
    Without the rich mix of primary source materials available to citizens,
    students, and researchers of all ages, such a program would founder. As
    the demand for access escalates, the need for preservation grows just
    as fast--or faster.

                           THE BRITTLE BOOKS PROGRAM

        In 1992, Merrily Taylor, the University Librarian at Brown
    University, hailed the success of the Brittle Books program to date and
    cited the NEH initiative as a model that had received wide attention
    around the globe. As she said then:

        ``The keys to its success are simple: A well developed initial
    plan; cooperation and collaboration by all this concerned, including
    research universities that have committed people, ideas, materials, and
    significant financial resources to make this national program; superior
    management by the Division of Preservation and Access and strong
    support for the program by the top NEH leadership; and most
    importantly-sustained funding to underpin the continuation and
    expansion of the program.''

        Eight years later, the collaboration between the library
    preservation community and the Endowment remains strong. However, it is
    unfortunate that the level of funding for the program has not remained
    as strong as it was in 1992. The problem is just as critical now as it
    was then, the need as great. It is only through coordination and cost
    sharing at the Federal level that we can secure future access to the
    contents of millions of crumbling books. Despite the advent of digital
    technology, the problem of preserving acidic books has not diminished
    since Congress initiated this far-sighted program in 1989.
        Looking back at the progress we have made, the Endowment's
    leadership in these preservation and access efforts looms large.
    Without the Congressional mandate given to NEH, it is impossible to
    imagine what would have happened to our humanities research
    collections. The leadership of NEH makes itself felt in three ways.
      --Standards.--NEH has taken the lead in helping libraries define
            standards for cataloging filmed materials and assuring access
            to them. Libraries that film must keep a master negative, a
            print master, and a service copy. They must provide copies of
            the film to other libraries at cost. In addition, the films
            must be kept in controlled environments to extend their life.
      --Leverage.--Federal support means that hundreds of individual
            preservation efforts aggregate into a large whole that
            represents a mosaic of heritage assets.
      --Coordination.--Under NEH auspices, microfilming projects add to the
            whole and do not duplicate other efforts. By encouraging
            consortial arrangements, and through the grant review process
            that involves scholars and librarians from all over the
            country, NEH ensures that high-quality collections from every
            type of library, archives, or historical society can become
            part of what is, in effect, a national heritage collection,
            easily accessible to citizens of all states and territories.

                            RECORDED SOUND HERITAGE

        We welcome NEH's Recorded Sound Initiative, which clearly marks the
    agency's intention to address preservation needs in a broadened
    context. As fragile as our print heritage is, that of our recorded
    musical history is even more so. Last year, the House expressed its
    concern that some of ``the musical heritage of the nation--as
    represented by early sound recordings--is irrevocably lost with each
    passing year'' and urged the Endowment to strengthen and expand its
    support of preservation efforts in this area. This year, NEH is asking
    for $1 million to help repositories preserve and make accessible their
    irreplaceable and fragile collections of traditional musical forms. It
    is hard to overstate the value of our musical heritage to researchers,
    creative musicians, and music lovers everywhere. Yet, that heritage
    exists on such fragile media as acetate discs, magnetic tapes in long-
    obsolete formats, wire recordings, and wax cylinders. Musical
    recordings are at risk not only because the media on which they are
    stored are prone to damage and corruption, but also because the
    playback equipment is often out-of-date, hard to find, and very hard to
    keep in good working order. We need to stabilize these recordings and
    to create preservation copies to ensure their longevity. While many
    libraries and archives have valuable recordings, only a few have the
    infrastructure and funding to preserve their collections. This is an
    area where NEH can help coordinate the many activities that constitute
    preservation. A national effort is needed to identify where the
    recordings are, to ensure that they are properly described and made
    accessible through records that are standard, and that people searching
    for those voices from the past can find them. All these aspects of
    preservation and access can best be facilitated with the national
    leadership of NEH. Another benefit of preserving sound recordings is
    that, in the process, access is greatly increased.

                          REGIONAL PRESERVATION NEEDS

        Even as the Brittle Books program was started, it was recognized
    that many of the unique historical resources were housed in local and
    regional repositories. However, the preservation problem was so large
    and so immediate that large institutions were funded to handle a
    critical mass of the endangered materials.
        Advances in technology have made it possible for many smaller
    institutions to become involved in digitization projects that extend
    access. In talks with regional preservation specialists this year, we
    have heard many stories of how the interest in ``going digital'' has
    led many small repositories to address their preservation needs. What
    so often happens is that a library, archives, or small historical
    society invites one of the regional preservation centers to come in to
    look at the possibility of making its collections available digitally.
    In the course of the consultation, it becomes clear that the repository
    could benefit from assistance as its materials are in dire need of
    preservation. Many times these institutions have no preservation
    program and, in fact, have never assessed the needs of their
    collections. Now, through NEH's Extending the Reach program, these
    institutions--many for the first time--have the opportunity to secure
    funds for this critical first step in preserving collections and making
    them available.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Enclosed is a copy of a recent publication, Preserving Research
    Collections; the efforts of NEH and its critically important programs
    are highlighted in this paper. Congress's support led to the
    development of a highly successful program focused on the preservation
    of our national heritage. There is now access to unique resources that
    have been preserved in libraries throughout the United States. We seek
    your support for NEH's Preservation and Access program, both ongoing
    activities in the Brittle Book Program as well a new initiative for
    sound recordings.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the University of Washington

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: I am Michael
    Halleran, Divisional Dean of Arts and Humanities at the University of
    Washington. It is my pleasure to submit this testimony in support of
    the fiscal year 2001 budget request of $150 million for the National
    Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the Association of
    American Universities, the National Association of State Universities
    and Land Grant Colleges, and the American Council on Education. Through
    their combined memberships, these associations represent all the public
    and private research universities in the country--institutions that
    educate large numbers of the nation's undergraduate and graduate
    students and conduct the bulk of the country's basic research and
    scholarship.
        The humanities represent the endless human attempt to understand
    our cultural world and our place in it. They encompass stories about
    our past and our present, and about the world of imagination. They form
    an ongoing dialogue about meaning and value. The humanities provide a
    framework for clear and critical thinking, an understanding and respect
    for history, and a knowledge and appreciation of our diverse cultures.
    They are the subjects--literature, history and philosophy--that have
    stood at the center of education for over 2,000 years. More than any
    other set of disciplines, the humanities embody the spirit of our
    civilization. We Americans are wondrously diverse. And our diversity is
    expressed, preserved and understood in the humanities.
        It is worthwhile to think of the humanities as our cultural
    capital. They are no less important than other forms of capital upon
    which our society relies. NEH funding helps us to understand and share
    with all our citizens this capital--our cultural heritage.
        The NEH has enjoyed bipartisan support throughout its 35-year
    history and has been the single most important source of support for
    humanistic endeavors in the United States. It makes possible a wide
    range of cultural endeavors that can only be achieved with help and
    encouragement from the Federal Government. Community colleges, state
    colleges, small private institutions and research universities all use
    NEH grants to preserve that national resource. Post-secondary
    institutions are in a fundamental and etymological sense conservative.
    That is, part of their mission is to conserve our culture. They
    conserve, interpret and transmit it to the next generations of
    Americans.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request offers exciting opportunities
    and a balanced approach, increasing or initiating funding for a wide
    variety of programs and constituencies. Funding would be provided not
    only for programs aimed specifically toward universities or state
    humanities councils, but also for activities that offer opportunities
    for joint efforts, such as the new Regional Centers.
        The fiscal year 2001 NEH request of $150 million represents a 30
    percent increase over the current funding level, and, if approved,
    would make a huge impact. But even this level of support is still well
    below the $172 million the agency received in fiscal year 1995. In
    fact, the 36 percent reduction in the agency's budget in fiscal year
    1996 forced NEH to end many effective programs and cut its staff
    dramatically. The results of these cuts have been severe, and the
    effects lingering. Full funding of the fiscal year 2001 request would
    allow NEH to continue the rebuilding begun last year with the $5
    million dollar fiscal year 2000 increase. We remain very grateful for
    that increase.
        NEH investments make a major impact on the nation's college and
    university campuses. Most importantly, NEH on a federal level sponsors
    significant research projects at institutions of higher education, and
    supports faculty through fellowship programs. In fiscal year 2000, NEH
    expects to receive approximately 2,100 applications for fellowships and
    stipends and to make 306 awards (171 fellowships and 135 summer
    stipends). At the fiscal year 2001 request level, the program could
    support 180 fellowships and 135 summer stipends, a total of 315 awards.
        Moreover, in fiscal year 2001, NEH is proposing to increase the
    amount of full-year fellowships from $30,000 to $35,000, and the award
    amount for Summer Stipends from $4,000 to $4,500. It has been 10 years
    since these awards were last adjusted, and increases are badly needed.
    These increases are modest, representing less than the cumulative
    inflation during this period. I should also point out that these full-
    year fellowships do not cover a professor's salary, but rather they are
    typically augmented by the scholar's home institution. The NEH funds
    thus serve as leverage for other funding and have a greater impact than
    the dollar amount might suggest.
        NEH is also requesting funds to begin a three-year initiative in
    support of Archaeological Research projects and to establish a new
    Travel to Research Sites program for humanities scholars. In the latter
    program, scholars would receive $1,500 stipends to defray some of the
    cost of traveling to research libraries and archives to consult
    humanities primary resource material.
        NEH investments also make a crucial difference on the nation's
    college and university campuses in the support of long-term projects
    that might otherwise be lost. Thanks to NEH underwriting, compelling
    work is proceeding on projects such as bibliographies, encyclopedias,
    dictionaries and critical editions that are of national significance,
    but that are unlikely to be funded by any other institution or state.
    Only an agency like NEH, with its federal funds, its broad vision, and
    its long-term commitment, can support these kinds of projects.
        I would like to speak briefly about an extraordinary project going
    on at the University of Washington that recently received significant
    three-year support from the NEH. In 1994, the British Library came into
    possession of twenty-nine very old and fragile birch bark scrolls that
    were covered in what seemed to be a form of Sanskrit, the language of
    ancient India. To assist them in deciphering these long forgotten
    texts, they called upon the world's expert in Indic epigraphy
    (interpreting the ancient writings of India), Richard Solomon of the
    University of Washington. Dr. Solomon was able to determine that these
    were the oldest writings ever found dealing with Buddhism. In other
    words, these were of extraordinary importance for understanding the
    early stages of one of the world's great religions. Many have compared
    this new discovery to that of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of
    early Christian writers that transformed our understanding of the
    formative stages of Christianity. As some of you know may know, the
    Dead Sea Scrolls were embroiled in mystery and controversy and for
    decades scholars and lay persons alike were denied access to their
    contents. With the support of the NEH (and other organizations), Dr.
    Solomon and his team of scholars at the University of Washington have
    been able to devote much of their time to this fascinating and
    important project and are committed to early and wide promulgation of
    their discoveries. The first volume of their work has already been
    published; the second will be out later this year. Here too, the NEH
    support has attracted other funding and thus the agency's support has
    had a multiplying effect.
        Most of the major NEH projects, however, touch closer to our soil.
    Such projects include the preservation of the papers of George
    Washington, Frederick Douglass and Mark Twain and critical editions of
    our great philosophers, Charles Peirce, William James, John Dewey and
    George Santayana. Who has not watched (perhaps more than once) the
    celebrated film series on the Civil War? This would not have been made
    without NEH support. The seminars and exhibitions on the Constitution,
    celebrating our nation's foundational document, also were made possible
    through NEH support. All of these projects are important to the nation
    and to the world. Shepherding and nurturing endeavors of this scale and
    this magnitude--in essence, preserving our heritage--is the
    government's trust and must remain at the federal level.
        The fiscal year 1996 budget cut disproportionately affected many
    NEH national programs, including preservation activities. For example,
    approximately 20,000 fewer brittle books, as well as more than 230,000
    fewer pages of U.S. newspapers are now being preserved on microfilm
    each year, thus slowing the NEH's efforts to preserve and increase
    access to these important intellectual resources. The fiscal year 2001
    request would allow NEH to recover some of the lost ground and to
    initiate support for the digitization of historically significant
    collections held by museums, libraries, historical organizations, and
    archives, as well as undertake the preservation of recorded sound
    collections. The new digital technology can play a crucial role in
    helping us preserve our country's heritage.
        Another way in which NEH funding makes a critical difference is by
    fostering better teaching. Summer seminars and institutes are an
    important way to partner with schools and to enhance the education of
    our students. Each year, many colleges and universities host summer
    seminars for high school and college teachers, who spend six to eight
    weeks studying with leading scholars in their fields. These seminars
    provide an exhilarating boost to the participants, regenerate their
    enthusiasm and facilitate the transfer of new knowledge. It is one more
    way in which higher education can reach out to the schools and share
    our expertise and resources with all Americans.
        The fiscal year 2001 request would allow the Endowment to provide
    much-needed funding relief to the summer seminars and institutes.
    Increased funding would make possible 62 seminars and institutes for
    school and college teachers, significantly higher than the 49 awards
    that the agency made in fiscal year 1999. The increased number of
    seminars and institutes would provide educational opportunities for an
    estimated 575 college teachers and 615 K-12 teachers. The fiscal year
    2001 request would also allow NEH to expand the reach of seminars and
    institutes by providing small Humanities Teacher Leadership grants to
    approximately 75 participants to allow them to disseminate the results
    of their seminar or institute work to other teachers and schools.
        The seminars for K-12 teachers are particularly important. Richard
    L. McCormick, the President of the University of Washington, has been a
    leader in moving universities toward playing a greater role in K-12
    education. With our new Leadership Institute, under the direction of
    Rudy Crew, and many other smaller initiatives, the University of
    Washington is playing a greater role in the education of the K-12
    students. The NEH can help us--and many other institutions--fulfill
    this important part of our mission.
        We very much appreciate the Subcommittee's longstanding, bipartisan
    support for NEH, and urge the Subcommittee to support its $150 million
    fiscal year 2001 request. Thank you.
                                     ______

                                 MISCELLANEOUS

     Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
                        California Ozone Study Coalition

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
    (CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
    record in support of our fiscal year 2001 funding request of $750,000
    for CCOS as part of a Federal match for the $8.6 million already
    contributed by California State and local agencies and the private
    sector. This request consists of $250,000 from the Department of Energy
    (DOE), $250,000 from the National Park Service (NPS), and $250,000 from
    the Forest Service.
        Ozone and particulate matter standards in most of central
    California are frequently exceeded. In 2003, the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) will require that California submit SIPs
    for the recently promulgated, national, 8-hour ozone standard. It is
    expected that such SIPs will be required for the San Francisco Bay
    Area, the Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Mountain
    Counties Air Basins. Photochemical air quality modeling will be
    necessary to prepare SIPs that are acceptable to the U.S. EPA.
        The Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) is designed to enable
    central California to meet Clean Air Act requirements for ozone State
    Implementation Plans (SIPs) as well as advance fundamental science for
    use nationwide. The CCOS field measurement program will be conducted in
    the summer of 2000 in conjunction with the California Regional
    PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS), a major
    study of the origin, nature, and extent of excessive levels of fine
    particles in central California. CCOS includes an ozone field study, a
    deposition study, data analysis, modeling performance evaluations, and
    a retrospective look at previous SIP modeling. The CCOS study area
    extends over central and most of northern California. The goal of the
    CCOS is to understand better the nature of the ozone problem across the
    region, providing a strong scientific foundation for preparing the next
    round of State and Federal attainment plans. The study includes six
    main components:
      --Developing the design of the field study (task already underway)
      --Conducting an intensive field monitoring study, scheduled for June
            1 to September 30, 2000
      --Developing an emission inventory to support modeling
      --Developing and evaluating a photochemical model for the region
      --Designing and conducting a deposition field study
      --Evaluating emission control strategies for the next ozone
            attainment plans
        The CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting
    of representatives from Federal, State and local governments, as well
    as private industry. These Committees, which managed the San Joaquin
    Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
    Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
    environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
    provide a solid foundation for CCOS. The sponsors of CCOS, representing
    state, local government and industry, have contributed approximately
    $8.6 million for the field study. In addition, CCOS sponsors will
    provide $4 million of in-kind support. The Policy Committee is
    continuing to seek additional funding ($9.0 million) for a future
    deposition study, data analysis, and modeling. California is an ideal
    natural laboratory for studies that address these issues, given the
    scale and diversity of the various ground surfaces in the region
    (crops, woodlands, forests, urban and suburban areas).
        There also exists a need to address national data gaps, and
    California should not bear the entire cost of the addressing these
    gaps. National data gaps include issues relating to the integration of
    particulate matter and ozone control strategies. The CCOS field study
    will take place concurrently with the California Regional Particulate
    Matter Study--previously jointly funded through Federal, State, local
    and private sector funds. Thus, CCOS is timed to enable leveraging of
    the efforts for the particulate matter study. Some equipment and
    personnel can serve dual functions so that CCOS is very cost-effective.
    From a technical standpoint, carrying out both studies concurrently is
    a unique opportunity to address the integration of particulate matter
    and ozone control efforts. CCOS will also be cost-effective since it
    builds on other successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin
    Valley Ozone Study. To address these issues effectively requires
    federal assistance, and CCOS provides a mechanism by which California
    pays half the cost of work that the Federal Government should otherwise
    pursue.
        For fiscal year 2001, our Coalition is seeking funding of $250,000
    from the Department of Energy (DOE) Fossil Program. The California
    Energy Commission is a key participant, having contributed $3 million.
    Consistent with the recently signed memorandum of understanding between
    the California Energy Commission and the DOE, joint participation in
    the CCOS will result in: (1) enhanced public interest energy research-,
    development-, and demonstration programs; (2) increased competitiveness
    and economic prosperity in the United States; and (3) further
    protection of the environment through the efficient production,
    distribution and use of energy.
        The CCOS program coincides with DOE's initiative to develop the
    Federal Government's oil technology program. In fact, the oil industry
    in California has been working for several years with DOE to identify
    innovative partnerships and programs that address how changes in those
    sectors can cost-effectively reduce particulate matter and ozone-
    related emissions. This approach will likely result in new ideas for
    technologies to improve oil recovery technologies, as well as improve
    environmental protection in oil production and processing operations.
    The overlap of CCOS and the California Regional Particulate Matter Air
    Quality Study provides a unique opportunity to perform research related
    to petroleum-based VOC and particulate matter emissions as well as
    methods to characterize these categories of emissions. The CCOS program
    will utilize modeling, instrumentation, and measurement to get results
    that can be used to better understand the impact of oil and gas
    exploration and production operations on air quality. CCOS program
    results might also be applied to identify the most efficient and cost-
    effective methods of reducing emissions from oil and gas operations.
        The Department of Energy has been a key participant in many
    programs with the oil and agricultural sectors. By becoming a partner
    in this program, DOE will be furthering its own goals of ``Initiatives
    for Energy Security'' by aiding domestic oil producers to enhance their
    environmental compliance while reducing their costs. DOE will also be
    building upon an established and effective partnership between state
    and local governments, industry and institutional organizations.
        For fiscal year 2001, our Coalition is also seeking funding of
    $250,000 from the National Park Service (NPS) and $250,000 from the
    Forest Service. The National Park Service and Forest Service conduct
    prescribed burns that contribute to both ozone and particulate matter
    pollution. Prescribed burns are needed for forest health or to reduce
    fuel loads, and must be carefully managed to minimize public health and
    visibility impacts.
        Improving the fundamental science related to emissions,
    meteorological forecasting, and air quality modeling will help in
    designing effective smoke management programs. In addition, attainment
    of air quality standards is an important goal for protecting national
    parks and forests. Ozone damage to trees and vegetation in national
    parks and forests is well documented in California and nationwide. The
    National Park Service and Forest Service are key stakeholders relying
    on the success of SIPs in achieving the emissions reductions needed to
    attain air quality standards. The participants in the CCOS have been
    partners in regional study efforts addressing visibility and haze
    impacts on national parks and forests in the West. The results of this
    study will provide valuable information that will further those efforts
    on a regional basis.
        Scientists at the University of Nevada, Desert Research Institute
    (DRI) are the principal investigators for CCOS. To expedite research
    studies related to biomass burning and smoke management for CCOS, it is
    requested that funds provided by the National Park Service and Forest
    Service be allocated directly to DRI.
        Thank you very much your consideration of our requests.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Alachua County, Florida, Board of Commissioners, prepared
      statement......................................................   632
    Alamo-Navajo School Board, Navajo Nation, Magdalena, New Mexico,
      prepared statement.............................................   556
    Alaska Native Health Board, prepared statement...................   528
    American:
        Association of Museums, prepared statements................620, 648
        Dental Association, prepared statement.......................   445
        Hiking Society American Hiking Society, prepared statement...   625
        Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement.......   453
        Museum of Natural History, prepared statement................   645
        Public Power Association, prepared statement.................   436
        Society of Mechanical Engineers, prepared statement..........   416
    Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement.........   593
    Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation,
      prepared statement.............................................   484
    Association of Research Libraries, prepared statement............   653
    Auburn University, prepared statement............................   433

    Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Secretary of the Interior, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Interior..........................   207
        Prepared statement...........................................   217
        Summary statement............................................   211
    Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared
      statement......................................................   482
    Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah, opening
      statements....................................................44, 210
    Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, prepared statement...........   530
    Biomass Energy Research Association, prepared statement..........   433
    Black Mesa Community School, prepared statement..................   548
    Blackfeet Tribe, Blackfeet Indian Reservation, prepared statement   565
    Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, prepared statement..........   532
    Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana, questions
      submitted by.................................................128, 321
    Business Council for Sustainable Energy, prepared statement......   395
    Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia:
        Opening statements.....................................42, 210, 334
        Questions submitted by.................................25, 303, 391

    California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
      Coalition, prepared statement..................................   658
    Calpine Corporation, prepared statement..........................   569
    Center for Marine Conservation, prepared statement...............   629
    Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indians Tribes of Alaska,
      prepared statement.............................................   457
    Christie, Hon. Joe, Acting Director, Office of Indian Education
      Programs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.   141
    City of:
        Gainesville, Florida, prepared statement.....................   633
        Miami Beach, Florida, prepared statement.....................   632
        Newark, New Jersey, prepared statement.......................   651
    Close Up Foundation, prepared statement..........................   540
    Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, prepared statement.......   594
    Coal Utilization Research Council, prepared statement............   413
    Coalition for Health Funding, prepared statement.................   509
    Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, prepared statement.............   634
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement..   591
    Colorado River:
        Basin Salinity Control Program, prepared statement...........   586
        Board of California, prepared statement......................   575
    Confederated Tribes of:
        Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, prepared statement..........   511
        The Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, prepared statement...   452
    Consortium for:
        Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science, prepared statement.........   429
            University of Utah, prepared statement...................   432
    Council:
        For Chemical Research, prepared statement....................   399
        On Library and Information Resources, prepared statement.....   653
    Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho, opening statement....    46

    DaimlerChrysler Corporation, prepared statement..................   424
    Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statement........................   613
    Detroit Diesel Corporation, prepared statement...................   441
    Dombeck, Hon. Mike, Chief, Forest Service, Department of
      Agriculture....................................................    39
        Letter from..................................................    76
        Prepared statement...........................................    69
        Summary statement............................................    67
    Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:
        Opening statement............................................    47
        Questions submitted by.................................26, 205, 313
    Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota:
        Opening statements.......................................2, 65, 155
        Prepared statement...........................................   155
        Questions submitted by.................................34, 134, 204

    Electric Vehicle Association, prepared statement.................   402

    Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement...   544
    Ford Motor Company, prepared statement...........................   424
    Frontera Audubon Society, prepared statement.....................   610
    Furnish, Hon. James R., Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
      Forest Service, Department of Agriculture......................    39

    General:
        Electric Power Systems, prepared statement...................   419
        Motors Corporation, prepared statement.......................   424
    Gilbert, Hon. David A., Budget Officer, Office of the Special
      Trustee, Department of the Interior............................   141
    Goerl, Hon. Vincette L., Chief Financial Officer, Deputy Chief,
      Office of Finance, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture...    39
    Gorton, Hon. Slade, U.S. Senator from Washington:
        Opening statements.............................1, 39, 141, 207, 333
        Prepared statements........................................143, 209
        Questions submitted by.......................17, 102, 182, 245, 361
    Gover, Hon. Kevin, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
      Department of the Interior.....................................   141
        Prepared statement...........................................   161
        Questions submitted to................................182, 187, 204
        Summary statement............................................   157
    Greasewood Springs Community School, Inc., prepared statement....   550
    Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, prepared
      statement......................................................   486

    Hartz, Hon. Gary J., Acting Director, Office of Public Health,
      Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services.     1
    Haze, Hon. Pamela K., Deputy Director, Office of Budget, Office
      of the Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the
      Interior.......................................................   141
    Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina,
      question submitted by...................................137, 317, 392
    Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement..........   606
    Hydrocarbon Technologies, Inc., prepared statement...............   400

    Intertribal Timber Council, prepared statement...................   480
    Izaak Walton League of America, prepared statement...............   567

    Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement....................   496
    Joslin Diabetes Center, prepared statement.......................   450

    Ketchikan Indian Corporation, prepared statement.................   459
    Kohl, Hon. Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin:
        Opening statement............................................    44
        Questions submitted by.......................................    36

    Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared
      statement......................................................   490
    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont:
        Opening statement............................................    46
        Questions submitted by.....................................138, 314
    Lewis, Hon. Robert, Deputy Chief, Research and Development,
      Forest Service, Department of Agriculture......................    39
    Lincoln, Hon. Michel E., Deputy Director, Indian Health Service,
      Department of Health and Human Services........................     1
    Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, prepared statement....................   449
    Lukachukai Community School Board of Education, Inc., prepared
      state-
      ment...........................................................   554
    Lummi Indian Nation, prepared statement..........................   502
    Lyons, Hon. James, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
      Environment, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.........    39
        Letter from..................................................    76
        Prepared statement...........................................    61
        Summary statement............................................    55

    Manuel, Hon. Hilda A., Deputy Commissioner, Indian Affairs,
      Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior...........   141
    Marietta College, prepared statement.............................   623
    McDougal, Hon. Janice, Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry,
      Forest Service, Department of Agriculture......................    39
    Metlakatla Indian Community, prepared statement..................   523
    Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, prepared
      statement......................................................   587

    National:
        American Indian Court Judges Association, prepared statement.   507
        Association:
            For Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, prepared
              statement..............................................   628
            For State Community Services Programs, prepared statement   439
            Of Conservation Districts, prepared statement............   597
            Of University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs, prepared
              statement..............................................   636
        Corn Growers Association, prepared statement.................   406
        Humanities Alliance, prepared statement......................   653
        Indian Child Welfare Association, prepared statement.........   518
        Institutes for Water Resources, prepared statement...........   638
        Mining Association, prepared statement.......................   409
        Research Center for Coal and Energy, West Virginia
          University, prepared statements..........................404, 431
    Native American Fish & Wildlife Society, prepared statement......   512
    Navajo Nation, prepared statement................................   562
    New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement......   585
    Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, prepared statement.........   534
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, prepared statement........   498

    Ornithological Council, prepared statement.......................   603

    Partnership for the National Trails System, prepared statement...   576
    Pelican Island Preservation Society, prepared statement..........   572
    Phillips, Hon. Randle, Deputy Chief, Programs and Legislation,
      Forest Service, Department of Agriculture......................    39
    Pinon Community School Board, Inc., prepared statement...........   559
    Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement..................   468

    Quinault Indian Nation, prepared statement.......................   473
    Ramah Navajo:
        Chapter, prepared statements...............................493, 521
        School Board, Inc., prepared statement.......................   552
    Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, questions submitted
      by.............................................................   138
    Richardson, Hon. William, Secretary of Energy, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of Energy................................   333
        Prepared statement...........................................   338
        Summary statement............................................   334
    Rock Point Community School of the Navajo Nation, prepared
      statement......................................................   526
    Rough Rock Community School, prepared statement..................   538

    Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, prepared statement...................   504
    School of Mineral Engineering, University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
      prepared statement.............................................   408
    Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement....................   514
    Smith, Hon. Kermit, Chief Medical Officer, Indian Health Service,
      Department of Health and Human Services........................     1
    Spokane Tribe of Indians, prepared statement.....................   475
    Squaxin Island Tribe, prepared statement.........................   464
    St. George Traditional Council of the Aleut Community of the
      Pribilof Island of St. George, Alaska, prepared statement......   462
    Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, prepared statement....................   516
    State Teachers' Retirement System of California, prepared
      statement......................................................   427
    Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, opening statements.43, 211
    Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians, prepared
      statement......................................................   471

    Thompson, Hon. Thomas M., Principal Deputy Special Trustee for
      American Indians, Office of the Special Trustee, Department of
      the Interior...................................................   141
        Prepared statement...........................................   146
        Questions submitted to.......................................   182
        Summary statement............................................   144
    Trezise, Hon. John D., Director of Budget, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Interior..........................   207
    Trout Unlimited, Inc., prepared statement........................   600
    Trujillo, Hon. Michael H., M.D., M.P.H., M.S., Assistant Surgeon
      General, Director, Indian Health Service, Department of Health
      and Human Services.............................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
        Summary statement............................................     3

    United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, prepared
      statement......................................................   466
    University of:
        Pittsburgh, prepared statement...............................   432
        Washington, prepared statement...............................   655
    Upper:
        Lake Pomo Rancheria, prepared statement......................   494
        Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement......   642
    Urban Consortium Energy Task Force, prepared statement...........   421

    Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan, prepared statement.......   595

    Weston Observatory of Boston College, prepared statement.........   640
    Wide Ruins Community School, prepared statement..................   543
    Wildlife Management Institute, prepared statement................   573
    Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, prepared statement..................   448
    Wood River Land Trust, prepared statement........................   620
    World Wildlife Fund, prepared statement..........................   611
    Yakama Nation Tribal Council, prepared statement.................   477
    Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association, prepared statements589, 618
    Yurok Tribe, prepared statement..................................   443

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

                                                                       Page
    Accountabilty:
        Actions......................................................    65
        Program and financial........................................    73
    Additional committee questions...................................   102
    Administration priorities, other.................................    63
    Fire.............................................................   115
    Forest planning/monitoring.......................................   108
    GPRA.............................................................   117
    Land health and sustainable communities..........................    70
    Mt. St. Helen's National Volcanic Monument.......................   114
    National initiatives.............................................   110
    Natural resource agenda..........................................    70
    President's budget:
        Other highlights of the......................................    74
        Priorities of the............................................    62
    Research.........................................................   124
    Survey/manage....................................................   106
    Timber...........................................................   116

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional committee questions...................................   361
    Advance Gas Turbine System (ATS).................................   392
    ASHRAE standards.................................................   385
    Budget:
        Priorities...................................................   377
        Request......................................................   335
        The fiscal year 2001.........................................   340
    Carbon sequestration.............................................   383
    Coal:
        Research--vision 21..........................................   377
        Technology, clean.....................................343, 348, 350
    Congressional guidance and earmarks..............................   371
    Earmarks.......................................................346, 354
    Economic regulation..............................................   344
    Energy:
        Efficiency........................336, 340, 362, 365, 368, 369, 370
        Efficiency--21-CR............................................   384
        Information Administration........337, 344, 361, 364, 367, 369, 370
        Initiatives fiscal year 2001.................................   338
        Policy.......................................................   335
    EPA on emissions rule making, coordination with................358, 360
    Federal Energy:
        Management Program...........................................   386
        Technology Center as national lab............................   379
    Fossil energy...................................349, 363, 366, 369, 370
        Research and development.....................................   341
    Fuel cells.......................................................   380
    Gas prices.......................................................   346
    Government Performance and Results Act...........................   386
    Inter-agency coordination........................................   372
    International programs...........................................   372
    Low Emission Boiler System (LEBS)................................   380
    National Energy Technology Laboratory............................   352
    Naval Petroleum Reserves and Oil Shale Reserves..................   343
    Oil:
        Prices.......................................................   335
        Production...................................................   345
        Research.....................................................   374
    PM 2.5 monitoring................................................   384
    Price per gallon of gasoline last summer.........................   346
    Radioactively contaminated scrap materials.......................   391
    Regional heating oil reserve.....................................   375
    Strategic Petroleum Reserve......................................   343
        Filling SPR with royalty oil.................................   375
        Oil swapps to fill SPR.......................................   376
    Successes, recent................................................   361
    Transportation research........................................360, 374
    Turbines.........................................................   381
    Vehicles, partnership for a new generation of....................   378

                    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                             Indian Health Service

    Across-the-board reduction, fiscal year 2000.....................    33
    Additional committee questions...................................    17
    Assistant Secretary, elevation to................................    14
    Budget, needs-based..............................................    20
    Contract:
        Health Services..............................................    23
        Support costs................................................    11
            Funds, distribution of...................................    17
            Language, request for....................................    19
    Diabetes initiatives.............................................    29
    Facilities roundtable............................................    22
    Fort Defiance hospital, Navajo Nation............................    27
    Headquarters.....................................................    23
    Health disparities...............................................    24
    HIV/AIDS.........................................................    24
    Inflation, medical...............................................    20
    Joint:
        Demonstration Program........................................    36
        Venture Program..............................................    21
    Medicare/Medicaid funds..........................................    25
    Mental health services...........................................    32
    New contracts/compacts, moratorium lifted on.....................    19
    Per-capita funding, population growth, fixed costs...............     5
    Population growth................................................    21
    President's Budget, highlights of the............................     4
    Rescissions:
        Fiscal year 2000.............................................    19
        Impact of....................................................    12
    Sanitation facilities............................................    28
    SIPI Dental Clinic in Albuquerque, closure of the................    26
    Tribes and urban groups, partnership with........................     6

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Bureau of Indian Affairs

    Additional committee questions...................................   182
    Construction.....................................................   167
    Contracts or Compacts, new.......................................   197
    Department of Education, study with..............................   191
    Education.................................................161, 173, 188
    Employee awards..................................................   170
    Fiscal year 2000 bill, section 127 of the........................   188
    Government credit cards..........................................   198
    GPRA questions...................................................   199
    High Level Implementation Plan...................................   184
    Housing:
        Assistance...................................................   199
        Improvement Program..........................................   175
            Funding distribution effect on Northwest Tribes..........   175
    Indian affairs...................................................   170
    Indian land:
        And water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to
          Indians....................................................   167
        Consolidation..............................................167, 194
            Pilot....................................................   168
    Law enforcement................................................162, 194
    National Academy of Public Administration......................163, 183
    Non-recurring programs...........................................   166
    Office moves.....................................................   195
    Office of the Assistant Secretary, realignment of the............   197
    Office Operations:
        Central......................................................   166
        Regional.....................................................   166
    Probate backlog..................................................   184
    Recurring programs, other........................................   165
    Request, Office of Special Trustee fiscal year 2001..............   182
    School:
        Construction...............................................177, 192
        Operations and Maintenance formula grants and Area/Agency
          Technical Support funds, use of............................   191
    Special programs and pooled overhead.............................   166
    Tribal:
        Education departments........................................   191
        Priority allocations.......................................164, 196
        Support, other...............................................   163
    Trust:
        Asset and Accounting Management System.......................   185
        Funds Accounting System......................................   186
        Improvements.................................................   163
        Principles...................................................   172

                            Office of the Secretary

    Abandoned Mine Lands Program.....................................   297
    Additional committee questions...................................   245
    All-H papers.....................................................   242
    Amphibian research...............................................   312
    Audits...........................................................   289
    Automation of land and mineral records...........................   276
    Basic research functions.........................................   237
    Biological Resources Division....................................   247
    Bitterroot/Selway Grizzly reintroduction.........................   329
    BLM/FS off-highway vehicle proposal..............................   330
    Bragg v. Robertson...............................................   296
    Budget overview..................................................   217
    Bureau of:
        Indian Affairs...............................................   285
        Land Management............................................270, 310
            Employee dissatisfaction.................................   329
            Grazing permit renewals..................................   314
            Gun restrictions on lands..............................235, 326
            Morale problem in........................................   236
    Caspian:
        Tern population at Rice Island and cooperative efforts with
          the NMFS, update on the....................................   243
        Terns......................................................243, 283
    CITES............................................................   328
    Clean Water Action Plan..........................................   297
    Coal bed methane.................................................   271
    Cobell case......................................................   286
    Combined Benefit Fund............................................   295
    Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.....................   300
    Compact:
        Impact.......................................................   297
        Of Free Association..........................................   299
    Conservation plan, desert tortoise habitat.......................   225
    Contract support costs...........................................   285
    Coral Reef Initiative............................................   298
    Counties, payments to............................................   304
    Dam breaching....................................................   283
    Damage assessment................................................   290
    DOI employees, investigations of.................................   330
    Dollars, Upper Missouri Land and Water Conservation..............   326
    Duty to market...................................................   292
    Embezzlement, alleged............................................   293
    Endangered Species Act...........................................   279
    Escalante Science Center funding.................................   224
    Everglades.......................................................   248
        Land acquisition.............................................   241
    Fish and Wildlife Service........................................   279
        Concerns.....................................................   320
        Reorganization...............................................   284
    Forensic lab.....................................................   281
    Franchise fees, NPS Fort Sumter tours............................   317
    Funding, Natchez Trace Parkway...................................   228
    Goose depredation................................................   281
    Government:
        Issued credit cards, use of..................................   267
        Performance and Results Act..................................   255
    Grazing permits..................................................   278
        Expiring.....................................................   244
    Indian issues....................................................   213
    Joint commissions, Connecticut River.............................   315
    Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resource Office.................   316
    Land:
        Acquisition................................................253, 280
            And lands legacy.........................................   251
        Legacy.....................................................218, 303
            Initiative...............................................   300
            Legislation..............................................   237
            Program..................................................   215
        Management:
            Plans....................................................   273
            Research.................................................   245
    Landsat 7........................................................   301
    Law enforcement..................................................   303
    Leave no trace...................................................   264
    Lewis and Clark...........................................242, 247, 277
    Maintenance backlog..............................................   216
    Many glaciers hotel..............................................   234
    Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park..............   316
    Minerals Management Service......................................   291
    Monument designations............................................   270
    Mormon crickets..................................................   224
    National:
        Conservation areas...........................................   234
        Conservation Training Center.................................   227
        Monument Designation.........................................   267
        Park Service...............................................278, 305
            Petroglyph Monument......................................   313
    Natural resource damage assessment and restoration handbook......   289
    Noxubee Wildlife Refuge..........................................   231
    Office of:
        Insular Affairs..............................................   297
        Special Trustee and BIA......................................   286
        Surface Mining.............................................295, 309
        The Inspector General........................................   289
        The Solicitor................................................   286
        The Special Trustee..........................................   213
    Offshore leases..................................................   292
    Ohio River islands NWR staffing..................................   239
    Oil valuation--recent court case.................................   291
    Organization.....................................................   289
        Structure....................................................   286
    OSM:
        Director Karpan..............................................   226
        Regulatory grants............................................   239
    Performance awards...............................................   263
    Port Angeles water supply........................................   244
    Prior Service Trust Fund.........................................   300
    Private sector, competition with the.............................   302
    Program:
        Increase, fiscal year 2001...................................   288
        Management...................................................   290
    Public lands, gun restrictions on................................   236
    Real-time Hazards Initiative.....................................   301
    Receipts, offsetting.............................................   291
    Recreation Fee Demonstration Program...........................240, 254
    Reengineering efforts............................................   293
    Rescission, across-the-board.....................................   312
    San Rafael Swell legislation.....................................   225
    Sand and gravel..................................................   295
    School construction..............................................   285
    Shiloh Battlefield...............................................   231
    Silvio O. Conte Education Center.................................   317
    State:
        Grant program funding........................................   228
        Grants for non-game wildlife.................................   309
        Regulatory Program...........................................   296
    Stewardship, investment, hope, the first Americans...............   217
    Subsistence......................................................   280
    Taking care of what we have......................................   220
    Tobacco settlement...............................................   298
    Trust reform.....................................................   286
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Fish and Wildlife
      Forensics Laboratory...........................................   282
    U.S. Geological Survey...........................................   300
    Upper Missouri.................................................232, 321
    Vicksburg National Military Park.................................   230
    West Virginia coal mine permitting process.......................   225
    Wild Horse and Burro Program.....................................   274
    Wildlife:
        Program, partners for........................................   314
        State grants, non-game.......................................   281
    Working Capital Fund.............................................   313
    Yellowstone:
        Bison in...................................................235, 325
        Snowmobiling in............................................234, 323

                         Office of the Special Trustee

    Additional committee questions...................................   182
    Budget:
        Overview, fiscal year 2001...................................   161
        Request, fiscal year 2001....................................   146
    Cobell litigation................................................   150
    Credit card misuse...............................................   151
    Executive direction..............................................   147
    Funding priorities...............................................   154
    High Level Implementation Plan...................................   184
    Indian Trust Management Reform Progress..........................   146
    Land consolidation...............................................   147
    Lease payments, Crow Reservation.................................   149
    National Academy of Public Administration........................   183
    National Archives fire...........................................   148
    Probate backlog..................................................   184
    Request, Office of Special Trustee fiscal year 2001..............   182
    60 minutes special...............................................   148
    TAAMS............................................................   148
    Trust:
        Asset and Accounting Management System.....................148, 185
        Fund accounting..............................................   147
        Funds Accounting System (TFAS)...............................   186