[Senate Hearing 107-337]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-337 , Pt. 1 deg.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2217
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
__________
PART 1 (Pages 1-xxxx)
Department of Agriculture
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of the Interior
Nondepartmental Witnesses
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
National Gallery of Art
Smithsonian Institution
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Department of Energy
Smithsonian Institution
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-755 PDF WASHINGTON : 2002
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
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
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
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terry Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
CONRAD BURNS, Montana, 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
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
PATTY MURRAY, Washington
Professional Staff
Bruce Evans
Ginny James
Leif Fonnesbeck
Christine Drager
Ryan Thomas
Peter Kiefhaber (Minority)
Brooke Livingston (Minority)
Administrative Support
Isaac Green
Angela Lee (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 28, 2001
Page
Department of the Interior: Office of the Special Trustee for
American
Indians........................................................ 1
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary.............. 45
Tuesday, May 1, 2001
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................ 137
Tuesday, May 8, 2001
Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary.................... 187
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 239
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns and Campbell.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians
STATEMENT OF THOMAS N. SLONAKER, SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR
AMERICAN INDIANS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
M. SHARON BLACKWELL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ROBERT J. LAMB, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND
FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. I will call the committee to order. Sorry
for a little bit of a delay this morning due to voting. We
appreciate everybody being here as we look into this trust
reform.
We want to especially welcome you and your staff and the
Special Trustee for the American Indians. Mr. Slonaker,
congratulations on being asked by the administration to
continue your service there. We appreciate that very much
because we know it is a tremendously big job, and I know there
are times when there are fits of frustration. Nonetheless, we
believe that it is very, very important, and we want to thank
you for that.
Over the past several years, many stories have been written
about the Federal Government's mismanagement of Indian trust
funds. It is embarrassing to note, however, that this is not a
new revelation. For example, I have a copy of the front page of
a Philadelphia paper dated July 6, 1876. Also in the same paper
that announced the Battle of the Little Bighorn, it was very
critical of the United States' ability to handle Indian trust
monies. I find that very interesting, as I read those stories.
There is also another story in here about something that we
are dealing with today, if you pick up the same paper, the
events of the Old World, the Turks and the Serbians. It seems
like most of our problems continue to plague us through the
years.
``The Secretary of the Interior has prepared a statement of
what appears to be gross irregularities in the investment of
the Indian trust fund by officers of the Government.'' That was
the report out of the newspaper in 1876. So, needless to say,
the mismanagement of the Indian trust funds has been occurring
for over 100 years.
But after all these years, the subcommittee is hopeful that
the Federal Government is finally getting on the right track
with the trust responsibilities it holds on behalf of the
American Indians and the Alaskan Natives. It is certainly my
interest that the Federal Government fulfills its trust
responsibilities to the Native Americans in my own State of
Montana, as well as fulfills its responsibilities to the
American Indians and the Alaska Natives throughout the entire
Nation.
During recent years, the subcommittee has shown its support
by significantly ramping up appropriations to support the trust
management reform. In fact, since fiscal year 1996, the
subcommittee appropriated close to a total of $450 million for
trust reform. Also, the fact that the subcommittee has decided
to hold a hearing specifically on trust reform this year
indicates the subcommittee's continued interest and concern in
this critical area.
However, I should note that although we want to continue to
be supportive, we cannot do this without hearing confident
responses from you that the Government is moving in the right
direction and that positive results will be seen in the near
future. The subcommittee gets concerned and uneasy when we see
flare-ups in the press such as a recent article covering the
release of an employee's memo criticizing a significant part of
the Department's trust reform plans.
So, today we are interested in hearing about any progress
that you have made in trust reform, as well as any stumbling
blocks that you have come across. The day might not be long
enough to hear all of those, but nonetheless, we may have to
search them out.
Also, in addition to having a frank discussion today, I
encourage you to continue to update us throughout the
appropriations cycle to ensure that we find ways together to
effectively and efficiently provide funding for most of the
critical areas of trust reform.
It was encouraging that Secretary Norton specifically noted
in her confirmation hearing that one of her top priorities was
the special responsibilities that we have to the American
Indians. The subcommittee looks forward to helping the
Secretary keep that trust reform a top priority for the Federal
Government.
Now joining me this morning is my good friend from
Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL
Senator Campbell. Well, thanks for convening this hearing,
Mr. Chairman. Over the past 10 years, the Committee on Indian
Affairs, which I Chair, has had dozens of hearings on many
elements of Indian trust reform, land consolidation, computer
and accounting systems, probate backlogs and a number of other
things, lease approvals, and the list goes on.
The results of those many hearings, very frankly, have been
somewhat disturbing for me because I am not sure that we are
making all that much progress on this issue.
With the past leadership of this committee of Chairman
Gorton and the commitment of your leadership, Senator Burns,
and others on the Senate Appropriations Committee, the
continued effort of the Indian Affairs Committee, along with
our colleagues in the House of Representatives, I think we have
made every reasonable effort to commit sufficient resources to
solving the problem. You mentioned the figure $400 million.
Well, since 1997, as near as I can figure, we have spent about
$200 million on all aspects of Indian trust reform, and there
does not seem to be any end in sight.
But clearly I think Congress is running out of two things.
One is patience and the other may be money. We might not be
able to find the money that we need to continually fund the
effort that we need to. There are going to be some limits on
our funding this year, as you know.
When Congress enacted the Indian Trust Management Reform
Act of 1994, it gave the Special Trustee and his staff the
authority to have access to every record, every report, every
document, and every employee within the Department of the
Interior. Under the law, as I understand it, there was no chain
of command when it comes to communicating with the Special
Trustee about the problems with efforts to improve the trust
management. I am very concerned that there seems to be a
suppression of the bad news, or there has been in the past. And
I am not sure we are going to fix the problem under the current
system.
I know the Special Trustee. In fact, I presided over his
hearing when he was appointed. I am convinced that Mr. Slonaker
not only did not cause the problem, but brings a great deal of
expertise and background into trying to resolve the issue.
Nevertheless, a little more than a month ago, the Federal
Appeals Court in Washington, D.C. affirmed the lower court
decision that the United States has failed and is continuing to
fail in its obligations to Indian beneficiaries. In the words
of that court, in fact, they said efforts to reform that trust
situation were ``a day late and a dollar short.''
You alluded to the memo from Dom Nessi, the BIA's Chief
Information Officer, of February 23 to Mr. Slonaker. I tell you
that was not a very comforting letter because basically in that
letter Mr. Nessi calls it a system that is imploding and says
that there is pretty much a total lack of trust between the
different sub-agencies that are supposed to deal with this.
But clearly making more excuses is not going to solve the
problem of the Indian people that deserve that money, earn that
money, own that money, and still find it locked up so they
cannot access it.
But for better or worse, Mr. Slonaker, you are judged by
the progress we make, and I wish you well and look forward to
working with you. But you are in a very tough job and are under
the gun, just as we are, to find some solutions in a hurry so
this thing does not go on for another decade or 2.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Campbell.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THOMAS N. SLONAKER
Mr. Slonaker, if you could just summarize your testimony. I
have got your full statement and it shall be made a part of the
record.
I would say to those folks who are attending this hearing
today, get a copy of the statement because you have covered a
lot of ground in here. I know I found it very educational, as
far as I was concerned, because I have not delved in this as
deeply as maybe some of my colleagues have. There are some
daunting numbers in here and circumstances about which I think
there is very little understanding. So, I would just invite
everybody to read this full statement on their own because I
think it is a very good statement, and I think it covers the
ground that we want to cover.
So, if you want to summarize and then we can turn to the
discussion, that would just be hunky-dorey. So, thank you for
coming today. We appreciate your efforts and we appreciate this
hearing too.
Mr. Slonaker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
me. It is a real opportunity for me and for the Department. And
thank you, Senator Campbell, for your remarks.
I must just tell you that when I was sworn in, Secretary
Babbitt gave me a copy of that 1876 paper and he said, Tom, do
not worry about General Custer. There are more serious problems
you really need to get on with.
Senator Campbell. Just remember what General Custer got.
Senator Burns. The only thing good about that is he said,
at least we do not have to go back to North Dakota.
Mr. Slonaker. I am here as the Special Trustee. My
responsibilities, as you will recall, under the 1994 act are to
oversee and ensure the coordination of trust reform at the
Interior Department on behalf of both the Secretary and, of
course, of Congress.
I was sworn in last June. I have had now a chance to really
dig into the depth of this whole project. So, let me just
highlight some of the points in my testimony in the next few
minutes, if you will.
Let me first give you just a little bit of perspective on
this from somebody who has come from the private sector. We are
turning around nothing less than a very large trust department
by commercial standards. This trust department has as its
principal asset 56 million acres of revenue-producing land,
roughly 80 percent of which is for the benefit of tribes and
the other 20 percent for individual Indians. That revenue from
leasing is fed through to the tribal accounts and to individual
Indians, of course, on a regular ongoing basis. There are also
about $3 billion worth of invested balances in marketable
securities, again mostly tribal funds. But nevertheless, there
are about 260,000 individual Indian accounts along with the
1,400 tribal accounts.
TRUST REFORM EFFORTS
To respond to your comment a moment ago, I have found that
in my opinion the Government is moving in the right way. Much
has been accomplished. Let me give you the pluses and minuses.
A majority of the milestones, as we call them, of the High
Level Implementation Plan have been met. Now, that is the
blueprint. It has been revised once early last year.
For example, a major financial accounting system has been
running for about a year now which produces statements,
balances of accounts, and keeps track of all those tribal and
individual Indian accounts down in Albuquerque. That is up and
running and that project has been accomplished.
The land title portion of what is commonly referred to as
TAAMS, which is the accounting system under development for
tracking the land assets and the leasing assets, is now a
system of record for the 12 BIA regions. That happened last
December.
The TAAMS realty, or what properly is called the leasing
module, is expected to be ready for user testing and our
Interior Steering Committee approval for the system of record
in the Rocky Mountain region early in the summer.
Finally, you have probably heard about the regulations that
were published in January for probates, leasing, grazing, and
trust funds. The important thing from a trust perspective to
keep in mind is that regulations such as these are very helpful
to trust management from the standpoint that they give clear
standards for doing the work for the beneficiaries. So, those
clear standards are obviously very important.
However, there are major challenges remaining. First of
all, many of these projects have an interdependency. That is,
if one project slows down or does not meet its objectives on
time, it will slow down one, two, or perhaps more other
projects. So, there is that aspect.
There are three major projects--the TAAMS project, which is
asset accounting, which I have already mentioned, the probate
backlog reduction project, and the BIA data cleanup project--
which comprise together a large piece of trust reform and are
very much interrelated.
NESSI MEMO
Now, let me just give you a comment relative to the TAAMS
project and relative to the letter that I think Senator
Campbell brought up just a moment ago. In late February, indeed
the BIA's Chief Information Officer, Dom Nessi, wrote a
confidential note to me outlining some fundamental concerns
that he had with the High Level Implementation Plan, along with
the issues he had with management of that plan, as well as the
litigation fallout. Dom has been project manager of TAAMS and
the BIA data cleanup project since 1998 and has guided these
projects since then.
As the Special Trustee, I agree with a lot of what was in
Dom's letter. On some points I do disagree.
It was not news. I have cited issues related to Dom's
observations in the three quarterly reports to the court that I
have made since I have been on board. I reviewed these issues
also with former Secretary Babbitt and now with, of course,
Secretary Norton.
The course of the TAAMS project has been under review by
the Department's Trust Improvement Steering Committee, which I
chair, and is under strong scrutiny currently to determine how
to bolster the management going forward. I do believe strong
management of certain projects has been lacking, particularly
with respect to planning, staffing, budget management, and
progress measurements. Furthermore, what I have found is that
the experience with the development of large systems is
lacking. I need to say also that accountability is sometimes
lacking as well.
Change of this magnitude is similar to the changes I have
seen in my private sector career. Change is not easily
accepted. I believe that the BIA has a significant challenge
which will test its leadership to accept new and standardized
procedures and common systems if trust reform is to be
completed and the beneficiaries are to be properly served.
I must note, however, in all fairness and candor, as I
suggested earlier, that substantial progress on many of these
projects has been made.
TRUST RECORDS
A couple more things. Then I will be finished.
I am also very concerned about trust records. Records are
the heart of any trust system. I think that is pretty obvious.
You should know that, while virtually all individual Indian
trust records are now stored and available for trust
operations, there are still some tribes which resist the notion
that individual records--not tribal records--which are subject
to the Privacy Act and are Federal property must be maintained
by the Government as the trustee. Otherwise, we cannot comply
as a Government with our obligations to the individual
beneficiaries.
You should know that in my role as the Special Trustee that
I have the responsibility to ensure that funding for trust
projects is advanced only when work and staffing plans and
progress reports provide a basis for successful execution and
completion of a project. In some cases, funds have been held
until the next fiscal year when planning has not been, in our
opinion, sufficient.
COBELL LITIGATION--POTENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT
Last, soon after I was confirmed, I initiated negotiations
with the plaintiffs' attorneys with the presence of the Justice
Department. We had a two-page summary of the terms required to
wrap up all of the issues pertaining to ``fixing the system''
and had begun to talk very generally and very broadly about the
possibility of settling on the accounting itself. Those
negotiations broke down after several months in November of
last year, at the point at which the Department of Justice was
drafting a consent decree to carry through, hopefully, the
execution. I believe negotiations can and should be resumed
now, and the Secretary does too.
STATISTICAL SAMPLING
Finally, at the direction of former Secretary Babbitt and
Secretary Norton, I should tell you also that we are proceeding
with a plan to present to Congress on the feasibility of using
a statistical sampling approach for individual trust accounts
that may provide the basis of an historical accounting or may
provide for a settlement, given the enormous costs of a full
reconciliation and the state and condition of older trust
records, in particular. We have had a fair amount of experience
in what is often referred to as paragraph 19 document
discovery. We have proven to ourselves, in executing that
discovery process, that the cost of resurrecting the records is
indeed enormous if we were to do it for every single account.
PREPARED STATEMENT
At any rate, those are my thoughts, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Campbell. Thanks for the chance to be here.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas N. Slonaker
INTRODUCTION
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
status of the Department of the Interior's efforts and our commitment
to resolve decades old trust fund management issues for both Tribal and
individual Indian account holders. With the assistance of this
Committee, Congressional interest and support have been strong and have
helped us move ahead on reform efforts for several years. Since fiscal
year 1997, this Subcommittee has been instrumental in supporting the
development and implementation of appropriate accounting systems, and
management information systems to help the Government meet its trust
responsibilities to Tribes and individual Indians. Last year, Congress
also passed much needed legislation to reform land consolidation
activities. Additional funding has been appropriated each year for the
day-to-day trust asset management program operations of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), Minerals Management Service (MMS), Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). Because
of these additional resources, the Department has made progress in
implementing much needed Indian trust reform efforts. As you know, we
are actively working with you to resolve a number of key projects that
have considerable work remaining.
When Congress enacted the American Indian Trust Fund Management
Reform Act in 1994, it reaffirmed the Federal Government's preexisting
trust responsibilities. The Reform Act further identified some of the
Secretary of the Interior's duties to ensure proper discharge of the
trust responsibilities of the United States. These include (but are not
limited to) the following:
--Providing adequate systems for accounting for and reporting trust
fund balances;
--Providing adequate controls over receipts and disbursements;
--Providing periodic, timely reconciliations to assure the accuracy
of accounts;
--Preparing and supplying periodic statements of account performance
and balances to account holders;
--Establishing consistent, written policies and procedures for trust
fund management and accounting; and
--Appropriately managing the natural resources located within the
boundaries of Indian reservations and trust lands.
As part of my testimony today, I want to provide the Committee with
some background information and context to help illustrate the broad
scale of trust activities. I think it is important to have an
understanding of the vast scope and complexity of trust asset
management and litigation related activities in which DOI is currently
involved. While a more extensive reference list follows my statement, I
want to mention just a few facts about the government's Indian trust
responsibility:
--In the early 1800's, the United States pursued the policy of
``removal'' which promoted the relocation of tribal communities
from their homelands in the East and Midwest to remote
locations.
--For most of the 19th century, the Federal Government entered into a
series of treaties and agreements identifying the lands owned
by the tribes. Tribal lands vacated were then declared
``surplus'', purchased by the U.S. and added to the public
domain.
--Proceeds from the sale of Indian lands were used in a variety of
ways. In some cases the money was placed in a trust fund for a
specific Tribe or distributed to individuals. In other cases,
the funds were used to settle claims against the Tribe.
--For the most part, early treaties vested ultimate authority for
financial management of the Tribal resources with the
President. In a few cases, the Secretary of Treasury, an Indian
agent, the Indian Commissioner, or after 1857, the Secretary of
the Interior were given authority.
--The individual trusts at issue here were created over one hundred
years ago through the General Allotment Act of 1887, also known
as the ``Dawes Act''.
--Under the Dawes Act, tribal lands were divided into parcels and
allotted to individual Indians. The United States was
established as the trustee of the allotted lands for
individuals, and individual accounts were set up for each
Indian with a stake in the allotted lands to be managed for the
allottees' benefit.
--This system established under the Dawes Act remained relatively
intact even when the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 stopped
the process of dividing tribal lands, but extended all trusts
periods indefinitely. The Federal Government's duty as trustee
over control of allotted lands and the individual accounts that
form the basis of the individual Indian money (IIM) accounts
has remained and this is what we are grappling with today.
--Today the BIA is responsible for the management of 56 million acres
of trust lands, including 46 million acres held in trust for
Tribes and 10 million acres held in trust for individuals.
--The BIA also administers approximately 110,000 surface and mineral
leases on these trust lands each year, with annual revenue in
excess of $100 million. These revenues flow either directly to
the Tribe, individual allottee or into the trust fund system.
--The Office of the Special Trustee (OST) manages approximately $3
billion in trust funds. These funds require the active
management and investment of some 262,000 accounts in the
individual Indian money system with a balance of approximately
$400 million, and 1,400 Tribal accounts with a balance of
approximately $2.7 billion.
--Although authorized to do so by the 1994 Reform Act, only a few
Tribes have withdrawn their tribal funds from OST's management.
--OST spends an average of $147 per year, per account to maintain the
263,000 accounts.
--To date, in response to the Cobell litigation, the Department has
produced more than 159,000 documents, representing more than
385,000 pages of information. This required the expenditure of
more than $19 million and is represented in thousands of hours
of staff and contractor time.
Judicial attention also has affected trust reforms. In 1999, the
Federal District Court held the Interior Secretary, the Treasury
Secretary, and an Interior Assistant Secretary in contempt in the
Cobell v. Norton (formerly Cobell v. Babbitt) litigation for failure to
produce all court ordered documents. The District Court also appointed
a Special Master to oversee the discovery process and trust record
production and retention. Increasingly, however, time spent on
responses required for the Cobell litigation adversely impacts the time
and energies of the Special Trustee, as well as the OST, BIA, and
Departmental managers who are all the principal directors of trust
reform.
Unfortunately, to date, efforts to reach a negotiated settlement of
portions of the issues at trial in the Cobell case have not been
successful. Interior continues to pursue a resolution of these matters.
Throughout the Cobell litigation, the Department has placed a high
priority on the trust reform and addressing the ongoing requests of the
District Court and the Special Master.
The Special Trustee monitors and oversees a multi-agency, multi-
year effort to achieve and sustain meaningful trust reform. Pursuant to
the Reform Act, a strategic plan was developed, part of which evolved
into the High Level Implementation Plan. Subsequent District Court
action resulted in the inclusion of plans to remedy four breaches of
trust responsibility identified by the Court. Although the Appeals
Court agreed that all the matters identified by the District Court were
not breaches of the Reform Act, the Appeals Court left in place the
government's obligation to address and report on those matters.
Management reform in any setting is a daunting task. In my view,
the problems of the past will be corrected only with strong policy and
project management. Changes to government management practices and
locally developed procedures that vary from location to location and
from year to year do not come easily. Change has been long overdue in
the management of Indian trust assets. These changes affect the full
spectrum of trust asset management activities within Interior. In
addition, these changes in management practices will also impact trust
resource management activities of Tribes and individual Indian account
holders.
We are changing trust business practices to bring them into
conformity with the best practices used in the private sector for the
management of trust assets. Most important, these changes will improve
the stewardship of trust resources for Tribes and individual Indian
account holders.
INDIAN TRUST MANAGEMENT REFORM TO DATE
I was sworn-in as the Special Trustee last June, and I can report
that there has been progress in trust reform over the past year. Some
recent accomplishments and developments include:
--OST completed the conversion of all Tribal and IIM accounts in all
12 regions to the Trust Funds Accounting System (TFAS) in March
2000. Currently, approximately 263,000 Tribal and IIM accounts
are maintained on the system. Approximately 120,000 statements
are mailed out each quarter to account holders.
--The majority of IIM trust financial records have been consolidated
into a central location in Albuquerque, New Mexico, with the
exception of IIM records from three tribal locations. The
Deputy Commissioner for Indian Affairs and I recently sent
letters to the three Tribes requesting that each Tribe approve
the transfer of IIM account holder jacket folders, which are
federal property, to our Albuquerque office. OST is responsible
for the efficient use, accuracy, and preservation of these
trust records. If a satisfactory solution cannot be reached
soon, the Department will notify the Court of this barrier to
the Trustee's exercise of proper trust responsibility.
--OST has begun using a national commercial database to help locate
more than 65,000 account holders whose whereabouts are unknown.
To date, more than 31,000 accounts have been compared with the
database to identify possible addresses. More than 18,000
letters requesting confirmation of identities have been sent.
More than 2,600 account holders have been located and their
account information updated. Responses to the majority of the
letters are still pending.
--Effective December 29, 2000, the land title portion of the Trust
Asset and Accounting Management System (TAAMS) was made the
system of record. With this designation, TAAMS is officially
designated the system for the recordation and maintenance of
Indian title documents reflecting current ownership for current
title processing in four BIA Regions: Alaska, Eastern Oklahoma,
Rocky Mountain, and Southern Plains. The conversion of title
history data is not yet complete.
--The Trust Management Improvement Project Steering Committee
determined that the TAAMS leasing module should be available
for Steering Committee evaluation and approval for the Rocky
Mountain Region by May 31, 2001. A recent update on the
progress indicates that the realty module will be available in
the Rocky Mountain Region to run parallel with the legacy
systems by June 1, 2001. The BIA has assigned key managers on a
full-time basis to complete this effort. A schedule and plan
for deployment to the other BIA Regions will be developed.
--BIA and OHA have hired additional staff and contract assistance to
begin reducing the existing backlog of Indian probates cases,
streamline the probate process, and develop a case management
tracking system. These efforts will require significant
management attention for several years to address all the
impacts of probate on trust programs in BIA, OHA and OST
operations.
--Final regulations were published on January 22, 2001 for Leases and
Permits on Indian Lands, Trust Funds for Tribes and Individual
Indians, Grazing Permits on Indian Lands and Indian Probates.
These revised regulations are long overdue and will establish
nationwide standards of uniformity for trust administration.
--The Risk Management Program Handbook was published November 30,
2000. This Handbook provides the guidelines for OST's
monitoring and review of risk within the Department's trust
processes.
--The non systems training program for relevant Interior and Tribal
trust asset management employees has been initiated in
locations across the country. Training the trust asset
management workforce is an ongoing commitment that is critical
to the successful implementation of new business practices,
accounting systems, new regulations, and management information
systems.
--In late December 2000, former Secretary Babbitt directed me to
proceed in planning, organizing, directing, and developing a
plan to present to Congress on the feasibility of using a
statistical sampling approach that may provide the basis of a
historical accounting or some basis for settlement of Cobell.
This approach was considered because of the state of trust
records and the enormous costs associated with a historical
accounting for each individual account. Secretary Norton has
recently reconfirmed this decision. I am hiring a senior
project manager and staff presently to begin development of
this project plan.
--Congress passed the Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of
2000, Public Law 106-462. This legislation will help prevent
further fractionation of trust allotments made to Indians and
consolidate fractional interests and ownership of those
interests into usable parcels. The Act fully supports the
consolidation of fractional interests in a manner that enhances
tribal sovereignty and promotes tribal self-sufficiency and
self-determination. It also helps reduce the administrative and
financial burden created by the fractionated ownership of
Indian lands, an important component of Indian trust fund
management reform. This fractionation of interests not only
undermines the vitality of allottee-owned land, but it also
severely complicates the government's management of trust
assets and resources. As of December 2000, BIA has acquired
more than 27,000 interests representing more than 14,600 acres.
These purchases should avoid more than 600 probates and
eliminate more than 200 IIM accounts.
NEXT STEPS
There is still a great deal yet to be done before the Government
can say that it is fully in compliance with the law with regard to our
trust responsibility.
Three projects in particular, comprise a critical part of the
Department's trust reform effort: TAAMS, BIA data cleanup and probate.
These are large, complex, interdependent projects. As an example, until
the historical data required to be accessed is properly corrected, the
TAAMS system cannot provide fully accurate and complete data output on
which to make payments and reports to account holders. I am concerned
that we ensure that the management teams on these projects have the
capacity and management resources to bring these projects to a
successful conclusion. This is not a question of willingness, nor is it
solely a question of funding. It is a question, as well, of providing
the appropriate additional management expertise and leadership. The
Department is addressing this management concern.
While some new regulations affecting trust reform were published in
January, additional regulations relating to trust fund accounts and to
reconciling commercial leasing to the Indian Lands Consolidation Act
Amendments of 2000 are necessary. Internal review, revisions and Tribal
consultation of these new regulations will need to be completed soon in
order to assist in the implementation of various trust reform business
practices. A procedural handbook also needs to be completed which will
provide a compilation of uniform business rules and practices for the
administration of tribal and IIM trusts. The development,
implementation and enforcement of consistent fiduciary business
practices are mandatory to the success of trust reform.
The development of tools for evaluating the Department-wide trust
asset management workforce, both in terms of the numbers of people
needed and their competencies, is very important to the trust reform
effort. Workforce planning will be an ongoing effort.
While continued support of this Committee is needed to complete our
trust reforms, cost-effective management of those resources is
essential for our success. As Special Trustee, I am responsible for
ensuring that funding is spent properly and that sufficient work plans,
including staffing, are developed prior to the release of funds to
projects for obligation. In some cases, as these are no year funds,
they have carried over until the next year so that project work plans
can be properly addressed prior to funding.
As outlined in the President's Blueprint, the 2002 budget will
continue to provide the funding necessary for Indian trust reform. The
OST, BIA, MMS, BLM and OHA budget requests will provide the resources
needed to sustain the operational and organizational improvements
initiated in previous years. The BIA trust management functions,
including efforts such as real estate services, probate, cadastral
surveys, and land titles and record programs, are absolutely crucial to
ensure that the trust management improvements we are implementing are
institutionalized and maintained in the long term.
On a final note Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank this Committee,
and its former Chairman for its past and current support and assistance
provided me and the Department in this critical endeavor. Without the
interest and support of this Committee, the reforms we have made and
the improvements we have initiated simply would not be possible.
This concludes my opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I look forward
to continuing to work with this Committee and you as the new Chairman,
and will be pleased to answer questions of the Subcommittee.
scope of doi trust asset management responsibility
General Asset Management Information
Over the past 40 years, the number of trust and restricted acres of
land administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has grown by
approximately 80,000 acres per year.
Today, the BIA administers approximately 56 million trust and
restricted acres of land.
Over 46 million of these acres are administered on behalf of Indian
Tribes.
Over 10 million of these acres are managed on behalf of individual
Indians.
The BIA administers 110,000 surface and mineral leases on these
trust lands. These leases generate over $100 million in revenue to the
Indian land owners.
In fiscal year 1999, approximately 1,800,000 acres of land were
leased for oil and gas, generating an additional $100 million in
royalties to Indian land owners.
Also in fiscal year 1999, over 27 million tons of coal was sold
from Indian lands, generating over $60 million in royalties.
In fiscal year 2000, 579 million board feet of timber was harvested
from Indian trust lands worth $96 million.
In fiscal year 2000, the Office of Hearings and Appeals adjudicated
3,300 probates.
General Individual Indian and Tribal Account Management Information
Currently, the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians
(OST), through the Office of Trust Funds Management (OTFM), manages
approximately 262,000 Individual Indian Money (IIM) and 1,400 Tribal
trust fund accounts.
The balance of the IIM accounts is approximately $400 million, and
the balance of the Tribal accounts is approximately $2.7 billion.
Under the provisions of the American Indian Trust Fund Management
Reform Act of 1994, two tribes have withdrawn all their funds from
trust, and two tribes have partially withdrawn their funds. Six Tribes
have withdrawn all their funds from trust based on other Public Laws
and/or their Use and Distribution Plan(s).
OST spends an average of $147 per year per account to maintain more
than 263,000 accounts.
Of the more than 262,000 IIM accounts currently held in trust (as of
February 28, 2001), approximately
101,000 (38 percent) of these accounts are unrestricted and
individual account holders may determine the timing and amount of
disbursements from the account.
138,000 accounts (53 percent) are restricted accounts for minors,
individuals determined to be non compos mentis, or individuals in need
of financial assistance.
23,000 accounts (9 percent) are special deposit, forestry and other
accounts.
135,000 of these accounts (52 percent) have had no activity, except
interest postings, in the last six months. However, this includes those
accounts that only receive resource income annually.
Of the 239,000 accounts held for individuals
33,300 accounts (14 percent) are for minors (including accounts for
those individuals whose date of birth indicates they are no longer
minors, but who cannot be located or have not responded to
correspondence).
65,000 accounts (27 percent) are for account holders whose
whereabouts is unknown and for whom OST has no current address.
The average balance in unrestricted IIM accounts is approximately
$420.
The average balance in restricted IIM accounts is about $2,100.
142,000 accounts (59 percent) maintain balances in the IIM system.
Of these, 91,000 have a balance of less than $500.
97,000 accounts (41 percent) are flow through accounts, and checks
are issued to account holders as soon as their balance reaches $15.
OTFM produces approximately 493,000 checks annually to account
holders. Additional disbursements also are made via direct deposit and
electronic funds transfers.
Of the 1,400 Tribal Accounts
OTFM issues approximately 24,000 per capita payments annually at
the request of tribes.
OTFM requests approximately 12,000 checks be cut annually for the
Osage quarterly headright (annuity payments), which is the result of
Tribal Mineral Income less expenses.
OTFM prints and mails approximately 100,000 checks annually for the
Wind River agency quarterly dividend for the Shoshone and Arapaho
Tribes.
During the conversion to a new Trust Funds Accounting System (TFAS)
Over 5,540 boxes of trust fund account documents were cleaned up by
an outside contractor.
More than 30 boxes of documents relating to pre- and post-TFAS
conversion testing were cleaned up by OST staff. This effort included
closing duplicate accounts, correcting invalid dates and sort character
corrections.
Over 70,000 accounts have been closed and/or corrected as a result
of the cleanup effort.
Cobell v. Norton Litigation Efforts
To date, 55 CD-ROMs containing 159,384 documents have been provided
to the Court in response to the Cobell litigation.
These documents contain 385,421 pages of material.
In OST alone, 14,000 boxes containing more than 35 million pages
were searched for responsive documents and 46,600 documents were
indexed and imaged on 26 CDs.
To date, $17 million has been appropriated to DOI organizations
specifically to support litigation efforts, and thousands of staff
hours have been spent responding to document requests.
Records Management Improvements
The Indian Affairs Records Management (IARM) program became
operational in December 1999. The program is responsible for
implementing a uniform and comprehensive records management program for
BIA and OST. The Major emphasis of the IARM program is on cleaning up
inactive records stored in off-site facilities.
IARM has been to some 60 BIA regional and agency offices to assess
records management practices and to identify records to be transferred
to Federal Records Centers or other appropriate storage, and for non-
trust records to be properly disposed. As part of this effort, IARM has
arranged for the purchase of fireproof or other modern filing systems
for more than two-dozen BIA locations to date.
More than 1200 employees at all levels have attended IARM records
training.
More than 2300 cubic feet (nearly 6 million pages) of records have
been transferred to Federal Records Centers, ending a four-year
moratorium. 5,200 cubic feet (13 million pages) have been packed and
inventoried by IARM through the National Archives and Records
Administration and its contractor.
Approximately 75 million pages of trust financial and IIM account
records have been transferred to OST storage in Albuquerque.
Arthur Andersen ``Reconciliation'' of Tribal Trust Accounts
In 1996, a report was issued by Arthur Andersen pursuant to its
contract with BIA to review Tribal accounts held in trust for the 20
year period of 1972 to 1992. This contract with Arthur Andersen cost
$21 million.
Arthur Andersen successfully identified receipts and disbursements
for 86 percent of the transactions reviewed, representing $15.3
billion.
Arthur Andersen was unable to identify complete historic
transactions to determine the origin of 14 percent of the transactions,
worth $2.4 billion. This $2.4 billion has not been ``lost,'' but is
held in the Department of the Treasury.
In conjunction with the Tribal effort, Arthur Andersen estimated
the cost of performing a reconciliation of the IIM accounts. At the
time, Arthur Anderson estimated that between $108 and $281 would be
needed to complete a 20 year review. Information collected since these
estimates indicates that this cost could be well in excess of $300
million.
Following this effort, the Department crafted legislation to create
a process by which it could negotiate settlements with the Tribes,
based on the Arthur Anderson findings. The legislation was met with
widespread Tribal opposition.
Senator Burns. We thank you.
I was just taken last night, as I was reviewing your
testimony and some of the parts of the lawsuit, with what has
been done and the cost of that. And then to see what was really
at stake here was surprising to me.
Summary statement of M. Sharon Blackwell
Thank you for coming, M. Sharon Blackwell. We appreciate
you and the work that you do and are looking forward to your
statement.
Ms. Blackwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman and Senator Campbell. I appreciate this opportunity to
appear here for the first time and to discuss the work of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs on the reform of trust assets
management.
I also am here today to confirm the Bureau of Indian
Affairs' commitment to the trust reform initiative. We too
share the goals that you have expressed this morning, Senator
Campbell, to ensure that the fulfillment of this Nation's trust
responsibility to tribes, to individual Indians is made a
reality.
Due to the support of Congress, the BIA has been able to
address decades-old policies and procedures. I believe that we
have made some meaningful changes. There is much that remains
to be done.
Before I discuss the highlights of the work of the BIA over
the past year, it gives me great pleasure, and with your
permission, I would like to introduce Mr. Bruce Maytubby who is
a BIA Realty Officer from the Southern Plains region in
Anadarko, Oklahoma and who heads our TAAMS design team. Mr.
Maytubby is in the room with me.
Senator Burns. Welcome.
Ms. Blackwell. We have much to do to overcome the legacy
that was left by the failed allotment policy of the late
1800's. That allotment policy followed the scandals that you
read about today in the 1876 newspaper, and we now know, with a
look back over the shoulder, that that policy too failed.
It has taken a long time to get where we are today, and it
will take careful planning and I believe strong partnerships
between all agencies within the Department of the Interior and
all branches of the Federal Government to correct. It will also
take time, I believe, to gain the confidence of the Indian
landholders that we serve.
Trust reform obviously touches every aspect of the work
that we do in Indian Affairs. I would just like to highlight
again what we have done this past year.
Regulations
Last Friday, as Special Trustee Slonaker mentioned, final
BIA regulations on agricultural leasing, grazing, IIM accounts,
and new probate regulations have been promulgated by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and were made effective last Friday.
The BIA probate regulations will permit BIA attorney
decision-makers to make in-house heirship determinations where
there are no factual issues. This will, we hope, significantly
cut down on the backlog of the probate of estates to determine
current ownership. We intend to monitor the effectiveness of
the new regulations, particularly the probate regulations, and
we are prepared to engage in further rulemaking, if it is
necessary, to ensure the success of a streamlined probate
program.
Youpee
We have completed the first phase of a pilot study to
determine the cost to redistribute approximately 178,000
fractionated, disputed interests from the tribes to individual
landowners as determined by the Supreme Court in Youpee v.
Babbitt. On December 29, 2000, the ownership or land titles
module of TAAMS was deployed in 4 of 12 BIA regional offices.
As new ownership information is known, that is, after the
completion of the probate process or resulting from
conveyances, it will be recorded in TAAMS and utilized for the
realty programs.
TAAMS Modules
The leasing module of TAAMS is scheduled to be deployed at
our pilot site in Billings in June. This module contains
information regarding lease activities in forestry, range,
commercial leases, recreational leases, minerals, and will also
contain rights-of-way and easement data. An experienced team of
BIA realty staff, headed by Mr. Maytubby, are stationed in
Dallas, Texas working beside our software contractor to develop
this module.
Title and realty modules in the remaining eight BIA
regional offices are scheduled to deploy later this year.
Data cleanup
Let me just stand back and say a word about how we get to
deployment for a TAAMS module. Deployment comes only after
extensive data cleanup which involves the examination and the
reconciliation of documents and that information that is in the
legacy system. You can appreciate that some of these documents
are almost 100 years old. This work is very exacting, but the
Bureau of Indian Affairs is committed to doing it right the
first time. We want the information that goes into TAAMS to
have integrity.
All data cleanup in all BIA regions is conservatively
projected for completion by 2005, but the data cleanup effort
will not halt the deployment of TAAMS. TAAMS will continue to
be deployed. The data cleanup effort will continue
simultaneously. In fact, it is most likely that the deployment
of TAAMS will enhance the cleanup initiative.
Senator Burns. Can I interrupt there? Did we get the cart
before the horse when we started structuring this reform, as
far as you are concerned?
Ms. Blackwell. No, sir. I do not believe we have. Data
cleanup was inevitable. While the design phase was going on, we
have had cleanup teams in each of the regional offices working.
So, the data will be ready when it is time to deploy TAAMS in
that region.
Once again, we will not stop with the deployment of TAAMS.
With the improved system, we believe that it will make the
cleanup efforts easier in fact.
Just to give you an idea about the complexity of what we
are dealing with, we have charted today one allotment out of
the 23,000 original allotments that were made in the Billings
region, our pilot. This original allotment was an 80-acre
tract. It was made in the late 1800's to one person. I believe
the chart is over in the corner. That 80-acre tract is now
owned by 147 fractionated interest holders.
Senator Burns. I could not believe this. The schematic was
unbelievable.
[The chart follows:]
[Clerk's Note.--The chart will be retained in the
subcommittee files.]
Ms. Blackwell. In fact, of the 23,000 original allotments
in Billings alone, only 1 of our 12 regions, those 23,000
allotments have been partitioned, have been divided by family
agreement, through devise, into approximately 38,000 individual
tracts. So, we begin with the original allotment, but we also
are tracking ownership records for the parcels where the
allotments have been divided into parcels.
Fractionation
The legend on the chart indicates that as of May 1999,
almost 2 years ago, there were five pending probates. I think
you can see that on the chart. And there was one life estate.
What that means is at the end of the probate process or when
the life tenant dies, it is likely that in the past year, the
ownership interests have increased by at least 25 owners.
TAAMS not only will contain the information that you see
charted on the graphic. It will contain all of the title
information, but in addition to that, it will contain the
leasing activities of each of these owners over the years. We
also will maintain a hard copy of the information, which we are
referring to as one of our legacy systems, so that the hard
data will be available as well.
Timelines
Given the magnitude of the tasks completed and the
magnitude of those things yet to be accomplished, there has
been some slippage in the dates outlined in the HLIP. In almost
all instances, slippage is due to the commitment we have to
make this a comprehensive, user-designed and thus a user-
friendly system and to ensure, as we go along, the integrity of
the data that is being placed into this system.
TAAMS Interfaces
TAAMS will interface with the Trust Funds Accounting System
and with MMS royalty systems. OTFM and BIA staff have worked
together to develop a memorandum of understanding that will be
reviewed and an accompanying handbook that identifies the
respective responsibilities and duties of the offices of OTFM
who manage the fiscal accounts and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and their day-to-day interactions. We intend to engage in an
aggressive interagency training program between these two
agencies. We will do so as well with MMS.
Indian Land Consolidation program
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Indian Land Consolidation Pilot
Project that has had the support of this committee is in its
third and I would say successful year. Support for this project
has permitted us to continue to halt the geometric progression
in the number of owners and to reverse the harsh effects of the
allotment era. Today over 29,000 ownership interests have been
sold at market value. 310 IIM accounts at the pilot agency have
been closed. We intend to aggressively pursue this project in
the year to come within the Midwest region and we are also
analyzing now whether the project could be expanded to another
region.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In summary, I believe we have made important and meaningful
progress in reforming the Department of the Interior's
operations of trust functions. We understand the challenges. As
we progress through the various phases of trust reform, we are
prepared to meet new management prerogatives as they develop.
We are also confident that this can be accomplished. There is,
though, much that remains to be done.
Thank you for this opportunity to address you. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of M. Sharon Blackwell
INTRODUCTION
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for this opportunity to be here to discuss the Bureau of Indian
Affairs' (BIA) work on reform of the Indian trust assets management and
to affirm the BIA's continuing commitment to correct where needed, and
to strengthen throughout, the administrative processes for fulfillment
of this Nation's trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes, Indian
individuals and Alaska Natives.
Last October the BIA celebrated its 175th anniversary with a look
back at the BIA's unique role in the history of federal Indian policy.
As many of us know full well, that history contains some dark chapters.
Among those is the decades old neglect of the task of formulating
uniform and consistent standards to govern our management of Indian
trust lands and the revenues that are generated through that
management. It is not surprising that the United States now finds
itself engaged in litigation brought by Indian landowners and account
holders which challenges old management practices and procedures. The
recent decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Cobell v.
Norton described in great detail the historical shifts in Indian policy
and the unintended results which sometimes worked at odds with prudent
management prerogatives. Suffice it to say that the legacy left by the
failed allotment policy of the 1800s was long in creation and will take
not only careful planning and strong partnerships between all branches
of the federal government to correct, but will also take time to gain
the confidence of the Indians whom we serve.
With the support of this Committee, the BIA, along with other
agencies in the Department of the Interior, has begun trust reform
which literally touches every aspect of the work we do in Indian
affairs. We believe that we have made substantial progress in a number
of areas. We readily acknowledge that there remains much to be done.
I would first like to advise the Committee that the $32 million
increase that the BIA received for trust work for fiscal year 2001 has
been distributed to the 12 BIA Regional Offices and on to the 87 field
installations in Indian Country that carry out the day to day
management and administration of Indian trust and restricted lands. The
distribution of this funding was made based upon such factors as
caseload, number of trust and restricted tracts, and number of
fractionated owners in each Region. The factors were designed to ensure
that these funds were placed in those programs with the greatest need
to support the Department's trust reform initiative. The funds are
being used to hire additional staff in the specialized areas of real
estate services, appraisals and land titles. These new hires will
enhance the surface leasing program that annually generates over $100
million in income to Indians who own trust and restricted lands. The
goals are not complex, but long overdue: to ensure that Indian leases
are timely processed by professional real estate services personnel,
rental valuations are prepared by the qualified and certified
appraisers, title and ownership records maintained by the BIA and
Tribal contractors are up-to-date and accurate, and, that rentals and
other compensation due the owners are correctly computed and timely
paid.
The reform is challenging. Old policies and procedures grew in each
of the Regions to meet differing Tribal specific statutory requirements
for allottee and Tribal resources. For an example, while the Osage
Reservation in Oklahoma was divided into allotments in 1906, the oil
and gas reserves underlying the Reservation were held intact by the
United States as a mineral reservation. Interests in the mineral
reserve are referred to as ``headright interests''; the BIA is charged
with maintaining and distributing the quarterly mineral income to
thousands of headright holders, who claim their interest through one of
the original 2,297 Osage allottees. Departmental responsibilities in
this area includes the examination and approval of Osage wills,
conducting administrative proceedings after the death of an Osage
testator when an approved will is challenged, monitoring the eventual
probate of the will in state court, in addition to exercising
superintendence over the surface allotted lands. There are hundreds of
such examples of unique statutory and regulatory requirements that
guide the work of the BIA. Transposing this work, which in some areas
has been done with pen and ink on index cards for decades, into
national uniform systems and operational practices is exacting and
challenging. It is not unexpected that some managers become frustrated.
While there remains much to be done to correct deficiencies, much
has been done. Some of the more significant accomplishments include the
following:
--Last year after extensive consultation with the Indian Tribes and
legal scholars, the Department issued a historic Secretarial
Order that identifies 13 principles which embody what the
courts and the Congress has determined to be the parameters of
the trust responsibility. Departmental agencies and bureaus
that carry out trust functions are mandated to use these
principles to examine their policies, programs, and day-to-day
operations, and to take remedial actions where necessary. This
will be published in the Departmental Manual.
--The BIA regulations on agricultural leasing, grazing, management of
Tribal and individual trust funds prior to and after processing
by the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians
(OST), Office of Trust Fund Management (OTFM) and an expanded
probate processing program, were published as final regulations
on January 22, 2001.
--The BIA has worked with OTFM to draft a handbook that identifies
the respective responsibilities, duties and documentation
requirements between OTFM and the BIA field offices for the
processing of funds derived from trust assets.
--As mentioned by the Special Trustee, the ``land titles'' module of
the Trust Asset Accounting and Management System (TAAMS) which
contains current ownership records based upon common law
notions of legal root of title, has been deployed at four of
the BIA's 12 Regions.
--We are near the testing stage of the design of ``leasing module''
of TAAMS. This module will permit thousands of the various
kinds of leases and permits on the 56 million of acres of trust
and restricted Indian resources to be nationally documented,
uniformly tracked and monitored. Following successful testing,
an executive management decision expected in early this summer,
will determine future deployment of the leasing module to the
pilot Region and onto the remaining BIA locations. Building on
lessons learned from industry, the design team is composed of
BIA ``users'' from the various program disciplines of forestry,
agriculture, range, housing, minerals and commercial leasing.
This team is working alongside the system's software design
contractor in Dallas to complete this module.
BIA PROJECTS
The BIA is responsible for five projects under the Trust Management
Improvement Plan: implementation of TAAMS, cleanup of land records
data, probate, appraisals, and policies and procedures, as well as the
related land consolidation project. The size and scope of this
Departmental undertaking is unprecedented. I will briefly highlight
some of the issues that we face in our efforts to meet the requirements
in the High Level Implementation Plan (HLIP) and more importantly, the
Federal Government's fundamental trust responsibility to Indian Tribes
and individuals and Alaska Natives.
TAAMS implementation and data cleanup
The BIA continues to meet milestones leading to the successful
implementation of TAAMS. Decades of under-investment in information
technology means, as mentioned earlier, that ownership and leasing data
at some agencies exists only in hard copy while others have developed
desktop computer-based applications or have used parts of the outdated
systems, also referred to as legacy systems. Conversion of existing
data to TAAMS requires a unique approach from Region to Region and
often even from agency to agency. As we have learned more we have
modified our TAAMS implementation approach along the way to guarantee
that it is done right the first time. I am mindful that there are
skeptics, however, I remain confident that when completed, TAAMS will
be a comprehensive, user-designed, and thus, a user-friendly system for
modernizing trust management activities in the Department. We are on
schedule to meet our deadline of May 31, 2001, for completion of the
leasing software design. After the design and system testing is
complete, our contractor will analyze the user testing results and
produce a report, which will be the basis for an executive level
decision to deploy the leasing portion of the realty module to our test
site in Billings, Montana.
Once the leasing module is implemented, future work includes the
design, testing and implementation of a conveyance module which will
track the ultimate disposition of trust and restricted land either by
gift, bargain and sale, condemnation, or voluntary removal of
restricted or trust status. Additional tasks will address the
integration of the probate and appraisals modules.
Probate
The Department of the Interior's responsibility to probate the
estates of deceased Indians who own trust assets was first addressed by
the Congress almost 100 years ago. Over the last century, four main
components of this process have evolved: (1) BIA agency staff prepare a
probate package that includes an inventory of the trust assets of the
decedent, known relatives of the decedent, potential heirs or devisees,
and provides a will, if any exists; (2) an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) from the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), or in summary
administrative proceedings, the Agency superintendent or attorney
decision-maker, determines the heirs or approves the will; (3) the BIA
records the new ownership interests in the title plant; and (4) the
OTFM distributes trust funds to the heirs or devisees. Over the years,
significant backlogs have accumulated in each of these offices which
affect some 15,000 estates.
Progress has been made on several fronts for the probate
subproject. The BIA and OHA probate activities have been combined under
joint OHA/BIA management, a full-time project team is on board, and
both BIA and OHA hired additional staff to prepare and decide probates.
More than 200 staff attended training and BIA is sponsoring additional
training this month to familiarize staff with the revised probate
regulations. Regulatory changes will increase the number of cases that
can be decided in-house so that the OHA judges can concentrate on the
cases where there are factual disputes. A pilot project is ongoing in
the Western Region headquartered in Phoenix for processing probate
packages. A national roll-out plan is under development. We are also in
the process of hiring a contractor to post ownership information in the
title plants to address the backlog in posting and recording.
The existing OHA case tracking system is being modified to include
BIA case work. A team comprised of experienced staff from BIA, OHA, and
TAAMS contractors are putting together the system requirements for the
probate module for TAAMS.
In 1997, the United States Supreme Court found in Youpee v. Babbitt
that the escheat provision of the Indian Land Consolidation Act was
unconstitutional. The practical effect of the decision is that the BIA,
OHA, and OTFM must redistribute the 178,000 fractionated escheated
interests from the Tribes. In fiscal year 2000, we completed a pilot
project at the Pawnee Agency which monitored the time and cost to amend
title records to reflect the new owners of the escheated interests. The
data is being examined to determine the BIA costs for this work. Phase
II of the Pawnee Agency pilot will study OTFM's time and cost to
prepare journal vouchers and distribute income that accrued to Tribal
accounts prior to the holding in Youpee. We have targeted July 2001 to
complete development and begin implementation of the BIA's plans to
redistribute the Youpee interests nationwide.
Appraisals
Only with limited exceptions, DOI is required to conduct appraisals
prior to approving any lease or sale of restricted or trust land. Last
year, BIA produced almost 26,000 appraisal reports. At the
recommendation of the Special Trustee we are evaluating the realignment
of the BIA appraising function into an independent branch within the
Office of Trust Responsibilities. We will consult with Indian Tribes
this spring and following results of the consultation and of workload
data, we may submit a reorganization proposal for the Committee's
consideration. We will keep you informed of our efforts.
Policies and procedures
In August 1999, responsibility for the development of comprehensive
trust policies and procedures was transferred from OST to the BIA. In
January, 2001, the BIA published the first set of revised regulations
governing agricultural leasing, grazing, probate, and supervision of
funds held in trust for individual Indians. Following promulgation of
the first tier regulations, a second tier of proposed regulations that
includes commercial and mineral leasing will be examined. Additionally,
based on comments received during Tribal consultations and the public
comment period, we will re-propose certain provisions governing adult
Individual Indian Monies (IIM) accounts and the probate regulations.
At the end of this month, BIA will submit a report to the
Department's Trust Management Improvement Council that will provide an
overview of the work remaining to be done to update Indian Affairs'
policies and procedures. Many of our regulations and much of our policy
guidance and handbooks are 30-50 years old. To help us identify the
order in which the work will be undertaken, we sent a survey to all
Indian Tribes and to our field staff asking that they identify
priorities within some 80 different areas. We will assist other
Departmental bureaus to update their policies and procedures that
impact trust services. Individual bureaus will address bureau-specific
policies and procedures while the BIA will coordinate policy
development on crosscutting issues.
Further, the BIA will identify changes that need to be made in
existing laws. For example, under the law, many Indian adults are
considered incapable of managing their affairs unless they have
received a ``certificate of competency'' from a BIA superintendent.
Indian land consolidation
One of the most important aspects of trust reform is taking place
outside of the overall plan. Thanks to the support of the Committee, we
are in the third year of the Indian Land Consolidation project. The
recent amendments to the Indian land Consolidation Act Amendments of
2000 by the Congress also eases the burden on the day to day activities
of the BIA and will result in more timely delivery of trust services to
Indian landowners. Through this project, BIA pays willing sellers for
their interests in restricted lands and restores the land to Tribal
ownership. This represents the first serious effort of the Federal
Government to reverse the harsh effects of the allotment era. With its
continuation and expansion, this will help to halt the geometric
progression in the number of owners of parcels of allotted lands. The
Midwest Region continues to be the primary acquisition site for the
land program. To date, 1,788 individuals have sold 29,236 ownership
interests that allowed us to close 310 IIM accounts. More than 90
percent of the interests purchased are those of 2 percent of less of
the total undivided interest in a parcel. In fiscal year 2001, the BIA
plans to continue these efforts with reservations in its Midwest Region
and consider expanding it to reservations in another Region.
INSTITUTIONALIZING TRUST REFORM
Mr. Chairman, in addition to the ten remaining projects in the
HLIP, the Department also has the responsibility of institutionalizing
trust reforms and ensuring that the problems do not reoccur. To remedy
one of the four breaches of trust identified by the District Court in
the December, 1999, decision in the Cobell litigation, we are in the
process of conducting a thorough analysis of our staffing requirements
for all aspects of delivery of trust services, including the Tribes
that manage trust programs. Other trust-related services include:
enforcing the terms of leases and taking actions against trespassers,
which covers over 100,000 surface leases, in addition to timber sales,
grazing permits, and rights of way; courts and social workers who
oversee supervised trust accounts. Also, ensuring that Indian Tribes
meet the same standards that are placed on the Federal government as
trustee will necessitate an assessment of Tribal capacity prior to
entering into any contract, as well as conducting on-going reviews of
Tribal trust management.
TRIBAL-FEDERAL RELATIONS
The obligation to conduct meaningful consultation with American
Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives remains a priority for the BIA. For
the last 25 years, the BIA has been moving farther and farther from
direct intervention in Tribal affairs. Through the Indian Self-
Determination Act, Congress has authorized Indian Tribes and Alaska
Natives to redesign programs, to re-prioritize program funding, and to
develop their own operating standards. Tribes determine staffing levels
and required staff competencies. By law, reporting from most Tribes is
limited to an annual financial audit and a brief program narrative.
However, the Indian Self-Determination Act also provides that nothing
in the Act shall serve to reduce the Secretary's trust responsibility.
That means that we are equally responsible for Tribal actions or
inaction in the delivery of trust services as we are for our own. We
will do our best to work with Indian Tribes to reach consensus on how
we assure that both the BIA and the Tribes meet the standards required
of a trustee. Implications from the ongoing Cobell case will also play
a role in these discussions, especially in records management.
The published final regulations state that trust records are
Federal records and are subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act.
We must ensure that those with access to the records, both BIA and
Tribal, meet the federal standards required of those who hold sensitive
positions.
CONCLUSION
In the next weeks, we will be sending you the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2002 that will continue the efforts for trust
reform.
This concludes my opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I look forward
to working with you and the Committee and thank you for the assistance
it has provided on behalf of trust reform. I will be glad to respond to
any questions from the Subcommittee at this time on trust reform.
Senator Burns. Ms. Blackwell, thank you and thank you for
bringing your talents to the table. You undoubtedly know the
subject, and so we just thank you for your dedication to this
and we appreciate that very much.
Summary statement of Robert J. Lamb
We have with us today Bob Lamb, who is Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Budget and Finance. Would you like to offer any
comments at this time?
Mr. Lamb. If I could, just very briefly, because I know you
want to get on with the questions.
The article you referred to also had a fourth story that I
noticed and it was about appropriations and the Congress being
locked up in appropriations disputes near the end of the
session. So, in some ways the article is also prescient in
terms of some of the debates we have been through.
But for this committee and this project, we have nothing
but thanks for your strong support, as well as Senator
Campbell's legislation last year, shepherding through Indian
land consolidation, which we have said for many years--and I
know the Senator firmly agrees--is the root problem of the
fractionation problem which causes this very complexity that
you have alluded to, Mr. Chairman.
I was the Budget Director in 1990 for the Department when
the trust reform effort started, the tribal trust effort and so
forth. I testified in the trial. One of the topics was whether
or not the Government had provided sufficient resources. The
judge heard my testimony and that of others and dismissed that
charge, in large part because, while the appropriations process
is complicated, this committee has been very responsive, as has
OMB, and we appreciate that.
TAAMS PROGRESS
You did ask about progress, and if I could just briefly
mention three things that I think indicate progress. They are
not things that I am going to say. I am going to point to
others. I think the two witnesses have pointed to what we are
doing. I just wanted to call your attention to three things.
One, with regard to TAAMS, it is not often that the General
Accounting Office ever says anything nice about an agency, but
with regard to this project--and again, because the Indian
Affairs Committee asked them to step in and take a look--it
does point out, in their most recent review of TAAMS, that
significant improvements are being made, but there are still
risks. They point out that Interior is taking the critical
steps necessary to install the processes, practices and
discipline needed for this system. They concluded their study
by saying significant actions to strengthen TAAMS management
have begun as we have begun to recognize the value of following
disciplined processes. We have to keep on that course, but we
are getting there. It requires our continuing attention.
National Academy for Public Adminstration study
The other study I would like to mention, also supported by
this committee, was a complete review of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs' administrative capacity. As you know, the Bureau has
suffered staggering FTE reductions over the years, at times 50
percent. Although this study was focused primarily on its
administrative management, when the National Academy for Public
Administration, using funds appropriated by this committee and
under the direction of this committee, happened to stumble into
trust reform when it was out interviewing people, it made this
observation. A 1993 comparison of BIA natural resources staff
with those in the Department of Agriculture and other agencies
with similar natural resources management responsibility--and
Mr. Slonaker has indicated it is the source of the income--
showed that BIA would have to more than double its staff to be
on par with other agencies. In light of the substantial BIA
staff reductions since 1993, the differences in staffing levels
are even greater today. The same Indian forest management
assessment team report cited that BIA Indian forestry programs
as having 2.8 natural resource professionals or foresters per
million acres while the Forest Service has 14.
And the report goes on. Again, the resources are needed.
And last year in the current appropriations that we are now
executing, this committee provided for the first time
additional resources to focus on the land management
responsibilities of the Bureau. Again, we thank the committee.
Trust reform efforts
Last, the court itself, while in the trial saying that
court supervision is absolutely required and will be maintained
over the next 5 years, did cite that we are failing to meet our
trust responsibilities, but did acknowledge that significant
steps towards reform, towards meeting the discharge of our
trust responsibilities are underway. Both the appeals court and
the district court acknowledge that. We are making progress.
This, as you said, Mr. Chairman, is a daunting task. It is
our most solemn obligation and our most serious management
challenge in the Department.
We thank you for your support. It has the full attention of
Secretary Norton, and we are taking the comments of Mr. Nessi
and everyone seriously.
Senator Burns. Well, we thank you.
Just from my own observation, this particular exercise
leading to a positive conclusion is ultimate to our
responsibilities we have to the Native Americans and also to
rebuild a trust that has eroded over the last 100 years.
By the way, I get a big kick out of these old newspapers.
This is out of Philadelphia. In the same article, it says under
personal notes, among the visitors to Fortress Monroe are
Senators Thurmond, Boge, Veelinghasen, Stephenson, and
Representatives Page and Platt. Senator Thurmond has been lying
about his age.
Cobell litigation--document production
Let us go back to some of these questions and highlight
some of the things. There is a stack of documents on the Cobell
litigation I see on the table. They are way down yonder. I just
need someone to lay it out and tell us what this is all about
and to explain what is going on here.
Mr. Lamb. Mr. Chairman, if I could, what you have at the
end of the table is the index of the documents that we
produced, page after page. Those files indicate the documents
that we produced.
Now, why did we produce these documents? Under the
discovery request for the first trial, the Government lawyers
promised to produce for the five named plaintiffs and their
predecessors all documents related to the trust. Now, whether
that was a wise decision or a foolish decision, it was a
commitment.
Senator Burns. It was a decision.
Mr. Lamb. In fact, it was that failure to respond in a
timely manner to that court order that resulted in two cabinet
officers and the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs being
held in contempt.
As a result of that contempt trial, we came to the Congress
and asked for the funds necessary to assemble these documents.
We were not doing it in a timely way. That was clear. We spent
$20 million. We produced 160,000 documents, 386,000 pages of
documents, for the 5 named plaintiffs and their 31 agreed upon
predecessors. We looked at 76 tracts for the predecessors in
interest and 33 for their lineal predecessors, a total of 109
tracts. It required eight different bureaus of the Department
to be involved and visitation of 77 sites.
I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, this was not just going
through a file cabinet and saying, oh, it is right here all
organized. It meant going through tens of thousands of boxes to
determine which documents were responsive and which were not.
It was a tremendous undertaking.
We have delivered these documents to the court, and so that
this tremendous investment bears some fruit, we have hired
Ernst & Young, an accounting firm. Even though this is not the
scientific sample across the entire landscape of IIM accounts,
we will do an accounting based on these records of these five
named plaintiffs and their predecessors to see how much income
did we collect, how much did we pay out, did the lease tie to
what we show in our records, et cetera. I think it will be
helpful both in our effort to do a more scientific sample and
to get some value out of this document production.
Senator Burns. I did notice one of the litigants was
Cobell, and you did that schematic which we see up here. That
80 acres--it boils down to the ownership of .0080 of 80 acres.
Now, you cannot even raise a tomato plant on that.
Spoken like an old farm kid.
What did all that cost?
Mr. Lamb. That cost us $20 million. The documents
themselves are obviously a much bigger stack than that. That is
just the index, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Boy, do we know how to spend money.
Does this also include the resources of the Department of
Justice? Does this also include the work that they have done?
Mr. Lamb. We have paid for some of the Justice cost, but
only some as it relates to their assistance in our carrying out
some support functions. In addition to that $20 million I am
sure the Justice Department----
Trust records
Senator Burns. I can remember Senator Campbell in a hearing
alluding to records being stored in old houses and they were
water damaged and time damaged. Then I am going to turn it over
to him. We have some questions here. It looks like it would be
awfully hard to verify the authenticity of those records.
Mr. Lamb. For example, in one of these tracts, they have
been able to go back and track this. It is rather impressive.
I would also point out when we started the tribal
reconciliation project, the thought was we would never find the
documents to support the tribal transactions. I was looking
over the data again last night, and we found supporting
documentation, as determined by Arthur Andersen, for the basic
reconciliation of 90 percent of the transactions.
Now, part of the problem that we have is we all feel that
the Federal Government has let down the tribes and individual
allottees. We feel guilt for that. It has occurred over a long
time. These are complicated matters. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
the time you spent in going over these details and your obvious
command of them.
When we produced the documentation, the 90 percent of the
documentation that we found, Arthur Andersen said that we had
found about 90 percent of this. The newspaper accounts said
that the Interior Department had lost $2.4 billion. The
Interior Department did not lose $2.4 billion. It did not find
the supporting records to document $2.4 billion worth of
transactions that were in the system. It found over $15 billion
of those transactions and found the supporting documentation.
But in a matter this complex, when it gets rolled up into a
headline, the easy snapshot is Interior lost.
IIM accounts
In the same article about Mr. Nessi, it said the Department
has failed to keep track of 50,000 or 65,000 account holders.
Well, there are people here who can tell you what we have done.
It is a question, I might offer, that account holders have not
told us where they are.
Address updates
Ms. Blackwell told me the other day that she had not
updated her account recently, and why? Because a large percent
of the individual accounts are very small income-producing
accounts, and in some cases it does not make sense to go back,
to notify. Ms. Blackwell indicated to change an address, or
make a change to an IIM account, or for disbursements OST
requires the account holder's signature to be witnessed by any
Department of the Interior employee or be notarized by a notary
public.
We are trying to close this gap. I think this is one of the
things that discourages those people who are working on this
daunting task. The overall summary, when it is rolled up,
paints a very bleak picture. We have got to get this job done.
We are working to get it done, and with your help and support,
we will continue.
Senator Burns. We are going to help you. I will just make a
comment here before Senator Campbell.
Crow agency
I am familiar with the lady who used to have the trust
responsibility for everybody down on the Crow reservation.
Campbell Farming Corporation was one of the big corporations
down there that farmed all that land out to the west of Crow.
Nobody in that tribal government knew anything more than she
did. She almost had it by memory. She was the lady that did it
all. And then she passed away. Come to find out, she remembered
it all, but she did not put everything down on paper. It was a
daunting thing.
Senator Campbell, you have some questions.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of
comments.
First, who provided this very nice schematic for us? Was
that Ms. Blackwell?
Ms. Blackwell. Yes. That was prepared by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.
Senator Burns. I suppose you found yourself in there.
Senator Campbell. Listen, overweight guys who do not have
glasses and are over 50 cannot even read this thing.
I was going to suggest in the future make it a little
larger. I cannot even read the thing. It looks like a DNA
schematic or something.
Ms. Blackwell. We brought the larger one, Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Well, anyway it does allude to the
complexity of it, even though I cannot read most of the names.
It is too small. But thank you for providing that. I will give
that to a young staffer with 20-year-old eyes who can tell me
what it says.
Let me ask Ms. Blackwell something first. I am a little bit
confused. Maybe Mr. Lamb can chime in on this too.
Data cleanup
You mentioned the process that is going on now of examining
and cleanup. Is that a code word for some high tech method of
trying to record these in a machine, or does cleanup and
examine mean you are getting into those boxes and garbage bags
and so on down in Albuquerque and finding documents that
originally we were told were lost?
We had been told at one time at least 100,000 documents
were missing. Mr. Lamb suggested that about 90 percent of those
documents now are there. Is the other 10 percent the 100,000?
Mr. Lamb. If there is anything I have learned over the
years on trust reform, it is very hard to make any generality
because you always can find exceptions. But I went back to the
Arthur Andersen study and then the work that we did after and
looked at what they said in terms of the basic reconciliation
efforts. They found about 85 percent of the transactions. We
did another 5 percent after that. And we could account for, in
that basic reconciliation project, by their terms, supporting
documents for those.
Senator Campbell. For a layman like me, 90 percent sounds
pretty good, but I imagine if I was in the other 10 percent and
my documents were lost, I might not be too happy.
Mr. Lamb. Absolutely.
Senator Campbell. Mr. Slonaker brings a world of experience
here with an M.B.A. from Harvard and former head of the Farm
Credit Funding Corporation, Senior VP of the Mellon Bank, and
so on. In your private life, if you said to your stockholders
or your people who had investments or savings in the Mellon
Bank, you tell them, well, listen, we are in pretty good shape,
we know where 90 percent of the money is, it would not be a
real vote of confidence, would it, for that other 10 percent.
So, I try to put that in perspective. 90 percent is great, but
boy, there are still going to be some people, if we do not find
the remainder of it, who are going to be hurt.
Trust reform authority
I wanted to ask you perhaps, Mr. Slonaker, do you need
additional authority to give some real discipline to the
reform? And if you do, could you suggest what we ought to do
from a legislative standpoint, No. 1?
No. 2, maybe you can give us idea, since this committee is
going to have to go to bat for the funds in the full committee,
of what additional appropriations you might expect to be asking
for?
Mr. Slonaker. Let me take the second question first. In
general, Senator, I do not believe this is a question of
funding. I think to echo what Bob said just a moment ago, the
funding by Congress of these efforts has been certainly more
than adequate. The real issue here has been, not to belabor the
point, a question of management.
The authority question is a very interesting one. I think
it is reasonable and fair to say that that is a question that
we are examining within the Department right now. It is true
that the Special Trustee, if you read the 1994 act carefully--
and you had a good part in forming it--does not give the
Special Trustee line authority over this effort. I basically in
my role represent the Secretary and attempt to ensure and
coordinate the effort, but it is not line authority.
Probably somebody needs to be in charge and there also
needs to be accountability down the line. As I said earlier,
there is massive change on the ground here in terms of trust
process and procedures, and that massive change is threatening
normally to human beings, even though it should not be
threatening to them. It makes their job better and easier and,
most importantly of all, it is all for the benefit of the
beneficiaries ultimately. But I do think there is a question of
line authority and I think there is a question of acceptance
and accountability down the line.
Senator Campbell. Well, I was going to take that up with
the Secretary, whom I am going to see in a couple of days. But
as you probably know, in 1994 the Secretary then did not
support line authority. He wanted some involvement and wanted
him directly to report to him. Your predecessor got crossways
with him because of that, as you remember. But I appreciate
your doing that.
NESSI memo
I might also mention that that so-called confidential memo
from Mr. Nessi, if I could say it in New Yorkers' terms,
confidential in this town? Forget about it.
Senator Campbell. There is no such thing.
Mr. Slonaker. We learned that in a hurry.
Senator Campbell. The press probably saw that thing before
you did.
Well, in any event, if there is additional authority
needed, if you could tell this committee or at least the Indian
Affairs Committee at your earliest convenience, we will try to
do whatever we have to do.
Statistical sampling
Also, as I understand it, the plaintiffs want to use what
is called the economic model to get accurate balances. The
agency wants to use what is called sampling. Could you explain
very quickly the difference between those two proposals and if
there is a legislative proposal that would help it?
Mr. Slonaker. Well, I am not sure I can give you the best
definition of the plaintiffs' approach, but I will give it a
good try. I have not been permitted to see it, so until I do, I
really cannot tell you authoritatively.
But basically I believe the approach is to look at the land
assets over a period of time at the opportunities they could
have had in terms of being leased out and the revenues that
could have been derived. In some cases, I think there are
sufficient records, particularly in the oil and gas industry,
that provide some pretty good tracking of leasing and lease
payments. To reconstruct a revenue flow that could have existed
I think is the fair way to say it. I think that is a very
interesting approach, but it is only one approach.
The difficulty that we have, as I alluded to before, is the
condition of the records and the cost of uncovering and
reconstructing all of the records that we have. The Department
felt, and Secretary Babbitt agreed, that a sampling approach
might begin, to use my words, to corral in where the final
answer is in terms of what is owed under an accounting.
So I think, Senator, it is probably a combination of those
two approaches, and there are some other statistics and facts
that we have been able to gather over a period of time,
including the study of the tribal accounts which gives you some
clues, that can produce some kind of a reasonable number in
this matter.
Project timeline
Senator Campbell. One final thing, Mr. Chairman. I think
Indian people, and certainly this committee too, have a right
to get a little better handle on how we are moving and if there
is going to be a deadline for the completion of the project. I
do not expect you to have that just off the top of your head
now, but we would be very interested, and I am sure Indian
country would too, in finding out, if the light is at the end
of the tunnel, when can we expect a deadline to be met and a
total cost figure to be reported. So, when you have a little
firmer information on that, I am sure we would appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
Statistical Sampling Timeframe and Costs
The Office of the Special Trustee recently selected a senior
executive level Project Manager to oversee and guide the Sampling
Project, who reported for duty to OST on April 9, 2001. The first major
task for the Project Manager is to develop the detailed plan requested
by the Committee. Preparation of the plan will be preceded by a period
of consultation by the Project Manager with a wide variety of
interested parties and by consultation with one or more technical
experts on statistical sampling techniques. This is a complicated
effort that will take a considerable period of time. A long-term
funding commitment by both the Administration and the Congress is
essential for ensuring that the project can move forward to address
issues as they arise. We believe that the conceptual approach of
examining issues and methodologies, evaluating results, and only then
proceeding with full scale sampling, should that be warranted, assures
the Congress that the funds for this project will be used prudently.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request for OST includes $7.5 million to
continue efforts to develop and implement a statistical sampling plan.
While the cost to complete the Project are unknown, a very rough
cost estimate, based primarily on experience with the plaintiffs'
records in the Cobell case, was derived using some initial, preliminary
assumptions as a starting point:
--Assume a sampling of 350 accounts. This number might be understated
given the difference in records systems from year to year and
agency to agency, as well as the availability of records and
ease of accessing them.
--Assume a cost ranging from $50,000 per account (those more recently
opened) to $200,000 per account (the approximate cost of the
Cobell account analyses).
--Under these assumptions, the cost, excluding any DOI staff, and
related contract development and management expenses, ranges
from $17,500,000 to $70,000,000.
These are rough approximations based on limited (although
intensive) experience with records production, and we will have a
better idea as we move through the early project development phase.
Tribal consultation
Senator Campbell. Last, one of the complaints this
committee, and Indian Affairs too, often gets is that Indian
input and involvement from tribal groups is not enough, and the
agencies often make their decisions in a vacuum, and then they
say, this is it and what do you think of it.
I do not know if you have been active with some of the
Indian associations like the National Congress of American
Indians, but I know that they have insisted that, if there are
new regulations, they should incorporate both internal controls
and accounts receivable too. It is my understanding that the
Department's proposed regulation states we believe the
regulations are not an appropriate place to address accounts
receivable. Would you like to comment on that?
Mr. Slonaker. That is a complex matter. The real issue here
is, do regulations address the policy, or do they get down into
actual procedures? I think there is a feeling within the
Department that that particular subject gets more into
procedure and out of the status of policy.
Another complication is that these regulations replaced, as
I understand it, in some cases regulations that have been in
place for a long, long time. Regulations are not easily
changed. So, one must be very careful, in my opinion, that you
write regulations in such a way that they can cover some broad
circumstances as the landscape changes over a period of time. I
think that is the heart of the issue here, Senator.
Senator Campbell. Well, you know the term ``negotiated
rulemaking.'' I would encourage that as you move along, you
include tribal input.
Mr. Slonaker. Absolutely.
Senator Campbell. I hope you would.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. We never encountered negotiated rulemaking
in the U.S. Marine Corps.
I want to pick up on what Mr. Slonaker said. Usually
progress is either slowed or stymied because of a couple of
things, and that is, it was asked about bright line authority
and definitions. Would you agree with his statement that he
just now made on bright line authority? And do we need to do
some work maybe along those lines legislatively?
Ms. Blackwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have not had an opportunity to think about legislation. I
think that it is an appropriate time in trust reform to look at
management at the top and management within the Department of
the Interior as these projects begin to come together. The
Bureau of Indian Affairs has responsibility for only five.
There are other projects under the direction of the Office of
the Special Trustee for American Indians, the Minerals
Management Service, and others. We are at a place now where we
do need some kind of central coordination as they meet each
other. Whether or not that takes legislation, I am not sure
that legislation is necessary.
Mr. Lamb. Mr. Chairman, the Department is fortunate to have
rather broad legislative authority in terms of how it organizes
itself. Under the 1950 Reorganization Plan Act, the Secretary
can make organizational changes. We normally do those in
consultation with the Congress. But I know the legislative
route is a long and drawn out one often.
Senator Burns. We do not draw too many bright lines up
here, I will tell you.
Mr. Lamb. The conversations that Senator Campbell is going
to have with the Secretary and I am sure that you will--I think
there is existing legislative authority in terms of flexibility
of who reports to whom and who is held accountable.
Senator Burns. Especially in this asset and accounting
management systems, I think it is very important that there be
some bright lines of authority because you have got to make
some decisions independent of what is going on around you.
Trust fund accounting system
Tell me about the Trust Funds Accounting System, the TFAS,
your progress there. Are you satisfied with it? Just give us an
update on that.
Mr. Slonaker. The so-called TFAS system is actually a
system that I was familiar with in the private sector and is
basically a service bureau, largely off the shelf, if you will,
and a very competent system. It is up and running in every
respect. In fact, Donna Erwin who is the director in
Albuquerque who manages and oversees that activity is here. So,
that is one project that has actually been completed.
If I can carry your question just another inch or so, that
system, the TFAS system, will couple up with the TAAMS system.
So, the TAAMS system is really accounting for the assets and
passing the information through the interfaces.
Senator Burns. Those two systems can interface? They can
talk to one another?
Mr. Slonaker. They will be, yes. The interfaces are, I
think it is probably fair to say, pretty much in place, but
they are not completed yet. But the TAAMS system itself has to
be brought into an operational mode, and then the interfaces
will be there. So, those two systems will, in effect, become
almost a service bureau to the whole trust system. But TFAS
will not work at its best until TAAMS, of course, is in place.
PRIVATE SECTOR
Mr. Lamb. One of the questions that always comes up is why
do you not just contract this out. In essence, that is what we
have done. This financial system that we are using is used by
150 different banks and financial institutions from Wells Fargo
to Bank One to Mellon to State Street, et cetera. So, we are
using the private sector. We did not build a unique system. We
are using a system that is a common service provider. It makes
a lot of sense.
We have been doing daily reconciliations of our accounts
with Treasury, going back for almost 10 years now.
Again, there are always stories. We cannot reconcile the
past until we get some sort of settlement. Paul Holman has said
this. Mr. Slonaker has said this. We cannot say for certain.
Our annual audits of our trust accounting system always come
back to saying, well, we are not sure. As auditors, we cannot
tell you what the beginning balances are until you settle the
past.
We have focused in this effort to fixing the future, and we
have in place now for a year this system used by 150 major
financial organizations that is looking well. Account holders
are getting quarterly statements. But we have not resolved the
past.
Senator Campbell. If I might interject, Mr. Chairman, a
couple of years ago, Senator Murkowski and I and several others
believed that the Department simply could not straighten up the
problem with regard to investment options. We introduced a
bill, in fact, to let the private money managers, the private
industry who are skilled in that expertise do it. The
Department obviously opposed that and felt it could. As I
understand you, you are using the systems that would have been
used if we had turned it over to the private sector and it
seems to be working.
Mr. Lamb. Yes, and we are using other techniques and other
advisers. Donna Erwin can elaborate if you like. But we are
using the best practices of the private sector.
Senator Campbell. Well, at the time we introduced that
bill, there was some unfortunate response from some of the
tribes who thought that it might somehow erode trust
responsibility, when in fact it was sunsetted so it would have
come back under the jurisdiction of the Bureau after it was
straightened up. But I am glad you are using the skills that
work so well in the private sector.
Senator Burns. Do you want to comment on that, Ms.
Blackwell?
TAAMS
Ms. Blackwell. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make
sure that the committee understands that, as Special Trustee
Slonaker has said, TFAS is essentially an off the shelf
product. Mr. Lamb has testified that this is the system that is
used by other financial institutions.
That is very different from TAAMS. Essentially we are
designing the TAAMS system. We attempted in a time past to
locate an off-the-shelf system, and frankly, for those of us
who are students of the Indian problem, it just was not
possible. There is nothing out there to compare. There is not a
system out there that contains the kind of intricacies and
complexities that this Indian land title has. So, the TAAMS
system is being developed and being designed by the users. It
will interface with TFAS.
We also have plans to interface with MMS' system as well.
TAAMS will be feeding to the mineral royalty system.
DIRECT PAY LEASE PAYMENTS
Senator Burns. Let us take that a little bit further. In
last year's hearing, I asked a question regarding lease
payments on the Crow Indian reservation. You remember that. At
that time BIA was in the process of changing the method of
distributing lease payments. Instead of allowing the American
Indians to receive lease payments directly from leasees, the
BIA was in the process of requiring those payments to go
through the BIA first before going to the owners. Obviously, it
would be easier for the tribes if they could obtain those lease
payments directly. On the other hand, I understand that the BIA
has concerns and may require those funds to pass through the
BIA first so they can be adequately accounted for.
Can you tell me the status of that issue, and what was the
final outcome of it?
Ms. Blackwell. Yes, sir, I can. In response to the concern
that was raised in this committee and in response to the BIA
consultation policy with individual Indians and Indian tribes
across the country, as we developed these regulations, we had
regional consultations. In response to that, we rejected the
idea of prohibiting direct pay, and the regulations that were
effective last Friday continue the direct pay provision.
Senator Burns. Thank you. Good answer.
Senator Campbell, do you have any further questions?
Senator Campbell. No. I have no further questions, Mr.
Chairman.
But I would reiterate, since we are going to have a tight
year for the appropriations process, that we need to know early
on if it is going to take additional money to help you.
LITIGATION EFFECTS
Senator Burns. The litigation we understand has caused some
spinoff problems down there tying up personnel, and sometimes
morale gets a little low. Every time we try to do something,
the litigants become a part of the problem. Tell us how it is
going with them in this situation and how you deal with that.
Mr. Slonaker. It presents difficulties. There is what I
would consider to be a great deal of motion practice, which I
think the attorneys would call it, that is going on between
Justice and the plaintiffs' attorneys. A lot of that is related
to records. A lot of it takes work. People are subpoenaed. I do
not know whether it is any different than in the private
sector. It is certainly far more active than I have ever
experienced. But it does consume time and it takes time away
from trust reform, and we just have to deal with it.
Mr. Lamb. More broadly, Mr. Chairman, I just jotted down
this morning when I got to work what we are doing
simultaneously. This is not all court-related. It is the scope
of this project. It is not all the plaintiffs' practice of law.
Simultaneously we are building new systems. We are reforming
business practices and making more uniform those policies
across BIA's 12 regions. We are rewriting regulations that are,
in some cases, 50 years old. We are converting paper records to
electronic media. We are converting old systems information to
new systems. We are filling out data gaps. We are tracking down
account holders. We are responding to document production
requests and court requirements. We are interfacing systems,
one system to the other, as you just heard. And our employees
are being deposed.
Senator Burns. What do you do the rest of the day?
Mr. Lamb. These are the same people for which, in many
cases, we had 2 or 3 compared to the Forest Service's 14.
Again, we are building those staff. We are recruiting.
We are using the private sector on the TAAMS system. We
selected Applied Terravision out of Dallas, Texas. They are the
single largest software producer in the oil and gas industry.
They are no rookies in this business. They have been, by GAO's
account and by our account and by our evaluation, a very
responsive firm. We are trying to do this right, but it is an
enormous task.
CLOSING OBSERVATIONS--CHAIRMAN BURNS
Senator Burns. I will tell you that I am committed to
supporting this effort. Tell us, as we go into the season of
appropriations, if you would just correspond with us on your
needs, because I think we are in a situation now where this is
not a game and it is very serious to establish that trust,
literally, that we need to complete this. I am dedicated to the
situation of this coming to a successful conclusion, knowing
that it is not going to get done in 1 or 2 years even. I think
anytime we set dates of completing something, then we run over
more than we pick up, and we have got to go back and do it
again just to make a deadline.
I know the bureaucracy loves to build a lifelong career out
of one issue. I have always said if I went into wildlife
biology, I would find myself an endangered species and I could
deal with that endangered species for the rest of my career in
government. I could not find that tree toad and I did not have
a degree in wildlife biology anyway.
We want to be very supportive of what you are doing, and
this dialogue is very, very important because basically the
taxpayers are starting to ask some questions too, and we have
got to be responsible to our taxpayers.
Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I understand the importance
when you talk about the number of people you would like to
have, but very frankly, I am not sure that just sheer numbers
count as much as expertise and skills.
Mr. Lamb. Yes, and I am in complete agreement with you.
Senator Burns. Your investment in people who have those
skills is very, very important. So, anything that we can do to
help you out in that respect, let us know. We look forward to
working with you.
Do you have a closing observation?
DATA CLEANUP
Ms. Blackwell. Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late. May I
respond to Senator Campbell's question on data cleanup in
writing?
Senator Campbell. Yes, if you would.
Ms. Blackwell. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Data Cleanup
Data cleanup entails both a review of electronic records using
anomaly reports produced from the existing databases and requiring
subsequent research and analysis by the data cleanup contractor. It
also requires the proper organization of paper records for direct entry
into the TAAMS.
The data cleanup effort is a long and arduous task with many
components. For land title records, there is over a century of data
that must be addressed. Even offices with relatively good automated
data have ``lapses'' in their databases where a span of years is not
complete. In most cases, there are paper records available to recreate
this data. The recreation of title data is not easily accomplished. The
data must be entered into the TAAMS in the exact order that it would
have occurred chronologically in order to ensure the proper building of
ownership and chain-of-title. It takes experienced data cleanup
personnel to perform this task. Performing data cleanup on the
remainder of the electronic records requires that anomaly reports be
produced and that discovered anomalies be researched and corrected.
This process is underway in all title plants where the electronic
records have been deemed sufficient to ``cleanup''. In some title
plants, the electronic records either did not exist or were in too poor
condition to migrate to the TAAMS. These records are being reentered in
their entirety.
For leasing records, very few Regions have sufficient electronic
files to migrate. Those that do are being cleaned up using anomaly
reports and performing the necessary research. However, many offices do
not have sufficiently accurate electronic records to migrate into the
TAAMS. Those offices will have all currently active leases entered
directly into the system ensuring a very high rate of accuracy from the
onset.
Senator Burns. There are a couple other members who could
not make it this morning, and I think they would probably have
questions. If they have questions, we will try to get them to
you, and if you could respond to them and the committee.
Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I noted with interest that
Mr. Slonaker retired in 1996 before he came to work for the
government after that illustrious career he had in the private
sector. I was wondering if he has had any second thoughts about
retirement.
You do not need to answer that.
Mr. Slonaker. I do not think I will.
Senator Campbell. Everybody has a pain threshold, and I am
sure you are about up to yours sometimes.
Senator Burns. I say again I want to thank you all for
government service because sometimes you do not think it is
worth it, but it really is. So, I want to thank you for
accepting these duties and doing it with a willing spirit and
all of that. I appreciate that very much.
Additional committee questions
If we have more questions, we will get them to you. We will
leave the record open. We look forward to working with you as
we move those appropriations. Thank you for coming today. It
has been very enlightening to me.
[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 Conrad Burns
Question. Please explain the U.S. Treasury's role in managing the
tribal trust funds in the past and its current role.
Answer. While the Interior Department is responsible for executing
most of the federal government's trust duties, the Treasury Department
has substantial trust responsibilities as well. In particular, Treasury
holds and invests IIM funds at the Interior Department's direction and
provides accounting and financial management services. The Office of
Special Trustee has requested Treasury to provide a more complete
response, which we will forward separately to the Committee.
Question. Recently, there has been mention in the press that the
Crow Tribe is concerned that they have had a delay in receiving federal
funds and that the delay may be due to the fact that an assistant
secretary for Indian Affairs has not yet been appointed. Please comment
on this.
Answer. While a news article referred to the absence of an
incumbent Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, there has not been a
delay in the BIA appropriations to the Crow Tribe. Currently, there are
internal issues within the Tribe itself which has played a role in its
financial affairs; however, neither the absence of an Assistant
Secretary nor the allocation of fiscal year 2001 BIA appropriations to
the Tribe is a factor in the situation.
Question. It is the subcommittee's understanding that both the
title and realty portions of TAAMS are scheduled to be implemented in
the BIA's Rocky Mountain Region in Billings, Montana during the first
week of June. Will the BIA be able to meet that deadline?
Answer. The title function has been operational in the Rocky
Mountain Region since December 2000. The BIA is currently testing the
leasing function at the Rocky Mountain Region Office.
Question. Please lay out the current time line for TAAMS full
deployment.
Answer. The development of land title and record functions was
completed in the summer of 2000. Improvements were made subsequent to
implementation and TAAMS became the system of record in four BIA
Regions for title in December 2000. The leasing function is being
tested and reviewed with a final system decision to be made in June
2001. The land title, record, and leasing functions represent the core
of TAAMS. The BIA is planning additional improvements to the TAAMS core
in the fall of 2001, as well as adding modules for appraisal and
probate.
The TAAMS deployment of the title and leasing modules of TAAMS is
predicated on successful user acceptance testing and a Departmental
deployment decision. Once the foregoing conditions are met, the
following projected deployment schedule may be slightly adjusted to
accommodate Site Readiness Reviews. The BIA is planning to deploy TAAMS
core modules in three phases of groups.
Group A:
Rocky Mountain--June-August, 2001
Southern Plains--July-October, 2001
Eastern Oklahoma--September-October, 2001
Alaska--October 2001-February 2002
Group B:
Southwest--January-March, 2002
Navajo--February-May, 2002
Western--April-July, 2002
Northwestern--June-September, 2002
Group C:
Great Plains--September-November, 2002
Midwestern--October, 2002-January, 2003
Eastern--December, 2002-February, 2003
Pacific--January, 2003-March, 2003
BIA intends to phase the deployment process to complete one group
before moving to the next. The driving force in implementation will be
three factors: Data cleanup/data entry completion; Data migration
(where applicable); and Training of BIA staff.
However, TAAMS will undergo continual change for many years to come
as new modules are added, additional features are included and as the
system evolves to reflect changes in statutes and regulations. TAAMS is
scheduled to be completely deployed and implemented throughout the BIA
and required Tribal sites by the end of fiscal year 2003.
Question. How much money has the government spent, to date, to
develop TAAMS?
Answer. Approximately $38 million has been appropriated through
fiscal year 2001 for development and implementation of TAAMS. We are
requesting $14 million in fiscal year 2002 for further development and
deployment of TAAMS modules.
Question. The Department of the Interior has had failed computer
systems in the past. One that comes to mind is ALMRS for BLM. Please
explain how TAAMS is different from ALMRS?
Answer. The two systems have been developed in completely different
environments. TAAMS has had a high degree of user input from the
beginning of the development effort, ensuring a much higher degree of
acceptability. It is our understanding that the BLM user did not have
as much participation in the design and development process as the BIA
user community. Additionally, the manner in which TAAMS was developed
(evolutionary prototyping) has allowed for the user to see the system
in action at key points along the process and to make any necessary
changes before the next prototype was developed.
Question. What assurance do you have that TAAMS will not be another
failed computer system?
Answer. All system developments have risk, however risk with
respect to TAAMS is minimized by the work performed up front on the
design and planning of the system. Initially it was determined that the
software for TAAMS was commercially available, and thus, minimal design
was needed up front. When it became clear that that minimally modified
commercial off-the-shelf software (COTS) product would not meet the
needs of the BIA to fully carry out its trust responsibility, the BIA
worked hard to customize the software design to ensure the greatest
possibility for success. The BIA believes that the success of TAAMS
software development is demonstrated by the deployment of the land
title module, as well as in recent testing of the lease module.
Question. The backlog of probate cases is serious and will only get
worse if the government does not get a handle on the situation. Have
you made any progress in this area?
Answer. Yes. Work began on the BIA probate backlog in fiscal year
2000 and has continued in fiscal year 2001 with the modification of one
contract and execution of a new contract to reduce the backlogs in case
preparation, processing, and posting and recording new title
information. The Office of Hearings and Appeals' Probate Rule is
expected to be published in the Federal Register by June 2001. The
Attorney Decision Makers (ADMs) should eliminate the summary
distribution backlog by the end of the fiscal year 2001. Additional
progress includes establishment of partnerships with approximately 60
Tribes for the performance of probate functions, completion of Phase I
Workforce Planning at the end of April 2001 and nation-wide training
for the web-based, probate data-tracking system. A summary of the
status of activities follows:
Probate Case Processing Backlog.--There were approximately 5,400
cases identified in the HLIP in which 90 days had elapsed since BIA had
received the notification of death, the time frame that the existing
OHA regulations allow for BIA's processing of the case. Under the BIA's
final regulations, effective March 23, 2001, the time to complete the
probate package was changed to 120 days after the verification of the
death to provide an adequate and more realistic timeline to prepare a
probate package. In fiscal year 2001, the BIA executed a contract to
conduct a pilot to plan and budget for this work. The pilot sites
selected are three BIA agencies and one contract Tribe within the
Western Region (Phoenix area). The pilot's goal is to complete
approximately 120 cases within four months and prepare a project
management plan to roll-out the contract on a national basis. The plan
is to begin work in the entire Western Region by June, 2001. This
effort is expected to be completed by fiscal year 2003.
Summary Distribution Backlog.--This backlog is the primary focus of
work in fiscal year 2001. Approximately 1,000 backlog cases which
involve only trust funds must be prepared, processed, and if the heirs
elect, decided through summary distribution. For the three-month period
ending January 31, 2001, 331 cases were submitted and 231 cases are
pending decisions. In summary distribution, the BIA probate staff must
first prepare the probate package and then refer the case to the ADMs.
If all the summary distribution cases are prepared and submitted, the
ADMs should eliminate the summary distribution backlog by the end of
the fiscal year 2001.
BIA Posting and Recordation Backlog.--Approximately 4,600 cases
have been decided, but are awaiting BIA posting and recording actions
to amend the land ownership records to reflect the new ownership set
forth in the decision. This includes posting, recordation of title
information in the Land Title and Records Office (LTRO), and amendment
of BIA agency records. In July 2000, BIA awarded a contract to initiate
the work at three LTROs: Great Plains Region (serving the Great Plains
Region, Aberdeen, South Dakota and Midwest Region, Minneapolis,
Minnesota); Southwest Region (serving the Southwest Region,
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Navajo Region, Gallup, New Mexico; and Western
Region, Phoenix, Arizona); and the Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.
As of February 2001, 765 cases involving 7,123 tracts have been
completed at these three LTROs. An additional 216 cases have been
completed by the contractor and are awaiting BIA approval. The contract
to eliminate this backlog continues throughout the remainder of fiscal
year 2001 and into fiscal year 2002.
Backlog Created by Youpee v. Babbitt.--In response to the Supreme
Court's decision, approximately 178,000 restricted and trust interests
involving 13,000 estates will be redistributed. In fiscal year 2000, a
pilot project was conducted at the Southern Plains Regional Office
title plant and at its Pawnee Agency to redistribute the escheated
interests in 65 estates. The data collected in the pilot is currently
under examination and a final report is targeted to be completed by May
2001. In fiscal year 2001, Phase II of the Youpee pilot is designed for
the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, Office of Trust
Funds Management (OTFM), to study the financial costs of determining
the amount due and payable, including interest, and the income to the
proper heirs or devisees. In fiscal year 2002, Phase III of the Youpee
pilot will examine nationwide land valuation to determine the costs to
buy-out the escheated interests.
Based on these pilot activities, the BIA will develop a national
rollout plan to be implemented in phases. The redistribution of
escheated interests will be contracted and will continue for several
years. Funding for the redistribution contract is included in the
fiscal year 2002 request for the Indian Land Consolidation Program
account in the Office of the Special Trustee.
Question. What would make trust reform efforts in the probate
backlog area easier?
Answer. Project management plans are addressing three areas of
backlog in the BIA: (1) posting and recording; (2) case preparation and
processing; and (3) Youpee redistribution. These backlog tasks are to
be contracted to an independent contractor to provide the BIA and
Tribal probate field staff an opportunity to complete the backlog in
summary distribution cases and to maintain their current caseloads.
As ownership of Indian land descends from one generation to
another, fractionation of ownership has burdened the Department's
ability to administer the transactions generated from resources located
on the lands, maintain current and up-to-date ownership and maintain
records and timely distribute income. The BIA's land consolidation
program has consolidated over 29,000 highly fractionated interests in
allotted Indian lands to date. Implementing the new provisions of the
Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000 will further ensure
the success of the Department's efforts in consolidating fractional
interests to reduce the administrative burden and improve the economic
value of the lands for the Indian owners.
Question. Pursuant to the recommendation in the National Academy of
Public Administration report, the Bureau of Indian Affairs moved the
Office of Information Resources Management to Reston from Albuquerque
so that it would be closer to BIA headquarters. Funds were appropriated
to support this move.
Please give us an update on the move as to whether the move was
successful and whether the move achieved its intended purpose.
Answer. The relocation, which addressed issues raised in the
National Academy of Public Administration Study report, has placed the
Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM) under closer
supervision of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs' senior
management. The data center operations and programming support
continues to be contracted with ISI, Inc., who originally assumed these
functions when most of the OIRM staff chose not to relocate to the
Reston facility. Only 13 OIRM staff transferred to the Reston facility.
Hiring replacement employees for those that chose not to relocate has
been a challenge in the competitive environment of the greater
Washington, DC area. However, contracting for services has been
somewhat easier. Since April 2000, the OIRM staff has increased from 13
FTE to 42 FTE and 20 contractors. The OIRM is in the process of
extending the ISI, Inc. contract for an additional year. The contract
extension will require thorough documentation of computer room
operations and legacy computer programs so that overall knowledge of
operations and support will increase. The goal is to increase the
overall quality of OIRM support. OIRM anticipates the need to continue
to contract for legacy system support and data center operations; the
need for contractor support will diminish as TAAMS becomes operational.
Question. The BIA has been under a lot of criticism regarding the
BIA's control of the financial records for American Indians and Alaska
Natives. Has the BIA always been responsible for these financial
records?
Answer. Throughout its history, BIA has made, received and
maintained financial records pertaining to American Indians and Tribes.
Today, the records management policy for BIA and OST is under the
auspices of the Office of Special Trustee.
Question. What is currently being done to find the financial
records that are deemed lost?
Answer. After the court's December 1999 ruling, a sub-project was
initiated to obtain missing documents and information from sources
outside the Federal Government. The effort is designed to: (1) describe
the nature and extent of IIM trust accounts since passage of the Reform
Act; (2) present a logical approach to assess the state of
documentation, information and data available and necessary for the
Department to meet its obligations under the Reform Act; and (3)
identify approaches and options for gathering missing documents,
information and data from third parties to supplement the Department's
current files. The project is managed by a team of senior trust
managers in the Office of the Special Trustee, and the status of this
project is reported in the quarterly reports to the Court. This project
is undergoing re-assessment through joint meetings between the special
projects staff, contractors and the project manager recently designated
for the Statistical Sampling component of the historical accounting.
Question. Are you concerned that there may be problems with the
Department's data clean up efforts? Please outline what the Department
is currently doing to accelerate and improve the data clean up efforts.
Answer. The data cleanup effort is a long and challenging task with
many components. The BIA and OST each are responsible for a data
cleanup subproject, as noted in the revised HLIP. The subprojects are
aimed at ensuring that data housed in existing or new systems are
accurate and complete, and at eliminating transaction processing
backlogs to ensure records are up-to-date--particularly land ownership
information and records. OST's data cleanup project entails
standardizing and verifying IIM system data for trust financial
records, and correcting and establishing an inventory of hard copy
records for each trust fund account. Progress has been made on several
fronts, including completion of a plan to resolve and cleanup Special
Deposit accounts in January 2001. Also, the plan for the Revised
Management Coding project, which outlines the steps necessary to review
and correct the code discrepancies, was completed in December 2000.
BIA's trust records cleanup projects involve ensuring accurate land
title and resources management information. This project relates
directly to the TAAMS projects and this effort will be coordinated with
the eventual deployment of TAAMS at each implementation site. For land
title records, there is over a century of data that must be addressed.
Even offices with relatively good automated data have ``lapses'' in
their databases where a span of years is not complete. In most cases,
there are paper records available to develop automated data. Assembling
title data is not easily accomplished. The data must be entered into
TAAMS in the exact order that it would have occurred chronologically in
order to ensure the proper building of ownership and chain-of-title. It
takes experienced data cleanup personnel to perform this task.
Performing data cleanup on the remainder of the electronic records
requires that anomaly reports be produced and that discovered anomalies
be researched and corrected. This process is underway in all title
plants where the electronic records have been deemed sufficient to
``cleanup.'' The BIA data cleanup effort is concentrating its data
cleanup efforts to correspond with the TAAMS deployment schedule for
Group A
In some title plants, electronic data either does not exist or is
in too poor condition to migrate to TAAMS. The records in these
instances are being reentered in their entirety. For leasing records,
very few Regions have sufficient electronic files to migrate to TAAMS.
Those that do are being cleaned up using anomaly reports and performing
the necessary research. Those that do not will have all currently
active leases entered directly into the system to ensure a high rate of
accuracy from the onset.
Regarding the BIA data cleanup project, the Principal Deputy to the
Special Trustee is to set up a work group to validate the existing
statement of work, assess the direction of the project, and to provide
recommendations on future management, direction, priorities, schedules
and funding for the project.
Question. According to the 1994 Reform Act, Tribes are authorized
to withdraw their tribal funds from the Office of Special Trustee's
management. How many tribes have withdrawn their tribal funds? Why do
you think only a few tribes selected to withdraw their accounts?
Answer. Under Title II of the American Indian Trust Fund Management
Reform Act of 1994, a Tribe may voluntarily withdraw its funds from the
trust, subject to plan approval by the Secretary. As of December 31,
2000, only two Tribes had withdrawn their funds and two Tribes had made
partial withdrawals. During calendar year 2000, seven new inquiries
were received regarding the withdrawal process. While several Tribes
have inquired about the process for withdrawal, and OTFM provides
assistance in understanding the process and forms to complete, the
decision to proceed with withdrawal rests solely with the Tribe.
One possible reason withdrawal has not occurred often is the
likelihood that private sector firms would charge significant
management fees and costs. Another reason is that unique federal powers
not available to private firms are often required to provide continuous
protection of tribal interests and resources. The Government has an
enduring trust responsibility to American Indians which often goes
beyond mere financial management. The 1994 Reform Act contemplates that
the withdrawal of trust funds affects the trust responsibility only
with respect to the funds withdrawn. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 4022 (c). Tribal
funds are often utilized in ways that affect the stewardship of trust
land and natural resources, which continue to be managed in trust by
the Department of the Interior. The questions presented entail complex
asset coordination and policy issues, requiring full consideration of
the government's overall trust obligation in the context of self-
determination and tribal sovereignty.
Question. In late December of last year Secretary Babbitt directed
you to conduct a statistical sampling of Individual Indian Money
Accounts, and Secretary Norton concurred with that directive. How far
along is the Department in this process and what will the statistical
sampling involve?
Answer. The Office of the Special Trustee selected a senior
executive level Project Manager to oversee and guide the Sampling
Project, who reported to duty in OST on April 9, 2001. The first major
task for the Project Manager is to develop the detailed plan requested
by the Committee. Preparation of the plan will be preceded by a period
of consultation by the Project Manager with a wide variety of
interested parties and by consultation with one or more technical
experts on statistical sampling techniques.
The detailed plan, to be provided to the Committees, will include a
phased approach, starting with an assessment of the sampling issues and
then developing one or more potential methodologies that can be tested.
This is a complicated effort that will take a considerable period of
time.
About $10 million is available this fiscal year to plan the
sampling project. The fiscal year 2002 budget request for OST includes
$7.5 million to continue efforts to develop and implement a statistical
sampling plan. We believe that the conceptual approach of examining
issues and methodologies, evaluating results, and only then proceeding
with full scale sampling, should that be warranted, assures the
Congress that the funds for this project will be used prudently.
Question. What steps are you taking in the near future to get this
jump started?
Answer. The Senior Project manager has been hired and the
Department is currently working on the development of a plan to present
to Congress on the historical accounting of IIM accounts. This plan
will present how we will conduct the accounting, the methods we intend
to use, what it will cost, and how long it will take. The plan will
include alternatives and options considered on scope, methodology,
costs, and timing. In developing the plan and overseeing the historical
accounting, we will hire contractors to provide expertise in accounting
and statistics not available within the Department. It is estimated
that the plan will not be submitted to Congress for review and approval
until early in fiscal year 2002.
Question. What are the projected costs for the statistical sampling
approach?
Answer. The cost to complete the Project is unknown. A very rough
cost estimate, based primarily on experience with some plaintiffs'
records in the Cobell case, was derived using some initial, preliminary
assumptions as a starting point:
--Assume a sampling of 350 accounts. This number might be understated
given the difference in records systems from year to year and
agency to agency, as well as the availability of records and
east of accessing them.
--Assume a cost ranging from $50,000 per account (those more recently
opened) to $200,000 per account (the approximate cost of the
Cobell account analyses).
--Under these assumptions, the project costs could range from
$17,500,000 to $70,000,000 (excluding DOI contract development
and management expenses).
These are rough approximations, based on limited (although
intensive) experience with records production. The Special Trustee or
Department will have a better idea as we move through development of
the plan.
Question. As Special Trustee, how have you engaged in oversight of
the TAAMS process? Have you had a chance to review the company that is
building the TAAMS software? Please tell us a little bit about this
company, who they are, and are you satisfied with the company's
stability?
Answer. The Special Trustee and staff engage in continuing
oversight of the TAAMS project. The Special Trustee has met with
officials of the development contractor, Artesia, which is a company
that provides well respected products and services in the private
market. The firm competed and was selected as successful bidder on the
contract in accordance with the Federal procurement process. The
Special Trustee does not have any information regarding their financial
or business stability.
Question. Not only BIA and the Office of Special Trustee are
charged with the trust reform activities. Minerals Management Service,
Bureau of Land Management and the Office of Hearings and Appeals are
also involved. This requires everyone to work as a team.
Please describe how you ensure that all of the agencies efficiently
coordinate and communicate with each other to ensure that the
Department meets the deadlines that it has set in the quarterly reports
that it files with the Court.
Answer. Within the Department, the Trust Management Improvement
Project Steering Committee meets twice a month to address status and
issues associated with trust reform and improvement projects and to
establish strategic direction. The Steering Committee is chaired by the
Special Trustee and consists of the Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget; the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget and
Finance; the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs; the Deputy
Commissioner for Indian Affairs; the Solicitor; the Associate Solicitor
for Indian Affairs; the Principal Deputy Special Trustee; and the Chief
Information Officer. In addition, the Special Trustee has recently
designated several members of the Special Trustee's staff to be project
liaisons and to work with the project managers to monitor progress and
issues on each project. These liaisons will meet with project managers
during the cycle of preparation of the Quarterly Reports to the
District Court.
Question. You particularly have to coordinate with BIA. Have you
come up with any ways to make coordination between the two agencies
smoother and more efficient?
Answer. The Special Trustee meets frequently with the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs and the Deputy Commissioner for Indian
Affairs to discuss a broad range of issues and address activities
related to trust reform. During the past two years OST/OTFM and BIA
have successfully collaborated on several projects:
--OTFM participated in weekly teleconferences between the Deputy
Commissioner of Indian Affairs and her staff and the Director,
OTFM, and her staff on a variety of issues.
--OST/OTFM has participated with BIA on the TAAMS project and has
sent several personnel to Dallas on numerous occasions.
--OTFM has provided a staff member to participate in the field Users
Group and the Probate Teams.
--OST/OTFM has worked with BIA in the development of a joint
Interagency Procedures Handbook. The handbook is now being
reviewed in a draft status.
--OTFM has assumed the printing previously done by BIA in Albuquerque
(Checks, Explanation of Payments (EOP's) and IIM quarterly
statements, and 1099 INTs).
--OTFM has assumed the reporting of ISSDA checks to Treasury that was
previously done by BIA in Albuquerque.
--OTFM's senior management participated in BIA's Line Officers'
meeting at the request of BIA.
--OTFM staff participated in the drafting of the new CFR regulations
and attended the consultation meetings.
Despite problems, both BIA and OST are committed to working
cooperatively. We are in the late stages of developing a handbook that
will specify the responsibilities of each office over the entire range
of transactions and functions that affect both BIA and OST (OTFM). This
handbook also will specify documentation requirements for each function
or transaction so that BIA and OTFM offices throughout the country will
have standard guidelines and expectations about how to request and
distribute trust funds for Indian beneficiaries.
Question. You testified that you did not agree with some parts of
the memo sent to you by Dom Nessi on February 23, 2001. Please outline
all of the portions of the memo you agree with, and please outline all
of the portions of the memo you do not agree with.
Answer. The Special Trustee disagrees that the relationship between
BIA and OTFM has deteriorated, as referenced in the previous question.
The HLIP is not built on wishful thinking. Taken as a whole, it is a
reasonable blueprint. High level plans, in the Special Trustee's
experience, have time-lines, or milestones.
The HLIP projects are not stand-alone projects, and there is
coordination though the Special Trustee. There is, however, no line
authority for the Special Trustee over a number of the projects. There
needs to be along with accountability. The Department is currently
reviewing options to address these issues raised by the Special
Trustee.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
THE HIGH LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Question. Which of the 6 remaining milestones for Subproject #2,
BIA Data Cleanup, can be characterized as accomplishing the terminus of
data cleanup and data loading into TAAMS? In other words, at the
completion of which task will TAAMS include current information as well
as the historical data which is presently being deferred? If
appropriate, please indicate whether none of the current milestones are
associated with this particular event.
Answer. In milestone I, ``Post-deployment data cleanup,'' all BIA
data cleanup activities associated specifically with the TAAMS
initiative are scheduled to be completed by December 31, 2003. However,
data cleanup and data management will remain on-going activities as
part of the normal operating procedures.
Question. Has the Department made any effort to develop a total
cost for completing data cleanup and loading? Please provide that
estimate or describe the process that is in place to develop this cost
and when this process is project to be completed. If appropriate,
please indicate that there is no process in place to determine the
cost.
Answer. We have no estimate for the total cost of data cleanup at
this time. There will be far more direct data entries, rather than data
transfers from the legacy systems, than originally planned. The data
cleanup process is underway in all title plants where the electronic
records have been deemed sufficient to ``cleanup.'' The extent of
cleanup activities in each BIA Region is not easily estimated until the
contractor has actually been on-site and had an opportunity to review
the precise condition of the electronic data and supporting paper
records. Answer. The data cleanup effort is a long and challenging task
with many components. The BIA and OST each are responsible for a data
cleanup subproject, as noted in the revised HLIP. The subprojects are
aimed at ensuring that data housed in existing or new systems are
accurate and complete, and at eliminating transaction processing
backlogs to ensure records are up-to-date--particularly land ownership
information and records. OST's data cleanup project entails
standardizing and verifying IIM system data for trust financial
records, and correcting and establishing an inventory of hard copy
records for each trust fund account. Progress has been made on several
fronts, including completion of a plan to resolve and cleanup Special
Deposit accounts in January 2001. Also, the plan for the Revised
Management Coding project, which outlines the steps necessary to review
and correct the code discrepancies, was completed in December 2000.
BIA's trust records cleanup projects involve ensuring accurate land
title and resources management information. This project relates
directly to the TAAMS projects and this effort will be coordinated with
the eventual deployment of TAAMS at each implementation site. For land
title records, there is over a century of data that must be addressed.
Even offices with relatively good automated data have ``lapses'' in
their databases where a span of years is not complete. In most cases,
there are paper records available to develop automated data. Assembling
title data is not easily accomplished. The data must be entered into
TAAMS in the exact order that it would have occurred chronologically in
order to ensure the proper building of ownership and chain-of-title. It
takes experienced data cleanup personnel to perform this task.
Performing data cleanup on the remainder of the electronic records
requires that anomaly reports be produced and that discovered anomalies
be researched and corrected. This process is underway in all title
plants where the electronic records have been deemed sufficient to
``cleanup.'' The BIA data cleanup effort is concentrating its data
cleanup efforts to correspond with the TAAMS deployment schedule for
Group A.
In some title plants, electronic data either does not exist or is
in too poor condition to migrate to TAAMS. The records in these
instances are being reentered in their entirety. For leasing records,
very few Regions have sufficient electronic files to migrate to TAAMS.
Those that do are being cleaned up using anomaly reports and performing
the necessary research. Those that do not will have all currently
active leases entered directly into the system to ensure a high rate of
accuracy from the onset.
Regarding the BIA data cleanup project, the Principal Deputy to the
Special Trustee is to set up a work group to validate the existing
statement of work, assess the direction of the project, and to provide
recommendations on future management, direction, priorities, schedules
and funding for the project.
Question. Will TAAMS include functionality in addition to the Title
Portion and Realty Functions? If it will, please provide a list of the
additional functionalities. When will the Department reference the
effort to include additional functionality in the Quarterly Reports?
Will this include milestones for these development efforts?
Answer. The land title, record, and leasing functions representing
the core of TAAMS is planned to be completed in June 2001. However,
TAAMS will undergo continual design changes as new modules are added,
additional features are included and as the system evolves to reflect
changes in statutes and regulations. TAAMS is scheduled to be
completely deployed and implemented throughout the BIA and required
Tribal sites by the end of fiscal year 2003. After implementation of
the title and leasing modules, other major modules to be added include
appraisals and for probate functions. At present, the design effort is
completed for appraisals and is underway for probates. Once design of
the leasing is complete, the contractor will develop a programming
schedule for the appraisal module. These development milestones will be
included as appropriate in the quarterly report to the Court.
Question. Which of the HLIP subprojects and tasks can be
characterized as providing for the establishment of internal controls
and a functionality for accounts receivable? Are there specific
milestones or completion dates to establish internal controls and
accounts receivable?
Answer. In the broader sense, many HLIP subprojects address
internal control problems in Interior's management of Indian trust
accounts: systems; data clean-up; and the supporting efforts in records
management, training, policy and procedures and internal controls.
However, as the name implies, the Internal Controls subproject is
specifically designed to provide a continuing oversight presence to
ensure that: (1) adequate internal controls are put in place, and (2)
internal control problems previously identified and corrected do not
re-occur. The Internal Controls subproject has specific milestones and
tasks necessary to implement a continuing trust risk management
program.
The TAAMS subproject is charged with designing and implementing a
modern, standardized accounts receivable module and process for future
Indian trust operations. However, the TAAMS subproject plan currently
does not have identified and published milestones relating to
development and implementation of an accounts receivable system. A
schedule and milestones for development of this function will be
determined following the management decision in the summer of 2001.
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND MEASURING PROGRESS
Question. In answer to my question you indicated that the real
issue is not one of funding, but of management. Yet, Mr. Lamb and
others seem to think that resources and staff is the key to resolving
these issues. Would you care to comment?
Answer. Yes. There is no conflict in these two views. The
development, implementation and enforcement of consistent business
practices are mandatory to the success of trust reform. The Special
Trustee is concerned that we ensure that the management teams on these
projects have the capacity and management resources to bring these
projects to a successful conclusion. The Special Trustee has stated
that it is not solely a question of funding. He believes that it is a
question, as well, of providing the appropriate additional management
expertise and leadership. The Department is addressing this management
concern. As stated by Mr. Lamb in the hearing, the 1999 National
Academy of Public Administration's study, ``A Study of Management and
Administration: the Bureau of Indian Affairs'' documented the staffing
deficiencies in the BIA as compared to other agencies with similar
responsibilities. With funding provided by the Congress in 2001, the
BIA is making progress toward addressing the concerns raised in NAPA's
study. The Special Trustee strongly endorses the additional funding and
staffing increases proposed for BIA trust activity in the President's
2002 Budget.
Question. You cited the ``inter-dependency'' of the trust reform
elements as a challenge that must be met in order for trust reform to
be undertaken. Given this interdependency, is there a need to have, in
essence, a ``Trust Reform Tsar'' over all elements within the
Department of Interior to coordinate and manage these elements? Is a
legislative approach to this issue warranted?
Answer. As it stands, the Special Trustee believes the
responsibility is not clear and is too diffuse. There are five line
operations and several Departmental staff and offices involved in trust
reform, as well as several offices responsible for HLIP projects.
Accordingly, the Department is reviewing options to strengthen the
Special Trustee's oversight and accountability for HLIP subprojects.
A legislative approach is not warranted. The Department feels that
the authority provided in the Reform Act is sufficient to address the
management responsibilities of trust reform.
Question. On March 30, 1992, the Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs responded to a draft GAO report with the statement that ``in
the last two years reorganization, additional staffing, training,
integration of investment systems, and strengthened internal accounting
procedures have led to improved accounting practices.'' (June 1992,
GAO/AFMD-92-38) In addition, while the Department agreed that
substantial improvements were warranted, it made a commitment to make
such improvements including ``better internal control processes and
improved accounting and records systems.'' Based on the Assistant
Secretary's representation to the GAO in 1992, the Department has been
engaged in trust reform efforts for at least eleven years.
In your testimony you indicated the U.S. was ``moving in the right
way'' on trust reform. How much longer should Congress allow the
Department to attempt to reform itself before Congress begins to
actively consider and perhaps implement alternatives for the management
of trust resources?
Answer. While it may seem like progress has been slow, as the
Department has stated in the past, the practices of the past 150 years
cannot be easily corrected. Through the trust reform effort and the
ongoing implementation of the HLIP, it is clear that much work has been
done, and several notable successes achieved. For example, the Trust
Funds Accounting System has been implemented nationwide and has
replaced dated legacy systems for administering trust accounts.
Likewise, certain data cleanup efforts--OST's IIM file jackets and
BIA's appraisal backlog reduction--have been well executed. In the
Policies and Procedures area, publication of the Secretary's Trust
Principles and the BIA's trust regulations are notable. Progress has
been made in improving records management and an internal control and
risk management program is being implemented. A nationwide program to
provide non-systems training to the several thousand Interior and
relevant Tribal employees engaged in trust management has been
initiated. The BIA's efforts, assisted by the Indian Land Consolidation
Act Amendments in 2000, in dealing with fractionated interests, through
purchase of small property interests is also progressing well.
Given the wide variety of projects and tasks, setting a final date
for completion of trust reform is not feasible. While several projects
have completion dates of 2004, other projects' final completion dates
are currently up for review. Some aspects, such as developing the Trust
Fund Accounting System, have moved from ``project'' status to
``implementation'' or ``operational'' status. Over the next year or two
we will see many more efforts make a similar transition. Some projects,
such as the cleanup of data and probate backlog reduction activities,
will likely continue for several years. Our commitment is to move
promptly, but carefully, from project to operational status. Remember
also, that as new technology becomes available, these options must also
be explored to improve operations.
Question. After the final trust-related regulations were published,
a number of drafting, technical, and substantive errors were
identified, especially with respect to the Probate Regulations. Senate
staff were assured that these matters would be addressed and the
testimony provided to the Committee included similar assurances. What
process and time-frame will the Department use to fulfill this
commitment?
Answer. Preliminary discussions have been held with the Senate
staff and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) with regard
to technical amendments to the probate regulations. The process and
time-frame have not yet been decided, but meetings are being scheduled
to agree on a process.
account balances and the ``sampling v. modeling'' debate
Question. You indicated that settlement talks with the Cobell
plaintiffs broke down in November while a consent decree was being
drafted. What, in your mind, were the reasons underlying this
breakdown?''
Answer. To produce a settlement, all parties on both sides of an
issue have to reach closure. Unfortunately, this was not able to be
achieved last year. Beyond that, I cannot speculate because of the
ongoing litigation in which we are involved.
Question. Mr. Lamb indicated that it cost the U.S. $20 million to
generate an ``index'' of documents to be produced for the plaintiffs
pursuant to court order. These documents include only the 5 named
plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest. Do you believe that
given what will probably be an astronomical amount of federal money for
the remaining 300,000 to 500,000 plaintiffs that a fair and accurate
settlement is what is called for at this point in time?
Answer. Mr. Lamb indicated that $20 million was used to plan the
document production effort, implement the search for records; and
collect, image, index, and produce these documents. The 159,384
documents, comprising 385,421 pages, were collected for 5 named
plaintiffs and 31 agreed upon predecessors in interest and involved a
total of 109 tracts. Even though all the accounts records may not be
retrievable, the costs will be significant for all accounts to be
reconstructed. Consequently, when the Special Trustee was first
confirmed, he initiated efforts to settle this case. The Department
believes that this case should be settled based upon the best
accounting information we can obtain within reasonable limits of time
and costs, subject to Congressional approval.
Question. What assurance can the Department provide to Congress
that the statistical sampling method will even be admitted as evidence
in Cobell v. Norton based on the Supreme Court's test in Kumho Tire Co.
(U.S. Sup. Ct. 1999)? Does the Department agree that the Federal
court's in Cobell v. Norton have expressed some level of skepticism
about the proposal to use statistical sampling in this case? For
example, when the Court of Appeals stated:
It remains to be seen whether in preparing to do an accounting the
Department takes steps so defective that they would necessarily delay
rather than accelerate the ultimate provision of an adequate
accounting, and the detection of such steps would fit within the
court's jurisdiction to monitor the Department's remedying of the
delay.
Answer. The Department does not agree that either the Court of
Appeals or the District Court expressed skepticism about the proposal
to utilize statistical sampling as part of the historical accounting.
The Supreme Court's decision in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael relates to
the reliability of expert testimony and the factors a court can
consider, in appropriate district court proceedings, when deciding to
admit expert testimony. The Department does not believe that Kumho Tire
would apply to the historical accounting effort because that is an
administrative decision subject to limited judicial review under the
Administrative Procedures Act.
Question. Is the Department willing to allow independent review of
its statistical sampling method, for example by the General Accounting
Office or the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, before
spending resources on this method? Is the government willing to
consider economic modeling in place of or in addition to statistical
sampling?
Answer. In developing the statistical sampling method, the
Department intends to consult with and obtain advice from a broad range
of experts, stakeholders, and affected parties. We expect to have a
full review of the statistical sampling plan within the Department of
Justice. Further, because the plan must be submitted to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations before commencing a full sampling
project, we anticipate consulting with the General Accounting Office as
the plan is developed and seeking their review of the plan.
At this point, no approaches or methods have been ruled out for
determining how to do the accounting. We will review and consider
economic modeling approaches and their applicability to the IIM
accounting.
Question. What assurance can the Department provide Congress that
the statistical sampling method can be used as a basis for negotiating
with the plaintiffs in Cobell v. Norton?
Answer. The Department is committed to exploring a statistical
component of the historical accounting. We expect that the information
and results generated by the sampling project can be used to help
establish historic IIM balances and will be immensely useful in
resolving the Cobell litigation. However, the Department cannot give
assurances about what plaintiffs may accept as a basis for settlement
negotiations.
Question. In your testimony before the Subcommittee, you indicated
that one problem with utilizing the ``economic modeling'' method for
arriving at a settlement figure is the lack of complete records of
transactions. Why is this not also a problem for utilizing a sampling
method?
Answer. The problem for any method, whether an economic model or a
statistical sampling approach, will be the availability of the
transaction records from which to construct a model or select a sample.
Although the Department has not received a copy of or detailed
information relating to Plaintiff's version of economic modeling, our
initial understanding of economic modeling is that it addresses
opportunities and uses of allotted lands and resources. Modeling may go
beyond the obligation to perform an accounting for the IIM
beneficiaries. As we look toward a possible settlement, we see
opportunities to examine modeling and sampling approaches.
Question. You indicated that a reasonable settlement figure could
combine elements of both the ``sampling'' approach and the ``modeling''
approach. Can you explain this in greater detail?
Answer. Again, although the Department has not received Plaintiff's
version of economic modeling, our understanding of economic modeling is
that it considers whether Indian allottees and their heirs received
comparable value when their lands were leased for income generating
activities like grazing or for consumptive uses like oil and gas
production. This raises the question ``what could the income have
been'' instead of ``how did we account for and disburse the income.''
The former question is beyond the scope of the Cobell litigation, and
the issue of an accurate reconciliation of the IIM accounts.
For purposes of the litigation and the obligations on the
Department, we believe the statistical sampling is an appropriate
component of determining the historical IIM account balances. Sampling
does not preclude the accounting from considering what might be learned
from economic modeling and the underlying assumptions in the modeling.
Nor does this view prevent the Federal government from considering
modeling during settlement discussions.
Question. In your testimony you indicated that more than 50 percent
of the HLIP milestones were met. Can the percentage or number of
milestones met for each subproject--or for the HLIP as a whole--be used
as a measure of the extent that the subproject is complete? For
example, subproject #2, BIA Data Cleanup, the Department's Quarterly
Reports indicated that the BIA has completed 5 or 45 percent of the 11
milestones for this subproject. By any standard, other than the number
of milestones completed, is this subproject 45 percent complete? Can
the Department estimate what percentage this subproject is complete?
Answer. As a general statement, it is difficult to judge HLIP
project completion status entirely through reviewing high level
``milestone'' completion. Not all milestones are equal in effort, work
and time required. Due to the wide variety of the work required in the
various subprojects, the Department is not able to issue a blanket
statement on percentage completion. In some cases, the documented
milestones are sufficient to indicate status and completion, setting
out the tasks and work chronologically. And, while a few projects
envision a continuing effort, work that will extend beyond the ``trust
reform'' phase as it's commonly known, there are cases where the
project plans documented in HLIP 2000 either do not provide sufficient
milestones, or do not completely reflect the actual work needed or in
process. To account for this difficulty in communicating by percentage
the level of completion of the trust reform effort, the Department has
used the Court-mandated Quarterly Reports to provide narrative updates
on the progress of the trust reform projects.
tribal withdrawal and management of funds under the 1994 act
Question. I remain concerned that, even in the absence of
identifying discrete balances in Indian accounts, the rates of return
now being earned on Indian money is unacceptably low.
Answer. The statute that prescribes the investment which OTFM can
invest Indian funds is 25 U.S.C. 162(a), (c) and (d). Only insured bank
deposits or debt instruments of the U. S. Treasury, and certain U. S.
Government Agencies, are suitable for investment of Indian Funds. There
is absolutely no provision for investment in corporate bonds or
equities (common stocks) which historically have produced much higher
rates of return than fixed income U. S. Government debt instruments,
which are considered risk-free investments. Therefore, the rates of
return now being earned on Indian money are the highest that current
law will allow, but, certainly, in the absolute sense, lower than can
be obtained from investing in risky securities (corporate bonds and
common stock). The statute controls, and OTFM is precluded from
producing rates of return other than what is afforded from the most
conservative of investments available in the current investment market
place.
Question. Can you identify those tribes that have chosen to
withdraw and manage their own funds?
Answer. Two Tribes, Mescalero and Delaware, have made partial
withdrawals, and two Tribes, Navajo and Citizen Band Potawatomi, have
made total withdrawals under the 1994 Act.
Question. Can you identify which, if any tribes, have returned any
of those funds?
Answer. None of the four tribes have returned any of the withdrawn
funds.
Question. Can you identify what assistance the Department provides
in assisting and facilitating tribal withdrawals under the 1994 Act?
Answer. OST works with the tribes directly, or with chosen fund
managers or advisors, in completing the applications for withdrawal.
OST works with any tribe seeking to withdraw funds. OST also clarifies
for Tribes and fund managers regulatory requirements and the approval
review process, and reviews submitted information to advise the
submitting Tribe of basic acceptability of the proposals. When
necessary, the advice of the DOI Solicitor's office is requested.
Question. Can you identify any necessary legislative or policy
changes that will ensure that tribal withdrawal provisions of the 1994
Act are working as Congress intended?
Answer. It is the Department's view that the provisions of the law
with regard to withdrawal is working in accordance with the law.
Therefore, the Department does not believe that any legislative or
policy changes are necessary.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, that concludes the
hearing. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 10 a.m.,
Tuesday, April 24, when we will meet in room SD-138 to hear
from the Secretary, Department of the Interior, Gale A. Norton.
[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., Wednesday, March 28, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
April 24.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Campbell, Byrd, Leahy, Reid, and
Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
ANN R. KLEE, COUNSELOR TO THE SECRETARY
JOHN D. TREZISE, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET
Opening statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Senator Burns. The hearing will come to order. It is a
great pleasure to welcome Secretary Norton to the committee to
testify in support of the Department of the Interior's fiscal
year 2002 budget request. I think we all look forward to
getting to know you, and to working with you as you address
some of the many complex challenges that your Department faces.
The Department's budget request this year looks somewhat
different than the last several administration requests, and
appropriately so.
There are, without question, pressing fiscal needs on
Federal lands, in Indian country, and throughout the
Department's many bureaus. But it is clear that the 12 percent
annual increases requested in recent budgets would not be
sustainable over the long term.
President Bush's budget proposes more modest growth for
most Interior programs, with some substantial increases for
certain priorities identified by the President during his
campaign.
I think you will find, Madame Secretary, that there is
broad agreement on this committee that the priorities set by
the President are important ones.
Increasing the State Assistance program to the level
authorized in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act will be
highly popular.
Further escalating our attack on the National Park Service
maintenance backlog is something that we absolutely have to do.
Many members of this subcommittee, Senators Domenici,
Dorgan, Campbell, and I in particular, are very pleased that
the President's budget sustains this committee's commitment to
the construction and repair of Indian schools. We will do our
best to provide for these and other priorities identified by
the President.
But I think you will also find, Madame Secretary, that
members of this committee are deeply concerned about some of
the reductions that have been proposed in this budget, in large
part to make room for the President's priorities. Funding for
Payments In Lieu of Taxes, PILT, is one of those examples that
is troublesome to most of us. I am sure you will hear about it
from several of my colleagues today.
We hope you will work with us throughout the year and find
appropriate balance among all of these competing interests. In
the end, it must be our common goal to produce a bill that is
fiscally responsible, but also provides the resources necessary
to protect our parks, our public lands, and to carry out our
trust responsibilities to Native Americans.
Thank you for joining us today, Madame Secretary. I, for
one, am grateful to see a fresh face before us. This is my
first time chairing this committee and, of course, your first
time in the appropriations process.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Now, I am joined today by the ranking member, the
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
It is a great pleasure to welcome Secretary Norton to this
committee to testify in support of the Department of the Interior's
fiscal year 2002 budget request. I think we all look forward to getting
to know you, and to working with you to address the many complex
challenges that your department faces.
The Department's budget request this year looks somewhat different
than the last several administration requests, and appropriately so.
There are without question pressing fiscal needs on Federal lands, in
Indian country, and throughout the Department's many bureaus. But it is
clear that the 12 percent annual increases requested in recent budgets
would not be sustainable over the long term.
President Bush's budget proposes more modest growth for most
Interior programs, with some substantial increases for certain
priorities identified by the President during his campaign.
I think you will find, Madame Secretary, that there is broad
agreement on this committee that the priorities set by the President
are important ones.
Increasing the State Assistance program to the level authorized in
the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act will be highly popular.
Further escalating our attack on the National Park Service maintenance
backlog is something that we absolutely should find a way to do.
And many members of this subcommittee Senators Domenici, Dorgan,
Campbell and I particularly are very pleased that the President's
budget sustains this committee's commitment to the construction and
repair of Indian schools.
We will do our best to provide for these and other priorities
identified by the President.
But I think you will also find, Madame Secretary, that members of
this committee are deeply concerned about some of the reductions that
have been proposed in this budget, in large part to make room for the
President's priorities. Funding for Payments In Lieu of Taxes is one
troublesome example that comes to mind. I'm sure you will hear about
several others today from my colleagues.
We hope you will work with us throughout the year to find an
appropriate balance among all of these competing interests. In the end
it must be our common goal to produce a bill that is fiscally
responsible, but that also provides the resources necessary to protect
our parks and public lands, and to carry out our trust responsibilities
for Native Americans.
Thank you for joining us today Madame Secretary. I, for one, am
grateful to have a fresh face and a fresh perspective at the witness
table in my first year as chairman of this subcommittee.
Opening statement of Senator Robert C. Byrd
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say with regard to the fresh face, Mr. Chairman,
your predecessor was one of the finest Chairman that I have
ever served with on a subcommittee, but I have no doubt that
you will be as well.
Senator Burns. You will have to coach me.
Senator Byrd. No, I will not. You will not need any
coaching from me.
But I will enjoy working with you. It is a pleasure to have
this opportunity to join with you in welcoming the Secretary.
Madame Secretary, I know that you have worked hard to
prepare for this event. I know that we have problems which we
will need to work together on. I look forward to working with
you, and I join the chairman in welcoming you to the
subcommittee this morning.
Thank you.
Senator Burns. Senator Campbell.
Opening Statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome my friend and colleague from Colorado, Gale
Norton. Gale has provided leadership on public lands issues for
a good number of years in our State, and I was delighted that
she was appointed as the Secretary of the Interior.
This budget honors, as you have mentioned, Mr. Chairman,
commitments to Native Americans. It empowers States and local
communities and our citizens by working with them, and not
directing from the Washington hierarchy as we have seen in the
past.
Some are probably going to say that this budget has been
cut too drastically. It has got about 3.4 percent less money in
it than we had last year, as I understand it. But then last
year's budget had some extraordinary growth in funding, too.
I guess I, like many, have never quite understood how a
moderate rate of growth is called a cut, but that is Washington
legalese as you probably know by now, Madame Secretary. We have
some land acquisition requests. I would like your continued
commitment and funding on that.
I have some questions dealing with water on the Animas
LaPlata Project that you are aware of, and the Black Canyon of
the Gunnison which was just upgraded to national park status
last year. That I will ask, too, when the time is appropriate.
But I did want to thank you particularly for trying to hold
harmless the Indian programs. In fact, there is a moderate
increase in the 2001 enacted levels. And the President's
priorities in law enforcement, education, construction, land
and water settlement, and trust reforms are extremely
important.
And while I mention that, I was interested in reading a
very recent article, that you are named by a plaintiff as a new
defendant in the trust fund debacle. You just got here, were
not a party to that at all, but all I can say is: Welcome to
Washington, and I am sure you will work your way through that.
Thank you for appearing here.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Campbell.
Secretary Norton, nice to have you with us today and hear
your testimony. If you would want to shorten it up, your full
testimony will be made part of the record, and we will get into
the question and answers. But welcome today, and we look
forward to your statement.
Senator Reid. How about me, do you mind if I----
Senator Burns. Oh, I am sorry. I did not even see you come
in.
I am deeply struck----
Senator Reid. I will bet.
Senator Burns [continuing]. By the attendance of the
Minority Whip, Senator Reid of Nevada.
Opening statement of Senator Harry Reid
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I would
ask my full statement be made part of the record.
But I disagree with my friend from Colorado, who I have
worked so closely with over the years, that I do believe there
are cuts in this that really are harmful and far below what was
in the budget last year. In fact, there are a number of Nevada
programs that are cut completely out of the budget, programs
that I think are in keeping with what we are trying to
accomplish in this country.
Nevada is almost 90 percent owned by the Federal
Government, and we have programs that are extremely important
to the State of Nevada. We have one program that has been
funded now for 8 years, dealing with biodiversity of the whole
Great Basin. We believe as a result of that work that major
problems have been circumvented by not having new listings of
endangered or threatened species. I think that is so important.
I think we proved in the State of Nevada that you can have
a major listing and still have growth with the desert tortoise.
And I think the work that we did there is exemplary in
determining what habitats should be. In short, we will get into
more specificity at a later time.
I would ask, Secretary Norton, that you take a very close
look at the biodiversity program that has worked so well. I
would also--we have a cutthroat trout program which has also
been eliminated in the budget that has been submitted, and I
think it is clear that efforts to prevent the decline of
species pays dividends especially in the long term.
I believe that Federal agencies have a responsibility to
help recover endangered species, especially in States like
Nevada that have almost 90 percent of it owned by the Federal
Government.
So I would ask that you direct your personal attention to
the Nevada Biodiversity Initiative which, by the way, started
out of Stanford University. They are studying the Great Basin
and they moved that--started jointly with the University of
Nevada. And then it all became part of the University of
Nevada.
So I would hope that you would take another look at this,
that the whole administration would, to ensure that this
important work continues. Otherwise, with Nevada being, for the
last 10 years, the fastest growing State in the union, it is
going to throw a State that is 90 percent owned by the Federal
Government into chaos, because we literally have prevented
probably one species a year from being listed.
So, Mr. Chairman, I have, as I said, a full statement. I
would ask your permission to have it be made part of the
record. And I will reserve some questions that I have for the
Secretary at a later time.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Senator.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON
Senator Burns. Secretary Norton, thank you for coming this
morning.
Secretary Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
members of the committee. It is a pleasure to appear in front
of you this morning to describe the President's budget proposal
for the year 2002.
I would like to begin by introducing the people who join me
at the table today. Ann Klee is working directly with me as
Counselor to the Secretary. And she may be familiar to many of
you from her time as general counsel with the Senate
Environment Committee.
Also with me is John Trezise who is the Department's
Director of Budget.
This subcommittee plays a crucial role in providing the
resources to carry out the mission of the Department. I look
forward to working closely and collaboratively with you as we
deal with issues over the coming months and years. We need to
protect the great wild places of this country and the
environmental treasures that are entrusted to the Department of
the Interior.
During my confirmation hearings I spoke about what it means
to be a compassionate conservative and a passionate
conservationist and that those two concepts are very
complementary. This is a budget that is compassionate in the
way it protects the environment and conservative in how it
spends taxpayers' money and gives local people more control
over the lands they know and the lands they love.
Overall, the Department's budget that is appropriated is
approximately $10 billion. This subcommittee has the lion's
share of that. The Department requests $9.1 billion in
appropriations from this subcommittee for fiscal year 2002.
This is the second largest budget in the history of the
Department. The 2001 fiscal year was a spike in our budget as
it was for many other departments. The 2001 budget was 20
percent above the fiscal year 2000 budget. This year's budget
request is 17 percent above the 2000 budget.
The Department's budget has grown rapidly over the last 3
years, outpacing inflation and the overall rate of
discretionary spending. During this period, Interior's budget
grew by 23 percent. The 2002 budget contains this growth while
still providing robust spending.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Let me highlight four major initiatives in this budget. The
first of those is the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is
the first time that the executive branch has proposed fully
keeping our commitment to the States through this fund. It
provides $450 million to the States and $450 million to Federal
agencies.
On the Federal side, this would also include $60 million
that would go to enhance habitat and for other activities on
private lands to encourage private landowner cooperation.
The $450 million on the State side is an increase of $360
million. This would allow the States to have more flexibility
to address their own recreation and conservation needs. These
funds can be used by the States to address their most pressing
needs, whether it is for conservation programs or recreation
habitat protection or urban parks. The point is to give States
greater flexibility in deciding on their priorities.
Our new approach to the Land and Water Conservation Fund
includes, as I mentioned, programs that would assist private
landowners. That includes a $50 million incentive program that
would be operated through the States to provide incentives for
landowners to enhance habitat on their property. And it would
also include $10 million of private stewardship grants that
would be awarded directly by the Federal Government.
The landowner incentive concept is an idea that came from
the President's experiences in establishing a similar program
in Texas. It offers landowners positive incentives to protect
rare species and restore habitat while still being able to
carry on farming and ranching and other activities.
With the $390 million Federal portion of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, a new emphasis will be placed on input from
affected communities. We plan to pursue easements and land
exchanges. As an alternative to the Federal Government buying
property outright as its first approach, we will certainly
pursue Federal acquisitions where it is necessary and where
there is strong support from the local communities.
national park service maintenance backlog
The second priority is the National Park Service backlog,
and I have recently begun the process of visiting the national
parks to deal with them as the landlord and caretaker. I have
to say my experience is a little different than when I visited
as a tourist. Now I visit the parks and see things like the
rotting wood in some of our buildings or the peeling paint, or
the situations where the septic systems are not doing the work
that they should.
This proposal would provide $440 million, an increase of
$100 million, to maintain historical structures, visitor
facilities, safe trails, clean water, and well kept campgrounds
in our national parks. This is part of the President's overall
proposal to deal with the National Park Service maintenance
backlog over a 5-year period.
The budget also includes $50 million for the natural
resources challenge within the park system. This is a 66
percent increase over last year. This increase will allow us to
really deal with the environmental aspects of our parks, with
the scientific aspects, so that we can fund on-the-ground
restoration work, including the management of non-native or
invasive species.
indian education
The third priority in the President's budget for the
Department of the Interior is Indian education. During the
campaign, the President pledged to leave no child behind,
including no Indian child. The budget proposes a two-pronged
approach to bettering Indian education by improving the
physical facilities in which children learn and enhancing the
learning that occurs in classrooms.
One-fifth of the buildings in the BIA school system are
more than 50 years old. Serious deficiencies pose real threats
to students' health and safety and make it more difficult for
students to learn. The budget includes $293 million for
education construction and maintenance, including $128 million
to replace buildings at six Indian schools.
land use and conservation balance
The fourth initiative in this budget addresses the need to
balance land use with conservation. This Department manages
nearly one out of four acres within this country as the members
of this committee well know. Management of these lands plays an
important role in ensuring domestic energy security at the same
time as providing important opportunities for public
recreation.
The budget requests an increase of $7 million to accelerate
land use planning. These plans ensure that there is public
involvement in deciding the proper mix of authorized activities
and multiple uses, from energy to recreation, for our public
lands. With this increase, the Bureau of Land Management will
be able to assess, revise, or amend 42 natural resource plans.
The budget also includes $15 million to increase the BLM's
mineral activities, and a $7 million increase for MMS work in
the Gulf of Mexico to ensure that our offshore programs keep
pace with the Nation's need for energy.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
Before concluding my remarks, let me touch on the issue of
wildland fire management. We are moving aggressively to ensure
that the increases last year provided for firefighting are
being used effectively to strengthen our wildland firefighting
capability and to begin reducing the tremendous fuel load
within our wildland areas. Our budget continues and sustains
these efforts in light of the experiences of last year, the
worst fire season in 50 years, with 93,000 fires covering 7.4
million acres.
INDIAN TRUST REFORM
Let me also touch on the issue of trust reform. We are
looking closely into the Indian trust reform issue to ensure
that the Department continues to make management improvements.
As I have learned more about that budget and about the problems
we face, I am struck by what tremendous obstacles we need to
overcome, and we will work to ensure that those are a very high
priority for the Department.
We have recently reached agreement with Judge Lamberth that
we will have a court-appointed monitor working with the
Department on its activities to move forward. We believe this
will be beneficial to the Department as well as to Congress in
providing objective information about those processes.
One final note: As we go forward with management of the
Department, we are faced with the difficulties that arise from
not having our full team in place, and I look forward to
working with you.
We are trying to move as quickly as possible in getting our
appointees to you, and then we look forward to working with you
as the Senate confirms the appointees for the Bush
administration.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to talk with you
and to explain the budget. I look forward to working with you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gale A. Norton
I am pleased to be here today before the Subcommittee on Interior
and Related Agencies to present the fiscal year 2002 budget for the
Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight a
number of important initiatives and to answer questions that you might
have.
CONSULTATION, COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION IN THE SERVICE OF
CONSERVATION
For several months, I've been explaining what it is to be a
compassionate conservative and a passionate conservationist. The
Department's 2002 budget exemplifies these concepts. It's a budget
that's compassionate in the way it protects our environment and
conservative in how it spends taxpayers' money and gives local people
more control over the lands they know and the lands they love.
This budget supports our efforts to conserve and manage the great
wild places and unspoiled landscapes of this country, that are the
common heritage of all Americans. Using consultation, communication,
and collaboration, we will forge partnerships with interested citizens
and ensure success in our effort to conserve America's most precious
places. We can achieve this while maintaining America's prosperity and
economic dynamism, respecting constitutional rights, and nurturing
diverse traditions and culture.
BUDGET OVERVIEW
The budget outlines actions that make the government more
accountable for how it spends taxpayer dollars and for achieving
results. This budget emphasizes the importance of working in
partnership with States, local communities, and the private sector. The
budget pays down our national debt, sets aside a contingency fund for
future needs and emergencies, and provides broad, fair, and responsible
tax relief.
The 2002 budget for the Department of the Interior proposes
important initiatives that fulfill the President's commitments and
support the goals that he and I share. Within our budget you will find
increased resources to support high priorities, including conservation
of America's wild places through innovative environmental partnerships.
The budget proposes the revitalization of the State portion of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, and the establishment of new landowner
incentive and stewardship programs to help individuals protect
imperiled species, enhance habitat, and conserve fragile land. The
budget supports our shared goals to eliminate the National Park Service
backlog over five years and improve natural resource management. The
2002 budget seeks resources that will enable us to achieve real results
for every Indian child and upholds the President's commitment to leave
no child behind, by investing in repair and replacement of Indian
schools and increasing funding for school operations.
The budget also funds five recently adopted Indian land and water
settlements, maintains a high level of funding to prepare for and
suppress wildfire and to treat forests and range lands to reduce fire
danger, and maintains historically high levels of funding for
operational programs at national parks, wildlife refuges, and public
lands. The budget also proposes management reforms that respond to the
President's challenge to create a bureaucracy that is more flexible,
creative, and responsive; to bring decision making closer to the
customer; while continuing our emphasis on front-line service.
The 2002 budget for the Department of the Interior is $10.0 billion
in appropriations, a funding level that is $345.7 million, or 3.4
percent below the 2001 enacted level. To give perspective to this
comparison, it is important to note that 2001 appropriations reflected
extraordinary growth of 20 percent in funding over 2000 levels, and
included substantial emergency and one-time appropriations that need
not be continued in 2002. When compared to historical funding levels,
the 2002 budget request is $1.4 billion or 16 percent higher than 2000
and $1.9 billion or 23 percent higher than 1999. This budget is the
second highest in the history of this Department.
For Department programs that are under the jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee, the request for annual appropriations is $9.1 billion, a
decrease of $348.8 million below the 2001 level. When compared to
historical funding levels, the 2002 budget is $1.4 billion or 17.6
percent higher than the 2000 level.
BUILDING CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIPS
The Department of the Interior has a long and proud history of
working in partnership with State, local, and private landowners in the
conservation of natural resources. The 2002 budget builds on this
capacity and provides new resources and tools to States, communities,
organizations, and individuals to take leadership roles in finding
innovative ways for conservation in cooperation with the Federal
government.
A Flexible LWCF State Grant Program
The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created in 1965 to assure
that revenues from offshore resources that belong to all of the people
of the United States are used to develop and preserve recreation and
conservation benefits. The LWCF has made an outstanding contribution
over the last three and one-half decades by protecting America's land
heritage and providing recreational opportunities. However, the promise
for full funding that was made in the authorizing legislation has not
been kept. From 1965 to 1995, funding for State grants averaged only
$108 million a year and no State grant funds were appropriated for
years 1996 through 1999.
The 2002 budget keeps the promise for a fully funded Federal-State
partnership, requesting the authorized level of $450.0 million for
State grants, an increase of $359.7 million over the 2001 level of
$90.3 million. Amounts that would be allocated to States, the District
of Columbia, and the Territories are significantly increased, expanding
every State's capability to support our shared goals for conservation.
The budget proposes to make $10.0 million available for competitive
grants to Tribes, funding tribal participation in this program for the
first time.
The 2002 budget also proposes to revitalize the State grant program
both by increasing the resources available and by expanding the scope
of activities eligible for funding. It allows States flexibility to
determine their own priorities in recreation and conservation, and
encourages program innovation. Conservation of wildlife and habitat has
become a major component of conserving and enjoying our natural
resources. In this broadened State grants program, States can continue
to use funding for traditional recreational venues such as ball fields
and parks. They will also be able to use this funding to protect and
enhance habitat for fish and wildlife. The updated LWCF State grant
program incorporates the purposes of more narrowly-focused grant
programs that support goals including: urban park recreation and
recovery, wildlife conservation and restoration, migratory bird habitat
conservation, and the conservation of habitat for threatened and
endangered species. To enhance collaboration the budget allows States
to partner with non-governmental entities to plan State-wide
recreational needs, enhance lands that have already been acquired, and
to acquire easements.
The 2002 budget proposes $100.5 million for three Fish and Wildlife
Service programs to further facilitate conservation partnerships. The
request includes: $54.7 million for candidate conservation, threatened
and endangered species recovery, habitat conservation planning, and HCP
implementation through the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
Fund; $14.9 million for wetlands and migratory bird conservation
activities through the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund; and
$30.9 million to enter into partnerships with private landowners for
conservation purposes through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
program.
Facilitating Local and Private Conservation
The 2002 budget includes two new programs to promote conservation
in the United States. The Fish and Wildlife Service budget proposes
$50.0 million to establish a Landowner Incentive program for grants
that are competitively awarded and cost shared. Grants provided to
States, the District of Columbia, Territories, and Tribes will help
landowners protect and manage habitat, while continuing to engage in
traditional land use practices.
This initiative is modeled on the successful private lands
enhancement program in Texas. This program provides technical
assistance to landowners that want to consider wildlife needs in their
land use practices. Texas wildlife biologists work with private and
public land managers in the preservation and enhancement of habitat for
important wildlife species.
The budget also recognizes the importance of private citizens and
non-governmental groups in the protection and conservation of natural
resources. The 2002 budget includes $10.0 million for a new Private
Stewardship grants program that will support individuals and groups
engaged in voluntary land and wildlife conservation efforts. This
funding will support local community efforts to protect imperiled
species, enhance habitat for fish and wildlife, and conserve important
resources.
In support of our collaborative and consultative approach, our 2002
budget proposes $259.1 million for Federal land acquisition projects
that focus on the use of alternative and innovative conservation tools
such as easements, purchases of development rights, and land exchanges.
We have made sure that these proposed acquisitions include the input
and participation of the affected local communities. For example, the
Bureau of Land Management budget proposes $2.0 million to acquire 788
acres of conservation easement interests and 100 acres of fee simple
interests to protect scenic and recreational values in the Lower Salmon
River Area of Critical Environmental Concern in Idaho. Acquisition of
these precious resources has the support of the Friends of the Lower
Salmon and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. By using easements,
we can leave the lands in private ownership, while protecting the
breathtaking scenery of the river canyon.
PRESERVING OUR NATIONAL PARKS
America is a land of singular beauty and Americans are proud of the
many natural treasures within our shores. The President and I believe
that a top priority of the Department of the Interior is the
conservation of these treasures. The 2002 budget proposes increased
funding to conserve the national treasures in our national parks. The
2002 budget includes an increase of $61.1 million in appropriations,
coupled with targeted recreation and concession fees for a total of
$439.6 million to eliminate the maintenance backlog that is an obstacle
to resource protection. We are also providing $20.0 million to restore
natural resources, including removal and management of invasive
species, in national parks. This initiative will help to restore our
parks and ensure a positive legacy of protecting our cultural, natural,
and recreational treasures for Americans today and in the future.
Eliminating the NPS Maintenance Backlog
Just as the establishment of the National Park Service in 1916 was
an innovative idea, so too are we challenged to devise new and
innovative ideas for the management of these national treasures. Today,
the Park Service faces challenges that could not have been imagined by
the early managers of the park system. More than 285 million people
visit the parks annually; visitation this year at Yellowstone National
Park alone will exceed the visitation of the entire system in 1916. As
the park system ages and visitation increases, the parks'
infrastructure is stressed and showing the effects of inadequate
maintenance funding.
It is estimated that the current deferred maintenance backlog is
roughly $4.9 billion, including $2.2 billion that is attributable to
facility maintenance needs funded through Interior and Related Agencies
annual appropriations. The 2002 budget proposes funding to begin to
reverse the decline in the condition of facilities in parks, requesting
$439.6 million to make significant progress in eliminating the $2.2
billion facilities-based maintenance backlog. Annual funding will
include $339.6 million in appropriations and $100.0 million in
recreation and concession fees. At this funding level the Park Service
will address the $2.2 billion deferred maintenance backlog over five
years.
The Park Service will undertake projects in the backlog in an
orderly process using a five-year plan that prioritizes first the
completion of health and safety and resource protection projects.
Projects that will be completed with this funding are diverse,
including for example: replacement of deficient guardrails at the Blue
Ridge Parkway; replacing a failing water line at Petrified Forest
National Park; and conducting critically-needed preservation work at
the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.
The balance of the backlog, $2.7 billion, is associated with road,
bridge, and transportation projects funded through the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century. The 2002 budget defers decisions on
increased funding for these transportation-related projects and assumes
the existing funding level of $165 million annually through 2003, as
TEA-21 is not subject to reauthorization until 2004.
The Natural Resource Challenge
The 2002 budget proposes $49.5 million for the National Park
Service Natural Resource Challenge, a program focused on preservation
and restoration of the rich natural heritage in the National Park
System. For this third year of the program, the Park Service is
requesting an increase of $20.0 million in order to improve knowledge
of plants, animals, and ecosystems in park units. This infusion of
resources will increase the Park Service's capability to understand the
potential impacts of habitat destruction, invasive species, pollution,
and pressures caused by increasing visitation. The Park Service will
continue to work collaboratively with the U.S. Geological Survey and
local universities in order to develop strategies to ameliorate threats
to natural resources, and implement solutions to resource problems.
KEEPING OUR COMMITMENTS TO AMERICAN INDIANS
One top priority concerns the special responsibilities of the
Secretary of the Interior with regard to American Indians. The
President and I have committed to uphold the unique government-to-
government relationship with Tribes. There is much that needs to be
done and that we can do, in partnership with our Nation's Indian
Tribes, to improve conditions and provide a more hopeful future. The
2002 budget includes $2.2 billion for BIA, an increase of $65.9 million
or three percent over the 2001 level, and a 17 percent increase over
the 2000 level. The budget contains substantial funding for Native
American initiatives and builds on increases provided last year for
school construction, Indian education programs, and trust management
improvements.
Building Better Schools In Indian Country
President Bush has pledged to ``leave no child behind.'' To
accomplish the goal, we must improve the schools that serve nearly
50,000 children. The BIA, through its management of 185 Indian schools,
is one of only two agencies in the Federal government directly
responsible for an elementary and secondary school system. In 2002, BIA
will fulfill the President's commitment to improve education in America
by implementing a two-pronged approach improving education facilities
and enhancing school operations.
One-fifth of the buildings in the BIA school system are over 50
years old, and half are more than 30 years old. Due to age and
inadequate maintenance, many schools have serious deficiencies that
pose real threats to the health and safety of students and faculty and
make it difficult for students to learn. These schools have leaking
roofs, peeling paint, overcrowded classrooms, and inadequate heating,
cooling, and ventilation. The 2002 budget includes $292.5 million for
education construction, including $122.8 million to construct
replacement buildings at six schools and $5.0 million for planning and
design of future replacement schools.
The six schools slated for funding in 2002 are the highest priority
based on BIA's priority ranking list. Funding will be used to replace:
educational facilities at the Polacca Day School in Arizona and the
Ojibwa Indian School in North Dakota; school and dormitory facilities
at the Pascal Sherman Indian School in Washington; dormitory facilities
at the Holbrook Dormitory in Arizona and the Wingate Elementary School
in New Mexico; and new classroom facilities at the Santa Fe Indian
School in New Mexico.
The education construction budget also includes $161.6 million for
facilities improvement and repair, an increase of $13.6 million or
eight percent over the 2001 funding level. This proposal will fund
deferred and annual maintenance needs, major and minor repair projects
to address health and safety concerns, and program deficiencies at
educational facilities. The President has established a goal to
eliminate the current repair and maintenance backlog by 2006. With this
funding, we will make significant progress towards achieving that goal.
Learning: A Life-Long Journey
Providing safe schools is only the first step in improving
educational opportunities for Indian children. One of BIA's strategic
goals is to provide quality educational opportunities from early
childhood through adulthood, helping to instill a desire for life-long
learning. The 2002 BIA school operations budget proposal of $504.0
million includes a program increase of $9.1 million. This funding will
be used at schools operated by BIA, as well as at schools operated
under contracts or grants to Tribes and tribal organizations, to ensure
that schools maintain accreditation; have access to textbooks,
computers, and other vital learning tools; have adequate teaching
staffs; and can provide transportation. Individual schools and school
boards at the local level make the final decisions on how best to use
these funds.
The 2002 budget maintains funding of $12.2 million for the early
childhood development program, including the family and child education
program and the therapeutic residential model program. The family and
child education program involves parents in the critical early stages
of their children's education, improves adult literacy, and teaches
parenting skills that help improve children's readiness for school. The
therapeutic residential model program is an intensive, hands-on program
that focuses attention on Indian youth attending boarding schools and
helps them to achieve positive changes in attitude, behavior, and
academic performance.
In addition, the 2002 budget proposes $39.1 million for operation
of the 25 tribally controlled community colleges. This is an increase
of $1 million for these colleges that serve a vital role in furthering
Indian education beyond the high school level and building critical job
skills.
Resolving Land and Water Claims
Settlements of land and water disputes resolve long-standing claims
made by Indian tribes and are the outcome of negotiations between the
Tribes, the Federal government, and other interested parties. The
settlements reflect the Federal government's commitment to fulfill its
promises to the Indian community. The 2002 budget includes $60.9
million, an increase of $23.5 million, to fund ongoing settlements and
five recently authorized settlements. The budget requests: $6.3 million
to complete the Federal commitment for direct tribal payments in the
U.S. v. Michigan Great Lakes joint Tribal-State-Federal consent decree
on fishery resources; $6.0 million for the Torres-Martinez settlement
in California; $2.0 million for the Santo Domingo settlement in New
Mexico; $5.0 million for the first payment for the Shivwits Band of the
Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah; $8.0 million for the Colorado Ute
settlement to settle claims on the Animas and La Plata Rivers in
Colorado. The budget will continue to fund the Rocky Boy's settlement
at $8.0 million and the Utah Ute settlement at $24.7 million.
Fulfilling Trust Responsibilities
For more than 150 years, the Department has been responsible for
managing assets in trust for American Indian Tribes and individual
Indians. The management of trust funds and administration of leasing
activities continues to be an important responsibility and is an
essential service to foster opportunities for Tribes and individual
Indians. The 2002 budget upholds commitments made to institute sweeping
changes in the management of trust assets. Trust management reform
efforts focus on correcting deficiencies; improving and implementing
new trust management and financial systems; and sustaining
accomplishments to ensure that trust management problems do not recur.
A total of $110.2 million is requested for the Office of the
Special Trustee in 2002, including $73.0 million for trust management
improvements under the Department's High Level Implementation Plan.
Activities that will continue in 2002 under HLIP include: replacing
BIA's land records system with the Trust Asset and Accounting
Management System; reforming the probate and appraisal program; curing
decades-old records management deficiencies; providing training on
trust systems; and developing comprehensive and consistent policies and
procedures. Continued implementation of these management reforms will
resolve decades old trust fund management issues, improve
accountability, and help to meet the Department's trust
responsibilities to Tribes and individual Indians.
The 2002 budget includes $11.0 million for the fourth year of the
Indian Land Consolidation program to expand land acquisition activities
and continue implementation of the Indian Land Consolidation Act
Amendments of 2000. This will support activities including:
consolidating fractionated interests into more useable and leasable
parcels of land; reducing the administrative burden associated with
fractionated ownership; and reforming probate by establishing uniform
rules for the descent and distribution of interests in allotted lands.
The 2002 budget proposes $118.4 million for BIA trust-related
services. This includes an increase of $12.0 million for additional
staff and resources for critical trust services programs that have been
historically under funded and understaffed, such as real estate
services, probate, appraisals, and land titles and records programs.
These increases will help BIA to continue to improve performance in
meeting responsibilities in managing revenue-generating lands held in
trust for Tribes and allottees. The program increases will further
timely and accurate processing of real estate transactions and
appraisals; increase capability to keep pace with growing probate
workloads; help keep land records current; provide additional resources
for tribal courts to address the increased court caseload; support
background investigations of employees and contractors who manage trust
assets and records; improve management of natural resources on trust
lands; and improve information resource management and trust records
security.
BALANCING USE WITH CONSERVATION
Federal lands administered by the Department of the Interior play
an important role in ensuring domestic energy security, supporting
economic development, and providing important opportunities for the
public to experience the Nation's natural heritage. As stewards of
public lands and resources, the Department must balance the development
of mineral and energy resources with environmental protection. The 2002
budget proposes program increases totaling $22.1 million for BLM and
$14.7 million for MMS to support this balanced approach.
Onshore Energy and Minerals Programs
BLM manages leasing and development for energy and minerals on
onshore lands that produce approximately five percent of annual
domestic oil production and eleven percent of domestic natural gas
production. BLM's management of energy and mineral resources, including
50,000 oil and gas leases, are an important part of the Nation's energy
program.
The 2002 budget proposes a program increase of $15.0 million for an
expanded BLM energy and mineral program. This proposal includes $5.0
million for BLM to identify and evaluate oil and gas resources and
reserves on public lands as required by the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 2000. BLM will work with the Department of Energy,
U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Geological Survey to survey onshore
reserves. An increase of $5.0 million will be used to support another
lease sale offering in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska and to
initiate planning and associated studies in the 1002 area of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge to support future oil and gas lease sales, if
authorized by Congress. The request includes an additional $2.0 million
to increase leasing and processing of permits to drill for coalbed
methane, and $3.0 million to increase coal leasing and other mineral
development on Federal and Indian lands, and to address increased
workload for land and realty processing of rights-of-way.
Consensus Building with Land Use Planning
BLM land use plans govern the management of pubic lands and are the
primary tool for building consensus and incorporating public comments
in our land and resource management programs. Many of the plans now in
use were completed prior to 1989 and need to be updated to reflect
current conditions. The 2002 budget includes an increase of $7.1
million to update plans in order to facilitate more collaborative and
better decision-making.
Offshore Energy Programs
MMS oversees oil and natural gas production in the Outer
Continental Shelf. OCS activities account for approximately 26 percent
of annual domestic oil production and 28 percent of domestic natural
gas production. To meet the demand for increasing energy production,
the budget includes an increase of $7.4 million for MMS' Gulf of Mexico
leasing and regulatory program. This increase will allow MMS to be
responsive to requests for services in processing permits and the
review of development plans. An additional increase of $7.3 million is
proposed to acquire a management system that is necessary to support a
royalty-in-kind program for oil and gas production on Federal lands.
Where favorable conditions exist, taking royalties in kind as an
alternative to the traditional method of collecting royalties in value
is an innovative approach that may potentially reduce administrative
burdens.
MANAGING FIRE
The lessons learned in the 2000 fire season laid the groundwork for
our current efforts in the Wildland Fire program. As a result of our
past experience, we are focusing on building capacity in preparedness;
implementing an expansive fuels treatment program that targets the
wildland urban interface; ensuring an adequate fire suppression program
at the Federal and local levels; and conducing rehabilitation of burned
areas to prevent additional loss and promote land health. In
conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service, the Department continues to
make significant progress in the implementation of the National Fire
Plan. Working in partnership with the Western Governors' Association,
National Association of Counties, Tribes, other Federal partners, and
non-governmental organizations, the Department and the Forest Service
are developing a plan of action and are engaged in designing a ten year
strategy for treatment in the wildland urban interface to protect
communities from the threat of fire.
The 2002 budget funds the wildland fire program at $658.4 million,
or more than double historical levels for this program. Although this
proposal is $318.7 million lower than the 2001 level, a large part of
this decrease reflects the elimination of an emergency contingency fund
of $199.6 million and $26.8 million in one-time costs for equipment
purchases and a specific, targeted research project. The 2002
President's budget continues funding for critical fire program
components and includes a $5.6 billion national emergency reserve that
will be available to pay for emergency needs, including higher than
average wildland fire costs, if needed.
The 2002 budget funds preparedness at $280.8 million. This funds
readiness at $252.0 million, or 95 percent of the amounts included in
the National Fire Plan, adjusted for fixed costs. This level combined
with resources expected to be available from 2001 provides sufficient
funding to maintain full readiness in 2002. The budget continues
funding for the fire science program at $8.0 million and includes a
proposal to fund important research conducted by the U.S. Geological
Survey within this amount. A total of $19.8 million is budgeted for 76
high priority deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects.
The 2002 budget proposes to fund fire operations at $367.6 million.
Suppression costs are funded at the ten-year average of $161.4 million
including an additional $8.3 million to increase fire control
capabilities. The 2002 budget continues funding for hazardous fuels
reduction at $186.2 million including $111.3 million for fuels
reduction in the wildland urban interface. The budget also funds
rehabilitation at the ten-year average of $20.0 million. The budget
reflects a reduction of $84.8 million from 2001 levels, reflecting a
reduction in funding amounts that will be targeted to rehabilitate
areas burned in the 1999 and 2000 fire seasons.
Lastly, the budget provides $10.0 million for technical assistance
and support for rural fire districts. Funding provided to these
volunteer fire departments is critical, as they are often the first
line of defense in protecting wildland urban interface areas threatened
by fire.
OPERATION OF NATIONAL PARKS, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES, AND PUBLIC
LANDS
The 2002 budget continues funding for the operational programs in
the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of
Land Management at historically high levels, maintaining significant
funding increases provided in prior years and allocating an additional
$69.1 million for uncontrollable cost increases. Funding for these
operational programs in 2002 totals $3.2 billion, an increase of 2.4
percent over 2001 levels, and an increase of 12.7 percent over 2000
levels.
RESTORING THE EVERGLADES
The President's 2002 budget invests significant resources in the
long-term restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, requesting $37
million for the Corps of Engineers and Department for implementation of
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan authorized by the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000. An additional $183 million is
proposed, government-wide, to continue ongoing construction, research,
and land acquisition activities associated with restoration of the
ecosystem. The South Florida/Everglades ecosystem is a national
treasure. Restoration of the Everglades continues to be a top priority
for the Department.
The Department's 2002 budget includes $122.8 million for South
Florida/Everglades restoration activities. The 2002 budget proposes an
increase of $5.7 million for CERP implementation to provide technical
assistance and expertise in the planning, design, construction, and
adaptive assessment of restoration projects constructed by the Corps.
The budget includes $27.4 million for acquisition to support
restoration, including $15.0 million for a matching grant to the State
of Florida. A total of $39.2 million is proposed for the Modified Water
Deliveries project.
ENDANGERED SPECIES LISTING
The 2002 budget proposes a total of $8.5 million for the endangered
species listing program, a 34 percent increase over 2001, and a 37
percent increase over 2000. This increase will help return balance to
the listing program, enabling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
protect species that are in decline, respond to citizen petitions to
list new species and designate critical habitat for species that are
already listed.
However, because a flood of court orders requiring FWS to designate
critical habitat for hundreds of species threatens to consume the
entire listing budget in 2002 as it has in 2001, the budget increase
will not be enough by itself to restore this balance. In fact, after
complying with existing court orders to designate critical habitat for
2001, FWS does not have any remaining resources or staff to place new
species on the list of threatened and endangered species or to respond
to citizen petitions to list new species. In short, because of the
lawsuits, FWS currently does not have an effective listing program.
The prior Administration requested Congress place a cap on the
listing program beginning in 1998, and this Administration is asking
Congress to continue the cap. The reason for the cap is to ensure that
FWS can maintain an overall endangered species program that not only
includes listing new species and designating critical habitat but also
undertaking recovery programs, working with States, landowners, and
others to conserve species before they require listing, consulting with
Federal agencies where required by the Act, and delisting species when
they have recovered. Absent the cap, courts might require the Service
to take funds from other endangered species activities to designate
critical habitat. If this were to happen, the imbalance that currently
plagues the listing program would spread to the entire endangered
species program.
The President, therefore, is continuing efforts begun by the last
Administration to break this gridlock and get back to the important
business of protecting imperiled species. We are asking Congress to
concur that funds be spent on listing actions that provide the greatest
benefit for species at risk of extinction. This proposal would not
change any of the underlying substantive requirements of the ESA, but
would allow the FWS to use its resources to protect the species that
are in greatest need of listing. The Service hopes to engage the public
and interested groups in a dialogue on the development of a
prioritization system, and then to put the resulting priority system
out for public review and comment this summer.
We recognize that this proposal has resulted in considerable
controversy. While the problem is real and needs to be addressed, we
would welcome the opportunity to work with this Committee and other
interested Members/Senators to craft a solution that meets with wide
approval.
GOOD GOVERNMENT
The 2002 budget begins to shape the Department in a manner that
supports the President's vision for a government that is active but
limited, citizen-centered and not bureaucracy-heavy, results-oriented
and not process driven, and market-based in order to promote innovation
and competition. The budget proposal slows the growth in staffing,
reflecting a reduction of more than 1,700 FTE below levels originally
planned for 2001. The budget identifies streamlining savings that total
$57.3 million that will be achieved through reductions in
organizational layers, contracting efficiencies, lowered grade levels,
management downsizing, and elimination of extraneous positions.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the 2002 budget provides strong support for
Interior's programs and for the men and women who carry out our
mission. Further, it provides expanded opportunities to work with our
constituencies involving them to a greater degree with expanded
consultation, communication, and collaboration. As we expand their
involvement, we can increasingly benefit from their creativity and
capacity to innovate and thereby increase our effectiveness.
I was reminded very recently that we can accomplish more by working
together and building partnerships across ideological and political
boundaries. Three weeks ago, I helped to release five endangered
California condors back into the wild, achieving something that was
once thought to be impossible. The captive breeding effort and
subsequent reintroduction of the condors into the wild was made
possible by collaboration with State, local, and private organizations.
This concludes my overview of the 2002 budget proposal for the
Department of the Interior and my written statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Madame Secretary. We appreciate
your statement very much. And I think most of us that live in
the west--we're also geared up to have another very bad fire
season this year because our moisture situation is not very
good, at best.
ENDANGERED SPECIES LISTINGS
One of the areas in the budget request that catches the eye
more than anything else is the $2.1 million request for the
listing program under the Endangered Species Act. Additionally,
the President has requested that Congress modify the
legislative language that puts a cap on listing.
Could you explain how the administration plans to use the
additional $2.1 million for listing and explain why the
administration believes that the language for the cap on the
listings should be modified?
Secretary Norton. As I began talking with the career people
throughout the Department who are in charge of administering
programs, I learned from them about some of the difficulties,
and this was one that we identified.
The listing portion of the Endangered Species Act
administration focuses on drawing the lines for the critical
habitat as well as putting species onto the endangered list.
The concern is that that part of the program is not as
important for the actual recovery of species as some other
aspects of the program. It might crowd out the other aspects
that are the ones that really focus on making changes to
enhance habitat and improve the plight for the species.
The prior administration had taken the step of containing
that budget and putting limitations on that process. We
increased the amount of money that is available within that
budget, but continued the approach of having a limitation on
that.
What we also heard was that the priorities were being set
by court orders. It was like an emergency room where patients
were treated not on the basis of the seriousness of their
problems, but on the basis of the date of their court dockets;
and so we were in effect treating hang nails when we were
letting heart attacks go untreated.
We proposed to put in place a listing process or a
prioritization process that will be based on the needs of the
species and deal with that in that respect.
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES
Senator Burns. Another area in this budget where you have
cut $50 million back is on the Payment In Lieu of Taxes. As you
well know, some counties in the west are completely dependant
on public lands and on those PILT monies for the services
provided by county and government.
While I agree with much of your budget, there are a number
of details that concern me. For example, last year we reached a
compromise of around $200 million to fund PILT. Now, that is
not fully funded, by the way. You have taken another $50
million away from that to lower it down to $150 million. And as
a former county commissioner, I note those things.
So, should we look at this reduction as a policy stance on
the part of the administration regarding the merits of PILT, or
as a result of a shortfall in the budget and the monies
available?
Secretary Norton. Well, as a westerner myself, Mr.
Chairman, I certainly understand the importance of PILT and
what that means to communities. I would like to continue to
move toward full funding in future years, but within the
overall budget constraints necessary for 2002, this was not
possible.
I do note though that we are moving toward more
decentralization of our funding and that the funds that are
being supplied to States through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund are the kinds of things that will allow us to
have more State control of the funding.
Senator Burns. Secretary, we have been joined by Senator
Dorgan of North Dakota.
Senator, do you have a statement, because I am going to
Senator Byrd next?
Senator Dorgan. Chairman, I will withhold and make a
statement during my time for questions.
Senator Burns. Senator Byrd. Thank you very much.
ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION PROGRAM
Senator Byrd. Madame Secretary, I am concerned about the
proposed funding levels for the Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Program administered by the Office of Surface Mining. This is
an environmental restoration effort which is effectively self
funded because of the Federal tax placed on every ton of coal
mined in this country.
Over the past quarter century, since the enactment of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act in August of 1977,
the AML fund has accumulated more than $5.8 billion. And while
Congress has appropriated $4.3 billion of that, the fact is
that $7.7 billion worth of identified mine clean-up work
remains to be done.
In my State of West Virginia alone, $626 million worth of
the highest priority reclamation work has not been funded. And
yet, despite the obvious and well documented needs that exist
all around this Nation, your Department's budget would slash
AML funding by 38 percent from the current level of $171
million down to $124 million.
Would you please tell the subcommittee why the AML program,
which by all accounts is extremely successful, is being
subjected to a 38 percent cut?
Secretary Norton. Senator Byrd, I do remember having the
opportunity to talk with you in your office about the AML
program and other issues of concern to you. This is, in part, a
reflection of the Health Benefits Program that we discussed.
$97 million of the difference in the funding is because of
funding that was provided last year from that fund, not for the
abandoned mine land activities, but for health benefits. And I
understand that is an important issue that needs to be----
Senator Byrd. Are you talking about the conbined benefits
fund? That money is coming out of the interest on the
principal. Yes?
Secretary Norton. Yes.
REDUCTION IN AML FUNDING
Senator Byrd. But why do we have a 38 percent cut?
Secretary Norton. That is because the previous year's
budget included health benefits as part of the funding.
As to health benefits, I certainly hope that that will be
resolved in the more ordinary course of business by the Senate.
On the enforcement side, the current level of funding,
first of all, has been increased for the regulatory activities
of the Office of Surface Mining.
We do see a cutback in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.
That is a program that we continue to support. This will allow
us to restore 6,000 to 7,000 acres in 2002.
Senator Byrd. The 38 percent cut, is that coming out of the
principal?
Secretary Norton. I'm sorry?
Senator Byrd. Is it coming out of the principal? The
combined----
Secretary Norton. Yes. Payments are from the principal.
Senator Byrd. Can we offer some explanation for the people
who are forced to live near these unsafe and hazardous
abandoned mine sites, why the administration is gutting the one
Federal program geared toward solving a problem?
Secretary Norton. We look forward to continue working with
the States on dealing with those problems, and to look at how
we can better operate our programs. We are looking at how we
can prioritize our activities and enhance the management of
that fund.
Senator Byrd. Well, we look forward to doing that, but
aren't we putting the States at a disadvantage and the program
at a great disadvantage when it sustains a 38 percent cut?
Secretary Norton. Senator, there are many important and
good programs, and as we look at trying to bring under control
the level of increase within our spending and at paying down
the national debt----
Senator Byrd. I understand all that.
Secretary Norton [continuing]. We do need to look at some
of these cuts.
Senator Byrd. And I am for paying down the national debt,
but we are also going to have over $1 trillion tax cut that the
President is proposing.
Staff. $1.6 trillion.
Senator Byrd. $1.6 trillion, and what I am interested in is
this AML program. And I am going to do what I can to keep you
from subjecting that program to a 38 percent cut. I do not
think the justification is there.
What you are telling me, in essence, is we have got to make
these cuts in order that the President might have his big tax
cut. Now, I am not saying I am against any and every tax cut,
but I am certainly against a tax cut of this size and
especially when programs like the Abandoned Mine Land Fund are
going to have to provide the monies to make up for the cut.
Secretary Norton. Senator Byrd, let me just put this in
perspective in terms of what this means for the program.
Senator Byrd. I wish you would.
Secretary Norton. We are looking at a very similar level of
number of acres that we expect to be treated under the program,
7,200 to 8,600 acres compared to 6,000 to 7,000 acres in the
2002 budget. The funding request will continue the program at a
fairly similar level, and we look forward to working with the
States to ensure that those monies are spent as wisely as
possible.
Senator Byrd. Well, that still does not answer the question
as to the real justification for making such a cut in the AML
program. This is a self funded program because of the tax paid
on every ton of coal that is mined throughout this country.
And I think you have to come up with a better justification
than you have thus far. I say that most respectfully, but I am
going to be watching this fund, you can be sure. And I am not
so sure you are going to get a 38 percent cut in it.
How much time do I have left?
Senator Burns. Well, we have everybody on the honor system
today, Senator.
Senator Byrd. Well, I am very much for the honor system.
What is that?
Senator Burns. Whenever your conscience goes to hurting.
Senator Byrd. Well, I will wait----
Senator Burns. We can keep within 5 minutes but, you know,
it is kind of one of those things that you have control of more
than I.
Senator Byrd. Yes. Well, thank you. I am sure I have taken
my 5 minutes, so I will pass to the next one.
Senator Burns. We have been joined by Senator Leahy of
Vermont.
Senator, do you have a statement or shall we just continue
with the questioning and----
Senator Leahy. I think because I am late, I will put my
statement in the record, but when it becomes my turn, Mr.
Chairman, I do have some questions I want to ask.
Senator Burns. And your statement will be made part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Madam Secretary, welcome and thank you for your presence today to
let this Subcommittee know of the Interior department's budgetary plans
for public lands and natural resources. I am sure you know that I
consider your agency to hold the greatest responsibility for, and
accountability to, the protection and conservation of our nation's most
precious lands and open spaces. With clear authority for active and
visionary conservation of millions of acres of grazing lands, wildlife
habitat, recreational sites, and waterways, your agency holds in its
budget priorities the real future of millions of acres of publicly-
funded lands.
And you, Madam Secretary, are now one of this nation's leading
voices deciding that future. We all know of your sensitivities to
private landowner needs. I share many of those concerns and believe we
have seen the success of voluntary, incentive-based partnerships
between the federal government and private landowners created and
enhanced by the last Administration.
And I also hope that this next year will be the first of many for
you to show this Congress your leadership not only on private lands
initiatives, but also in public lands conservation. I hope you will
carefully hold the line on those who would exploit publicly-funded
lands for short-term, private gain.
Places such as the majestic Denali National Park in Alaska, the
historic Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge in Florida are
national treasures. They are sources of great national pride, managed
carefully by hardworking staff at Interior and on-site. All are faced
with less than adequate budget resources each year as visitors to the
sites continue to increase. I hope you will strive to make real
progress, set a real vision, and put real budgetary resources towards
the long-term conservation and protection of our nation's treasured
land, resources, and wildlife.
I am pleased that this Administration is paying close attention to
the importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the fiscal
year 2002 budget--especially the stateside land conservation program.
In fiscal year 2001, Vermont forests and parks will use stateside LWCF
grants to repair hundreds of much-used and much-loved public
facilities, from soccer fields to nature trails. The fiscal year 2002
increase in stateside funding is a step in the right direction.
Yet I do have concerns with the programs this Administration is
promoting under the authority of LWCF--many of which are not in the
original authorization language of the fund and which decrease the
funds available for public lands protection. I have been a strong and
consistent supporter of fully funding LWCF programs, and for the other
programs you are calling ``LWCF'' in fiscal year 2002--but these
programs should not be combined in this budget without full and fair
explanation that the original LWCF is not truly being funded.
I do commend you, Madam Secretary, for your budget's recognition of
the importance of the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge as
unique lands that should be carefully managed and protected. Spanning
four states and the entire Connecticut River watershed, the Silvio O.
Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge holds numerous wetlands,
forests and rivers used by hunters, bird-watchers, and recreationists
alike. Two years ago, the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service helped Vermont facilitate a unique federal, state,
and local partnership in the Nulhegan that conserved 133,000 acres in
the northern part of the state. Vermont communities are now looking
forward to bringing in national visitors with a Nulhegan-based Visitor
Education Center, the design and planning of which should take place
with funds appropriated in fiscal year 2002. Your agency's continued
support of Vermont's efforts to protect lands of regional significance
for future generations, and to provide facilities for national and
international visits to these sites, is much needed and greatly
appreciated.
Given this type of successful federal-state partnership to conserve
public lands, I also hope your agency will rethink its budgetary cuts
to programs such as the Payment In Lieu of Taxes, or PILT, program and
its commitment to fully funding the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund, or
RRSF. Created to offset the tax-base loss when lands are conserved with
public funds, both PILT and RRSF are critical to helping local
communities afford long-term commitments to publicly-funded land and
resource protection. Last year's increase to PILT funding finally
upheld a long-standing federal promise to send more funds to local
communities interested in conservation. Without full PILT funding, our
nation is turning its back on commitments to communities and states and
purposefully setting up public lands for failure. These programs need
your support.
Also needing your immediate support are scientific programs
unfortunately cut at the United States Geologic Survey, or USGS. In all
aspects of earth system science, be it mapping, water quality, geology,
wildlife biology, or natural hazards analysis, the USGS is this
nation's lead agency. While I have yet to receive a detailed budget
justification for the agency, early reports are that the mapping and
water quality efforts by USGS have been seriously cut, if not
discontinued. I find this alarming given the importance of USGS science
to policy-making decisions nationally, regionally, and locally. I am
particularly concerned with the possible zeroing of USGS Water Research
Institutes funds, the cut of funds to the Geologic Mapping Program, and
the lack of funds in the Community/Federal Information Partnership, or
C/FIP.
Finally, Madam Secretary, I do appreciate the increase in funds and
attention to National Parks made in the fiscal year 2002 budget. The
Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historic Park in Woodstock,
Vermont, the only National Park located in my state, is already
overwhelmed by its own popularity and success after only six years of
operation. This park and its Conservation Study Institute (CSI) are
both receiving tens of thousands of visitors each year. In addition,
the CSI's staff is actively participating in educational outreach for
forest and land conservation throughout the country, hosting symposia
and teaching workshops with great success. This year, as they did last
year, both the park and CSI are bracing for even more visitors and more
requests for conservation education outreach. I hope that the
Department of Interior will continue to recognize the importance of
both this singular National Park within Vermont's borders, and its
Conservation Study Institutute, as the fiscal year 2002 budget is
finalized.
Again, thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today. I look
forward to working with you, and your agency, to protect and conserve
our publicly-funded lands and resources for our citizens today, and for
future generations.
Senator Burns. Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BLACK CANYON OF THE GUNNISON
Madame Secretary, I mentioned in my opening statement the
Black Canyon of the Gunnison and the water right dispute that
has come up. I thought that was covered in the bill that we
passed last year that was signed by President Clinton, but
apparently not.
And it concerns the Park Service's filing for
quantification of a reserve water right of the water that goes
through the Black Canyon. That filing was done in the waning
days of the Clinton administration. There were formal requests
to work with the State of Colorado. They did not. And we
believe that that claim is going to really wreak havoc with
power production, with irrigation, with a Gold Medal Trout
Stream, and a number of other things.
Going back to the 1980s, there have been previous attempts
to be more realistic than this latest effort, I think. And they
just simply have not taken any of the input from the State of
Colorado.
I understand there have been 383 statements of opposition
that have been filed, including one from the State of Colorado,
the Water Conservation Board, one from the state engineer and
one from the Division of Wildlife. And I know your Department
inherited that, like you have inherited many other things.
But I would like to know if you, since you are going to be
in charge of the national parks, too, why did the Park Service
ignore those stakeholders in filing that claim? Have you heard
at all?
Secretary Norton. Senator Campbell, I have recently become
aware of the claim that was made by the Park Service in the
Gunnison. And I have asked one of my top staff people to look
into that and to learn more about it, and so we are in the
process now----
Senator Campbell. Okay.
Secretary Norton [continuing]. Of studying that claim that
has been made.
Senator Campbell. If you would keep me in the loop and
inform me when you find out some information, I would
appreciate it.
NPS MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Let me ask you a little bit about, since we are talking
about the Park Service, the maintenance backlog in the parks.
How are you going to start that? Is that going to be done
geographically? And what types of maintenance will the
Department attempt first?
Secretary Norton. The National Park Service has a priority
list for its backlog that is based on health and safety
concerns and on the most pressing needs to ensure that we are
protecting water supplies and things like that, so that we are
not violating the environmental laws, and to make sure that we
are in compliance. Those are some things that I think are very
important.
It is not being done on a geographic basis, but by priority
of what are the most pressing needs from the perspective of the
parks' operations.
Senator Campbell. Okay. Thank you.
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS
Let me get back to water, about some Indian water rights.
There is a sizeable backlog in outstanding Indian claims and
water claims. And one idea that has been proposed informally is
that we take those settlements off budget so the programs
within the Interior Department do not have to compete with the
land and water claims payments. What do you think of that?
Secretary Norton. I have been very concerned by the way in
which we have entered into settlements and then not followed
through on some of those settlements. We have a pattern of
doing that.
I would like to see that, as settlements are initially
reached, we have thought through how they are going to be paid
for. Obviously, Congress needs to be in the loop on the
settlements, making sure that the commitments of the United
States include following through on those things. I do not have
a specific mechanism at this point that would accomplish that.
Senator Campbell. No feeling about whether this ought to be
off budget or not?
Secretary Norton. I do not yet have an opinion on that.
COURT MONITOR
Senator Campbell. Last week--along Indian issues, last week
a court monitor was appointed by Judge Lamberth. He appointed a
gentleman by the name of Joseph Kieffer as the monitor in the
Cobell v. Norton litigation--welcome to Washington--and
directed him to report back to the judge.
How do you interpret that appointment?
Secretary Norton. We agreed with that appointment, Senator.
I think it does make sense to have a good flow of accurate
information between the courts and the Department. I am
planning to meet with him later today, and I do believe that it
is important that we have that kind of a dialogue with the
courts. Everybody understands that these are difficult issues.
INDIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT
Senator Campbell. Okay. And perhaps one last question, too:
We have put a great deal of money into Indian law enforcement,
in the tribal courts, in the training and a number of other
things. One of my personal interests has always been those
things that are somewhat related to law enforcement and working
with youngsters.
Can you determine and maybe get back to the committee
whether the existing inter-agency initiatives such as GREAT,
the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program, are
successful in Indian country or not? And if they are, I am
personally interested in expanding that. And if they are not,
we ought to be looking at some other way of trying to keep kids
from going on the wrong side of the law in Indian country.
Secretary Norton. I will be happy to get back to you with
more information on that.
Senator Campbell. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Campbell.
Senator Reid.
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madame Secretary, when I first met you, I let you know how
impressed I was that you got a perfect score on the law school
aptitude exam, which rarely happens. I did that so that I would
recognize, first of all, that you knew that I knew how smart
you are and that, second, that I would let you know that you
could not outsmart me.
I did not get a perfect score on the LSAT, Madame
Secretary, but I have to be very honest with you. This budget
is, I think, headed in the wrong direction. You have the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, which was originally set up to
allow the Federal Government to purchase environmentally
sensitive land. And now you are using it for all kinds of
science-based programs and things of that nature, a purpose for
which the fund was not intended.
So, I agree with Senator Byrd, there are a lot of programs
here that you are going to have to deal with. The Land and
Water Conservation game will not cover these programs.
NEVADA BIODIVERSITY INITIATIVE
Now, for example, I mentioned in my opening statement that
there has been a Nevada Biodiversity Initiative. It has been
very, very good. Dr. Dennis Murphy, who is a Stanford
professor, is now at University of Nevada; Dr. Peter Burssard
and Dr. Dick Tracy. These are eminent scientists.
I repeat what I said earlier: Their work along with the
work of others, including people from your Interior Department,
helped develop the Clark County Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan. This is a blueprint for continued economic
growth, enhanced environmental protection, ongoing improvement
in quality of life in southern Nevada. But I think whenever we
have a listed species, this is some place we can look to call
success.
I mean, for you just to eliminate this and say, ``We have
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Good luck,'' is not going
to do the trick especially when your budget cuts also wipe out
funding for restoration of the Lahonton cutthroat trout which
is designated as a threatened species by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service.
So, I will ask you specifically: Do you agree that efforts
to prevent the decline of species pays dividends in the long
run?
Secretary Norton. I certainly do believe that efforts to
work on species pay dividends.
Senator Reid. And do you believe that Federal agencies have
a responsibility to help recover endangered species?
Secretary Norton. Absolutely.
Senator Reid. Okay. Now, I ask you, Madame Secretary, are
you familiar with the Nevada Bio-Diversity initiative?
Secretary Norton. I have learned something about your bio-
diversity center, if that is what you are referring to.
Senator Reid. Okay. And are you aware of the good work that
has been done in Clark County dealing with the multi-habitat
conservation that I just talked about, that conservation plan?
Secretary Norton. I am not familiar with the specifics of
that.
Senator Reid. Well, I would say that your predecessor
thought it was a blueprint for how we should do things around
the country. And I would ask you if you and your very limited
staff that you have, that we hope will increase soon, would
take a look at that and report to me in writing how you think
the Clark County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
worked. Would you do that?
NEVADA LWCF FUNDING
Secretary Norton. will be happy to provide you with that
information. The State of Nevada will be receiving a $5 million
increase through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and we
would certainly hope that Nevada might see using that funding
for this type of activity. And that is what we have in mind,
is----
Senator Reid. Madame Secretary----
Secretary Norton [continuing]. Allowing those who really
understand those issues firsthand to help prioritize those.
Senator Reid. I appreciate that. But let me just say:
During my years here, we have used that money to purchase
environmentally sensitive land. We have Lake Tahoe which is
desperately in need of land purchases. $5 million is a drop in
the bucket.
The Federal Government has obligations there for hundreds
of millions of dollars of land purchases that we have been
doing a pretty good job, but not good enough.
We have, through the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
purchased land around Lake Tahoe and Heavenly Valley that was
going to be subdivided.
$5 million will not do the trick, I have to tell you, just
for the purchase of land that is desperately needed to move
into the public sector out of the private sector. So, I
appreciate your good thoughts about using the $5 million for
this.
And the sad part about it is: With the contacts we have had
with your Department, your Cabinet, we find that this $5
million is supposed to be used for everything, and that is what
everybody in this committee is going to get, ``We have got the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. Have at it.'' But that is not
the purpose of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
When I saw that this administration had funded the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, I was elated. I think that is a
tremendous improvement in what has been done in recent years.
But from what I hear from you, it is not to be used for
purchase of land. It is going to be used for science-based
initiatives, for funding other programs that have no relation
to the Land and Water Conservation Fund as it was originally
established.
Secretary Norton. If we look at what needs to be done from
the perspective of not who owns the land, but what happens on
that land, one of our proposals is to enhance habitats and to
do exactly the kinds of things we do when we purchase land for
conservation purposes.
If there is a farm in which the habitat needs to be taken
care of by doing away with invasive species and allowing
fencing off of some areas to protect sensitive, riparian areas
from cattle grazing or other activities, we have the option of
buying that farm which might cost millions of dollars, or of
providing some fences and the mechanisms to take out the
invasive species.
It can be much more cost effective and allow us to protect
the habitats in many, many more acres if what we focus on is
what needs to be done to protect the property as opposed to
purchasing everything to accomplish the Federal goals. What we
want to do is be more creative, allow local parties to have
more of a say in that.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND USES
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I will end by waiting for my
next round, but say this: We worked very hard to change the
Endangered Species Act. I recognize there are some changes that
need to be done.
Former Senator Chafee and I and Senator Baucus, Senator
Kempthorne, we introduced legislation, and it was compromise
legislation, for various reasons. It did not come to the Senate
floor.
I understand the problems with the Endangered Species Act,
but I go back to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land
and Water Conservation Fund was not set up to take care of the
Endangered Species Act. We have specific legislation with
specific funding to take care of the Endangered Species Act.
If I go to the State of Nevada, we have almost 90 percent
of the State which is owned by the Federal Government, and we
have certain pieces of land that the Federal Government is
obligated to purchase. And the Land and Water Conservation Fund
was set up for that.
We got into a lot of trouble. Senator Ensign has led the
charge and done an excellent job of developing legislation, of
which I assisted, when he was in the House, to change the
provisions where we would exchange land. A lot of problems
happened. People got in trouble, some criminally, as a result
of that, because it was so hard with the rapidly escalating
price of land in Nevada to ever set a price that you could
fairly exchange it.
But I repeat what I said earlier: The Land and Water
Conservation Fund cannot be used as a sop by this
administration for everything they want done and that deals
with the environment. It will not work. There is not enough
money there.
These programs that you are eliminating are programs that
have been placed in this bill in this legislation in years past
by Senators with great thought and deliberation, and the
committees accepted that. So I would hope that you are prepared
to take a bill that we are going to report out here that is
much different than the one you have given us.
Secretary Norton. I still believe the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, with the flexibility that it provides to the
States, and continuing Federal land acquisition where it is
appropriate, working at acquisition of easements to be as cost
effective as possible. In what we are doing, it is great for
the environment in the long run.
Senator Reid. I look forward to working with you in that
regard.
Secretary Norton. Thank you. I look forward to working with
you.
Senator Burns. Senator Dorgan.
INDIAN ISSUES
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
While I am interested in a lot of subjects dealing with
your agency, Ms. Norton, I want to just use my time to speak of
one, and that is the issue of Indians.
First of all, thank you for being here. We have clearly a
crisis in Indian education, housing and health care. It is
clearly a crisis. I have a letter from a Tribal Chairman in
North Dakota, a rather lengthy one.
``Dear Mr. President''--he sent it to the President a year
or so ago--``I come from a third world country called Turtle
Mountain Indian Reservation.'' Then he described the conditions
of health care, education and housing. And the data and the
statistics would represent third world conditions.
I want to mention just about three or four things. Then I
want to ask you to comment on what you believe the Federal
Government's responsibility is in addressing these issues. This
is my framework of reference: We have four reservations in
North Dakota. We have a lot of folks who cannot very well speak
for themselves, who are put in conditions that are very
difficult.
A young girl named Tamara Demaris was 3 years old when she
was put in a foster care by a woman who was handling 150 cases.
She never checked out the foster home. So, at age 3, Tamara was
beaten severely at a drunken party. Her hair was pulled out by
the roots, she had a broken arm and a broken nose, and scars
from which she probably will never recover. Why? Not enough
money was available for someone in whose custody a 3-year-old
was entrusted to be able to check out where that 3-year-old was
going to be placed.
Sarah Swift Hawk, just south of our border, a grandmother,
laid down and died on a cot in a home that had no windows. It
was 40 below. The grandmother froze to death.
TRIBAL COLLEGES
We spend $2,000 less per student at tribal colleges than we
do other colleges in this country, $2,000 less per student, and
we know this works.
A woman in North Dakota was cleaning the toilets in the
hallways of a tribal college with four children. Her husband
had left her, and she decided she wanted to do more than clean
the rooms. The day I spoke at the college graduation, she was a
graduate wearing a cap and gown. This works, and yet we
dramatically underfund tribal colleges.
The Spirit Lake Nation held a hearing one day and the woman
who was in charge of the social services broke down and cried
as she described the stacks of files in which sexual abuse and
abuse against children had been alleged that were not even
investigated.
She broke down saying, ``This is my responsibility, but I
have to beg even to borrow a car to be able to transport a
young kid into Devils Lake to get some help,'' and then she
began weeping.
These are conditions on our Indian reservations. Some of
them are dealing with Indian health and I know that is not in
your area, although this subcommittee does that. The tribal
priority allocations and other issues in education are well
within your area of responsibility and we need to do much, much
better. It is unforgivable what is happening to those,
especially children, on Indian reservations because we have not
done our job.
Now, I would like to ask you to respond. Do you not agree
that we face almost third world conditions, that we face a full
blown emergency in Indian education?
INDIAN EDUCATION
These Indian schools, Madame Secretary, are judged by those
who have inspected them to be some of the worst in the country.
They are in desperate need of repair, renovation. I could talk
at great length about that, but I shall not.
Give me your attitude about what we need to be doing to
address these issues on American Indian reservations.
Secretary Norton. Well, I certainly do understand that many
of these schools are in desperate situations, and that the
education that we are providing for young people in Indian
country is not up to the par that we expect.
This is the responsibility of the Department that I take
very seriously. We have 50,000 children who we have a
responsibility to educate, and I think that is the first step
in trying to really make fundamental changes. That is what we
need to do in order to improve the situation there.
The Turtle Mountain School, that I believe is in your area,
is in the next group of schools on the priority list, and it is
likely for 2003.
I think working to do what we can to help our schools is
critical and why the President has made this one of his top
priorities. We are increasing the funding--or making sure we
have a sustained commitment to the funding in that area. There
was only $31 million for school construction in 1997, about a
quarter of the $128 million we are up to now. It is a dramatic
increase.
It is something I am very concerned about. I am planning to
do some visits to the schools so that I can see firsthand the
situations that have been described to me.
Senator Dorgan. Well, in fact the increase for these
schools have been increasing in the last several years. We have
provided some additional resources, but we have a clear
emergency here and we are not providing nearly the resources.
I would make the same point my colleague Senator Byrd made.
There are conflicting needs and conflicting goals perhaps in
the minds of some, but we do have to compare. What are the
emergency situations and how do we respond to them?
This is, in my judgment, it is not optional for us when we
have a trust responsibility, which is what we have with Indian
children. Our responsibility to provide for the education of
these Indian children is a trust responsibility, not an option.
It is mandatory. And all of us, it seems to me, if we were
required to tour a good many of these schools, would hang our
head and say, ``How on earth could we have let this happen?''
This is not a partisan comment. I say to Democratic and
Republican administrations: We have got to do better. This is
not an option for us. We have got to put sufficient money in
our budgets to do it. And if it is that versus a tax cut or
from $1.6 trillion to $1.59 trillion or whatever it is, we need
to meet our responsibilities.
I just urge you: Spend some time visiting these
reservations and work with us to find ways within this budget
framework to make the appropriate choices.
Let me just make one other point. I appreciate the
recommendation on Ojibwa and I say to the administration: Thank
you for that. We have been working for a long while to get that
done.
But we are still short in a wide range of areas. And let me
ask you to specifically pay attention to Tribal Colleges. We
are $2,000 per student below what is happening at other
colleges, and these colleges work and work very well. We need
to do much better there as well.
I said I am interested in a wide range of issues. I wanted
to focus only on this because I think in so many cases these
are people who do not have much of a voice in these matters,
and we have a responsibility to provide that voice.
Madame Secretary, thank you again and I look forward to
working with you on other issues when we have a chance to have
further discussions.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I would ask you now, I ask
consent that I might be allowed to join in the comments of
Senator Campbell and Senator Dorgan as it relates to Indians
and the plight in the State of Nevada.
Senator Burns. Without objection.
Senator Dorgan. And if I might just say, I did not mention
my colleague Senator Campbell, but I should have. He has been
just a relentless voice here in Congress with myself and
Senator Domenici and others to try to move in the right
direction, along with Senator Reid, and so I thank him for his
work on this as well.
Senator Burns. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madame Secretary, I am sure you look forward to these
hearings with anticipation of one form or another. We are
delighted to have you here.
Senator Reid has spoken to you about the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, and others and I share his concern. I share
his concern about the cuts in the Interior budget. I do not
like the idea of taking non-Land and Water Conservation Funds,
putting them under the Land and Water Conservation Fund and
say, ``Now they are fully funded,'' because it is basically
robbing Peter to pay Paul.
ADMINISTRATION'S ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
Let me ask you this: In the first 100 days of this new
administration, the President has received some serious
criticisms concerning his environmental policies, or some would
say the lack of those policies.
Among controversial action, he has certainly reversed his
campaign promise to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power
plants. He has suspended and delayed a rule that would minimize
arsenic in ground water. He has withdrawn the United States
from the Kyoto negotiations to combat climate change, and we
have heard from most of our major allies of their concern.
Now, do you believe these criticisms are unwarranted or due
to a failing by the White House in conveying its messages or do
these criticisms of the President represent substantive errors
in his understanding of the importance of environmental
policies?
Secretary Norton. Senator, it is my understanding that the
U.S. Senate has expressed some grave concerns about the Kyoto
Treaty as well, and the burdens that it placed on the United
States without placing burdens on the rest of the world in
order to----
Senator Leahy. Should we withdraw from the negotiations
because of that, or should we keep on working to make it
better?
Secretary Norton. The administration is in the process of
examining options to deal with global climate change. Obviously
it is an important issue, and we need to deal with that. The
United States should deal with that in the perspective of
working with other countries to ensure that everyone carries
their share of trying to resolve the issues and not just the
people of America carrying the burden that should be shared by
the rest of the world.
Senator Leahy. Does the fact that these other countries are
all our NATO allies, for example, are involved in it--are you
saying that their involvement means they are not willing to
carry their share?
Secretary Norton. Well, I am obviously not the one who has
the lead on negotiating on climate change issues, but let me
assure you that the administration is looking very seriously at
this issue and we are working to find the kinds of solutions
that make sense. But when the U.S. Senate----
Senator Leahy. Well, do you feel----
Secretary Norton [continuing]. Had a 95 to nothing vote
saying that the Kyoto approach was not exactly the right one, I
think it is our responsibility----
Senator Leahy. Well, do you abandon it just entirely?
Secretary Norton [continuing]. It is our responsibility to
take a second look at that.
Senator Leahy. It would also probably be the responsibility
to say what you are looking at. To say ``We will just
withdraw,'' that does not really say you are looking at
anything else.
I mean it is like the arsenic in water. It is the carbon
dioxide emissions, which was one of the things he got elected
on, was in--in that regard, and he has changed that.
But you feel--the criticisms of the President's actions
which have been fairly loud and fairly bipartisan, you feel
these criticisms are unwarranted?
Secretary Norton. Absolutely. I certainly believe that this
administration has done a good job in responding in a very
careful and thoughtful way to what has been put on the table
for us. We have seen the past administration essentially govern
for 7 years and 11 months with a status quo on environmental
issues, and we are now dealing with what they did in the last
month and even the last weeks that they were in office. And
that has caused us to----
Senator Leahy. I think considering some of the
legislation----
Secretary Norton [continuing]. Examine a lot of issues
again.
Senator Leahy. Concerning some of the legislation I saw
pass, pushed by the administration all during the past 8 years,
it is kind of hard to say that they spent 7\1/2\ years really
doing nothing. I mean there are ways of doing things and ways
of not doing things.
The previous administration, they had a commitment to child
nutrition and listed ketchup as a vegetable. This one says they
are interested in helping health and welfare of the nation as
any President would, but suddenly takes a different position on
arsenic in ground water.
I raise these points, not in a partisan way because they
have been raised by Republicans and Democrats in my State. The
concern has been virtually unanimous. Republican-oriented
newspapers, Democratic-oriented newspapers, Republican leaders,
Democratic leaders, have all said basically what I have said
here.
But let me ask you another area, and I would not----
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, would the Senator yield?
Senator Burns. Of course.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Senator Byrd. I have asked him to yield because I want to
join him in expressing concern with respect to global warming.
I was, with Senator Hagel, the chief co-sponsors of the
resolution that was passed by the Senate, adopted by the Senate
by a vote of 95 to nothing on the Kyoto--on the global warming.
Now, Madame Secretary, I was not the chief co-sponsor of
that resolution because I am against doing anything about
global warming. I am not one of those who is ready to
thoroughly disregard the scientific advice that we have been
getting over the years concerning global warming. I did not--I
was not the co-sponsor because I just wanted to get away from
the table and not do anything about it.
As one who has lived 83 years and is well on the way to his
84th birthday, I have seen a lot of changes in this country. I
do not have to take it from scientists that something is
happening out there.
We are having more floods. We are having more droughts. We
are having the melting of the ice around the two poles, the
North and South Pole. The water level is rising. We are seeing
storms more suddenly come upon us. There is something happening
and we ought to be concerned about it.
Now I am concerned. My concern is the administration
apparently is going to withdraw from the table.
Senator Leahy. So they say.
Senator Byrd. Now that concerns me. I hope that is not the
case. I think we ought to stay at the table. Now, the
resolution we passed was just a warning across--my position in
the matter, and I think I generated that resolution, was to put
a shot across the bow of the Clinton administration, because it
appeared to me that they were going whole hog to get a treaty
that I felt would not pass the scrutiny of the U.S. Senate.
1992 TREATY
Now, there was a treaty that was adopted by the U.S.
Senate. What treaty was that? It was some years back.
Secretary Norton. In 1992, I believe there was.
Senator Byrd. All right. And here is what happened. That
treaty was adopted when not a handful of Senators were on the
floor, did not have a single vote against it. Why? Because
there was no vote taken.
It was one of those situations in which the Majority leader
or someone calls up the matter in the late hours of the
session. We are doing what we call our homework, ``doing
homework.'' And it is called up, passed, unanimous consent.
Nobody takes a look at it, and that was a treaty.
If they had a vote, it was a voice vote because I went back
and researched this. And you can have three people on the
floor. If two stand, if the Chair asks for a standing vote,
vote by show of hands or by standing, and two stand and one
sits, that is two-thirds if nobody challenges it. Now, that is
the way that first treaty was passed.
So, I went back and studied that and I thought ``We had
better let this administration''--in that instance, it was the
Clinton administration--``We better let this administration
know that they better not send that treaty up here unless they
get the countries, the developing countries, to go along.'' And
so that is what we were saying. Now, the developing countries
joined at the beginning.
Also, we want to know what the economic results are going
to be on big industries in America, coal, steel, whatever. What
is going to be the economic impact of such a treaty? That was
my shot across the bow, but I did not say we ought to withdraw
and get away from the table and show no interest at all.
And I am very concerned if that is what the Senator is
indicating is maybe going to happen here. We ought to stay at
the table and be a voice at the table.
I thank the Senator.
Senator Leahy. I agree with the Senator from West Virginia
on that. I was one of the ones who voted for his and Senator
Hagel's resolution, not because I wanted to withdraw from Kyoto
procedure by any means, but to define, sharpen it.
My concern is that the current administration is not just
sharpening it or doing the things that our allies, our major
industrial allies have done, but rather saying ``We want to
leave this,'' some kind of a symbolic thing here. ``We will
just walk away from the table.'' It is an easy thing to do, but
terribly difficult to explain to future generations.
Secretary Norton. Senator, let me correct what I think is a
misperception, and that is that we are walking away from the
table. This administration will be remaining engaged with the
world in trying to deal with the issue of global climate
change. That is something that we take seriously.
We also need some creativity. We need to have a re-
examination of the issues. We need to ensure that what we are
doing is based on a thorough understanding of the scientific
aspects of global climate change, and that is what we will be
pushing for.
Senator Leahy. Madame Secretary, nobody can disagree with
those sentiments of yours of making sure we are doing the right
thing, re-examining and so on.
I remember a former director of the EPA who finally had to
explain to this committee, this Appropriations Committee, why
in her attempts to make sure they are doing--well, she said to
``do things right,'' they would reorganize their enforcement
division about every 30 to 50 days, say, ``We just want to make
sure we get it right.''
Well, what they did, of course, was add several years of
being able to tell everybody, ``We are not going to enforce any
laws, any of the environmental laws because we are
reorganizing,'' a sort of ``Go ahead and pollute. We do not
give a hoot.'' And that is exactly what happened.
And so I have no question, nor anybody, of examining and
re-examining what you are doing, but when re-examining becomes
a definition of doing nothing, then we get concerned.
Now, it has only been 100 days and I am not suggesting that
is what is happening, but I think that there will be concern,
it will be bi-partisan concern here, if the re-examination is
done in a way that we do not ever look at what is there.
Let me ask you this, and my time is up, but I will ask you
this one question. I will submit the rest for the record.
I do know your reputation is that of listening to both
sides of controversial issues, and I applaud that. We have had
Cabinet members in different positions in both Republican and
Democratic administrations who did not have the reputation of
listening to both sides of a controversial issue, and I think
the Departments and the country suffered when that happened. So
I applaud you for listening to it.
Now, I know that you and a number of other members of the
Bush administration want to open the coast of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas interests. Many of us
in Congress, again both parties, oppose that. If the public
opinion polls are accurate, the majority of Americans oppose
that. I know you have heard arguments on both sides.
Can you tell me: Of the arguments that come to you against
opening it, what are the two most compelling arguments you have
heard?
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Secretary Norton. Senator Leahy, let me first of all close
on the issue of global climate change. You talked about some
problems that you had seen in prior administrations, and then I
appreciate clarifying that you were not saying that that is
what we were doing. And you used the phrase ``do not give a
hoot'' about what is happening. I find that is----
Senator Leahy. That was back some time ago.
Secretary Norton [continuing]. Not what we are----
Senator Leahy. It was at the same time we were hearing
about ketchup as a vegetable. It was back in the 1980s, but go
ahead.
Secretary Norton. Yes. We are taking this very seriously.
We are looking at an issue where there is not a national
consensus on what should be done, and where there is great
scientific uncertainty. And we are working hard to move forward
with something that will reflect more national consensus and
will be based on solid science. And that is our goal in dealing
with global climate change.
ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
As to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I personally
visited there. I had the opportunity to stand outside in 75
degrees below zero chill factor and to examine things
firsthand.
Senator Leahy. Were you a little bit concerned that just a
few days before you arrived, they found that a very large
percentage of the cut-off valves were not working?
Secretary Norton. That is something that does cause me
concern. Obviously we need to have strong, solid enforcement
program to ensure that the environmental protection measures
that are put in place are ones that actually operate. That is a
cause for concern for me.
I was pleased to see the technology that is in use in some
of the areas to ensure that we do have good environmental
protection. At the same time, we are exploring for the sub-
surface resources, and so I would certainly understand the
Senate wanting to take a close look at the environmental
measures that might be put in place and would help to do that.
Senator Leahy. But then my question, before the time runs
out, is: What are your two most compelling reasons against it
that you have heard?
Secretary Norton. I think there are some emotional concerns
about the protection of the area, and I understand the great
deal of concern that people have for preserving wild places. I
want to see that we do have strong environmental protections.
That is something that I do think we need to ensure.
I also understand the concern of the local people there in
having a say in what happens. I mean it is frustrating to talk
with people who are there, whose lives are being affected, who
are either for it or against it; and the decision is being made
many thousands of miles away from where they live. I understand
that concern.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Senator, would you yield?
You might raise the questions of Kyoto and the questions
you are concerned about. Senator, the Secretary of Energy will
be before this committee in 2 weeks and I think that is the
time to raise the question that you were raising with regard to
Kyoto.
Senator Leahy. I like to get the full picture though.
Senator Burns. I know.
Senator Leahy. I want to know all the nuances of the
administration.
Senator Burns. Yes. I know.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Burns. Yes.
Senator Reid. I would ask you for consent that I have a
series of questions I would like to submit to the Secretary and
that she would respond to those in the next couple of weeks.
Senator Burns. Without objection. And she can respond to
you and to the committee.
Senator Reid. Thank you. That would be fine, be perfect.
FIBER OPTIC LEASE RATES
Senator Burns. Madame Secretary, last year we spent a great
deal of time and effort in slowing the BLM's plans to increase
drastically lease rates for fiber optic right-of-way crossings.
I Chair Telecommunications over on the Commerce Committee,
which is in the next building over.
At the end of the year, we prevented both the Interior and
the Agriculture Departments from implementing the final rule
that would replace the current linear right-of-way fee
schedule. As chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on
Communications, I represent a rural State where these fiber
optic lines are very, very important to some of the out-of-the-
way places in our State.
I am afraid that what we are advocating on these fees
deepens the digital divide, so to speak, that everybody talks
about.
Can I have your assurance that any activity by the
Department of the Interior to re-evaluate fiber optic lease
rates will be fully disclosed to Congress? And additionally,
can you assure me that rural interests will be consulted prior
to another rulemaking proposal?
Secretary Norton. I am just beginning to become familiar
with that proposal. I know we need to balance getting a fair
return for the public on the use of their lands, but I also
understand the concerns that rural communities might not have
access to telecommunications if we do not do that.
So I will work with you on those issues and let you and
other Senators and rural communities know what is happening.
Senator Burns. This is a very, very important issue,
because the ranking member of this committee represents a
mountainous State as I represent a mountainous State.
We also understand that distance learning, tele-medicine,
all of these communications issues are the key to providing new
services and expanded services into isolated areas where we
cannot, especially on a two-way basis, interact for things such
as distance learning and tele-medicine.
We are going to manage our medical care to our elderly in
rural areas in different ways, and a key part of this is fiber
optics and broadband services, extended services, etc. So we
are very, very much concerned about that.
We know the value of that, and we know that some of these
services are going to have to be provided on the backs of the
commercial services that are offered there. If they are priced
completely out of hand, then we never will get a build-out of
those technologies into rural areas and some of the isolated
areas of our States. So that becomes a very, very important
thing.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY REDUCTIONS
The next question I want to ask is in regard to the USGS.
You have taken away a lot of money from the Geological Survey,
and yet we still have--as was indicated on this committee this
morning--we still have some concern about energy. My State is
wrestling with an energy crisis like you cannot believe, and
our legislature just closed with trying to deal with it. In
some areas, I think they dealt with it very responsibly, and
maybe in other areas they needed some help.
But when we start talking about geothermal energy, when we
talk about the knowledge of our planet in this day and age, I
would caution the administration that the cutbacks they have
taken are of concern to us. Now, you have taken some of that
money and are using it somewhere else, and that is why I asked
you about where there are areas where we may have to expand, or
what will we have to do. The Abandoned Mine Land Program, that
is just as important a program. That is just as important to
Montana as it is to Senator Byrd's State.
But nonetheless, our understanding of geothermal energy and
what our earth is and what it can be revolves around this
particular agency, and we are cutting it back.
Can you give me a specific reason why we would take from
that end of this appropriation to shore up some other end?
Secretary Norton. The Geological Survey has been involved
in a broad range of different activities. We are in the process
of trying to focus the activities of the Geological Survey to
try to have those things that will be most beneficial to us,
first of all, in management of the Department of the Interior's
resources and in working with States, with universities, and so
forth in research efforts.
We have been trying to examine our programs. We will
continue to examine programs to try to identify those things
that are the most significant and the most valuable.
Some of the activities are ones where the Geological Survey
was really providing benefits for others without having the
involvement of those people and the financial support of those
people in its efforts. We would like to look at cost sharing
kinds of arrangements and some other things so that the USGS is
not carrying the full burden.
Senator Burns. I think you have pretty well covered ANWR,
and I have two or three other questions that I will also submit
to you in writing, and you can respond to me and to the
committee if you would like.
ROYALTY-IN-KIND
The Minerals Management Service has been studying the use
of royalty-in-kind, RIK, as a way to avoid disputes with
lessees over the evaluation of oil and gas, to potentially
increase the revenues to the Treasury.
In the fiscal year 2001 Interior Appropriations bill, the
Committee expanded the agency's authority to use RIK. What has
been your analysis shown thus far when it makes sense--and does
it make economic sense to implement RIK?
Secretary Norton. I have to say I have learned that is a
much more complex issue than I thought it was when I first came
to office. I looked at it from just the perspective that it is
a good approach to minimize some of the complications that
arise in trying to value royalties. I still think it has a lot
of potential, but I understand that we need to work with a lot
of issues.
Senator Burns. You have expanded--you have added $7 million
to implement the program, so I would assume that there are some
positives coming out of this that would warrant that $7 million
increase.
Secretary Norton. Instead of trying to figure out the
imputed costs and the constructive costs and so forth with a
very complex kind of approach, it is much easier I think to
just be straightforward and sell natural gas or sell oil on the
market and see how much the Federal Government gets from that
sale. I think there is some real potential benefit in that, and
so it is something that I personally support trying to move
forward on.
Senator Burns. Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. I had my chance.
Senator Burns. You had your----
Senator Byrd. I had my chance, so let him go.
Senator Burns. Senator Campbell, do you have a couple of
others?
Senator Campbell. Yes. I have a number of questions, but in
the essence of time, I would like to submit those and ask for
those to get back in writing.
I will just ask you a couple, but since everybody has
expanded somewhat on ANWR and global warming, I want to put my
two cents in, too, Senator.
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY
I can say in a nutshell, the reasons it was 95 with 5
absent was it was a bad agreement, very simply. It would have
just devastated the American economy because it would have just
crushed our manufacturing base and the energy that comes from
States like Senator Byrd's State to use that manufacturing
base.
You cannot make a treaty where over 100--in fact, I think
it was 110--countries were exempt. Anybody in their right mind
ought to know that multi-national corporations, if they cannot
do business here, they are going to go somewhere else and do
business. If they cannot manufacture here, they are going to go
to one of those exempt countries and manufacture there.
So from the standpoint of a global warming treaty, it would
not reduce a thing. It would just make less here and more
there. But from a global standpoint, we would have had the same
number of hydrocarbons in the air. And so I think most of us
saw it as a real flawed treaty.
There was a huge loophole in the thing, and so we did not
support it. But that does not mean we want to back away from
the table, and other Senators have mentioned that already.
Drilling in ANWR
From the standpoint of ANWR, I have been up there as you
have and one of our Senators--I am sorry he has already left--
he mentioned that the polls are opposed to going to do any
drilling in ANWR.
Well, I can tell you, polls are skewed depending on how far
the wolf is from the door. And gasoline has already hit $2 a
gallon in some towns in the United States. When it hits $3 a
gallon, you are going to see the polls change. And when it hits
$4 a gallon as it is in some countries, there is going to be
overwhelming support by poll to drill in ANWR. And when it hits
$5 a gallon, there will probably be a march on Washington
because we have not done something about it.
So, the polls should not mean anything in this dialogue
about if we are going to do the right thing for working
Americans.
I might mention from the Native Alaskan standpoint, too,
Mr. Chairman, just since it has been on the table here, that
the Alaska Federation of Natives supports drilling in that
small area of ANWR, as you probably know, Madame Secretary. The
only village in the area also supports it. The only village
within the boundaries of ANWR also supports the drilling.
And the only native Alaskans I can find that are really
opposed to it are the Quinhagaks, most of whom are Canadian
citizens, not American citizens.
So I think that we have got a long way to go on that, but I
know that when we talk about the energy crisis, it ought to be
clear to anybody that one of the reasons we are in this
terrible mess is we have not built a refinery in 30 years. We
are dependent on OPEC, and we are giving money now to Saddam
Hussein who is shipping more oil over here than he did before
the war and he is re-arming with the money we are giving him,
American money we are giving him that some day may be buying
arms that are going to kill more Americans.
We ought to have enough sense to get away from that. And we
cannot if we are not going to use the energy within this
country.
And so when we get into these flawed treaties, I tell you
what, that is why it was such a huge margin opposed to it. It
is not because we did not want to clean up the air; it is
because we do not want to be suckers again.
INDIAN EDUCATION
Let me ask you just a couple of questions. Since Senator
Dorgan did talk a great deal about Indian education, as you
probably know, Madame Secretary, Indian education is a little
different area because they do not have a tax base. They
cannot--they do not have a property tax base. They cannot raise
the mill levy to build a new school. They are totally dependant
on the Federal Government to provide money for school
construction.
In the President's budget, he said he wanted to leave no
child behind, and I agree with that. His request includes $16.5
million more for school operations, and a modest increase of
$162,000 for school construction over last year.
But given those numbers, is the Department on track in
eliminating the backlog of Indian school facilities by 2006 as
the President has indicated he wanted to do?
Secretary Norton. Yes, Senator. Our plan is to do that. And
that is the time period. It looks like the overall amount on
that would be $1.8 billion. That includes not just school
construction, but other aspects of enhancing education.
Senator Campbell. Okay. I thank you. One thing, too,
because I live on a reservation, and I am out there all the
time with the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, I can
tell you that education of Indian kids cannot be viewed in a
vacuum.
You can give the best education in the world to a
youngster. If there is no job or no place to use that education
when he gets done, he is still going to be destitute, and that
is what we have on Indian reservations. So we are trying to do
a lot of other things in the Indian Affairs Committee to try to
help self-determination, by putting things in place where
American corporations deal with tribes to try to get some jobs
out there for these youngsters when they do get out of school.
TRIBAL CONTRACTING
One of the things we have done is increase the tribal
contracting and the compacting to provide the necessary startup
in administrative costs associated with managing of a contract.
But in the President's budget, there is a small decrease in
self governance grants this year.
Does that budget item mark a change in how the incoming
administration views Indian contracting?
Secretary Norton. It is my understanding, Senator Campbell,
that there is actually a net increase when you look at the
relevant categories that are put together. Well, it is a net
increase of $1 million.
Senator Campbell. Okay.
Secretary Norton. But I will be happy to provide the
details on that.
Senator Campbell. Perhaps my numbers are wrong, but I would
hope there is, because to me clearly strengthening the Indian
economy and the creation of jobs is going to be related to what
they do if we can get them the education in the first place.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions. The
other ones I will submit.
Senator Burns. Madame Secretary, well, most of my questions
have to do with the infrastructure on the National Park Service
and also restoring some historic spots with regard to those
areas, natural resources and some other questions. I will
submit those to you in writing.
As we start through this thing and working very closely
with Senator Byrd in coming up with a final product--but those
are the areas that I was mainly interested in.
On this committee, there are a lot of folks that are in
agreement with you, and there are some areas where we have some
disagreement, but we will work through those as best we can. We
have always done it before. I do not see any reason why we
should not do it this time.
Senator Byrd, do you have a closing thought or some
questions?
Senator Byrd. Yes, just briefly. Let me say, however, I
want to thank you for the courtesy that you have extended to
each of us, the fairness with which you characteristically have
conducted this hearing and I am sure that the future hearings
will be likewise well done.
Also, I want to thank the Secretary for her testimony this
morning. West Virginia cannot complain very much with respect
to many areas of her budget.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FUNDING REDUCTIONS
I do want to ask just a couple of questions here concerning
something the chairman has already touched upon, the U.S.
Geological Survey. I am concerned with the 9 percent funding
cut being posed for the U.S. Geological Survey. A reduction of
this size, some $69 million, would have a severe impact on the
USGS budget, and as such, it warrants close scrutiny.
Ironically, the supporting materials supplied by the
Department state that your budget, Madame Secretary, focuses,
and I am quoting, ``focuses resources on core mission programs
such as mapping and hazards and those that directly support the
Department of Interior's Land and Resource Management
Bureaus.''
My question: If programs such as mapping and geologic
hazards are considered core programs, and you are supposedly
focusing resources on them, why are their budgets being
reduced? The mapping program is cut by $6.7 million. Geology is
cut by $11 million, and biological research is cut by $11.3
million.
Now, how is this focusing resources on these programs? And
as you address this issue, or these issues, please tell me what
effect such cuts would have on U.S. Geological Survey
facilities in my State of West Virginia.
Secretary Norton. Senator, we are trying to focus within
each of the areas on eliminating those aspects of the USGS
activities that are duplications of what other departments or
other programs are doing, and so that is one aspect of the way
in which we are examining USGS issues.
We are also trying to see how those things can be done in a
way that will leverage private money and State money and
working with other partners on the areas of research so that we
can ensure that the other players are involved with their fair
share.
My understanding is that as to West Virginia, the primary
area impacted would be the Leetown Science Center, and that
funding is maintained at last year's levels.
Senator Byrd. Madame Secretary, I thank you very much for
your testimony.
Secretary Norton. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Byrd.
Thank you, Madame Secretary, for coming this morning. And
we will submit those questions.
The record will remain open for a week, I suppose, to those
folks wanting to make a comment on this budget.
We appreciate your willingness to come and sit and to work
out some of these difficulties we had because we have an $18
billion budget here. And we are trying to allocate those
resources to where they benefit the most people as far as the
management of our public lands and the areas that you cover are
concerned.
So, we appreciate your attendance here this morning in the
committee. And if you want to respond to those questions both
to the individual Senators and to the committee, that would be
appreciated, too. And these hearings are closed.
Secretary Norton. Thank you.
Additional committee questions
Senator Burns. 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 Conrad Burns
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND--STATESIDE
Question. The request for the LWCF's stateside program is a
substantial one--roughly a 500 percent increase.
Are you confident that the states are prepared to manage this
increase effectively and allocate the funds quickly?
Answer. The initial reaction from the States to the Department
concerning the President's proposal has been very positive. The
Department believes that, if the proposal is adopted, this positive
reaction will translate into active participation in the program.
As with any group of entities, some will proceed more rapidly than
others. Regardless of how rapidly any one State will move to
effectively allocate funds, research by the National Recreation and
Park Association indicates that for the period 2000-2004, local park
and recreation systems needed close to $55 billion for capital
investments to rehabilitate, enhance, and acquire recreation sites and
facilities.
It is also important to note that, when the LWCF program was
established, the authors included language that allowed the States two
additional years after the year of appropriation to obligate their
fiscal year grant funds. By so doing, Congress recognized that
variances existed among States and that adequate time is necessary to
administer a multi-million dollar grant program with States who must
prioritize not only their own recreation needs but those of local
applicants as well. In addition, the 2002 request establishes the funds
in a no-year account.
Question. How many states currently have planning documents in
place that will allow them to expend these funds consistent with the
requirements proposed in the budget request?
Answer. The three different existing planning documents of the
States that could be involved to a greater or lesser extent in the
proposed 2002 LWCF State grants program are the Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), the Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Program (WCRP) Comprehensive Plan, and the Cooperative
Agreements implementing section 6 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
There is no planning requirement for funding allocations by the States
for wetland projects; rather, projects must meet the requirements of
the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. The status of State plans
for the three programs follows.
All States either have a current Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan (SCORP), the long-required LWCF States grants program
planning documents, in place or have been given the flexibility to
certify the existing SCORP while an updated version is being prepared.
The Fiscal Year 2001 Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies
Appropriation Act (Public Law 106-553), provided $50 million to fund
States' wildlife conservation, wildlife conservation education, and
wildlife-associated recreation projects, with a focus on species with
the greatest conservation need. The Act created a subaccount under the
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act for a Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Program, a formula-based apportionment to the 56 States and
territories. There has been considerable communication and cooperation
among the Service, the States, and the International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies during the development of this new program.
One new requirement established by the Act was for States to submit
a Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) for approval prior to being eligible
to receive grants under the Act. Of the 56 states and territories, 29
had submitted their Comp Plans by April 16, and all but one had
submitted their Comp Plans by May 2. Submission of a Comp Plan by a
State constitutes a commitment to develop and begin implementing,
within five years, a Wildlife Conservation Strategy that will
facilitate the identification of the State's greatest wildlife
conservation needs. Each Comp Plan must substantiate the authority and
capability of the State to implement the WCRP and indicate public input
and participation.
The Service has facilitated the delivery of these new funds to the
States through three significant actions. It has: (1) developed and
distributed WCRP implementation guidelines that make program
requirements and planning clearer; (2) sponsored three regional
workshops in cooperation with and for State and regional Federal Aid
partners to promote implementation; and (3) established a WCRP
Comprehensive Plan Eligibility Determination Team (with Federal and
State members), which has met three times and forwarded recommendations
to the Director to approve 51 of the 55 Comp Plans submitted to date.
The Team anticipates completion of its review and recommendations
for all 56 State and territory WCRP Comp Plans by the end of June 2001.
Two States have already submitted grants for specific projects to
Service Federal Aid Regional Offices.
All 50 States and three territories have Cooperative Agreements
pursuant to Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act for animals and 44
States and two territories have plant agreements.
In addition to proposing changes in the purposes for which the
stateside grant funds may be used, the budget proposes a change in the
allocation formula for stateside funds.
Question. What is your rationale for this proposed change?
Answer. The use of land area, along with population, in computing
the annual apportionment of funds to the States, recognizes that LWCF
grant funds will also be used to benefit wildlife, habitat, endangered
species and wetland ecosystems, and by so doing, will be addressing
both recreation and habitat needs. Because land area, not population,
is a more relevant measure of the need with respect to species and
habitat protection, the proposed 30 percent land area/70 percent
population split maintains population as the major factor in the
distribution of funds while recognizing the importance of land area in
the preservation of wildlife and their habitat.
Question. Please provide for the record a table showing how LWCF
state grants would be allocated under the current formula vs. the
proposed new formula.
Answer. The table follows:
LWCF STATE GRANTS COMPARISON OF DISTRIBUTION OF $450 MILLION UNDER
CURRENT AND PROPOSED FORMULA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
State State-side 2002 proposed
current law formula
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. $7,195,322 $7,189,872
Alaska.................................. 3,516,950 16,599,201
Arizona................................. 8,194,703 9,090,930
Arkansas................................ 5,183,783 6,040,542
California.............................. 40,573,280 29,181,968
Colorado................................ 7,334,564 8,311,282
Connecticut............................. 6,831,092 5,441,352
Delaware................................ 3,824,434 4,500,000
Florida................................. 19,975,686 14,936,024
Georgia................................. 10,499,393 9,842,030
Hawaii.................................. 4,224,422 4,500,000
Idaho................................... 3,981,303 5,828,473
Illinois................................ 15,909,365 12,604,094
Indiana................................. 8,876,859 7,934,129
Iowa.................................... 5,345,209 6,296,171
Kansas.................................. 5,333,510 6,734,679
Kentucky................................ 6,310,612 6,666,867
Louisiana............................... 7,457,976 7,039,204
Maine................................... 3,971,101 4,622,535
Maryland................................ 8,829,253 6,789,507
Massachusetts........................... 10,125,029 7,468,118
Michigan................................ 13,295,867 10,981,864
Minnesota............................... 7,667,647 8,167,968
Mississippi............................. 5,101,338 6,035,763
Missouri................................ 8,271,224 8,370,924
Montana................................. 3,625,476 7,012,285
Nebraska................................ 4,458,086 5,970,984
Nevada.................................. 4,953,704 6,919,164
New Hampshire........................... 4,118,401 4,500,000
New Jersey.............................. 12,585,735 8,832,214
New Mexico.............................. 4,594,869 7,088,793
New York................................ 23,685,508 16,773,193
North Carolina.......................... 10,334,550 9,539,204
North Dakota............................ 3,540,622 5,078,565
Ohio.................................... 14,769,037 11,558,212
Oklahoma................................ 6,091,250 6,939,404
Oregon.................................. 6,250,845 7,548,345
Pennsylvania............................ 15,993,663 12,264,361
Rhode Island............................ 4,180,707 4,500,000
South Carolina.......................... 6,763,711 6,425,808
South Dakota............................ 3,576,359 5,312,224
Tennessee............................... 8,300,327 7,796,956
Texas................................... 24,229,796 22,958,082
Utah.................................... 5,184,219 6,439,798
Vermont................................. 3,449,128 4,500,000
Virginia................................ 10,051,824 8,683,721
Washington.............................. 9,045,872 8,516,462
West Virginia........................... 4,451,308 4,821,397
Wisconsin............................... 8,055,753 7,881,510
Wyoming................................. 3,378,141 5,626,342
-------------------------------
Subtotal--States.................. 433,498,811 424,660,521
===============================
Dist. of Columbia....................... 995,947 748,929
Puerto Rico............................. 6,045,929 5,057,501
Guam.................................... 172,527 199,825
Virgin Islands.......................... 135,797 158,626
Samoa................................... 72,409 83,209
Marianas................................ 78,580 91,389
-------------------------------
Subtotal--Other................... 7,501,189 6,339,479
===============================
Tribes.................................. .............. 10,000,000
Dist. to All............................ 441,000,000 441,000,000
Administration.......................... 9,000,000 9,000,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 450,000,000 450,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND--FEDERAL SIDE
Question. Within the President's budget request for the federal
side of LWCF, there is a proposal for two new programs: $50 million for
a competitively-awarded, cost-shared landowner incentive program and
$10 million for a new Private Stewardship grants program.
Please explain how these two new programs are different from each
other?
Answer. The budget includes $50 million in the FWS land acquisition
account to establish a competitively-awarded, cost-shared Landowner
Incentive Program for grants to States, the District of Columbia,
Territories, and Tribes to establish or supplement their own Landowner
Incentive Program. This program will provide technical and financial
assistance to private landowners all across the country to help them
protect and manage habitat, while continuing to engage in traditional
land use or working land conservation practices.
The new $10 million Private Stewardship Grants Program, also in the
FWS land acquisition account, will provide grants to individuals and
groups engaged in local, private, and voluntary conservation efforts
that benefit federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other
at-risk species. A diverse panel of representatives from State and
federal governments, conservation organizations, agriculture and
development interests, and the science community will assess
applications and make grant recommendations. Both new programs will be
administered by FWS.
Question. Do these programs overlap with current Departmental
programs? How are they different?
Answer. There are two existing FWS programs that share similarities
with the new Landowner Incentive Grant Program: the Federally-operated
Endangered Species Act Landowner Incentive Program and a portion of the
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF). While
similar, they do not fully meet the goals of the new program nor are
they funded at the levels envisioned by the President.
Existing programs are not targeted exclusively to providing
financial and technical incentives, or are Federally operated rather
than State operated. Specifically, the CESCF provides grants to states
for numerous purposes, including HCP land acquisition, candidate
conservation agreements, recovery actions, and other State initiatives
to conserve candidate, proposed, and listed species. States are not
required to use these funds to support private landowner conservation
efforts. The Federally operated ESA landowner incentive program is
directly operated by FWS; FWS solicits proposals directly from private
landowners.
Similarly, there are existing FWS programs that share similarities
with the new Private Stewardship Grants program: the North American
Wetlands Conservation Fund and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
program.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund provides grants to
individuals or organizations that have designed a long-term wetlands
conservation project for acquisition, restoration, and/or enhancement.
Tribes, private landowners, private citizens, Federal agencies, State
agencies, local governments, businesses, local conservation clubs, or
schools are all eligible to receive grants. A 100 percent match is
required. This program is not targeted exclusively to private
individuals and groups.
FWS also provides direct funding to private landowners for cost-
sharing habitat restoration activities through its Partners for Fish
and Wildlife program. This program is a mix of financial, technical,
and other assistance, as opposed to 100 percent financial assistance as
proposed in the new grant program.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS' EDUCATION INCREASES
Question. One particular area that President Bush focused on is
increased funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Specifically, he
has requested $2.2 billion for BIA, which is a 17 percent increase over
the 2000 budget. I have always expressed an interest in increasing
funding for education for American Indian students, not only at the
grade school and high school level but also at the college level. As
such, I was pleased to see that you have focused on increasing funds
for Indian education, both for construction and operations. I also
noticed a modest increase for tribally controlled community colleges.
Please provide the subcommittee with more details about these
increases for construction and operations and also for tribally
controlled community colleges.
Answer. The $161.6 million requested for the Education
Construction, Facilities Improvement and Repair program will provide
for the following: major repairs to 10 existing school facilities;
purchase of portable classrooms; roofing repairs and replacement;
continue work on backlog validation and update; minor repairs and
improvements at multiple school locations; environmental-related work,
plan and design of future year projects; emergency repair work; and,
demolishing of existing buildings which are no longer necessary for
programs. The request for FI&R is $13.6 million above the enacted
level. Within this amount, $8 million is requested for annual
maintenance to help prevent the maintenance backlog from continuing to
grow and the remainder of the increase is targeted to high priority
projects on the deferred maintenance list. Also, $122.8 million is
requested for replacement of six schools on the priority list.
The request for school operations is $504 million, which includes a
$15.6 million increase to ensure that schools maintain accreditation
and have access to computers and updated textbooks. This funding level
provides an increase of $135 per weighted student unit. The additional
$1 million requested for operating grants to Tribally Controlled
Community Colleges will provide an increase of $104 per ISC.
SAN CARLOS IRRIGATION PROJECT
Question. The Bureau of Indian Affairs runs the San Carlos
Irrigation Project (SCIP) in Arizona. It serves approximately 12,000
customers, both Indian and non-Indian. Due to increased rates, the San
Carlos Irrigation Project has been forced to use its reserve and faces
increased power costs this summer. Please update the subcommittee as to
what the Department is doing to address this potential problem.
Answer. To meet the SCIP obligations, the Department has provided
$47.5 million in additional funds to continue operations through the
end of August. Funds have been provided as follows:
March 2001--$6.5 million.--Reprogrammed from within the Bureau of
Indian Affairs Operation of Indian Programs account.
April 2001--$8.0 million.--Emergency Transfer from the National
Park Service land acquisition account.
May 2001--$33 million.--Emergency Transfer from: National Park
Service land acquisition account ($20 million); Fish and Wildlife
Service land acquisition account ($10 million); and, Bureau of Land
Management land acquisition account ($3 million).
The Administration has requested a supplemental appropriation of
$50.0 million as required under the Section 102 emergency transfer
authority.
Short-term power constraints related to the regional power market
should diminish on September 1, 2001, when the project will join a
consortium of public power entities. This is expected to substantially
reduce power costs from that time forward.
The Department is pursuing divestiture as an option for releasing
SCIP from direct Federal control. The Department has initiated
discussions within the Administration on divestiture of SCIP and has
begun work on a legislative proposal. Proceeds from divestiture might
be applied to make whole any entity that supplies assistance to SCIP in
the short term.
CONSERVATION RESEARCH CENTER IN FRONT ROYAL, VA
Question. Recently there has been talk of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service taking a role in the Conservation Center in Front
Royal, Virginia which is currently operated by the Smithsonian. Could
you please provide us with more detail about these preliminary plans?
Answer. FWS believes that the Smithsonian Institution's
Conservation and Research Center, a unit of the National Zoological
Park, has an important role in national and international efforts to
conserve endangered and declining species. The Smithsonian
Institution's initial proposal to discontinue operations at the
Conservation and Research Center created an opportunity for the
Department to develop a partnership effort with the Smithsonian,
States, universities, private conservation organizations and private
donors to help the facility continue operating. The Department and FWS
proposed to work with and assist the Smithsonian and National Zoo to
maintain the facility as a private/public partnership. The Smithsonian
Institution announced May 6, 2001, that it would withdraw its proposal
to close the Conservation and Research Center.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES CONTROL
Question. What has been budgeted for invasive alien species control
within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's budget? Please provide an
overall figure and a breakdown within the budget.
Answer. FWS works in cooperation with private groups, state
agencies, other federal agencies and other countries to combat invasive
plant and animal species. Four FWS programs have been specifically
targeted to conduct invasive species activities in 2002. Through these
programs, the President's Budget includes about $11.1 million to combat
and control invasive species.
Fisheries and Habitat Conservation--($4,664,000)
The Fisheries and Habitat Conservation Program leads the effort to
implement aquatic nuisance species activities authorized under the Non-
indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (as
amended, 1996) through the cooperative activities of the Aquatic
Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force. The FWS and NOAA serve as co-chairs
of the ANS Task Force whose role is to coordinate the activities of
seven federal agencies and 11 ex-officio members to prevent and control
aquatic nuisance species. FWS program staff at the Washington Office,
Regional offices and Fishery Resource Offices work with state and
private cooperators to coordinate and conduct activities carried out
under the ANS Task Force to implement a variety of provisions under the
Act.
Key efforts that will be conducted in 2002 include:
--Providing grants to States for implementation of State/interstate
ANS Management Plans approved by the ANS Task Force;
--Supporting Regional Panels to develop priorities and coordinate
regional/State/local aquatic invasive species activities;
--Conducting detection and monitoring activities including
establishing baseline surveys of high profile areas and
supporting the USGS Non-indigenous Aquatic Species database;
--Conducting a variety of prevention programs aimed at keeping
invasive species out of the U.S. including preventing the
spread and dispersal of those invasive species that have become
established, and identifying priority pathways to be addressed
(programs include the 100th Meridian Initiative, the Alaska
Ballast Water Initiative, Bait Pathway Analyses, and Dispersal
Barrier studies);
--Supporting the development of new ballast water treatment
technologies through the Ballast Water Demonstration Program
conducted in cooperation with the National Sea Grant Program;
--Developing and conducting cooperative control programs (i.e.,
ruffe, brown tree snake, Chinese mitten crab, Asian Swamp Eel)
to address those species which have become established and are
declared Aquatic Nuisance Species by the ANS Task Force;
--Providing support for outreach and education efforts; and
--Providing program support for the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task
Force and support for Non-indigenous Species Coordinators in
all seven FWS Regions and the Washington Office to ensure that
FWS Regional priorities for invasive aquatic species are
coordinated with the ANS Task Force for cooperative action and
program development.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife--($1,996,000)
The 2002 budget includes $1,996,000 specifically earmarked for
invasive alien species control. In addition, a portion of general
program activities may support invasive alien species control, however,
these funds are allocated, in part, on a competitive basis, and support
other types of habitat conservation initiatives. Fiscal year 2002
funding for these activities was $1,550,000; 2001 and 2002 amounts may
be more or less.
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program provides financial and
technical assistance to private landowners to help them restore
degraded fish and wildlife habitats on their property. The Partners
program often performs invasive species control as part of its
restoration efforts. The impact of these funds is increased by matching
contributions of financial and technical assistance as well as on-the-
ground efforts by our partners. As a result, the impact of this funding
is multiplied not only in terms of resources available to combat
invasive species, but in the total land area which can be addressed.
Landowners benefit from improved ecological health and productivity
of their land; the spread of invasive species is minimized; and habitat
is improved for migratory birds, inter-jurisdictional and anadromous
fish, and other threatened, endangered, and declining species. Examples
of Partners Program's activities include using prescribed burning,
integrated pest management techniques, physical removal, fence
construction, and restoration of native plant communities to control
invasive plants and animals for the benefit of a host of Federal trust
species.
In 2002 the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program will continue
efforts to eradicate, control, or manage invasive species on at least
2,690 acres of private lands. This goal will be accomplished through
the continuation of the above listed activities as well as:
--Restoring habitat in Texas which has been degraded by Salvinia (an
aquatic plant). This plant which is native to Brazil can double
in area in five days. Unchecked, this plant will quickly and
completely fill water bodies, removing all nutrients,
preventing re-oxygen of the water, diminishing photosynthesis,
and killing all the beneficial native aquatic plants.
--Working with The Nature Conservancy and other landowners in
Pennsylvania to remove exotic species such as multi-flora rose
and purple loosestrife from bogs and other wetlands to aid in
the recovery of the endangered bog turtle.
--In California, over 1,000 acres of native riparian forest have been
degraded by European giant cane. Restoring these native willow
and cottonwood habitats will benefit listed species such as the
least bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, red-legged
frog, and steelhead trout.
--In New York, European buckthorn and Japanese honeysuckle are
overrunning grassland habitats vital to neotropical migratory
songbirds. Prescribed burning and physical removal of these
invasive species will restore these grasslands benefitting
declining bird species such as the bobolink, meadowlark,
grasshopper sparrow and vesper sparrow.
Refuges and Wildlife--($2,694,000)
An estimated six million acres of refuge lands are affected by
invasive pest plants that are conflicting with wildlife management
objectives and threatening wildlife species. Refuges control invasive
plant and animal populations on the National Wildlife Refuge System.
These activities prevent the introduction and spread of invasive non-
native species and control them where they have already become
established. Some of the most insidious plant invaders on national
wildlife refuges include salt cedar, leafy spurge, thistles, Brazilian
pepper, purple loosestrife, Australian pine, Chinese tallow trees, old
world climbing fern, and melaleuca. In addition, a variety of animal
invaders such as Norway rats, nutria, brown tree snakes, Asian carp,
Asian Swamp eels, feral goats and wild pigs are a problem throughout
the Refuge system.
In 2002, FWS will incorporate a full spectrum of integrated pest
management techniques including chemical, mechanical, cultural, and
biological techniques to prevent, control, or eradicate aquatic and
terrestrial invasive species. As part of the Fulfilling the Promise
Implementation Plan, FWS has established a multi-discipline team to
develop a National Strategy for the Management of Invasive Species
throughout the Refuge System. This National Strategy will be the
guiding document for conducting invasive species prevention and control
operations at the field, regional, and national levels. The National
Strategy will include information to determine priority actions and
project development, monitoring and survey recommendations, program
organizational guidance, standard operating procedures for conducting
field operations, partnership development guidance, and other related
invasive species management information.
International Affairs--($199,000)
The International Affairs program develops scientific information
to evaluate potentially invasive foreign species that may qualify for
the list of injurious wildlife. This information will assist FWS in
making decisions about the regulation of imports of these species into
the United States. International Affairs conducts risk analyses and
biological assessments on potentially invasive species, to identify
species that pose unacceptable risks and should not be imported. This
analysis is a critical first step to help ensure that intentionally
imported wild plants and animals are not potentially invasive. The
program also develops outreach and partnership efforts with the
scientific community, industry, non-government organizations and the
public. In 2002, the International Affairs program will continue to
develop scientific information and aggregate trade data to assess the
risk of introduction of potentially invasive foreign species that may
qualify for the list of injurious wildlife.
FWS--INVASIVE SPECIES BUDGET BY ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002
Program enacted proposed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisheries and Habitat Conservation Partners 1,996 1,996
for Fish and Wildlife (1121).................
Branch of Invasive Species (1332)............. 4,664 4,664
Refuge Operations (1261)...................... 2,694 2,694
International Affairs (1671).................. 199 199
-------------------------
Total Devoted Exclusively to Invasives.. 9,553 9,553
Estimated Amount of Additional Funding Under 1,550 1,550
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program...
-------------------------
Grand Total............................. 11,103 11,103
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND APPRECIATION
FUND
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2002 does not include
a request for funds for the Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation
Fund. Explain the rationale for this decision.
Answer. The Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund has
provided grants to States and territories to benefit a broad array of
non-game species and to provide for their recreational enjoyment. The
2002 budget proposes funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
State Grant Program at $450 million an increase of $360 million. States
may use their share of the $450 million LWCF State Grants' Program for
wildlife conservation and restoration in line with the purposes of the
Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund. These formula driven
grants will gives States priority-setting capabilities within their
overall allocations.
ENDANGERED SPECIES--LISTING
Question. The Budget Request includes a $2.1 million request for
the ``listing program'' under Endangered Species. Additionally, the
President has requested that Congress modify the legislative language
that puts a cap on listing. Please explain how the Administration plans
to use the additional $2.1 million for listing and explain why the
Administration believes that the language for the cap on listing should
be modified.
Answer. The President's budget estimated that the requested funding
level would enable the Service to finalize the listing of all 37
species that have been proposed for listing; complete approximately 25
pending citizen petitions; and develop proposed rules on 12 of the 236
candidate species. As a result of additional critical habitat work
related to court orders and settlement agreements, the Service now
estimates that a lesser amount of work could be completed.
The President's budget includes revised appropriations language
that, if adopted, would help ensure FWS can spend its 2002 ESA listing
appropriation in accordance with biological priorities after meeting
existing court orders. The language is aimed at ensuring limited
listing funds are directed toward activities that provide the greatest
benefit for species at risk of extinction.
This revised language continues a provision recommended by the
previous Administration, and enacted by Congress in fiscal years 1998
through 2001, limiting the amount of the resource management account
that can be used for completing listings and critical habitat
designations to the amount provided by Congress. That is, the effect of
the language is to prohibit FWS from reprogramming funds from other
programs to the listing program. However, because some Courts have
concluded that they have little or no discretion to give FWS relief
from certain underlying mandatory deadlines in the ESA, even when
limited listing funds do not allow FWS to meet all of the ESA listing
requirements, the President's proposal also includes language
clarifying that the FWS may expend its listing resources only to comply
with existing court orders or according to a biologically based
priority system. FWS would develop that priority system after public
review and comment.
FWS needs a mechanism to allow for the orderly management of the
listing program that allows FWS to address the species most in need.
FWS also must be able to plan its work for the year efficiently,
without having to change the plan and shift resources around in
response to new court orders throughout the year.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY--PROPOSED REDUCTIONS
Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget for the Survey proposes
reductions totaling $69.4 million from the current level. In addition,
GS is proposed to absorb a portion of their fixed cost increases, which
further diminishes program dollars.
What reasons can you give us as to why the Survey's ongoing
programs--particularly water resources investigations--do not appear to
merit support in the fiscal year 2002 budget?
Answer. The 2002 budget focuses USGS resources on core mission
programs, such as mapping and hazards, and those that directly support
the Department of the Interior's land and resource management bureaus.
USGS currently conducts a significant amount of water research that
primarily benefits other Federal agencies, States, and local
governments. The budget proposes that certain programs, such as the
National Water Quality Assessment and Toxic Substances Hydrology
programs, would be more appropriately funded by or cost-shared with
program beneficiaries. Funding for the Ground Water Resources program
is continued at the 2000 level.
Question. If these funding levels are enacted into law, do you
anticipate reductions in force and, if so, have you planned and
budgeted for the costs that will be incurred as a result? Please
explain.
Answer. USGS is reviewing staff-reduction options, such as not
backfilling vacancies, offering early retirements, and potentially
using a reduction in force. We plan to work with both OMB and the U.S.
Office of Personnel Management in the near future regarding staffing
cuts, which will be funded through USGS annual appropriations.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY--MISSION OF THE AGENCY
Much of the Survey's work has been in the form of collaborative
efforts with state and local governments. In addition, the independent
scientific research USGS performs has proven to be a valuable tool for
other Federal agencies. The fiscal year 2002 Interior Budget Summary,
rather than stressing USGS accomplishments nationwide, appears to
emphasize the work GS will do to support the Department's land
management agencies.
Question. Is the mission of USGS evolving from one with broader
goals of national scope to one that predominately provides service
support to the other Interior agencies, who in turn would define the
work of GS? Please tell us what the expectations are for USGS as an
agency during the coming four years.
Answer. Over the past 120 years, USGS has adapted its programs to
respond to the Nation's need for objective earth science information.
The USGS will continue to evolve in order to address increasingly
complex issues. Today, USGS provides a broad range of national
expertise in mapping, geology, hydrology, and biology. The
Administration still regards USGS as the Nation's principal earth and
biological sciences agency, but because of the increasing complexity of
managing Interior's resources, it is the Department's position that the
primary customers of USGS science are the land and resource management
bureaus of Interior.
AML FUND
Question. The OSM budget indicates a decrease of $49 million for
the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program compared to last year. This will
reduce the amounts that states will get in the form of grants to do
reclamation work. Some of this reduction ($12.5 million) can be
explained by removing funds for a one-time project that was funded last
year, but this still means a reduction of over $35 million.
How will this large reduction affect the program's accomplishment
level? For example, how many fewer acres will be reclaimed?
Answer. This Funding level will provide resources to reclaim 6,000-
7,000 acres, as compared to approximately 8,600 acres in fiscal year
2001.
Question. How much in fees for the coal tax does the agency believe
will be collected in the AML fund versus what the agency has requested
in grant funding?
Answer. In fiscal year 2002, $283 million is anticipated in
receipts from coal fees. OSM is requesting $166.8 million from the AML
fund appropriation in fiscal year 2002, of which $124.1 million will
fund reclamation grants, including Clean Streams grants in the
Appalachian coal region.
Question. The OSM budget justification states that there is a $2.5
billion backlog of priority 1 and 2 reclamation problems that threaten
public health and safety. In light of this, is such a large reduction
in the AML program prudent?
Answer. OSM believes that the states and tribal programs can absorb
the lower funding level this year. The impact of this reduction is
lessened because states and tribes generally follow a three year grant
cycle to fully expend funds received in any one given year. OSM and the
Department fully support and remain committed to the Abandoned Mine
Land reclamation program. The 2002 request provides funds to reclaim
6,000 to 7,000 acres of hazards.
Question. Please provide to the Committee a breakout of how each
state that gets reclamation grants will be impacted by this reduction.
Answer. The following table lists the funding provided to each
State and Tribe in fiscal year 2001, including the one-time
Pennsylvania funding.
The fiscal year 2002 distribution shown here is an estimate. The
actual distribution will not be identical to this because some of the
necessary information is not yet available, including fiscal year 2001
AML fee collections and States' fiscal year 2002 emergency program
needs. It assumes a $1.6 million minimum program funding level.
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ESTIMATED AML GRANT FUNDING
This estimated distribution cannot be exact because it is
calculated using fiscal year 2000 collections, and the fiscal year 2001
emergency program request; (OSM cannot predict the amount needed for
the fiscal year 2002 emergency program.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Estimated
fiscal year fiscal year
State/Tribe 2001 total 2002 total
distribution distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................................... 3.9 3.0
Alaska...................................... 1.6 1.6
Arkansas.................................... 1.6 1.6
Colorado.................................... 2.6 1.9
Illinois.................................... 10.4 7.7
Indiana..................................... 6.0 4.5
Iowa........................................ 1.8 1.8
Kansas...................................... 2.1 2.1
Kentucky.................................... 17.8 12.9
Louisiana................................... 0.1 0.1
Maryland.................................... 1.8 1.8
Missouri.................................... 1.8 1.8
Montana..................................... 4.0 3.0
New Mexico.................................. 1.9 1.6
North Dakota................................ 1.7 1.7
Ohio \1\.................................... 6.8 7.0
Oklahoma.................................... 1.8 1.8
Pennsylvania................................ 40.3 19.7
Texas....................................... 1.7 1.3
Utah........................................ 1.7 1.6
Virginia \1\................................ 4.5 4.3
West Virginia \2\........................... 23.4 17.4
Wyoming..................................... 28.8 21.3
Crow Tribe.................................. 0.6 0.4
Hopi Tribe.................................. 0.5 0.3
Navajo Nation............................... 2.6 1.9
---------------------------
National total........................ 171.8 124.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 2001, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia also received
$2.0, $1.0, and $3.2 million, respectively, from an account which
holds unallotted emergency funds that have been recovered from prior
years and carried forward for future emergency needs.
\2\ In fiscal year 2002, West Virginia also would receive $2.6 million
from the unallotted emergency funds account. This account holds prior
year emergency funds that have been recovered and carried forward for
future emergency needs.
STATE REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Question. The Committee is concerned about adequate funding for
state regulatory programs. The OSM's fiscal year 2002 budget maintains
funding for this program at fiscal year 2001 levels. How much
additional funding have the states requested from the agency for this
program?
Answer. The states and tribes provided funding estimates for fiscal
year 2002 totaling $62.4 million. This budget requests that regulatory
grants to states continue to be funded at the fiscal year 2001 level of
$55.6 million. OSM carefully examines anticipated state/tribal
expenditure levels, historic obligation rates, the availability of
State matching funds, in formulating the budget request. OSM will
continue to monitor state and tribal funding requests and expenditures
closely to ensure that program needs are met.
Question. Does lack of funding for state regulatory programs
contribute to potential lawsuits in states that could affect mining
activities?
Answer. OSM and the Department believe that the funding requested
for fiscal year 2002 provides sufficient matching funds for primacy
states to administer the regulatory provisions of SMCRA. Because OSM
carefully evaluates state needs and finances before estimating the
request for State regulatory program grants, OSM does not believe that
the difference between state estimates and the 2002 request would
contribute to potential lawsuits in States that would have an effect on
mining activities. In addition, throughout the year, OSM queries the
states to determine if their current program changes would result in
excess regulatory funds, which can be returned to OSM to be
redistributed to other states which need extra funds.
Question. Please provide a list of States that currently have
litigation pending with respect to the adequacy of their regulatory
program.
Answer. Below are the states and current litigation. There are
several Notices of Intent to sue that could result in additional
litigation in states.
Pennsylvania.--Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Inc.
v. Seif, No. 00-2139 (3d Cir.). Litigation was filed against OSM and
the State of Pennsylvania on the adequacy of the State's bonding
system.
West Virginia.--West Virginia has three cases concerning broad
issues of program administration:
Bragg v. Robertson, No. 99-2683 (4th Cir.). Litigation is related
to mountaintop mining and valley fills;
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Babbitt, No. 00-1062 (S.D.
WVa.). Litigation was filed against OSM and West Virginia, involving
primarily the adequacy of the State's bond system; and
Ohio River Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc. v. Callaghan, No.
00-0058 (S.D. WVa.). Litigation was filed regarding the adequacy of the
State's process for reviewing hydrologic impacts.
STATE MINIMUM FUNDING
Question. The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 1990 establishes a
minimum State grant funding level of $2,000,000 per State. From fiscal
year 1995 through fiscal year 2000 funding for the program was limited
to $1,500,000 per State. In fiscal year 2001 this was increased to
$1,600,000. In the past, the agency has recommended increasing the
minimum State share to $2,000,000, but it has not done so for fiscal
year 2002. Has the agency changed its position with respect to the
proper level of funding for minimum program states?
Answer. OSM believes that $1.6 million (an increase from $100,000
from fiscal year 2000, and continued in fiscal year 2001) is an
appropriate level of funding for fiscal year 2002.
Question. Is there sufficient high-priority work in each State that
increasing each State's minimum share to $2,000,000 will not reduce
efforts to complete highest priority work nationwide? What would be the
impact, if at all, on the agency's other work if this increase were
provided?
Answer. An analysis of data taken from the Abandoned Mine Land
Inventory System shows that the majority of reclamation being done
nationwide is high priority work in all States including the minimum
program States. This generally means that the overall reclamation
priorities would not change.
The minimum program adjustment is taken from Federal Share Funds,
which are distributed to states based on their historical coal
percentages. Therefore, if an increase in funding to minimum program
states were provided, the States with the largest historical coal
percentages and highest priority needs would be most affected, i.e.,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Illinois. Some States,
(Louisiana and Texas) receive less than $1.6 million. This is because
they have certified completion of all known eligible coal sites and
thus while able to receive funds from their state share, they are not
eligible for minimum program funding.
TRUST REFORM--COBELL V. NORTON
Question. Recently, the Judge in the Cobell cases appointed Mr.
Kieffer as Court Monitor to oversee the Department's trust reform
efforts.
Could you please provide the subcommittee with some background into
why the Court Monitor was appointed and what his role will be.
Answer. The Federal District Court in Cobell v. Norton conducted a
series of meetings with legal counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants
during the end of March 2001 and the beginning of April 2001. On April
16, 2001, after the final such meeting, the Court conducted a status
hearing on the record. At that hearing, the Court indicated that a
Court Monitor would be appointed to help the Court deal with questions
presented in the case, including the Plaintiff's motion to reopen trial
one (which involved the issue of trust reform). The Court mentioned
that assistance from a Court Monitor would help the Court with its
heavy docket and trial calendar. Legal counsel for Plaintiffs and
Defendants consented on the record to the appointment of Joseph S.
Kieffer, III as Court Monitor. The ensuing written order dated April
16, 2001, provides that the Court Monitor is a representative of the
Court and will serve for at least one year. It provides that the Court
Monitor will ``monitor and review all of the Interior defendants' trust
reform activities and file written reports of his findings with the
Court.'' The reports will include summaries of Interior's trust reform
progress. The Court Monitor is expected to issue an initial report to
the Court after becoming acquainted with the issues in the case. The
initial report is expected sometime this summer and will help the Court
as to scheduling and the resolution of pending motions. The fees and
expenses of the Court Monitor are to be paid by Interior.
Question. It is my understanding that the Court ordered the
Department to bear the costs of the Court Monitor. Has it been
determined where these costs will come from within the Department's
budget?
Answer. The Office of the Special Trustee intends to utilize funds
appropriated for Cobell related expenses to pay the fees and costs of
the Court Monitor. In fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2001, Congress
appropriated a total of $23.7 million to the Office of the Special
Trustee for the costs to support the ongoing Cobell litigation,
including document production and costs for Trial II. These funds
remain available until expended. Approximately $6.9 million currently
remains unobligated and available for ongoing Cobell related expenses.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
PILT
Question. Madame Secretary, while I agree with much of your budget,
there are a number of details that concern me. For example, last year
we reached a landmark compromise that would fund PILT to a total level
of $200 million for fiscal year 2001. Unfortunately, the budget request
drops PILT back down to a level of $150 million for fiscal year 2002.
As a former county commissioner, I am less than enthusiastic about this
reduction.
Should we look at this reduction ($50,000,000 in PILT) as a policy
stance on the part of the Administration regarding the merits of PILT,
or is it the result of a shortfall in the overall Interior budget?
Answer. The Department of the Interior fully supports the intent of
the PILT program to provide support to local governments that have
Federally owned tax exempt lands located within their jurisdictions.
The competing priorities required difficult choices to be made in
compiling the 2002 budget request. The funding level for PILT proposed
in the 2002 budget, although reduced, is still $15.6 million above the
amount available in 2000.
WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM
Question. Last year the BLM received an additional $9.1 million for
the Wild Horse and Burro program to bring populations down to an
appropriate management level (AML). Is BLM still on track to reach its
AML goals with last year's funding increase and this year's request?
Can you assure this subcommittee that this program is now being managed
in a manner that will allow us to reach our AML goals without
unforeseen increases in upcoming fiscal years?
Answer. The BLM is aggressively implementing its strategy to reach
AML on all herd management areas (HMA) by the end of 2005. While it is
difficult to predict how future unforseen events such as drastic
wildfires and drought would effect BLM management capabilities, we are
planning to meet our AML goal through appropriate management of this
program. As conditions warrant, we will adjust our strategy to meet
short-term demands while continuing to move forward towards the AML
goal. The following is an example of how we have adapted our AML
strategy to changing conditions. The AML strategy was predicated on the
assumption that 1,500 animals would be in temporary holding facilities
on October 1, 2000. As a result of the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000 wildfires and drought conditions, a number of emergency wild horse
removals became necessary, increasing the number of animals in
preparation facilities to 5,500 at the end of fiscal year 2000. In
order to implement the strategy as proposed it became necessary to
contract for additional interim holding facilities to hold animals
until they could be placed in the adoption system or into long-term
care. Specifically, an additional facility was contracted for in Nevada
to accommodate the increased number of animals requiring removal from
that State. Two additional long-term/interim holding facilities, with a
total capacity of 4,000 animals, will be contracted for this fiscal
year. The two new facilities will be coming on-line a year ahead of
schedule. The BLM has been adjusting internally to compensate for the
increased costs associated with bringing the facilities on-line ahead
of schedule.
LAND USE PLANNING
Question. Madame Secretary, your proposed budget includes a $7.079
million increase to update land use plans. To many Westerners an
increase of this size for ``planning'' can raise concerns. Some have
the impression that many of our federal agencies spend too much time
``planning'' and not enough time ``doing.'' Can you explain why this
increase is necessary and highlight some of the activities that will be
allowed to go forward as a result of an increase in the planning
budget?
Answer. Updated land use plans support the vast majority of BLM's
activities. For example, land use plans are the key decisionmaking
tools at the local level that spell out whether or not the BLM can
authorize activities on specific land units, such as: leasing oil, gas,
coal bed methane, or coal; construction of electrical transmission
lines, gas pipe lines, and roads; issuing permits for livestock grazing
or outfitting; and, selling or exchanging lands for the benefit of
local communities.
Most of BLM land use plans were completed in the 1980's and early
1990's. Since the completion of BLM's first land use plans and
associated EISs, new, major national priorities have emerged. Examples
include, the increasing demand for new energy sources as evidenced by
the exponential growth in the development of coal bed methane, the
likelihood of thousands of new deep gas wells, new standards in
implementing the Clean Water and the Clean Air Acts, the listing of
many additional species under the Endangered Species Act, and rapid
population growth in the West. As a result, the BLM is increasingly
finding that its land use plans and NEPA documents have become out-of-
date with regard to current natural resource, technological, or socio-
economic conditions. This situation is increasingly leading to
litigation.
In California, the BLM was sued for failing to consult with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on threatened and endangered species on
a plan-wide basis. In Idaho, the BLM was sued for not making
adjustments in livestock grazing to adequately protect riparian areas
and water quality. In Montana, a land use plan was challenged because
decisions relating to allowable uses were out-of-date.
These lawsuits and notices of intent to sue have required the BLM
to complete consultation actions, implement conservation measures, and
complete additional activities. All of these activities cost the BLM
millions of dollars annually. As a result, management actions and land
use authorizations have been delayed or deferred pending the completion
of this additional court mandated work. It has become increasingly
apparent that BLM's planning base must be updated to address these
issues, provide the cumulative analysis required by law, meet
applicable environmental standards, and minimize the threat of
litigation.
With the additional $7.09 million, BLM will be able to fund the
start, revision, or amendment of 42 land use plans. These plans will
support a variety of land uses and land use allocation decisions on the
public lands. Examples include: five plans to be revised in Wyoming
that will support energy and mineral development; five California plan
amendments addressing legal settlements associated with endangered
species consultation and providing for off-highway vehicle and other
recreational uses; a plan to be completed in New Mexico that will
address oil and gas development and community growth needs. This
additional land use planning funding will ensure that the BLM can
implement these and other critical tasks, such as the Administration's
new initiatives for leasing energy minerals and authorizing the
construction of an enlarged energy transportation network, key elements
in the President's National Energy Policy.
FIBER OPTIC RIGHT OF WAY FEES
Question. Last year we spent a great deal of time and effort
slowing BLM plans to drastically increase lease rates for fiber optic
right of way crossings. At the end of the year, Congress prevented both
Interior and Agriculture from implementing a final rule that would
replace the current linear right-of-way fee schedule. As Chairman of
the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, and a Senator representing
a rural state with vast expanses of public land, it troubles me that
Interior would be advocating a rule that would only deepen the digital
divide often found in rural areas.
Can I have your assurance that any activity by the Department of
the Interior to re-evaluate fiber optic lease rates will be fully
disclosed to Congress? Additionally, can you assure me that rural
interests will be consulted prior to another rule-making proposal?
Answer. Section 340 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-291)
directed that the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture were to
only use existing rates in the current linear right-of-way fee
schedules used by both the BLM and FS in assessing rental fees for
fiber optic rights-of-way. Both agencies are doing so. The BLM issued
interim policies and procedures for fiber optic rights-of-way in
January of this year that provide clear direction on the continued use
of existing linear right-of-way rental fee schedules. The policy also
makes clear that Rural Electrification Act providers, including fiber
optic companies that qualify for funding as Rural Utility Service (RUS)
providers, will be exempt from rental fees. The FS issued a policy
memorandum in October 2000 that discontinued the practice of conducting
case-specific appraisals for determining rental fees for fiber optic
rights-of-way.
The BLM and FS, however, have an ongoing obligation to respond to
the Office of Inspector General and General Accounting Office reports
(USDI OIG 95-I-747 and GAO/RCED-96-84), citing that the land use rental
fees for commercial linear rights-of-way are below fair market value.
Both agencies began a market study of linear right-of-way uses on
nonfederal lands in fiscal year 2000 in response to the OIG and GAO
reports. This market study will also include rural market areas. We do
not anticipate that the market study will be completed until sometime
in fiscal year 2002. After consultation with industry groups and
congressional offices in fiscal year 2000, the BLM and FS agreed to
only use a formal regulatory process, with full public involvement
(including rural interests), to develop any revised rental fee policy
for fiber optic rights-of-way. The BLM and FS do not anticipate
beginning any rulemaking effort until at least fiscal year 2002.
We continue to remain committed to working with Congress in
development of any policies and procedures related to fiber optic
rights-of-way and in any future rulemaking effort regarding rental fee
schedules.
MONTANA SPECIFIC (UNDAUNTED STEWARDSHIP AND MSU WEED CENTER)
Question. I was also concerned that a couple projects that I have
worked hard to include in the budget are reduced in the
Administration's request. Two within the BLM are Undaunted Stewardship,
and the National Center for Ecologically Based Weed Management at
Montana State University. The budget documentation provided to me
incorrectly states that these two projects are now capable of operating
independently. Can I have your assurance that the BLM will continue to
fully support these projects through fiscal year 2001, as we work
together to ensure they will receive additional funds in fiscal year
2002?
Answer. Funding was provided in fiscal year 2001 to a group called
Undaunted Stewardship to provide grants to local groups that operate
along the Lewis and Clark trail, to protect cultural sites and evaluate
easement alternatives. Funds are also used for a stewardship
certification program. Much of the work associated with the funding
provided in fiscal year 2001 will continue into fiscal year 2002. Since
funding provided in fiscal year 2001 is expected to still be available
for use in fiscal year 2002, we did not request additional funds for
Undaunted Stewardship. BLM will focus available resources on the
highest priority needs for the Lewis and Clark projects.
Building on the efforts of fiscal year 2000, the BLM continues to
work with Montana State University in fiscal year 2001, to establish
the National Center for Ecologically Based Weed Management. Fiscal year
2001 funds have been obligated for the Center. The Center has submitted
bills against approximately 20 percent of the fiscal year 2000
obligation, and expects to exhaust the remainder of those funds this
year. It is projected that the Center will utilize approximately one-
quarter of the fiscal year 2001 funds this year, with the remainder to
be utilized through fiscal year 2003.
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE
ROYALTY-IN-KIND
Question. The Minerals Management Service has been studying the use
of Royalty-In-Kind (RIK) as a way to avoid disputes with lessees over
the valuation of oil and gas and to potentially increase revenues to
the Treasury. In the fiscal year 2001 Interior Appropriations bill, the
Committee expanded the agency's authority to use RIK.
What has the agency's analysis in Wyoming shown thus far about when
it makes economic sense to use RIK?
Answer. The RIK Pilot in Wyoming shows that there are circumstances
when RIK makes sense. Over the period covered by the evaluation, the
pilot has shown that selective use of RIK can be revenue neutral, while
lessees can benefit from reduced administrative burdens. One of the
lessons learned from the Wyoming Pilot was that RIK does not work for
every property. In Wyoming, properties that were not connected to
pipelines did not receive attractive bids, and are no longer included
in the RIK sales. The administrative burden associated with these
properties made them unattractive to potential bidders for RIK oil.
Question. When will the agency complete an analysis of the use of
RIK in the Gulf of Mexico?
Answer. There are three RIK pilots (two natural gas and one oil) in
the GOM. The GOM gas pilot that is being coordinated with the Texas
General Land Office should have preliminary results available from the
initial analysis this summer. Once the analysis of this gas pilot is
completed, MMS will begin an analysis of the second gas pilot, followed
by an analysis of the oil pilot. No time frame has been set as to the
completion of the second gas pilot or the oil pilot project.
Question. Are there differences between the Gulf of Mexico and
Wyoming markets that may cause the analysis of the Gulf to reach a
different conclusion with respect to RIK than was reached in Wyoming?
Answer. The primary difference between these initial pilots is the
commodity that MMS took as RIK--oil in Wyoming and natural gas in the
Gulf of Mexico. There are other differences in the characteristics of
these markets that also may affect the conclusions of the pilot
evaluations. The Wyoming oil market has fewer buyers and sellers than
the Gulf coast markets, and therefore less spot market activity. The
gas market in the Gulf of Mexico is much more open and robust with many
public price indices available. The results of the gas pilot won't be
known until the evaluation is complete, but the potential for
shortening the compliance time period and reducing valuation disputes
should be similar to those identified in Wyoming.
Question. The MMS budget includes over $7 million for systems to
support the RIK program. Can you describe what these new RIK systems
are designed to do and how they will facilitate greater use of the RIK
program in the future?
Answer. MMS 2002 budget request of $7.3 million will fund the
development of a gas management system which will provide the
technological tools to support to MMS's ongoing RIK gas pilot
activities. This technology solution will support MMS gas pilot
activities in the areas of identification and tracking of gas
production available for sale, nomination of gas volumes for sale,
reconciliation of gas volumes between nominations and actual sales,
tracking of gas volumes transported and/or processed before sale, and
tracking and resolution of volume imbalances. Further, the gas
management system will support the invoicing of gas sales and support
tracking of receivable balances. Most of this work is now done manually
with limited systems support.
A commercially available solution will be purchased that closely
aligns with MMS royalty system, and which will be patterned after
accepted gas marketing/management practices used by industry. The
solution is scaleable to increases or decreases in business activity.
The system will fully integrate with MMS's reengineered Financial/CAM
systems.
Question. Do we know a sufficient amount about RIK at this point
considering that an analysis has only been done in Wyoming to justify
spending $7 million on software to expand the use of this authority?
Answer. Yes. The Wyoming Oil RIK Pilot is just one facet of MMS's
experience in managing royalties through RIK. MMS has considerable
additional experience in operating RIK activities for both oil and gas.
For natural gas, MMS is now operating multiple pilots in the Gulf of
Mexico. Begun in 1998, the gas pilot program has tested a number of
approaches and practices and is identifying and refining best
practices. Currently, MMS is selling approximately 360 million cubic
feet of gas per day in the Gulf of Mexico under a variety of sales
scenarios and is utilizing both transportation and processing
agreements and infrastructure to support those sales.
MMS has steadily focused on the adoption of industry best
practices. The gas management systems that MMS would purchase in fiscal
year 2002 are utilized by industry and are designed to support these
practices.
MMS also has a significant experience base for oil RIK. For many
years, MMS has been operating and steadily improving its Small Refiner
Program. Under this Program, MMS currently sells approximately 70,000
barrels per day of OCS crude oil. Furthermore, the Wyoming pilot has
been in place for over three years now and has involved sales reaching
over 6,000 barrels per day. Additionally, MMS recently completed the
delivery of over 28 million barrels of Gulf of Mexico RIK oil to the
Department of Energy for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Lastly, MMS
is currently selling over 7,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the
Gulf of Mexico in its competitive pilot program. As with natural gas,
MMS has been focusing on the adoption of oil industry best practices
where applicable. This approach leverages the breadth of experience in
the industry and helps assure that the available commercial-off-the-
shelf (COTS) liquids management solutions will fit closely with adopted
business practices.
Every business endeavor will evolve over time. The MMS RIK activity
is no different. Changes in the marketplace will continue to happen and
MMS must be prepared to adapt to those changes. From the information
technology perspective, we believe that the adoption of COTS solutions
provides the best and most effective strategy for continuing to have
the tools to support the MMS RIK activity.
VALUATION
Question. What is the status of the current litigation challenging
the new oil valuation rule that was put into effect last year?
Answer. The MMS published the final version of the rule in the
Federal Register on March 15, 2000, effective June 1, 2000. Immediately
following its publication, the American Petroleum Institute and the
Independent Petroleum Association of America filed a complaint in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (IPAA v. Norton and API v.
Norton).
The Department of Justice recently submitted the Administrative
Record for this case. The court set a briefing schedule with the
plaintiffs' first brief filed January 24, 2001, and the Government's
responsive brief followed on April 13.
Question. Is a significant ruling expected in the near future?
Answer. There will be opportunities for additional briefs to be
filed by both parties. Resolution of these cases is not expected soon.
Question. Could RIK be used on most federal production so that
valuation disputes could be minimized?
Answer. One of the benefits of RIK is that it minimizes valuation
disputes and the resulting litigation. However, decisions to take
royalty in kind are based on several factors, such as:
--Simplicity, accuracy, certainty for lessees and government;
--Revenue neutrality (or better) for government; and
--Reduced administrative burden for lessees and government.
Through the evaluation of the Wyoming oil RIK pilot, MRM identified
areas where RIK is not an attractive alternative. This includes
properties where the lease is not serviced by a pipeline, an
aggregation point or properties with marginal production.
OFFSETTING RECEIPTS
Question. Almost one-half of the Minerals Management Service's
budget is derived from offsetting receipts which come from rents
collected by the agency on federal leases. The amount of offsetting
receipt collections for fiscal year 2002 is significantly lower than it
has been in the past two years. What explains this large decrease?
Answer. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) receives
approximately half of its budget from rents derived from offshore
leases. Subject to a cap described in the annual Interior and Related
Agencies appropriations bill, MMS has been allowed by Congress to
retain any increase in per acre rental rates put into effect since
August 1993. Income from the pre-August 1993 rental rates and any
rental income collected above the Congressional Cap are deposited to
the Treasury's General Fund.
The Congressional CAP has been reduced by approximately $21 million
from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2002 as the projected income
available to MMS from rental rates declined. During this period, total
rents, which include amounts deposited to the Treasury as well as the
portion available to MMS, have remained virtually unchanged.
Question. Recent information provided to the Committee suggests
that offsetting receipts may, in fact, be higher than the agency's
initial projections that were included in the Budget. Is this the case?
Answer. Yes. Sale 178 in the Central GOM produced rents that were
slightly higher than MMS projected.
Question. If so, how much more is the agency expecting in
offsetting receipts?
Answer. Sale 178, conducted in March 2001, is expected to bring in
slightly more rental income than had been projected in the fiscal year
2002 President's budget. The following table gives a comparison of
projected rental income from the President's budget and data from the
sale. The exact amount of rental income will not be known until all
bids have been accepted or rejected.
COMPARISON OF PROJECTED AND ACTUAL RENTAL INCOME FROM SALE 178
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's
budget Sale data Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross Rents...................... 10.96 16.87 5.91
Rents Available to MMS........... 5.53 8.55 3.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Given the higher prices for oil/gas which have increased
interest in drilling does the agency expect offsetting receipts to
increase at some point in the future?
Answer. While the current higher prices for oil and natural gas
will have a positive impact on the amount of royalties collected by
MMS, the impact on offsetting receipts through rents will be minimal.
The reason for this minimal impact is that the most promising tracts in
the central and western Gulf of Mexico are currently under lease.
Additionally, rental payments stop as tracts move into production.
Since higher prices provide incentive to begin production as soon as
possible, MMS rental revenue may decline even faster as a result.
REENGINEERING
Question. The agency's budget indicates that the reengineering
effort that has been funded over the last two years will be completed
in fiscal year 2001. Are there any significant issues that remain which
might delay completion?
Answer. There do not appear to be any significant issues in the
development of the new financial system, with completion scheduled for
October 1, 2001. Acceptance testing begins this month, and MMS has
planned operationally and financially for all reasonably likely
contingencies. Nevertheless, some companies have expressed concerns
that their system development will not coincide with that of MMS. MMS
has agreed to work closely with those companies, to provide any
information that will help with their development and conversion, and
to provide some additional time for completio n of their development
and implementation.
Question. When does the agency expect to see true gains from this
effort in terms of more efficient, accurate collection of royalties?
Answer. Many of the day-to-day efficiencies expected in the new
system should be apparent soon after implementation. This includes
consolidation of most of the more than 40 stand-alone systems used for
many of the financial processes. States will benefit almost immediately
with the implementation of disbursements within one business day for
those states desiring more frequent disbursements. The benefits of
electronic commerce with more than 4,000 companies will be realized as
soon as these companies are converted to the new system and to our
electronic commerce vendor. Companies, states, tribes and other Federal
agencies will have more immediate access to their relevant information
through our web site, rather than receiving paper sent by mail. This
benefit also should be realized soon after October 2001.
While the new compliance system will be operational on October 1,
2001, we are continuing to transition producing properties from the
current system to the compliance and asset management (CAM) approach in
order to reduce the compliance cycle from 6 to 3 years or less. Not
only will the compliance cycle be reduced, but broader coverage of the
lease universe will occur within available resources. While we will see
some gains soon after October 1, 2001, true gains will not be realized,
particularly from the large universe of onshore oil and gas leases,
until fiscal year 2003.
Question. Have other stakeholders such as the industry, states, and
tribes been pleased with the reengin eering effort?
Answer. Industry, states, and tribes have been significantly
involved with MMS throughout the reengineering process, since as early
as 1995. Industry, especially through many of its trade associations,
has participated in the development of the new reporting forms, has
provided comments to all of the public notices referencing the various
changes, and has participated in numerous meetings with MMS to comment
on the issues and the development processes. We have adopted many
changes to the royalty report resulting from recommendations by
industry. The solid minerals industry is particularly pleased with the
new Internet-based reporting developed for solid minerals that replaces
eight existing forms. Since testing of the financial processes has yet
to start, industry reception of these changes can not be gauged at this
time.
To minimize transition issues, MMS is providing group and
individual company training in many cities through the summer of 2001.
Detailed reporter handbooks have been written and will be provided by
next month to all companies. MMS' website has extensive and timely
information for all interested organizations relative to the
reengineering efforts. This includes ``Dear Reporter'' letters,
questions and answers, reference data listings, and all information
necessary to develop the systems companies will use for the reporting.
As problems and concerns arise, MMS responds to them as quickly as
possible. MMS recognizes that all concerned entities including itself,
are going through substantial changes during the next few months, but
at the end, the reengineering effort will result in more relevant,
timely and efficient reporting and payment of royalties to all of the
recipients.
Industry, states, and tribes have been fully engaged in the
development of the new compliance process through operational models
that have been functioning since November 1998. The operational models
have proven effective in testing and refining the CAM process,
developing the requirements for the automated support systems, and
beginning the transition of compliance personnel to the new operational
process.
State and tribal auditors under FOGRMA 202/205 audit contracts with
MMS have expressed some concerns about moving from the current 6-year
audit process to a 3-year, end-to-end, property-based compliance
process. MMS is confident that the new compliance tools that we are
developing will allow us to provide greater coverage of onshore mineral
properties within 3 years or less. To help alleviate the State and
Tribal auditors concerns, we are involving them in the detailed
development and testing of those tools. MMS is meeting jointly and
individually with the State and Tribal audit delegations to address
their concerns and to develop transition plans for their individual
States and reservations. The transition of onshore properties will
necessarily progress slower than offshore properties due not only to
the fact that several organizations are involved in the compliance
function for onshore, but due also to the size and complexity of the
onshore lease universe.
Question. Are there any problems these groups see with the
reorganization? If so, what are they?
Answer. MMS is not aware of any State, industry, or Tribe that have
issues with the reorganization implemented in October 2000. The MMS has
responded to questions received about whom to contact in the new
organization by issuing ``Dear Payor'' letters to industry and
providing briefings and contact lists to the States and Tribes.
GULF OF MEXICO
Question. The MMS budget includes an additional $7 million for
increased activity in the Gulf of Mexico. Will this increase ensure
that the agency does not accumulate a backlog of unprocessed drilling
permits?
Answer. MMS anticipates that the additional resources requested
will be adequate to process the projected increase in the number of
drilling permit requests expected in fiscal year 2002. MMS will
continue to monitor permit processing activities to ensure that
adequate resources are available to process permits in a timely manner.
Question. Does the agency expect industry interest in the Gulf to
remain high over the next few years?
Answer. Industry interest in the Gulf of Mexico is currently high
and is expected to remain so in the near future. This expectation is
based on the relatively high price of oil and gas and the large
inventory of high quality prospects, especially in deepwater.
Question. Leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico is considered by
some to be controversial but given the existing moratorium on offshore
drilling there are few places left where offshore leasing is
authorized. What are the potential reserves for oil and gas in the
Eastern Gulf?
Answer. The Eastern Gulf of Mexico is primarily a gas-producing
area. The estimate of current gas reserves from known accumulations is
0.683 Tcf. The estimates of recoverable resources for the entire area
is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil (BB) Gas (Tcf)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low level..................................... 2.351 10.024
Mean.......................................... 3.576 12.306
High level.................................... 6.614 18.934
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What are the agency's future plans with respect to
leasing in the Eastern Gulf and is this an issue that is being
considered as part of the President's national energy strategy?
Answer. The issue has been discussed as part of the Energy Task
Force review. The Department plans to rely upon the requisite statutory
and regulatory processes to consider this controversial issue. Under
the current schedule for proposed Lease Sale 181, MMS is preparing its
final EIS for release this summer, and will base its decision on this
analysis and the other balancing factors provided under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act, including economic and energy benefits and
concerns of the affected states.
DESTIN DOME
Question. What is the current status of the Destin Dome project
located off the Alabama and Florida coastlines?
Answer. Chevron appealed the State of Florida's denial of
consistency to the Department of Commerce (DOC). The Interior
Department provided comments on the appeal, and prepared a preliminary
Final Environmental Impact Statement for DOC to consider. The appeal
decision is currently before the Secretary of Commerce.
Question. When will the coastal zone management determination be
finalized?
Answer. This depends on when the Secretary of Commerce makes his
decision.
Question. If a favorable decision is made by the Secretary of
Commerce on the Coastal Zone Management appeal, how soon could this
project be brought into production?
Answer. Once Chevron has all permits it will take approximately 30
months to bring the project on line.
Question. What are the expected reserves of natural gas from this
field?
Answer. The Chevron project (DD56) currently has 3 wells drilled
into a single reservoir. There are 2 additional untested traps within
the unit area. Estimated gas reserves from this reservoir are 0.57 Tcf.
The estimate of resources for the Destin Dome Unit, including the 2
untested traps, is from one to three tcf of conventionally recovered
natural gas.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
Question. The budget request includes a $39 million increase for
activities associated with restoration of the Everglades ecosystem.
How will the Department ensure that its continuing investment in
restoration of the Everglades natural areas is realized, and not
diminished by competing demands from other aspects of the restoration
effort (urban water supply, etc.)? What management and planning systems
are in place to ensure that this will happen?
Answer. Ensuring that the benefits to the natural system from
restoration activities are achieved and maintained is the highest
priority for the Department in its Everglades restoration effort. While
providing for other water related needs of the region will result from
the implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
(CERP), the overarching purpose is unequivocally natural system
restoration, including restoration of Everglades Nation Park and other
lands managed by the Department. To ensure that natural system benefits
are not diminished by competing demands we will work with the
Department of the Army and the State of Florida to develop programmatic
regulations to establish clear procedures for ensuring that the
restoration projects are consistent with this overarching purpose.
Required as part of the recently enacted CERP legislation, these
regulations will also establish interim restoration standards that will
allow us to evaluate the implementation of this 25-year project. In
addition, we will be working with the State and the Army on the
development of an agreement that will ensure that the State reserves
the water from CERP projects that has been allocated to the natural
system.
To coordinate and facilitate the Department's many activities in
the Everglades, the Secretary has established the Office of Everglades
Restoration, located in Florida, to coordinate the actions of the
Department's Bureaus with each other as well as with other Federal
agencies, the State, Tribes, local governments, and the public. This
will help ensure that the restoration efforts are planned and
undertaken in an efficient and effective manner.
MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Question. The President has established a laudable goal of
eliminating the National Park Service's deferred maintenance backlog in
the next five years. This commitment is reflected in the Budget request
in a number of places.
Is there an official measuring stick that this Committee can use to
evaluate progress toward this goal? Is the deferred maintenance
estimate in the Department's annual ``Accountability Report'' such a
measuring stick, or will the Department use other measures?
Answer. An ``official measuring stick'' does not yet exist. One
measure could be the progress of reducing the deferred maintenance
backlog by annually comparing the amount of funding applied against the
previously identified deferred maintenance estimate. But, the total
deferred maintenance estimate is not a static number and it does not
reveal what the outcomes are (such as the improvement in condition).
Therefore, the National Park Service is putting into place a
process that will provide a true measurement of accomplishment. The
process consists of:
--Performing comprehensive condition assessments on assets that will
identify the degree of deficiencies existing at the time of the
inspection and reporting.
--Utilization of a standardized, Servicewide cost estimating tool to
cost out the identified deficiencies.
--Determination of the replacement cost for each asset that is
assessed.
--Based upon the information gained from the steps above, calculation
of the facility condition index for each asset assessed, which
in turn generates a condition code of good, fair, or poor.
--As resources are applied to correct asset deficiencies, the
facility condition index will change, resulting in a condition
change that is measurable.
Question. Please describe the Department's progress in implementing
the computer system that is designed to manage and track the deferred
maintenance projects. Are the necessary resources included in the
budget request to fully implement the system? Will further increases in
future years be required for full implementation?
Answer. The MAXIMO software program was selected by the National
Park Service and approved by the Department of the Interior for its
adaptability to reflect the current National Park Service facility
management needs and its ability to accurately report the resultant
outcomes of resources applied to the operation and maintenance of
National Park Service facilities. An initial deployment to pilot the
software system in 30 NPS units was successfully concluded in fiscal
year 2000. The term ``deployment'' means that a park has access to the
software system. The system is being deployed in an additional 90 units
in fiscal year 2001. The Asset Management Program (AMP) process was
implemented in some of the original pilot parks in January 2001. A
needs assessment selection process has been developed to prioritize
park assets for evaluation. The pilot parks will utilize/test the AMP
process, identifying facility deficiencies to be corrected. The NPS has
projected that with requested funding the Service will accomplish
deployment of FMSS to all 384-park areas by the conclusion of fiscal
year 2003. It is the NPS' intention to provide a Comprehensive
Inventory that is consistent with the implementation of the FMSS. The
estimated backlog will be refined and updated annually and collaterally
with the FMSS process.
The budget request would provide a total of $3.5 million for fiscal
year 2002 and is representative of the annual expected maintenance
requirements for the software system for fiscal year 2003. In
subsequent years after the system is acquired, approximately $2.1
million per year will be required.
Question. Is it possible that when this system is fully on-line
that an entirely new baseline for the backlog will come to light? Will
we find ourselves facing a $10 billion backlog because parks are more
carefully documenting every conceivable maintenance project?
Answer. Yes, it is probable that comprehensive facility condition
assessments will result in an increase in the total dollar backlog
because of improved identification of existing deficiencies and more
accurate cost estimates of the identified deficiencies. The National
Park Service manages a complex diversity of facility types. In managing
its facilities, the NPS has not had the benefit of a comprehensive
asset inventory by age, type, size and number for many years, if ever.
The physical condition, functionality, suitability and life expectancy
of facilities and the backlog of deferred maintenance requirements are
not adequately documented at this time. However, the Service has begun
a process to provide comprehensive asset inventory and condition
information. A Servicewide desk audit of inventory was conducted in
1997 and updated in 2000. The information from this inventory is being
utilized as a starting point for the development of the comprehensive
inventory. Additionally, the Service is using existing data from the
Federal Highways Inventory of Roads and the NPS Housing Inventory. The
NPS is utilizing the recently developed Facility Management Software
System (FMSS) with a standardized cost-estimating tool to produce a
comprehensive list of assets that will document current condition and
anticipated repair and rehabilitation needs for the facilities. The
backlog maintenance identified through this effort will be imported
into the Project Management Information System and prioritized for
funding and accomplishment. Because of the thoroughness of this
process, it is anticipated that this process will identify an even
greater amount of overall deferred maintenance but at this time we have
no way to judge the size of the increase. As comprehensive condition
assessments are completed, the Department will be analyzing results.
For instance, in the recently completed U.S. Geological Survey's
comprehensive condition assessments of nine science centers, an
approximately 30 percent increase in the deferred maintenance backlog
was documented. However, this 30 percent factor cannot be projected for
NPS because enough data are not yet available.
The Budget Blueprint states that 60 percent of National Park
Service fee demonstration revenue will be dedicated to ``deferred
maintenance needs'' as part of the Presidential commitment to eliminate
the backlog over a five year period. The Department's fiscal year 2000
report on the fee demonstration program states that 61 percent of NPS
fee demonstration revenues are currently dedicated to ``deferred
maintenance or critical health and safety issues.''
Question. Do these numbers mean that NPS will continue to apply
roughly the same percentage of fee revenues to the maintenance backlog,
or are the figures not directly comparable? Explain.
Answer. No, the figures are not directly comparable. The
requirement to dedicate 60 percent of the fee revenue to address
deferred maintenance needs will be a sizable increase in the amount of
fee receipts dedicated to deferred maintenance. Our best estimate at
this time is that approximately 47 percent of the funding approved to
be undertaken from fee receipts (over the lifetime of the fee
demonstration program) has been identified as addressing deferred
maintenance needs. While this percentage has been increasing in recent
years, the current amount is less than 60 percent.
The Annual Interagency Report stated for fiscal year 2000, 61
percent of the approved projects addressed ``deferred maintenance or
critical health and safety issues.'' It is important to note that this
estimate also includes ``health and safety projects,'' (such as the
installation of bear-proof lockers) which are not necessarily
categorized as deferred maintenance.
However, in order to expedite progress on eliminating the backlog,
the NPS plans to dedicate increasing amounts of fee receipts to
deferred maintenance projects beginning in fiscal year 2002.
Question. The Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs also have deferred
maintenance backlogs of some magnitude. How does your budget address
the issue of deferred maintenance in these bureaus?
Answer.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The BIA's fiscal year 2002 budget request addresses deferred
maintenance backlog as follows:
For the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) non-resource management
programs, the BIA's Facilities Management Information System (FMIS)
produces cost estimates that are updated on a daily basis. Field users
add, update, and complete deficiency items as they occur, therefore,
this data is not static. As of January 2001, the total BIA deferred
maintenance backlog for facilities is $1.4 billion. The deferred
maintenance backlog for education facilities, estimated, at $942
million, makes up the largest portion of the total, with the remainder
attributed to employee quarters, public safety facilities, and general
administration facilities.
Funding in fiscal year 2001 is expected to reduce the deferred
maintenance backlog for education facilities by $109.2 million to
$832.6 million. Funding at the fiscal year 2002 request level would
reduce the backlog an additional $140 million to an estimated level of
$692.6 million. Highlights of fiscal year 2002 funding for facilities
repair follow.
Education Facilities: $161.6 million is requested for facilities
improvement and repairs. Within this amount are the following amounts:
$61 million for Major repairs and improvements at 10 schools and
dormitories; $45.9 million for preventive and cyclical maintenance; $3
million for portable classrooms, $6 million for roof repairs and
replacement; $4 million for continued backlog validation and update;
$14.2 million for minor repairs and improvements at multiple school
locations; $11 million for plan and design future year projects in the
BIA's five-year deferred maintenance plan; $11.7 million to address
critical environmental issues; $2.2 million to address emergency work,
and $1.5 million to demolish existing buildings which are no longer
necessary for program need.
Employee Housing: $3.1 million is requested for condition surveys,
upgrades of fire alarm and detection systems, installation of ramps and
fixtures to met accessibility codes, and repairs to meet health and
environmental codes.
Public Safety and Justice Facilities: $5.5 million for facilities
improvement and repairs. Of this amount $1.4 million will be used to
address deferred maintenance related to emergency repairs, minor
repairs, environmental work and inventory validations in law
enforcement facilities and $4 million for structural fire protection
(fire sprinkler systems, fire alarms, fire stations, fire trucks, fire
fighting equipment.
General Administration Facilities: $8.4 million requested to
address deferred maintenance related to emergency repairs, minor
repairs, environmental work and inventory validations, and seismic
safety work in offices, warehouses, shops, fire stations and other
support facilities.
A copy of the BIA's Five-Year Facilities Maintenance and
Construction Plan, which provides more details on projects planned in
the various budget subactivities from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year
2006, is submitted to the Subcommittee.
Bureau of Land Management
The goals of the BLM maintenance program are to protect visitor
safety, maintain the public investment in facilities and transportation
systems, provide universal accessibility and promote wise use of public
lands. To attain these objectives it is incumbent on the Bureau to
reduce and ultimately eliminate the existing backlog of maintenance
needs.
Correction of the current deferred maintenance needs will be
obtained through a focused expenditure of funding and personnel
resources as directed by the Five Year Deferred Maintenance and Capital
Improvement Plan. The Five Year Planning process results in a priority
ranked listing of all known corrective maintenance actions necessary to
protect public health and safety and facility value and maintain the
facility in an operable status.
The Five Year Planning process has been invaluable to the BLM in
helping to identify and correct our deferred maintenance and
construction needs. This process provides the BLM with the information
it needs to prioritize workloads within available resources in an
effective manner. This process has been especially useful with the
recent availability of the Conservation Preservation and Infrastructure
Improvement funding. The proposed President's Budget for fiscal year
2002 will provide for the needed corrective actions on 164 deferred
maintenance projects at a total cost of $44.4 million. The goal of the
BLM is to eliminate the current backlog of maintenance needs while
preventing the development of new problem situations. The President's
Budget request for fiscal year 2002, and the continued availability of
funding at a comparable level, should ultimately achieve this goal
within the next 6 to 10 year period. This objective however, is
predicated on the requirement that sufficient funding is available on a
continuing basis to assure that annual and cyclic maintenance needs are
achieved.
Fish and Wildlife Service
The 2002 budget request proposes an increase of $10.0 million to
address maintenance needs of the National Wildlife Refuge. This request
includes an additional $1.9 million in salaries and benefits for 33
maintenance workers and an associated increase request of $2.2 million
in annual maintenance that will allow maintenance workforce to
accomplish preventive maintenance projects, keeping them from being
added to the backlog. In addition, a $6.0 million increase is requested
to address deferred maintenance, bringing total 2002 funding for
deferred maintenance to $65 million.
NATURAL RESOURCE CHALLENGE
Question. The President's budget reflects his commitment to support
the Natural Resource Challenge, an effort to expand our scientific
understanding of park resources.
Does the $1.2 million increase requested for Yellowstone bison
management fully fund the bison management plan? Assuming the increase
is provided, do you anticipate the need for any additional increase in
fiscal year 2003 or beyond? Are funds included in the U.S. Department
of Agriculture budget to implement that management plan? If so, how
much and for what activities?
Answer. The request will provide the National Park Service the
ability to fully meet its responsibilities under the Interagency Bison
Management Plan as described in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (Volume 1, pp. 177-195) and Federal Interagency Record of
Decision (pp. 21-34). No additional increase in fiscal year 2003 or
beyond is anticipated to meet NPS responsibilities under the approved
Interagency Bison Management Plan. The USDA-USFS is expected to provide
support for ongoing planning, compliance, and habitat acquisition or
management. The USDA-APHIS is expected to provide extensive support for
the Interagency Bison Management Plan including cattle brucellosis
testing and vaccination, cattle herd disease-free certification, and
cooperative funding support for bison management outside the park. At
this time, the NPS has not been advised of the status of USDA budget
planning for bison management during fiscal year 2002 or beyond. The
Final Environmental Impact Statement displays an expected combined
annual cost of between $1.2 and $1.5 million for the USDA.
Question. An increase of $2.4 million is requested for native and
exotic species control. How will the expenditure of these and other
base funds be coordinated with neighboring landowners to maximize the
efficiency of exotic species management?
Answer. At least 2.65 million acres of national parklands are
infested by invasive plant species. Coordination with local, regional
and Federal partners to maximize efficiency of exotic species
management is a key component of the NPS exotic species management
response including the proposed six additional Exotic Plant Management
Teams (EPMTs) and the current four EPMTs in operation. The success of
the EPMT derives from its ability to adapt to local conditions and
needs. Each team employs the expertise of local citizens and the
capabilities of local agencies. Priorities for control are determined
by the following factors: severity of threat to high quality natural
areas and rare species; extent of targeted infestation; probability of
successful control and potential for restoration and opportunities for
local public partnerships. Each Exotic Plant Management Team proposed
for funding was required to successfully address the following
criteria: ``The proposed plan effectively combines and coordinates
actions with activities of surrounding landowners or other
stakeholders.'' For example, the Exotic Plant Management Team of
Florida provides excellent illustration of the effectiveness of local
partnerships. The Florida EPMT formed a partnership with the Upland
Invasive Plant Management Program of the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and approximately 136 other groups in the
program to control invasive plants. Together they fund removal of
exotics in eleven units of the National Park System in Florida.
Question. Please provide for the record a table that displays the
major subactivities that comprise the Natural Resource Challenge, the
total increases provided for those subactivities to date, and the
increases requested for fiscal year 2002.
Answer. A table that displays the major subactivities that comprise
the Natural Resource Challenge, the total increases provided for those
subactivities to date, and the increases requested for fiscal year 2002
follows:
NATURAL RESOURCE CHALLENGE FUNDING HISTORY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Funding elements 2002 Total
1999 Base 2000 2001 requested 2000-2002 2002
\1\ change change change increases request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATURAL RESOURCE CHALLENGE CATEGORIES:
Complete basic natural resource 5,787 7,309 ......... ......... 7,309 13,096
inventories, except vegetation mapping
\2\......................................
Vegetation mapping cost-share with USGS.. ......... ......... 1,746 ......... 1,746 1,746
Monitor vital signs in networks of parks.. ......... ......... 4,191 4,200 8,391 8,391
Expand water resource protection and 4,754 ......... 823 1,000 1,823 6,577
restoration \3\..........................
Monitor water quality in parks and assess ......... ......... 1,272 ......... 1,272 1,272
watershed conditions.....................
Expand air quality monitoring and related 6,285 ......... ......... 2,600 2,600 8,885
activities...............................
Inventory air emissions in parks \4\...... ......... ......... 200 ......... 200 200
Make natural resource data useable for 455 ......... 1,098 ......... 1,098 1,553
management decisions and public \5\......
Expand NRPP project fund, specialized 5,432 2,875 ......... 4,000 6,875 12,307
inventories, training....................
Create native/nonnative program/field ......... 3,449 ......... 2,400 5,849 5,849
teams for nonnative species management...
Protect geologic resources \6\............ 1,918 696 ......... ......... 696 2,614
Increase park bases for nonnative and 25,693 ......... 3,395 3,200 6,595 32,288
threatened and endangered species
recovery \7\.............................
Establish Learning Centers................ ......... ......... 898 1,800 2,698 2,698
Establish CESUs........................... ......... ......... 1,596 ......... 1,596 1,596
Establish resource protection fund........ ......... ......... ......... 300 300 300
Implement Resource Protection Act to ......... ......... ......... 500 500 500
restore resources........................
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Natural Resource Challenge..... 50,324 14,329 15,219 20,000 49,548 99,872
=================================================================
NON-CHALLENGE NATURAL RESOURCE CATEGORIES: \8\
Park Base................................. 31,402 5,046 6,014 2,235 13,295 44,697
Regional Project Programs................. 2,093 ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,093
Servicewide Project Programs \9\.......... 2,216 -23 8 12 -3 2,213
Central Office Support \10\............... 8,196 1,731 1,498 156 3,385 11,581
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Non-Challenge Natural Re- 43,907 6,754 7,520 2,403 16,677 60,584
sources................................
=================================================================
EVERGLADES RESTORATION AND RESEARCH........... 12,800 -4,092 1,299 862 -1,931 10,869
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... ......... 16,991 24,038 23,265 64,294 171,325
=================================================================
TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCES APPROPRIATION BY 107,031 124,022 148,060 171,325 ......... 171,325
YEAR \11\..............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Enacted amount shown in fiscal year 2000 Budget Justification.
\2\ Fiscal year 1999 figure includes program support and $895,000 for monitoring projects; in addition, $2.2
million appropriated for this program was previously transferred to parks for their prototype monitoring
activities.
\3\ Part of larger Water Resource Program; Water Quality Monitoring will be included in this total in the Budget
Justification.
\4\ Included in Budget Justification as Air Quality Program, with air quality monitoring, shown separately here.
\5\ In fiscal year 1999, these funds were not shown separately in the Park and Program Summary.
\6\ Part of a larger Geologic Resources Program that also includes Abandoned Mine Land Restoration and other
mining and minerals-related activities.
\7\ Estimated amount in park bases, prior to the initiation of the Natural Resource Challenge, devoted to
activities related to invasive and threatened and endangered species management. Estimated amount is derived
from park base amounts contained in official NPS accounting system, adjusted to reflect portions of amounts
identified against GPRA Goals (Ia1 and Ia2).
\8\ Primarily consists of ``uncontrollable changes'' (i.e., pay cost) and park specific increases (outside the
Challenge) affecting natural resources. Small amounts of uncontrollable changes affecting base amounts in
Natural Resource Challenge categories are included here. Uncontrollable changes to base have not been tracked
in the Natural Resource Challenge numbers.
\9\ Oil Pollution Program and Geographic Information Program.
\10\ Includes Headquarters and Regional Office support
\11\ Comprised of the following three Program Components included as part of the Resource Stewardship Budget
Subactivity in ONPS: Natural Resource Research Support; Natural Resources Management, and Everglades
Restoration and Research.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND
Question. The budget request reduces many of the programs that
received additional funds in Title VIII of the fiscal year 2001
Interior bill. Unlike many of these programs, however, the activities
supported by Historic Preservation Fund grants-to-states are not
eligible for the modified Stateside grant program. As such, the budget
proposes a very real $15 million reduction below the fiscal year 2001
level.
Is this reduction based on departmental views of program
performance, relative needs, or on some other philosophical reason, or
is this simply an instance of having to make reductions to meet overall
budget constraints?
Answer. Competing demands require prioritization of available
funding. The Administration's highest priority for the NPS 2002 budget
is to address the maintenance backlog that threatens the continued
operation and enjoyment of our national parks and to provide full
funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Nevertheless, the
Administration has revised its fiscal year 2002 Budget request to
include a request for $30 million to continue the Save America's
Treasures grants program.
RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
I note that the budget request assumes a four-year extension of the
recreation fee demonstration program.
Question. Does the Administration intend to submit an actual
legislative proposal to extend the program? If so, when?
Answer. The Department is currently preparing a legislation
proposal for the recreation fee program. We will work closely with the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and expect to provide this to
Congress soon.
Question. If no legislative proposal is to be submitted, does the
Department intend to convey to the Committee through other means any
specific recommendations as to whether and how the fee program should
be modified if made permanent?
Answer. The Department does plan to submit a proposal.
While the authorities provided under the fee demonstration program
are fairly broad, its primary purpose was clearly to reduce the
maintenance backlog and provide enhanced visitor facilities. I am a bit
concerned that fee demonstration funds may increasingly be being used
for activities of a more ongoing, operational nature. While these
activities may well be important priorities, there is a risk inherent
in supporting them with revenues from a program that remains subject to
annual reauthorization.
Question. What, if any, is departmental policy in this regard? Do
the individual bureaus have specific policies?
Answer. The Department is committed to ensuring that recreation fee
receipts are used for the purpose that Congress intended. The
individual bureaus also have specific policies on how recreation
demonstration fees can be spent. For example, the current NPS guidance
to managers in the field specifically states that fee receipts cannot
replace or supplement appropriated operations funding. The current
policy of the BLM is that fee receipts should first be spent on
reducing the maintenance backlog and improving existing facilities and
programs. The current FWS policy emphasizes that fee receipts should be
spent on projects that provide a visible benefit to the public; tied as
closely as possible to the recreation fee that the visitor has paid. If
a refuge cannot use its fee receipts in a manner directly tied to
visitor use, deferred maintenance projects are the next priority for
spending fee receipts.
Question. Are fee demonstration revenues currently being used to
support permanent FTEs within the various Interior bureaus? If so, how
many and for what general purposes? What would happen to these
positions if the fee demonstration program were not to be renewed?
Answer. Fee receipts can be used to cover the cost of an approved
project as well as the cost of collecting the fees. This includes the
salaries of employees that are directly involved in collecting or
supervising the collection of recreation fees. The bureaus have
endeavored to ensure that fee receipts are spent on projects rather
than on FTEs. Less than 20 percent of fee receipts are spent on
collection operations.
The NPS pays employees through the recreation fee program if they
are directly involved in collecting fees, or if their labor is directly
tied to the project. For example, temporary workers that are hired as
part of a trail maintenance project would be paid through the
recreation fee program. There are approximately 280 permanent FTE
within NPS that are involved in collecting fees and are totally
supported by recreation fees. While this number may appear large, it is
important to note there are 137 NPS sites where recreation
demonstration fees are collected.
Within the BLM, any labor that directly supports a recreation fee
project can be billed to the project; therefore some temporary workers
are paid through recreation fee receipts. Recreation fee collection is
generally a collateral duty of permanent staff, with only a portion of
their salaries paid through the recreation fee program. BLM has
approximately 4 FTE totally supported by recreation fees.
The FWS charges recreation fee project costs in a similar fashion.
There are approximately 7 FTE that are totally supported by recreation
fees.
Non-renewal of the recreation fee program would eliminate a source
of funding for much needed projects that benefit visitors and would
require base operational funding to cover the cost of collecting
entrance fees.
Question. As the fee program continues to help parks make progress
against deferred maintenance and other project needs, will there be an
inevitable pressure by parks to use more and more fee dollars to
enhance ongoing operations?
Answer. The NPS is reviewing these types of issues in consideration
of extension of the program. The National Park Service's policy on
spending fee receipts currently prohibits replacing or supplementing
appropriated operations funding. In addition, the project approval
process is designed to prevent a park from using fees to enhance
ongoing operations. At a minimum, all projects must be approved at the
regional level. All projects funded through the 20 percent funds
(receipts that are divided among smaller parks) that have an estimated
cost greater than $100,000 and all projects funded through the 80
percent funds (fee receipts that can be retained by the collecting
park) that have an estimated cost greater than $500,000 are reviewed by
the Department, OMB, and Congress.
The examples of fee demonstration projects provided in the annual
report for the Fish and Wildlife Service include many outreach and
education projects and programs.
Question. Given the relatively small amount of fee demonstration
funds available to the Service, why are these types of project a higher
priority than more basic maintenance of visitor facilities or resource
protection?
Answer. While improving the visitor experience is a high priority
for FWS fee managers, significant amounts of recreation fee receipts
are spent on other types of projects. At the end of fiscal year 2000,
10.8 percent of FWS recreation fee receipt obligations were for health
and safety maintenance projects, 3.2 percent were for resource
protection, 16.1 percent were for collection costs, 58.6 percent were
for visitor services, and 11.3 percent were for ``other''.
It is also important to note that many of the refuges that are
demonstration sites do not generate the high level of receipts that
would enable a refuge to undertake major maintenance recreation fee
projects such as replacing a water treatment system.
There is currently a set-aside within the 20 percent fund for
conservation corps work and for ADA compliance projects.
Question. Will these set-asides be continued?
Answer. In 2001, the NPS set aside $5 million from 20 percent funds
for accessibility projects at smaller parks. This was a one-time
commitment, but that does not preclude that the commitment could be
made again. Previous to this set-aside, NPS devoted recreation fee
money toward accessibility projects, so it is likely that NPS would
continue to do some accessibility projects if the set-aside were not
continued.
Recreation fees from the service-wide 20 percent funds have been
set aside for Public Land Corps (PLC) for the past three years. These
dollars are used as matching funds for small projects in parks. These
projects are primarily deferred maintenance.
The BLM and FWS do not have set aside programs.
BISON MANAGEMENT
Question. When does the NPS expect to begin a brucellosis
vaccination program for the bison in Yellowstone National Park?
Answer. The Federal Interagency Record of Decision (page 26, Item
6) states that the National Park Service is expected to initiate a
brucellosis vaccination program of vaccination eligible bison inside
the park with a (safe) and effective delivery system during winter
2003-2004. This date is consistent with the timelines for expected
completion of ongoing research on brucellosis vaccine (RB51) safety and
efficacy, field-testing and validation of a vaccine delivery system,
and NEPA compliance on the vaccine delivery system.
Question. What delivery systems are being considered and when will
a decision on the delivery system be finalized?
Answer. The Federal Interagency Record of Decision (page 22)
describes the need for ``a program for delivery of a safe and effective
vaccine to vaccinate eligible bison inside Yellowstone National Park so
as to decrease the risk of transmission of brucellosis and diminish the
overall (prevalence) of brucellosis in Yellowstone bison.'' Consistent
with the completion of ongoing research on brucellosis vaccine (RB51)
safety and efficacy, during 2001-2003 the National Park Service is
leading the development of a remote-ballistic vaccine delivery system.
A remote-ballistic vaccine delivery system will utilize a biodegradable
pellet (bio-bullet) that is fired at a distance of 30-50 meters from a
compressed-gas or conventional rifled cartridge. The remote-ballistic
vaccination delivery system will be simple, practical, and safe, and
minimize to the degree possible disturbance of the natural and human
environments of the park. A decision on implementation of the delivery
system is expected in 2003.
Question. What additional research, if any, needs to be completed
before such a vaccination program can begin?
Answer. Initiation of an in-park bison vaccination program in
winter 2003-2004 is contingent on completion of two principal research
programs being conducted jointly by the NPS, USGS/Biological Resources
Division (BRD) and USDA/Agricultural Research Service (ARS). This
research includes the completion of studies on the safety and efficacy
of the RB51 brucellosis vaccine (expected completion in 2002), and
refinement and field-testing of a safe and effective remote-ballistic
delivery system (expected completion in 2002-2003). NEPA compliance and
a decision to implement the delivery system are expected in 2003.
Question. Are adequate funds included in the fiscal year 2002
budget request to complete this research and begin implementation? Are
other agencies within the Department of the Interior contributing to
this effort? If so, what funds are being requested for these agencies
and in what activities?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 NPS budget request includes
continuation of funding to satisfy its interagency research and
development responsibilities for an in-park bison vaccination program.
The NPS is collaborating with USGS-BRD in research on the technologies
(such as non-toxic biomarkers, biodegradable bio-bullets, delivery
firearms) necessary for a remote-ballistic vaccine delivery system. A
comprehensive interagency brucellosis research program under the lead
of USGS-BRD operates under an August 2000 Memorandum Of Understanding
(MOU) with the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Annual funding under this MOU is negotiated by each agency for
a wide array of brucellosis related research projects (in fiscal year
2000 the NPS funded $300,000 of the $850,000 total interagency
contributions; fiscal year 2001 funding and work plans are being
developed). The current USGS-BRD research plan shows a commitment for
continuation of collaborative research on an in-park remote-ballistic
vaccine delivery system through fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year 2002
NPS budget request also includes a request for $1.2 million in funds
for Yellowstone National Park to begin implementation of the bison
vaccination program.
Question. How are DOI's efforts being coordinated with USDA
activities in this area?
Answer. Coordination of DOI research efforts for an in-park bison
vaccination program occurs through a MOU (August 2000) between the NPS,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geological Survey. The NPS
serves as the lead for planning and compliance for an in-park bison
vaccination program. NPS staff are in regular contact with USDA-ARS
staff on their efforts, testing, and evaluating of vaccine safety and
efficacy. Coordination between DOI and USDA also occurs through
interagency participation in the Greater Yellowstone Interagency
Brucellosis Committee.
GRAND CANYON TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Question. The Department is currently reviewing the proposed Grand
Canyon transportation system pursuant to the requirements of the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001.
What is the review? Are sources being consulted in this effort that
were not consulted during development of the original plan? Is there
significant new information now available that was not available during
development of the original plan?
Answer. The NPS is conducting a technical and financial evaluation
of four alternatives to the light rail transit option the agency was
prepared to release to bidders last November. The report on the
findings will include the light rail option for comparison. All options
include rubber-tired bus technology in a variety of roadway and station
configurations. In addition, an evaluation of seasonal transit options
and an examination of the viability of seasonal bus sharing with
winter-peak transit operators will be included. The report is expected
to be submitted to the House Subcommittee on Appropriations for the
Interior Department in July, 2001.
Two pieces of information spurred the requirement for this analysis
and report. First, projections of visitation to the park were revised
in 1999 based on six years of relatively flat visitation growth. Those
revisions reduced the anticipated demand for transit in the short term
and pushed high demand into later years. Second, there were questions
in Congress and in the NPS about whether the light rail project would
be economically viable for a private concessioner at a ticket price
reasonable to visitors. The system was proposed for concessioner
financing, to be operated over 20 years, and to be paid for on a per-
person basis by visitors. In order to keep ticket prices low, the park
proposed to reduce its entrance fee. This created another problem in
that it reduces the receipts available for the project. The new
analysis will address these two issues, as well as a review of the
previous analysis. As described below, NPS consulted with a wide
variety of people and organizations with a great deal of knowledge of
this industry.
Question. Has NPS consulted with Wall Street investors about the
viability of a privately financed rail project? Has it consulted
potential bidders concerning the private sector's ability to eliminate
or mitigate the Federal Government's economic risk in a privately
financed project?
Answer. In crafting the concession contract, the NPS consulted with
KPMG Consulting to explore various funding options and perform the
financial analyses necessary to proceed. Several bonding scenarios were
explored through not-for-profit entities but none gave the NPS a level
of comfort concerning the agency's ability to control the system's
operation on Federal lands. Therefore, although at higher cost, a
privately financed system was proposed. The NPS pre-qualified five
bidding teams including a wide variety of industry-leading firms, in
January of 2000. A draft Request for Proposal (RFP) was prepared and
sent to the teams for comment in summer of 2000. Comments were
incorporated and a final RFP was prepared by November 1, 2000. At that
point the process was halted for the reasons stated above. Through
informal channels, the NPS understands bidders were interested or even
enthusiastic about bidding on the project. However, concerns over
prices at the entrance station and substantially reduced entrance fee
revenues remain.
CONSTRUCTION
Question. The table on p. NPS-272 shows an fiscal year 2000 level
of $18.845 million for recoveries of prior year obligations.
What are the sources of these recoveries, either by project or by
general classification? Is the level of recoveries shown for fiscal
year 2002 typical?
Answer. Recoveries result from obligations being incurred, then
cancelled. On occasion, a contract for a project is awarded, the funds
are obligated, and then the entire contract is cancelled. When the
obligation in the accounting system is cancelled it counts as a
recovery, even though a new contract is to be awarded for the same
purpose. More often, recoveries are created when a contract is awarded
and obligated for a fixed amount but completed for a lesser amount. In
this case a recovery is recorded for the difference. These residual
balances of funds are applied as needed to overruns on other projects
or to cover emergency law and order/search and rescue costs in
accordance with transfer authorities provided by Congress in annual
appropriations bills. In fiscal year 2000, none of this money was used
to cover emergency law and order/search and rescue expenses. Of the
$18.8 million reported as recovered in fiscal year 2000, $5.0 million
fell into the categories as described above. The largest share of the
total reported resulted from making accounting corrections to
obligations posted for reimbursable agreements. It is quite common for
NPS to enter into reimbursable agreements for a fixed amount that
proves to be in excess of the costs of executing the agreement. In
fiscal year 2000 NPS accountants concentrated effort on cleaning up old
reimbursable agreements and removing the portion of the obligation that
remained unexpended. This transaction creates a recovery in the
construction account where we capture all reimbursable activity. The
NPS holds no residual funds as a result of this transaction, since the
reimbursing agency provides reimbursement as actual costs are incurred.
Examples of this type of funding include Title V and Title VI funding,
which were appropriated to the Department rather than NPS, and Y2K
funds. Total recoveries caused by these adjustments were $13.8 million
in fiscal year 2000. The level for fiscal year 2000 will likely be
repeated in fiscal year 2001 as the effort to clean up old reimbursable
accounts is completed. In subsequent years, the total should remain
small unless exaggerated by the effect of a cancelled construction
project.
Question. To what other projects have these recovered amounts been
applied? How are these decisions made?
Answer. In the case of true recoveries in a particular project
account, the recovered funds remain in that specific account and are
used for the original project for which they were originally
appropriated. If the recovered amount represented a true savings (and
not to be obligated again for the same purpose), the funds could be
withdrawn and, in accordance with established policy, the savings used
on other projects that have overruns. If the savings were large enough
to meet the threshold for Congressional reprogramming, then a formal
reprogramming action was initiated.
Question. The Administration's commitment to reduce the deferred
maintenance backlog is part of the justification for the increase in
the construction budget. Which of the line item projects in the fiscal
year 2002 request represent components of the deferred maintenance
backlog?
Answer. Of the fifty-seven line item construction projects in the
NPS fiscal year 2002 budget request, fifty-three will help reduce the
deferred maintenance backlog of the National Park Service if funded.
Forty-five have been classified as rehabilitation work on facilities
for which maintenance has been deferred, including the request for a $5
million grant to the National Park Foundation that would match
appropriated funds with non-federal monies to fund not yet identified
NPS deferred maintenance projects. This also includes the Elwha River
restoration project, which is a regulatory compliance project (Public
Law 102-495).
Eight others involve capital improvements to solve critical health
and safety situations where repairing a deferred maintenance situation
has been determined unworkable or inefficient. It is important to note
that the following ``replacement'' requests are considered maintenance
projects because the deferred maintenance needs for the replaced
facilities will be eliminated: new utility systems at the mainland unit
of Apostle Islands National Seashore; completion of the rehabilitation
of the Monroe School at Brown v. Board of Education National Historic
Site; replacement of the Flamingo wastewater system at Everglades
National Park; construction of a safe bicycle/pedestrian path at
Gateway National Recreation Area; construction of a marine maintenance
facility at Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve; replacement of the
Apgar water system at Glacier National Park; replacement of the
maintenance facility at Tumacacori National Historical Park; and
replacement of the collections storage facility at Yellowstone National
Park.
Of the four remaining requested line item projects, the
modification of the water delivery system at Everglades National Park
is the continuation of a project begun in fiscal year 1991 to save the
Everglades ecosystem; the requests for Cape Hatteras National Seashore
and Sequoia National Park are the completion phases of long term
projects to protect resources, and; the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt
National Historic Site request is for the NPS share of a partnership
project with the National Archives and Records Administration and
donors to construct a joint visitor center/library.
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
Question. What is the current status with regard to staffing of the
Office of the Solicitor in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The Office's current staffing level is 389 employees,
including 343 funded by direct appropriation and 46 funded by
reimbursable support agreements with the client bureaus. This level of
staffing is expected to remain constant throughout the year.
Question. What steps are being taken to ensure that the Office can
continue its mission with the funds available?
Answer. During fiscal year 2001, the Office is absorbing $1.4
million in uncontrollable cost increases. The Office has curtailed
travel and training, cutback expenditures for supplies, legal books and
subscriptions, frozen promotions, and limited hiring to filling only
critical positions. These actions alone, are not enough to offset the
$1.4 million absorption and the Office will be charging the client
bureaus for half of this year's indirect costs associated with the 46
reimbursable positions. The Office will be able to continue providing
quality legal services to the Department and its offices and bureaus.
Question. Will staffing reductions be necessary?
Answer. The Office does not foresee staffing reductions during
fiscal year 2001.
Question. Does the increase for fixed costs requested in fiscal
year 2002 anticipate or assume any extraordinary actions that may be
taken in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The Office's fiscal year 2002 budget request for
anticipated adjustments in uncontrollable cost increases assumes
funding for the same level of Office-funded staffing as fiscal year
2001. The increase does not anticipate or assume any extraordinary
actions in fiscal year 2001.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG)
Question. The justification indicates that the Department intends
to begin contracting for bureau financial audits rather than have the
IG perform them in-house. How much does the IG estimate it is currently
spending on these efforts by bureau?
Answer. In March 2001, the OIG completed the fiscal year 2000
financial statement audits of all Departmental bureaus and offices
(except the National Park Service audit, which was conducted by KPMG).
The OIG has begun oversight of audit work on the fiscal year 2001
financial statements, which are being performed by KPMG for all
Departmental bureaus and offices. It is estimated the OIG will incur
approximately $5 million in costs by the end of fiscal year 2001--which
includes completion of the fiscal year 2000 audit (from October 1, 2000
through March 1, 2001) and providing oversight of the fiscal year 2001
audit being conducted by KPMG, which has been awarded a one year
contract to perform financial statement audits. This contract includes
the option to renew up to four years. (See Enclosure 1 for costs by
bureau). The OIG was reimbursed $1.6 million in fiscal year 2001 to
offset its costs for performing this work.
Bureau Fiscal year cost \1\
BIA........................................................... $692,366
USGS.......................................................... 491,823
BOR........................................................... 652,956
BLM........................................................... 420,237
FWS........................................................... 594,733
OSM........................................................... 102,910
DO............................................................ 392,233
MMS........................................................... 479,226
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Bureau Subtotal........................................... 3,826,484
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Consolidated Audit............................................ 306,432
Cost for contract support..................................... 162,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal--DOI fiscal year 2000 audit...................... 4,294,916
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Estimate for oversight of first half of fiscal year 2001 Audit 682,322
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Estimate for fiscal year 2001....................... 4,977,238
\1\ Fiscal year 2001 COST--for 2nd half of fiscal year 2000
financial statement audit PLUS oversight of fiscal year 2001.
In order to answer the question as posed (i.e., amounts funded and
expended during fiscal year 2001), we must address workload efforts
that cover two fiscal year financial statement audits. A financial
statement audit for a given fiscal year is conducted over the course of
two fiscal years (e.g., the audit for fiscal year 2000 was performed
between June 2000 to March 2001--or from the latter part of fiscal year
2000 through the first half of fiscal year 2001). Unfortunately, this
causes the answers to the Subcommittee's questions to be somewhat
complicated. We are happy to discuss these answers further, if
necessary.
Question. Which of these are being funded directly by the IG and
which are being funded through reimbursable agreements with the
bureaus?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 audit, which began in early June, will
be performed completely by KPMG and funded by the bureaus, including an
equitable contribution from the OIG. The OIG will provide oversight for
the entire audit, which will be completed March 1, 2002. For fiscal
year 2001 (from June through September 30, 2001), the OIG estimates
oversight costs to be $683,000.
For fiscal year 2002, total financial statement audit oversight
costs are estimated to be $1,484,000. This covers completion of the
fiscal year 2001 audit and the start of the fiscal year 2002 audit.
Question. By bureau, what amounts are included in the fiscal year
2002 request (for each bureau) to support financial audits?
Answer. The Department will provide this information for the
committee.
The Justification indicates that 10 FTEs currently supported by
reimbursable agreements will no longer be supported in that manner, and
that 5 of these FTEs would be supported with the $835,000 programmatic
increase requested.
Question. Do the remaining 5 FTEs represent a programmatic
reduction?
Answer. Yes, the remaining 5 FTEs represent a program reduction.
The OIG will absorb costs associated with these FTEs by not filling
audit positions vacated during fiscal year 2001.
Question. With regard to the 5 FTEs that would be supported with
the increase, what duties will they be performing?
Answer. The 5 FTEs that we request to be added to our direct
appropriation are FTEs that are currently supported through
reimbursable agreements with the bureaus. These FTEs would be supported
by the requested $835,000 and would reflect a transfer from our
reimbursable authority to our direct appropriation, rather than a
program increase. These FTEs would be used to support oversight of
contractor work on the financial statement audits and program
performance audits in areas identified by the OIG as the most serious
management challenges facing the Department.
Question. What is the process followed to allocate staff to
particular ``discretionary'' audits?
Answer. Discretionary audits are selected based on the Top
Management Challenges the OIG identified for the Congress and the
Department. These are areas that have been identified as the
Department's most serious management and programmatic challenges. They
provide the basis for prioritizing discretionary workload assignments.
In addition, the OIG is committed to increasing its consulting services
capacity, with the focus on taking a more proactive, problem-solving,
solution-oriented approach to areas of significant concern with the
Department. One of the primary objectives for Audits is to institute
more short-term/quick response approaches to respond more effectively
to Congressional and DOI management requests and to independently and
expediently assess areas of concern, usually within a 60-90 day period.
The purpose is to identify actions that Departmental management can
take to improve operations and meet program objectives in a more
effective and, if feasible, a less costly manner before major problems
arise.
DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Question. No increase for fixed costs is requested for the
Departmental Management.
How will the Department absorb the increases required for pay and
other fixed costs?
Answer. The various offices within the Office of the Secretary will
absorb the increases required for pay and other fixed costs by
consolidating management functions, eliminating positions, and taking
steps to reduce other costs, thereby realizing savings in salary,
benefits, and support costs.
Question. What will be the impact of a flat budget on general
departmental management and oversight functions?
Answer. Enactment of a flat budget will require that the Department
take steps to reduce costs to accommodate $3.4 million in pay and other
uncontrollable costs. The Department plans to implement organizational
changes and eliminate vacancies in order to do this.
Question. Does the budget make any assumptions regarding savings
from appointed and Schedule C positions that may be unfilled for a
significant portion of fiscal year 2001?
Answer. No, the budget assumes that those positions will be filled
during fiscal year 2001 and will be filled for the entirety of 2002.
Question. Did the fiscal year 2001 request for Departmental
Management make any such assumptions?
Answer. When the fiscal year 2001 request was formulated, the
Department made no assumptions regarding savings from position lapse in
appointed and Schedule C positions. The Office of the Secretary will
use any savings in fiscal year 2001 for one-time purchases to catch up
on replacement of obsolete equipment in preparation for 2002.
OFFICE OF INSULAR AFFAIRS
COMPACT NEGOTIATIONS
Question. What is the current status of renegotiation talks with
the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.
Answer. Talks with the Federated States of Micronesia have been
ongoing for the past year. Progress is being made with significant
agreement on conceptual aspects of future financial assistance, such as
the use of sectoral grants and increased accountability. Talks with the
Marshall Islands have not commenced. Talks were planned for September
2001, but OIA understands there have been recent discussions between
the State Department and the Government of the Marshall Islands about
moving the talks to an earlier date in July.
Question. When should this process be completed?
Answer. Because of the two-year transition period provided for in
the original Compact, there appears to be little incentive for the
freely associated states to agree to implementation of a new financial
assistance period before fiscal year 2004. Given this assumption, OIA
believes it is imperative that talks be completed and a legislative and
budget package be transmitted to Congress before the end of fiscal year
2002. This would allow one year for the approval process and important
planning and other preparation activities that must be completed prior
to implementation.
Question. What are the major issues remaining to be resolved?
Answer. With respect to the Federated States of Micronesia, the
major issue appears to be the level of assistance. This includes
whether an inflation formula is incorporated into the agreement and the
nature and extent of any trust fund to provide future long-term
assistance. There are also issues that need to be resolved regarding
continuation of certain Federal programs and services and possible
changes to the immigration provisions of the existing Compact. With
respect to the Marshall Islands, it is premature to define issues or
areas of disagreement given that talks have not begun.
Question. How, if at all, is the issue of Compact impact aid being
considered in this process?
Answer. Impact aid is somewhat tangential to the negotiations
process, in that the State Department is not negotiating with the
freely associated states the amount of impact aid for U.S. insular
areas. It is, however, a part of the overall process in that the
Administration is trying to identify new sources of funding for direct
impact aid and modify current immigration policies and practices.
Question. Have the views of Hawaii with respect to impact funding
been reviewed during the renegotiation?
Answer. Yes, the concerns of Hawaii and its desire for impact
assistance have been considered as part of the overall negotiation
process.
TOBACCO SETTLEMENT
Question. The fiscal year 2000 Interior bill contained language
that advanced almost $20 million to American Samoa. Part of this
funding was contingent upon a financial plan being approved by the
Department. How much of these funds have been released?
Answer. The loan was divided into two parts. The first portion of
$14.3 million was to pay creditors, at a discounted rate, who were owed
money by American Samoa prior to April 1999. This money has been paid
to American Samoa and passed on to the creditors. The remaining $4.3
million was for implementation of a fiscal recovery plan. The plan has
not yet been developed, so none of this money has been released.
Question. For what purposes have these funds been expended?
Answer. All funds expended to date have been used to pay creditors.
The largest single group of creditors was health care providers, most
of whom were located in Hawaii. Major payments were also made to the
American Samoa Power Authority for past due government utility bills
and to the General Services Administration for supplies and services
provided to the American Samoa Government.
Question. Has the issue of overdue payments to medical services
providers in Hawaii been completely resolved with these funds?
Answer. OIA doesn't feel comfortable saying the issue has been
completely resolved. The loan only covered bills prior to April 1999.
Between the loan and other action taken by American Samoa more than $10
million was paid to medical providers, which OIA understands completely
resolved all overdue payments prior to April 1999. Since April 1999,
some additional medical referral debts have accumulated. The last
figure given to OIA was approximately $800,000. OIA does not have an
aging of those accounts so it cannot comment on how seriously some of
the accounts may be overdue.
Question. What is the status of the ASG's financial plan?
Answer. The American Samoa Government has created and staffed a
small office to deal with financial reform. It is our understanding
that this office has the outline of a plan, but has not yet completed
the document. OIA had encouraged ASG to have the plan completed by May
2001.
Question. Has the Department received the plan?
Answer. No, the Department has not received the plan. The Office of
Insular Affairs is trying to schedule a meeting with ASG officials the
first week of June to discuss the status of the plan.
Question. When is approval expected?
Answer. Once OIA has the plan, it should be approved in less than
30 days. The Department has also been directed to enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the American Samoa Government
regarding plan implementation, including benchmarks and reporting/
monitoring mechanisms. Work on this MOU can be done concurrently with
plan approval and should be completed soon after approval of a final
plan.
Question. Language was also included in the fiscal year 2001
Interior bill that requested the Department to assist ASG in
identifying opportunities to diversify the economy. Has the Department
been working with ASG in this regard?
Answer. Yes, the Department is working cooperatively with the
American Samoa Economic Development Commission and is also talking
directly with officials from the American Samoa Government regarding a
specific proposal.
Question. What potential activities have been identified?
Answer. The American Samoa Government is exploring the possibility
of E-Commerce. The concept would be to create a business located in
American Samoa with employees who either perform data entry services
for large American or global businesses or receive and process
electronic orders for supplies and services. The Department is
discussing a technical assistance request from ASG for a feasibility
analysis and development of a business plan.
ENEWETAK
Question. Recently, the people of Enewetak atoll obtained a
judgment from the Nuclear Claims Tribunal for over $350 million based
on the damage caused from nuclear testing in the atoll. What is the
Department's position with respect to this judgment?
Answer. Article X of the Section 177 agreement of the Compact of
Free Association states that the agreement constitutes the full
settlement of all claims, past, present, and future of the government,
citizens, and nationals of the Marshall Islands which are based upon or
are related to the nuclear testing program, and which are against the
United States. The Administration therefore considers this issue
closed.
Question. If this judgment is ultimately sanctioned by the U.S.
courts what, if any, budget impacts would there be for the Department?
Answer. Unless paid from the Department of Justice judgment fund,
the impact on the Department of the Interior budget would be severe.
PRIOR SERVICE BENEFITS TRUST FUND
Question. The Subcommittee remains concerned about the financial
condition of the Prior Service Trust Fund. The Committee provided
$700,000 last year to maintain the fund. What is the remaining corpus
left in the fund?
Answer. The trust fund administrator is independent and has no
reporting responsibility to the Department. OIA understands, however,
that there was a balance of approximately $2 million at the end of
fiscal year 2000. Congress' appropriation of $700,000 would have then
meant $2.7 million available at the beginning of fiscal year 2001. OIA
further understands that current outlays are approximately $1.2 million
annually. This would mean that the balance at the beginning of 2002
will be approximately $1.5 million.
Question. How much funding would be required to ensure that
benefits maintain their current levels for the lifetime of the
beneficiaries?
Answer. OIA's understanding of the actuarial estimates is that it
would require a current appropriation of approximately $23 million, or
it could be funded annually for a period of approximately 40 years at a
level that begins at approximately $1.2 million and gradually declines
as the number of beneficiaries decreases.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
CAT ISLAND
Question. What is the current status of the National Park Service's
appraisal of Cat Island, Mississippi, that was scheduled for review by
the Service's Washington Office in March 2001?
Answer. Public Law 106-554 authorized the acquisition, only with
the owner's consent, of approximately 2,000 acres of land on Cat
Island, Mississippi, for addition to Gulf Islands National Seashore. An
appraisal obtained by the National Park Service is presently under
review and has not yet been approved. Both the Boddie family and a non-
profit conservation organization have obtained independent appraisals
of the property. In light of the landowners concerns regarding
significant disparities among the values indicated by these appraisals,
the NPS has asked its contract appraiser to reinspect the property. The
updated appraisal report will be due 45 days after the reinspection of
the property. A date for the reinspection has not been scheduled.
Question. The Interior budget for fiscal year 2002 has included
$2.0 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land
acquisition for Gulf Islands National Seashore. How much of this
funding will be obligated for the purchase of Cat Island, Mississippi?
Answer. The $2.0 million request for land acquisition funds in
fiscal year 2002 for Gulf Islands National Seashore is for the purpose
of purchasing 365 acres; 225 on Horn Island and 140 acres on Cat
Island.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
BLACK CANYON WATER RIGHTS
Question. I am concerned about the National Park Service's filing
for quantification of the reserved water right for the Black Canyon of
the Gunnison National Park. This filing was done in the waning days of
the Clinton Administration after formal requests to work with the State
of Colorado on this critical issue were ignored. As a result, their
claim could wreak havoc on gold medal trout water, power production,
recreation and this might even cause flooding in the town of Delta.
Like I said, the previous Administration filed this claim, but you have
inherited this problem and it seems that it is proceeding forward.
Efforts to quantify this right go back to the 1980s and previous
attempts have been far more realistic than this latest effort.
Moreover, this unrealistic filing could have impacts on cooperative
efforts to recover and delist endangered species.
Had they taken just a little input from the State of Colorado, the
Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), BLM,
and even their own staff at Curecanti, they would have never filed an
application that would bring out this kind of opposition. But, the
damage is done. I understand 383 Statement of Opposition have been
filed, including one for the State of Colorado through its Water
Conservation Board, State Engineer and Division of Wildlife.
We know that your department did not file this claim while you
were Secretary, but you are still in charge of the National Park
Service. I have to ask, why did the Park Service ignore these
stakeholders in filing this claim and have you talked to them about
their actions?
Answer. The NPS has been working with individual stakeholders,
including the State of Colorado on this issue, for about 12 years.
Although the law requires that the claim must focus on park purposes,
input from stakeholders was considered so that effects on other river
management concerns would be minimized. The Department has chosen to
not withdraw the claim and believes that it can be used as a starting
point for negotiations to formally identify stakeholders and make
negotiations more focused and fruitful. Since the claim was filed, the
Department bureaus, including the NPS, have met with the State of
Colorado to begin the formal negotiation process.
Question. Why did the National Park Service seek input from other
federal agencies and then not include them in the claim that was filed?
Answer. The Department of the Interior Solicitor used input from
the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
Land Management, and Western Area Power Administration to make
decisions about the claim. The claim includes the flow numbers and also
language recognizing the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to
restrict delivery of flows based on other river management needs such
as Aspinall Unit and endangered fish needs.
MAINTENANCE BACKLOG IN PARKS
Question. I am glad to see that you and the President are committed
to decreasing the maintenance backlog in our National Park System.
Where are you going to start geographically and what types of
maintenance will the department do first.
Answer. The Department's comprehensive 5-Year Maintenance and
Capital Improvement Plan identifies maintenance needs throughout the
Park System and is comprised of a prioritized listing of deferred
maintenance projects. The fiscal year 2002 maintenance program for the
National Park Service places highest emphasis on critical deferred
maintenance needs in health and safety, resource protection, and bureau
mission. We believe that addressing the priorities included in the 5-
year plan in a systematic manner is the most effective means of
achieving our goals. Through this planning process, the Department will
be able to present and convey a more consistent and credible view of
its budgeted resources and capital investments, goals, needs, and
priorities, and most importantly, results, to the Congress.
FIRE SUPPRESSION
Question. Last year we had a terrible fire season, especially in
the West. And there were times that we started to run low on retardant,
tankers, personnel and other resources used to fight wildfires. Can you
break down what this increase of funding is going to be used for?
Answer. To address this shortage of firefighting resources
President Clinton proposed, and Congress funded the National Fire Plan.
This plan includes funds in fiscal year 2001 specifically to prepare
for and ensure fire readiness to suppress expected fire activity during
a ``normal'' fire season. In addition, the National Fire Plan included
additional monies to increase firefighting capabilities to support
large fire suppression activity that may occur. The President's fiscal
year 2002 budget continues support for the National Fire Plan. The
attached table indicates the types of personnel, equipment, and
aircraft increases the DOI agencies are making to address fire
preparedness needs and to prevent wildland fire fighting capability
shortages during future fire seasons.
The Department of the Interior's funding request in Wildland Fire
Suppression was increased from $153,109,000 in fiscal year 2001 to
$161,424,000 in fiscal year 2002. This additional $8,315,000 will be
used to fund the increased cost of suppressing wildland fires
especially in the wildland urban interface and in areas of increased
hazardous fuel loadings.
Additional information regarding the National Fire Plan and the DOI
proposed action plan can be found at the Department of the Interior's
National Fire Plan, Implementation Action Plan website: http://
www.nifc.gov/fireplan/index.htm
Question. Does any of the funding go to remediating lands
especially to help with erosion and discharges that can contaminate
water supplies?
Answer. The Department of the Interior (DOI) Wildland Fire
Operations account includes funds for burned area rehabilitation. These
funds are specifically designated for emergency rehabilitation and
stabilization of federal lands damaged by wildland fires. The primary
purpose of these funds are to: protect life, property, soil, water,
and/or vegetation resources; prevent unacceptable on-site or off-site
damages, including those resulting from erosion or discharge from
burned areas; facilitate meeting land use objectives; and reduce the
invasion and establishment of undesirable or invasive species of
vegetation.
The Presidents budget included a request of $20.0 million in fiscal
year 2002 for burned area rehabilitation. These funds are used for
rehabilitation treatments that may include such management practices as
reseeding and revegetation, sediment control, drainage control, and
protection from livestock and human use. Funds may also be used for
repair of damaged structures such as fencing, wildlife/livestock
improvements and other minor improvements essential to protecting
resources and managing the land.
LAND ACQUISITIONS
Question. As you know, Colorado has a few projects in your budget.
Some are fully funded, which I want to thank you for, but others are
not. Many of these projects will complete legislation that was
previously passed, but we are now waiting for the proper funding to
close the doors on these projects, like land acquisition funds for the
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and the Great Sand Dunes
National Park. Will you work to obtain the adequate funds for these
projects?
Answer. In order to complete necessary land acquisition authorized
by recent legislation regarding Colorado units of the National Park
System, this Department has requested and obligated funds for such
acquisition. Additional funds for such acquisition are included in the
fiscal year 2002 budget request. The Department's efforts to complete
these acquisitions will continue.
Public Law 106-76, enacted October 21, 1999, provided authority to
acquire an additional 2,500 acres for inclusion in Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park in the State of Colorado. Since enactment of
Public Law 106-76, the National Park Service has acquired interests in
2,221.46 acres of land for addition to the park. The NPS fiscal year
2002 budget request for land acquisition includes $200,000 to acquire
an additional 120 acres for the park.
On May 16th, the Department requested from the Appropriations
Committees approval to reprogram $340,000 from prior year land
acquisition funds to acquire the 120-acre Woodell tract at Black Canyon
of the Gunnison National Park. The House has approved this
reprogramming request.
Federal acquisition of the Baca Ranch was authorized by Public Law
106-530. The total cost of Federal acquisition of the ranch, located
adjacent to Great Sand Dunes National Monument, will be $31.28 million.
In fiscal year 2001, the National Park Service obligated $8.2 million
towards the purchase of a portion of the ranch. The fiscal year 2002
budget includes $2.0 million and funding to complete the acquisition
will be sought in future years.
The BLM's 2002 budget request includes $43.2 million for land
acquisition. There are two priority projects in Colorado in the BLM
request; Gunnison Basin ACE ($2.5 million), and Upper Arkansas River
Basin ($1.5 million) that account for 9 percent of the BLM Land
Acquisition request. The Department will work toward completing land
acquisition priorities in areas within Colorado that have received
special designation in a timely fashion that balances acquisition
priorities across states.
PILT
Question. We all know that many local communities rely on PILT
funds. Many smaller counties can be severely hurt if they receive a
decrease in these payments. In the budget I see there is a decrease in
these funds. There are a number of us that would like to see these
funds restored. Can you commit to us that you will work with this
committee to try and restore some of these funds?
Answer. The Department of the Interior understands and supports the
benefits that are derived by local communities from PILT funds. We will
be pleased to work with you concerning PILT funding for fiscal year
2002 within the overall budget constraints and competing priorities of
the BLM and the Department.
INDIAN AFFAIRS ISSUES
I. Incentives for Tribal Contracting
Question. ENCOURAGING SELF-DETERMINATION: one of the best ways to
increase Tribal contracting and compacting is to provide the necessary
start-up and administrative costs associated with the management of the
contract. I see there is a small decrease in self-governance grants
this year. I think we all agree that Tribal contracting is universally
successful. Does this budget item mark a change in how the incoming
Administration views Indian contracting?
Answer. No, the budget proposal to not provide new funds in fiscal
year 2002 for the Self Governance Shortfall (Grants), under the Non-
Recurring Programs subactivity, is due to the fact that this grant
program has a carry over balance of approximately $600,000. This amount
is estimated to be sufficient to meet the programmatic needs in fiscal
year 2002.
II. Education Issues
Question. OPERATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION: one of the key goals that
you and I share is in educational improvement. The request includes a
$16.5 million increase for school operations, and a modest $162,000
increase for school construction. Given these numbers, is the
Department ``on track'' to eliminating the backlog in Indian School
Facilities by fiscal year 2006 as the President has indicated?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 Budget Request for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs includes a total of $292.5 million for Education
Construction, of which $122.8 million is specifically for replacement
of six school facilities on priority list (as of January, 2001). With
continued funding at the fiscal year 2002 level, the Department is ``on
track'' to meeting the goal to eliminate the current repair and
maintenance backlog by 2006.
All BIA schools are included in the Bureau's Five-Year Deferred
Maintenance Plan that addresses the present facilities backlog. The
plan is being revised to include infrastructure replacement for
deteriorated and unsafe utilities systems that include gas, water and
electrical lines and associated systems support requirements.
Additionally, the replacement school construction application process
is in the final stages of revision for a Federal Register notice for
solicitation of new applications which will result in the addition of
replacement school construction projects to the national replacement
priority list. The Bureau has intensified efforts to train construction
grant officers, restructure and improve construction contracting
capabilities, entered into interagency agreements with other Federal
agencies to assist with construction project implementation, and
improved its efforts to ensure project oversight and fiscal
accountability.
Question. SCHOOL BONDING: one of the legislative ideas that has
surfaced is to complement Federal funds by authorizing the issuance of
``Tribal School Construction Bonds'' to hasten the construction of
Indian Schools. Do you support the concept included in this
legislation?
Answer. The Department has performed a preliminary review of S.
243. In general, we would support the concept of Tribes issuing bonds
for school construction. Other details of the bill, such as proposed
tax credits for bond holders and Federal appropriations to defeat the
principal of such bonds, require further assessment.
Question. JOINT VENTURE: the fiscal year 2002 request provides for
a ``Demonstration Program'' aimed at 50-50 Tribal-Federal Partnerships
for the Construction of Schools. How many Tribes have requested
participation in this Program?
Answer. In fiscal year 2001, the Conehatta Elementary School for
the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians is being constructed using
funding under the demonstration program. The fiscal year 2002 request
for the Bureau does not include continued funding for the demonstration
program.
III. Law Enforcement
--Tribal Courts.--The request includes a total of $13.1 million to
support 250 Tribal courts, and there are additional resources
appropriated to the Justice Department for Tribal courts as
well.
--Training.--Through the Treasury/General Government Subcommittee,
which I chair, I have tried to get other Federal agencies to
include BIA and Tribal police staff in their training.
Question. Can you determine and then report back to this Committee
whether in fact existing inter-agency initiatives (such as the ``Gang
Resistance Education and Training'' `GREAT') are successful for Indian
programs and if not why not?
Answer. The Bureau implemented the GREAT curriculum in school
systems where gangs were being established. This program proved a vital
and key instrument in decreasing gang-related crimes, violence,
vandalism, and student/gang recruiting. In one community, gang-related
incidents decreased from an average of 12 per school to zero. The GREAT
program has provided Indian youth with alternatives to gangs and
effective techniques to avoid gang involvement.
IV. Trust Reforms
Question. ``COURT MONITOR'' APPOINTED: last week Judge Lamberth
appointed Joseph Kieffer to be the Court Monitor for the Cobell v.
Norton litigation and directed him to report back to the Judge. How do
you interpret this appointment?
Answer. The Department believes the appointment is a positive step
in the trust reform efforts. The Federal District Court in Cobell v.
Norton conducted a series of meetings with legal counsel for the
Plaintiffs and Defendants during the end of March 2001 and the
beginning of April 2001. On April 16, 2001, after the final such
meeting, the Court conducted a status hearing on the record. At that
hearing, the Court indicated that a Court Monitor would be appointed to
help the Court deal with the questions presented in the case, including
the Plaintiff's motion to reopen trial one (which involved the issue of
trust reform). The Court also mentioned that assistance from a Court
Monitor would help the Court with its heavy docket and trial calendar.
Legal counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants consented on the record to
the appointment of Joseph S. Kieffer, III as Court Monitor. The ensuing
written order dated April 16, 2001, provides that the Court Monitor is
a representative of the Court and will serve for at least one year. It
provides that the Court Monitor will ``monitor and review all of the
Interior defendants' trust reform activities and file written reports
of his findings with the Court.'' The reports will include summaries of
Interior's trust reform progress. The Court Monitor is expected to
issue an initial report to the Court after becoming acquainted with the
issues in the case. The initial report is expected sometime this summer
and will help the Court as to scheduling and the resolution of pending
motions. The fees and expenses of the Court Monitor are to be paid by
Interior.
Question. TRUST SERVICES: there is some $44 million requested for
Probate, Real Estate Appraisals, and related services, and there are
millions more for the Office of the Special Trustee. There is a lot of
``activity'' that seems to surround Indian trust reforms; but let me
ask you: do you foresee a time in the immediate future where our
collective efforts will be on settling the account balance
discrepancies? How can we help you and the Indian Plaintiffs get there?
Answer. There are two tracks to ``settling the account balance
discrepancies'': The historical accounting along with the negotiation
of a settlement with the Plaintiffs. DOI is pursuing an historical
accounting that seeks to determine historical IIM account balances.
Simultaneously, we are seeking discussions with the Plaintiffs'
representatives to find a satisfactory basis that would limit
litigation as well as the time required for a full accounting. The
continued support of Congress to fund the necessary work to accomplish
a satisfactory resolution to these matters is a significant help to
this effort.
Question. LEGISLATION TO ASSIST IN SETTLEMENT: would you find it
helpful to have some legislation that seeks to find the best and most
efficient method of determining the correct account balances?
Answer. As Congress has required, the Department will present our
plan for an historical account to the Appropriation Committees
including the manner in which we believe that accounting can be
accomplished and the resources that may be needed. Until this plan is
prepared and given to Congress the question of any legislation that may
be needed is best deferred.
Question. HIGHER RATES OF RETURN: last session I co-authored a bill
(S.739) aimed at getting tribal assets greater rates of return by
investing in the Market. As we sort out account balances and the
computer systems and all the rest, it seems to me we can do something
to provide immediate relief to Indians. Do you have any views on this
idea?
Answer. The Special Trustee believes that changes to the law to
broaden options for the investment of individual and Tribal monies
should be considered. Currently, 25 U.S.C. 162a prescribes the
investment policy of the government for these funds. Investments are
limited, in most cases, to U.S. Government securities (Treasury and
other agency issues) and insured deposits or deposits collateralized by
U.S. Government securities.
It is important to consider the negative impact on those accounts
for certain beneficiaries where, for example, the cost of living change
cannot be offset with investment over the long term in fixed income
investments (bonds). The capability to use equities to offset the
effect of inflation for long-term requirements is desirable. The
Special Trustee would recommend a legislative change to provide for a
prudent investment policy that protects the long-term beneficiaries
against inflation impact.
Question. WATER ISSUES: Madam Secretary, this year's request
includes funding for Indian water settlements that were subject to
negotiations between Tribes, the United States, States and other
parties. As you know there is still a sizeable backlog in outstanding
Indian land and water claims. One idea that has been proposed
informally is to take these settlements off-budget' so that the
programs within the Interior Department do not have to compete with
land and water claims payments. What do you think of this idea?
Answer. The Administration is committed to seeking discretionary
funding for settlements once they are enacted. While I am not familiar
with the details of the proposals, I understand that the Department has
had discussions in the past with the Senate Budget Committee regarding
proposals to move funding for settlements off Interior's discretionary
budget. The Department would be willing to explore these ideas further.
I believe that OMB and the Congressional Budget Office would also need
to be brought into any such discussions because of the broad policy and
budget implications of such a proposal.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
STREAMLINING
Question. Your budget request for the Department includes $57
million in streamlining savings that you expect to ``create more
efficient systems and processes without affecting program delivery.''
What processes and systems have you identified that would yield such
significant savings and how much will you save from each one?
Answer. The Department's Budget request for 2002 proposes $15.3
million in streamlining savings and an additional $41.8 million in
uncontrollable costs that will be absorbed by streamlining. In order to
meet these goals, the bureaus and the Department's Offices are
conducting reviews of administrative costs and staffing levels to
identify inefficiencies and reduce redundancy and incorporating
processes for working smarter. Savings will be realized through a
combination of actions including reducing organizational layers,
implementing contracting efficiencies, modifying grades of current
positions, management downsizing, and eliminating extraneous positions.
Specific examples of actions planned by the Department include: the
NPS will save $6.1 million by reducing travel, exploiting new
technologies, eliminating low priority vacancies, and additional
efficiencies that are identified through the park business plan
process; BLM will save $3.2 million in part by reducing headquarters
travel and consolidating supplies procurement; FWS will save $3.5
million by headquarters and regional consolidations, travel reductions,
and other administrative savings; MMS will reduce its budget by $2.0
million by reducing redundancy and inefficiency and by improving
business processes; and the Department is planning to consolidate
offices and eliminate layers of management.
Question. Did you analyze the current systems and practices to
determine that there is $57 million worth of overspending before you
proposed these budget cuts?
Answer. The streamlining savings proposed in the budget amount to
only one-half of one percent of the Department's 2001 appropriation.
The Department believes that savings of $57 million through cost
avoidance and selective reductions are easily achievable within a $10
billion budget.
Question. Fuel prices could be substantially higher in 2002 than
they are today. How can you promise travel cost reductions when energy
prices, which are beyond our control, are in a state of flux, and
specifically, how much do you propose to save with travel reductions?
Answer. The travel reductions are within the mix of savings
measures proposed in the 2002 budget and as such are only one component
of the total cost reductions that the Department anticipates it will be
able to accomplish. The proposed reductions in travel total $6 million,
a reduction of three percent in travel budgets from the 2001 level. The
Department is anticipating that it will be able to achieve the travel
cost reductions, given the goals outlined in the President's energy
plan that will result in reductions in energy prices.
NATIONAL CONSERVATION TRAINING CENTER
Question. The National Conservation Training Center, located in
Shepherdstown, West Virginia, is owned and operated by the Fish and
Wildlife Service and is, by any definition, a world-class training
facility. Since it opened its doors in October of 1997, more than
25,000 people have gone there to improve their natural resource
management skills. In addition to Fish and Wildlife Service employees,
the Training Center serves individuals from many different
organizations, coming from every state, and from over a dozen
countries.
The success of the Center, though, is dependent on the ability of
the Department's employees being able to travel to West Virginia for
the courses and programs offered. As such, I am concerned with two
proposals that I fear could have a detrimental effect on the Center's
mission. First, the budget request proposes to cut travel expenditures
for the Fish and Wildlife Service by $1.5 million, and by $1.8 million
for the National Park Service, which also sends employees to the
Training Center. Secondly, under the guise of ``streamlining,'' the two
bureaus have been told to find $9.6 million in undefined management
cuts in their budget, and then to absorb $17.2 million in
uncontrollable costs. That is an extra $26.8 million that would have to
come from somewhere, and knowing that managers are reluctant to cut
back their programs, I fear that much of that $26 million may come out
of the travel budgets.
Can you assure this committee that the substantial investment the
taxpayers have made in constructing and operating the National
Conservation Training Center will not be wasted?
Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Conservation
Training Center trains and educates natural resource managers to
accomplish FWS' resource conservation mission of conserving fish,
wildlife, plants, and their habitats, for the benefit of the American
people. NCTC brings exceptional training and educational opportunities
to FWS employees and others. NCTC is constantly full to capacity, and
courses and workshops typically need to be scheduled one to two years
in advance. The streamlining proposals in the 2002 budget are not
expected to have any impact on the operations at NCTC. The travel
reductions in the 2002 budget are expected to be achieved largely by
reducing meetings and conferences, as opposed to reducing travel for
training. The Department's land management bureaus recognize that a
well trained, highly motivated workforce is critical to mission
accomplishment.
STAFF CUTS
Question. The Department of the Interior reduced its employment by
7,500 since 1992. Your budget proposes to reduce employment by 1,707.
Most of the reductions are proposed for the U.S. Geological Survey, the
Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service. I would like to know where these cuts will occur and,
in particular, how many will be taken in West Virginia.
Answer. The FTE reduction of 1,707 reflects the reduction in
staffing from the levels that were originally planned for 2001. The
Department's 2001 plans anticipated increased staffing based on the
2001 appropriation which provided significant resources for on-the-
ground programs that are FTE intensive including wildland fire
management, park operations, and Indian trust management. The
Department scaled back its initial estimates for 2001 staffing by 1,132
FTE assuming a reduced need for staffing with expanded use of
contractual services and outsourcing, and elimination of extraneous
positions that are not needed for program delivery. In effect, this
portion of the staffing reduction will not result in cuts to on-board
personnel.
A further reduction of 575 FTE is proposed in the 2002 budget,
which is distributed as follows: USGS (506 FTEs), Fish and Wildlife (53
FTEs), National Park Service (100 FTEs), Departmental Management (25
FTEs), and the Inspector General (5 FTEs). These estimated reductions
are offset by estimated increases in the Minerals Management Service
(39 FTEs), Bureau of Indian Affairs (64 FTEs), and Office of Special
Trustee (11 FTEs).
Given the effect of staff turnover and actions that are being taken
in 2001 to limit staffing, the Department does not anticipate
significant cuts in on-board personnel with the exception of the U.S.
Geological Survey. USGS is currently evaluating staffing impacts of the
2002 budget. At this time it is not possible to estimate how many
employees might be affected and in what locations. The Bureau of Land
Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park
Service do not plan any staff reductions in West Virginia from fiscal
year 2001 to fiscal year 2002.
Question. Across the country, how many National Wildlife Refuges
are currently understaffed, and by how many staff members? How many
refuges have no staff at all?
Answer. There are currently 2,648 personnel assigned to 535 refuges
in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). There are currently 212
unstaffed National Wildlife Refuges. FWS has no plans to staff over
half of the unstaffed refuges. The President's budget includes funding
for 2,839 full-time equivalent positions within the NWRS, and the
Administration believes this is the appropriate staffing level.
At the direction of the House Appropriations Committee, FWS
examined essential staffing vacancies throughout the NWRS and provided
a 1999 report that identified 1,475 essential staffing vacancies. The
staffing study has been helpful in identifying NWRS staffing
priorities, and since 1999, 125 of these positions have been filled.
Additionally, the study has been useful in justifying the increase of
33 refuge maintenance workers included in the 2002 budget request.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--ENDANGERED SPECIES
Question. Please provide specific detail about the ``listing
priority system'' that would be used by the Secretary under the listing
language proposed in the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget
justification.
Answer. FWS would develop a science-based listing priority system
to ensure listing actions that provide the greatest conservation needs
are addressed first. There is a significant backlog of required listing
actions that FWS needs to complete, including decisions about listing
candidate species, responses to public petitions, final decisions
concerning proposed actions, and critical habitat designations for
already-listed species.
FWS will develop the listing priority system through notice and
comment in the Federal Register and anticipates publishing a notice of
intent to develop the listing priority system early this summer. This
NOI will likely include outlines of several possible science-based
approaches to prioritizing all types of listing actions and will ask
the public for comments on these alternatives, and request other
possible approaches to prioritization. By September 30, 2001, FWS
intends to publish a draft listing priority system, along with a draft
work plan for the listing program in fiscal year 2002. This draft work
plan would describe to the public how the listing priority system would
work, based on the information available at the time it is prepared and
will be provided for public comment. Through a pilot program with
Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, FWS will also request peer review of
the listing priority system. Based on this public and peer review, FWS
intends to finalize the listing priority system by December 2001.
No matter what priority system is developed, our listing work plan
for fiscal year 2002 is already dominated by court-ordered actions. FWS
is currently subject to numerous court orders that require work in
2002, and additional requirements could result from the many ongoing
listing deadline cases. FWS intends to comply fully with these court
orders and settlement agreements.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--LAW ENFORCEMENT
Question. No increase is proposed for Law Enforcement activities in
the President's fiscal year 2002 budget request. Are additional funds
needed to carry out the Service's law enforcement responsibilities?
After the July class is in the field, will any vacancies--particularly
high priority ones--remain unfilled? How many law enforcement officers
will retire next year?
Answer. The 2002 Law Enforcement Program budget provides adequate
funding to perform the highest priority activities needed to protect
the Nation's wildlife resources, including funding for plainclothes
special agents, wildlife inspectors, and forensic scientists.
FWS currently employs 195 special agents and 88 wildlife inspectors
of the authorized strength of 253 agents and 94 inspectors. The 2001
increase will enable the Service to hire 35 agents by late July. At
that time, the agent force is expected to total 225. While this is 28
fewer agents than authorized, no high priority agent positions will be
vacant.
FWS historically loses 10 to 12 agents annually to early
retirement, resignations, termination, and other situations, excluding
mandatory retirements. Four special agents face mandatory retirement in
2002, and another 48 agents will be eligible to retire.
BISCAYNE BAY CAMPSITE LEASES
Question. Madam Secretary, in the Conference Report accompanying
Public Law 106-554, the 2001 Omnibus Appropriation Act, the Congress
extended the leases for seven campsites at ``Stiltsville'' in the
Biscayne Bay until March 31, 2001. The Congress expected that would be
sufficient time for the National Park Service to assume occupancy of
the houses. Within a month of your confirmation as Secretary the leases
were extended for another year. Please explain you reasons for
extending the leases?
Answer. On March 30, 2001 the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Justice reached a settlement agreement with the current
leaseholders that provides the present Stiltsville leaseholders the
right of continued occupancy until April 1, 2002, in exchange for their
dismissing without prejudice the pending lawsuits against the
Government. The agreement provides for them to pay $700 a year rent,
maintain liability insurance, protect the park resources and meet other
conditions during this time. If necessary, the agreement may be
extended by mutual consent of the parties.
This settlement agreement maintains the status quo and allows the
National Park Service time to continue to develop a Stiltsville
Management Plan, which will provide alternatives for public uses of the
Stiltsville structures and will fulfill National Environmental Policy
Act compliance requirements.
PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES
Question. The PILT account received an increase of $50 million in
2001 that the Department did not request for 2002. How much will West
Virginia receive in 2001 and 2002?
Answer. PILT is calculated under alternative formulas specified in
the PILT Act, as amended for each county. A county's PILT payment is
determined by factors such as changes in the amount of certain Federal
land within a county, the amount of certain prior year Federal land
payments received, changes in county population, and inflation
adjustments to population and per acre values used in the formula. We
are still in the process of accumulating the data necessary to compute
the fiscal year 2001 PILT payments which will be made in September, and
are therefore not able to determine what the specific PILT payments to
West Virginia counties will be for fiscal year 2001. However, we would
expect payments to West Virginia counties to be higher since the fiscal
year 2001 budget for the PILT program is approximately $65 million or
32.6 percent higher than in fiscal year 2000. We do not have sufficient
information at this time to predict PILT payments for 2002. We would
expect, however, that if less appropriated PILT funds are available in
2002 than 2001, payments to West Virginia counties, and all counties
nationwide, could be expected to be lower.
MAINTENANCE
Question. I am equally concerned that the emphasis on National Park
maintenance will mean that the Department is paying less attention to
basic operations at our Parks and Refuges. I note, for example, that
the National Park Service is proposing a program reduction of $1.6
million for visitor services within the operations account, and while
the Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a $1.1 million increase in
refuge operations, the fact is that money will be used to hire
maintenance workers.
Whether these amounts are slight increases or decreases, I think
the important point here is that the operational budgets for these
agencies are effectively stagnant. My concern is that we will put our
energies into fixing up our visitor centers only to find that we do not
have the staff to keep them open. Can you please tell the committee how
you intend to balance these two Federal responsibilities, particularly
in light of the fact that the Administration has been more than
generous in its treatment of non-Federal grant programs?
Answer. The budget contains a net operational increase of $79
million. We believe that this budget provides the NPS with funding to
cover its current commitments, as well as increases for high priority
operational needs. These increases include: $35.7 million for the
January 2002 pay increase, $20.0 million for the National Resource
Challenge, $19.9 million for maintenance projects and management
software, and $3.0 million for Everglades restoration. In addition, the
budget contains over $4.0 million in base operational increases
provided in fiscal year 2001. This recent infusion of funding will
ensure that operational needs are met and are in balance with the
fiscal year 2002 grant requests.
The fiscal year 2002 budget contains sufficient funds to accomplish
the core operational responsibilities at parks. It is anticipated that
increased efficiencies through technology and streamlining will allow
certain uncontrollable increased costs to be absorbed with minimal
disruption of park operations. Funds may have to be shifted from park
to park or within parks to accommodate the highest priority activities
in resource protection and visitor services. The President has
committed to a five year program to improve the infrastructure of the
National Park System. Increased operating needs is a consequence of
this initiative and added funding will be required in the future as the
Service must staff and properly maintain these facilities. The NPS will
evaluate these needs on a park-by-park basis.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Question. One of the President's campaign pledges was to fully fund
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The budget request your
Department has sent to the Congress carries through on that commitment
by seeking $900 million for land acquisition, a 66 percent increase
over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The big story here, of course,
is not the negligible rise in the Federal portion of the Fund, which is
barely $500,000, but rather, the extra $360 million being sought for
the state grant program, an increase, believe it or not of 397 percent.
And that does not even include the additional $60 million the
administration wants to hand over to the states out of the Federal half
of the Fund.
At the same time the states are hitting the jackpot, the
administration is suggesting, among others, a cut of $47 million in
abandoned mine cleanup, a $69 million cut in U.S. Geological Survey
science programs, and a $35 million cut in Fish and Wildlife Service
construction. All in all, the Department would cut $350 million from
the current fiscal year, almost enough to pay for the increase in state
LWCF grants.
My basic question is this: Why is it necessary to provide an
astronomical increase for a state grant program when we are clearly not
meeting our Federal commitments in the areas of environmental cleanup,
land management research, and basic operations and upkeep of our Parks,
Refuges, and Forests?
Answer. During his presidential campaign, President Bush promised
the American people that he would reinvest in America's natural
resources by fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
at its authorized level of $900 million, including 50 percent or $450
million for State and local conservation efforts. The 2002 budget meets
the President's commitment. It departs from the past practice of
allocating funds to States in amounts and for purposes narrowly
prescribed and proposes a new approach that gives States the ability to
set their own priorities and address their needs for recreation,
wildlife and wetlands conservation, and protection and recovery of
threatened and endangered species. Although a four-fold increase in
funding, States have expansive needs for recreational planning and
wildlife and endangered species conservation as evidenced by the
overwhelming number of requests that we receive for funding under
existing programs.
Question. Can you explain to this committee why the Congress should
shortchange Federal responsibilities, some of which have a direct
impact on the health and safety of the American people, so that the
states can supplement their own recreation budgets?
Answer. The Department believes the Administration is carrying out
essential Federal responsibilities and is proud of its efforts this
year both to address critical health and safety issues in the Bureau of
Land Management, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and to provide States with LWCF funds to address their locally
identified needs. For example, the 2002 budget dedicates $440 million
for the NPS maintenance backlog and includes $872.1 million for the
DOI-wide Five-Year Plan for addressing critical health and safety and
critical resource protection maintenance needs. The budget also funds
BIA education at the $292.5 million.
Across the country, States are enthusiastically responding to the
public's interest in increasing the amount of open spaces for
recreation and habitat use. Many States have recently passed new
initiatives for preserving open spaces. In 2000, 174 of 209 ballot
measures to fund open space protection were approved providing $7.5
billion for land conservation. In the preceding two years, voters
passed 90 percent of the 102 referenda (1999) and 84 percent of 148
referenda (1998) authorizing more than $10.1 billion in local taxing
authority and bonds for open space preservation. This is indicative of
an increased capacity for local governments to identify recreation and
open space needs, plan projects, and spend funds.
NATIONAL ZOO CONSERVATION AND RESEARCH CENTER
Question. I wish to ask you about an article that appeared recently
on the front page of the Washington Post, titled ``A Preserve's Fight
for Survival: Scientists Oppose Smithsonian Plan on Research Center.''
Among other things, the article describes the general criticism in the
scientific community over a proposed plan by Smithsonian officials to
close what many consider to be one of the finest biological research
facilities in the world, namely, the National Zoo's Conservation and
Research Center in Front Royal, Virginia. The article also notes that
you personally visited the facility last week, and that officials at
the Fish and Wildlife Service are engaged in preliminary discussions
with their counterparts at the Smithsonian over ways to offer support.
I have two questions about this matter: First, do you consider the
Conservation and Research Center to be a top notch research facility
worth saving, and secondly, would you update the committee on what the
Fish and Wildlife Service is planning to do in terms of support,
financial or otherwise?
Answer. The Service believes that the Smithsonian Institution's
Conservation and Research Center, a unit of the National Zoological
Park, has an important role in national and international efforts to
conserve endangered and declining species. The Smithsonian
Institution's initial proposal to discontinue operations at the
Conservation and Research Center created an opportunity for the
Department to develop a partnership effort with the Smithsonian,
States, universities, private conservation organizations and private
donors to help the facility continue operating. The Department and FWS
proposed to work with and assist the Smithsonian and National Zoo to
maintain the facility as a private/public partnership. The Smithsonian
Institution announced May 6, 2001, that it would withdraw its proposal
to close the Conservation and Research Center.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (pilt) and refuge revenue sharing funds (rrfs)
Question. Overall cuts to the Interior Budget in fiscal year 2002
are unfortunate, and, I believe, show a backsliding on Congressional
commitments that our nation's lands and resources can ill-afford. Last
year, this Congress finally passed long-awaited funding increases to
public lands and conservation programs through Title 8 of the Interior
Appropriations bill and provisions in the final Omnibus Appropriations
bill. In the context of years of underfunding, it was difficult not to
call last year's package an ``historic increase'' to Interior programs.
Yet, in truth, these funds were really only Congress finally keeping
its promises to our citizens to protect and manage their public lands
and natural resources.
Will you explain your decision-making process in cutting funding
for PILT?
Answer. The funding level for PILT proposed in the 2002 budget,
although reduced, is still $15.6 million above the amount available in
2000. The 2002 funding request excludes the additional increment of
$49.6 million provided in Title VIII of the 2001 appropriations act.
The Department of the Interior fully supports the intent of the PILT
program to provide support to local governments that have Federally
owned tax exempt lands located within their jurisdictions. The
competing priorities required difficult choices to be made in compiling
the 2002 budget request.
USGS WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTES
Question. With environmental quality issues, such as arsenic
concentrations in groundwater, of such great concern to communities,
Unites States Geological Survey (USGS) personnel and their combined
understanding of geological, hydrological, and chemical processes,
should be a key component in this administration's science-based policy
decisions. Yet, despite this, the USGS is slated for serious cuts this
year across the board in its geological, water, and biological
divisions.
Focusing on one of these cuts, I have heard that the Water
Resources Research Institutes (WRRI) program may be discontinued by
this Administration. I find any cuts to USGS, and especially cuts to
such a successful USGS state partnership program for water quality
science, alarming.
In my own state, the Vermont Water Resources and Lake Studies
Center has served citizens by funding research on major issues of
concern to the state, by distributing information on water resources
throughout Vermont, and by helping students learn more about water
resources. Vermont's Water Center has studied critical policy issues
related to agricultural water quality, mercury in Lake Champlain,
alternative methods of wastewater treatment, and groundwater quality.
This administration has pledged that it will base environmental
decisions on sound-science. The removal of funding for USGS science
related to the safety of our nation's ground and surface waters would
seem to strongly undercut this pledge.
Please explain the decisions that have led to the cuts, or the
zeroing, of funds for the Water Resources Research Institutes program
at USGS.
Answer. The Water Resources Research Institutes program receives
the preponderance of its funding through non-USGS sources. The 2002
budget proposes to discontinue the USGS share based on the program's
success in obtaining funding from other sources.
Question. What assurances can you give me that the funds for such
partnerships will be available for professional water quality
scientists in fiscal year 2002--scientists whose data and knowledge are
critically needed in communities around the Nation?
Answer. No grant funds will be available from the USGS budget for
professional water quality scientists outside USGS in fiscal year 2002.
A number of Water Resources Research Initiatives have been extremely
successful in obtaining non-USGS funding to support their research
projects. Some Water Resources Research Initiatives may continue to
find other sources of funding based on their past success.
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--especially with a completely voluntary and
extremely popular program: Partners for Wildlife. In the past two
years, the Partners for Wildlife program has helped Vermont complete
over 50 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 in-
stream 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 am concerned to see a $5.5 million cut in this program in your
fiscal year 2002 budget.
Given the need for voluntary, incentive-based water quality
programs for private landowners and the incredible popularity and
success of the Partners for Wildlife program, please explain the fiscal
year 2002 cut and whether you would support stronger funding for this
program in the final appropriations bill.
Answer. The 2002 President's Budget request for the Partners for
Fish and Wildlife Program eliminates Congressionally earmarked funds
that are listed under the Partners for Fish and Wildlife line item that
are not associated with the program. Most of these items are pass-
through funds to other agencies or organizations, do not benefit the
program, nor does their elimination adversely affect the program. The
Partners program also included a streamlining reduction of $48,000 as
part of a Service-wide initiative to reduce redundant and inefficient
work. These reductions amount to $6,038,000. The program reductions are
offset by an increase of $520,000 for uncontrollable salary costs,
resulting in a net reduction of $5,518,000 from 2001 and about the same
funding level as 2000.
The 2002 request will allow the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program to continue to work one-on-one with private landowners, on a
voluntary basis, to restore wetlands, streams, native grasses, forests,
and other habitats on private lands. FWS would provide landowners with
restoration designs, implementation assistance, and cost-sharing. The
Program works in concert with agricultural and silvicultural producers
to create a mosaic of working lands and habitats for fish, wildlife,
and people. The 2002 budget also includes a new $50 million landowner
incentive program that will provide matching grants to States for
assisting private landowners in protecting and managing habitat for
imperiled species.
LAKE CHAMPLAIN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE OFFICE
Question. Considerable pressure is growing in Vermont to speed up
the timeline 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 2002. 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.
Please explain how the Fish and Wildlife Service intends to fully
meet its commitment to the Lake Champlain Basin Program in fiscal year
2002 and in years ahead.
Answer. At the 2002 President's request level, FWS expects to
provide funding to support the FWS Lake Champlain Fisheries and
Resource Office at about the 2001 enacted level. While the Lake
Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources Office base fisheries' budget had
declined from 1993 to 2000, it was increased in 2001 to 1993 levels.
Additionally, the Service has increased the Office's Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program (habitat restoration) budget from $5,000 in 1993
to $165,000 in 2001.
When Congress passed the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act in
1992, FWS committed to becoming the lead federal agency in the
restoration of native fish and wildlife species and their habitats
within the Lake Champlain Basin. As part of FWS's commitment to
participate on high priority action items identified in the Lake
Champlain Management Plan (LCMP), the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife
Resources Office works with numerous federal agencies, States, tribes,
and locally-led conservation groups on a variety of initiatives
directed at restoring Lake Champlain.
Specifically, FWS will meet its commitments by focusing efforts on
restoring landlocked Atlantic salmon and controlling sea lamprey.
Preliminary results of an experimental sea lamprey control program
confirmed that fish populations can be improved. FWS found dramatic
reductions in larval and adult sea lamprey numbers and significant
reductions in lamprey wounding and scarring rates on landlocked
Atlantic salmon and lake trout. FWS will continue work to restore
imperiled species such as lake sturgeon, considered endangered and
threatened by the States of Vermont and New York, respectively. FWS
will also cooperate with the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife to
assess sturgeon population status and habitat needs in Vermont's
portion of Lake Champlain. FWS will continue to evaluate this program
against other priorities in the development of future budgets.
MARSH-BILLINGS-ROCKEFELLER NATIONAL HISTORIC 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. Current resources are stretched thin 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 National Historical Park opened
to the public in June 1998 and in August 1999 the park opened the newly
rehabilitated 10,000 sq. ft. Carriage Barn Visitor Center that includes
exhibits on conservation history and stewardship, conferencing and
educational spaces, and museum storage. There were 46,289 visitors in
2000 (a two year increase of over 100 percent). In 2000, the park
produced and distributed its unigrid brochure. In 2001 the park will
expand its presence on the Internet.
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 educational curricula focused on
natural resources, cultural heritage, and sustainable practices, with
an emphasis on forest stewardship.
Nonprofit organizations, State and local agencies, and academic
institutions are approaching the park and the Conservation Study
Institute indicating a desire to partner in new public programs and
services. To date, programs developed and conducted by the park and the
institute have been very successful and the Park Service will continue
to encourage and support these efforts. The fiscal year 2002 budget
proposes $1,598,000 to fund the Park and support these efforts, an
increase of $22,000 over the fiscal year 2001 level.
SILVIO O. CONTE EDUCATION CENTER
Question. Last year, the Nationally-recognized Montshire Museum of
Science in Norwich, Vermont developed a unique cooperative agreement
with the Fish and Wildlife Service to construct a new wing dedicated to
public education about the Silvio O. Conte Refuge land of the entire
Connecticut River watershed. With $2.9 million in federal funds
allocated to this project over the past three years, the private-public
partnership was forged, the architectural design for the site was
completed, and ground was officially broken for immediate construction.
Since the first estimate of costs three years ago, the Fish and
Wildlife Service has learned that the final estimate leaves the new
educational wing short of building and exhibits funding by
approximately $750,000.
Will your agency agree to finish construction at the Vermont Conte
Education Center as initially intended by Congress, thereby finishing a
world-class public facility that will share long-term costs with its
private partner?
Answer. This project is not included in the Fish and Wildlife
Service's 2002 Construction Appropriation request or FWS' five-year
construction plan. All appropriated funds to date have been passed
through FWS to the private-public partnership which is fully
responsible for overseeing the design and construction of this
facility. This project is a 10,000 square foot addition, named for the
late Leonard Rieser, former Montshire Board Chair, to the existing
Montshire Museum of Science, Inc., a non-profit corporation that is
designated a Conte Education Center, as defined by the Silvio O. Conte
National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act. The Leonard M. Rieser learning
Center will help provide new opportunities to expand the natural
history public education role the Montshire Museum has played in
Vermont for 25 years. The 2001 Interior Conference Report directed that
the amount provided in 2001 of $1,512,000 would complete the FWS
commitment to the project, and additional funding should be
accommodated with non-DOI funding. At that time, it was estimated that
there was a $526,000 shortfall in the project.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Question. Do you agree that efforts to prevent the decline of
species pay dividends in the long run?
Answer. Yes. When conservation is initiated early for a species,
simpler, more cost- effective conservation options are more likely to
still be available; conservation is more likely to be successful;
potential land use or resource conflicts that may be caused by listing
may be avoided; and flexibility for landowners can be maintained. The
Candidate Conservation Program funds federal efforts to achieve these
benefits by working collaboratively with States, territories, federal
agencies, and the private sector to conserve candidate species and
other species at risk. The costs of implementing the Candidate
Conservation program are far outweighed by the savings realized in the
Listing, Consultation, and Recovery programs.
The President's budget for 2002 also provides additional funding to
increase the capability of States and landowners to participate in
early conservation efforts. Under the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
the President's budget proposes a new $50 million Landowner Incentive
Program Grants to States. These funds will be used by the states
through a matching grants program to provide technical and financial
assistance to private landowners to help them protect and manage
habitat for the benefit of federally listed, proposed, candidate, or
other imperiled species. Also under the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, the President's budget proposes a $10 million Private Stewardship
Grants Program to provide grants and other assistance to individuals
and groups engaged in private conservation efforts that benefit
federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other at-risk
species.
Question. Do you believe that federal agencies have a
responsibility to help recover endangered species--particularly in
states like Nevada that have lots of federal land?
Answer. Yes. Sections 2 and 7 of the Endangered Species Act
provides a clear mandate for federal agencies to seek to conserve
endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they
depend, and to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes
of the ESA. Federal participation in endangered species conservation is
particularly critical in areas of our country where one or more federal
agencies are the principal landowners, such as Nevada.
Question. Are you familiar with the Nevada Biodiversity Initiative
and the ongoing efforts to recover the Lahontan cutthroat trout in
northern Nevada?
Answer. Yes. The purpose of the National Biodiversity Initiative
(NBI) is to provide the framework for cooperation and participation
among signatory agencies to conserve biological resources and maintain
ecosystem integrity throughout the State of Nevada. This effort is
designed to prevent future listings under the Endangered Species Act of
species at risk in Nevada and to assist in recovery of species that
have already been listed.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, in partnership with tribes, other
federal and State agencies, researchers, and interested stakeholders,
has formed two Recovery Implementation Teams (RIT) for the Lahontan
cutthroat trout. These teams are focused on the Walker River and the
Truckee River Basins. These basins drain into two unique terminal
saline lake systems, Pyramid and Walker Lakes where record size
Lahontan cutthroat trout once thrived. There are only five such
ecosystems found in the world. The RITs are using cutting edge science
to develop phased recovery implementation actions that have been
identified in ecosystem-based plans. These actions, and the monitoring
efforts that follow, will assist management agencies with refinement of
recovery strategies through adaptive management techniques, and ensure
that activities identified are expediting recovery of the species.
FWS has also formed a Lahontan cutthroat trout Management Oversight
Group, composed of federal, State and tribal leaders, to support trout
recovery efforts. The Group meets regularly to discuss the Lahontan
Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan Draft Revision. The revised plan uses
current biological information to update recovery goals for the Walker
and Truckee River basins and fluvial networked populations. The Group
provides the forum for the various management agencies and tribes to
work together to resolve differences regarding recovery of Lahontan
cutthroat trout. Through this collaborative effort recovery of the
species will be focused and coordinated to better direct limited
resources toward achievable recovery activities.
Question. Do you share my view that the Nevada Biodiversity
Initiative and Lahontan cutthroat trout restoration efforts represent
important and cost-effective ways to conserve our natural resources as
required by law?
Answer. The Nevada Biodiversity Initiative and Lahontan cutthroat
trout restoration efforts are indeed important conservation actions.
These initiatives have fostered cooperation and partnerships among
federal agencies, State and tribal governments, and other interested
groups. These partnerships have helped to provide cost-effective and
timely ways to conserve natural resources, and have limited duplication
of effort by the many land management agencies in Nevada.
Question. Will you work with me to ensure that this important work
continues to receive the funding it deserves?
Answer. The Administration will work to ensure that critical
natural resources in Nevada, particularly Lahontan cutthroat trout, are
conserved and restored. Partnership conservation efforts will achieve
this goal and the FWS will continue to work diligently with the State,
other federal agencies, tribal governments, organizations and
individuals to achieve conservation goals in Nevada.
Question. The President's budget substantially cuts the ESA section
6 account, which is the account that provides funding to states
specifically earmarked for species conservation. To compensate for
these cuts, the budget proposes authorizing state-side Land and Water
Conservation Fund monies for species conservation and a wide variety of
other purposes. Each state would choose whether to fund species
conservation or spend the money elsewhere.
Can you tell me what will happen if some states chose not to fund
species conservation initiatives even though they have major Endangered
Species Act challenges?
Answer. States have expansive needs for both recreational planning
and wildlife and endangered species conservation as evidenced by the
overwhelming number of requests that the Department receives for
funding under existing programs. States care about protecting unique
and special resources, and the Department needs to fully take advantage
of the expertise States have in determining the most effective way to
spend conservation dollars. While the 2002 budget proposal does not
mandate that States allocate specific proportions of funding to enhance
recreation, conserve wildlife habitat and endangered species, and
protect wetlands, the Department is confident that States are capable
of determining an appropriate balance between these competing needs
that will provide appropriate levels for supporting species
conservation.
Question. What is your backup plan for ensuring that the important
federal purpose of recovering threatened and endangered species will
somehow be implemented?
Answer. The President's Budget includes a balanced program that
provides resources to support Federal, State and private conservation
efforts. All of these entities must work to achieve threatened and
endangered species conservation; the Federal government, working alone,
will not be successful. The President's 2002 budget provides States
with guaranteed amounts through formulas under the National Park
Service's Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance program to
enhance recreation, conserve wildlife habitat and endangered species,
and protect wetlands. The budget for the Fish and Wildlife Service's
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund is proposed at $54.7
million, more than double the 2000 enacted level. By maintaining this
program at a significant amount over historic funding levels, federal
priorities for endangered and threatened species conservation will be
addressed. The budget also proposes a new $50 million landowner
incentive program that will provide competitive, matching grants to
States to establish or supplement landowner incentive programs that
provide technical and financial assistance to private landowners for
the protection and management of habitat; and a new $10 million Private
Stewardship Grants program to provide grants and other assistance to
individuals and groups engaged in private conservation. Both of these
programs will support efforts that benefit federally listed, proposed,
candidate or other at-risk species. Grants will be awarded on a
competitive basis; this will help ensure Federal priorities are
addressed.
Question. Doesn't this proposal place the Department in even
greater jeopardy of failing to fulfill its endangered species mandate,
particularly with regard to recovery planning?
Answer. No. As noted above, the 2002 budget provides a balanced
endangered species program, providing resources for not only federal
efforts, but State and private efforts as well. Participation by all
these groups is critical to the success of the endangered species
conservation efforts. Additionally, this proposal will not affect FWS's
recovery planning capability since recovery planning activities are
funded out of its general recovery program. In fact, by expanding the
States' capabilities to participate in implementation of recovery
actions for listed species, the budget encourages States to increase
their involvement in recovery planning. FWS believes it is fulfilling
its endangered species mandate with regard to recovery planning;
currently, 88 percent of species listed 2\1/2\ years or more have final
recovery plans, and FWS's goal is to increase this to 98 percent by
2005.
Question. In the budget, you propose to effectively prohibit
citizens from suing to force Interior to put new species on the
endangered species list or to sue to force Interior to designate
critical habitat for species. I understand that the argument for this
rider is that Interior faces a backlog of work in these areas--to the
extent that your predecessor estimated that the total cost of doing
this work amounts to $80 to $120 million.
Wouldn't another and better way of dealing with this be to
substantially increase funding for listings and critical habitat?
Answer. The President's budget does increase funding for listings
and critical habitat. The President's budget attempts to balance
limited resources with the needs of the Nation. It strengthens and
reforms education; preserves and protects Medicare and Social Security;
strengthens and modernizes the military; improves heath care; and
protects our environment. In this context, the 2002 listing budget is
increased by 34 percent over 2001, for a total of $8.5 million. In
conjunction with proposed appropriations language, the Administration
believes that the proposed funding level is appropriate to meet court-
ordered and court-approved settlement agreements for listing actions,
as well as additional listing actions determined through a rational
priority system. The previous Administration requested more modest
increases between 1999 and 2001, none of which were approved by
Congress. The 2002 budget includes a balanced ESA program that provides
increased funding for ESA listing, as well as other FWS programs, that
will assist in recovery of imperiled species, and conserve other
species before they become imperiled, such as the new $50 million
landowner incentive program and the new $10 million private stewardship
grant program.
Question. Can you tell me how many controversial species were
listed and how many controversial critical habitat designations were
undertaken solely as the result of Interior Department's own
initiative, rather than being driven by citizen suits or the threat of
one?
Answer. Regretfully, it is not possible to answer this question.
Nevertheless, FWS has some data on the status of litigation at the time
of species listing, and in the past has listed species through means
other than citizen suits. For example, in fiscal year 1999, 12 of the
45 species listed were under litigation at the time FWS published the
final listing. In fiscal year 2000, 27 of 38 species listed were under
litigation at the time published the final listing.
On the other hand, deadline-based citizen suits have largely driven
critical habitat designations. However, the controversy associated with
critical habitat designations was not the reason they were not
initiated. Rather, it was their high costs in relation to the
relatively low benefits associated with a designation. Given the
limited funding available for the listing program, and the large number
of species in need of listing action, FWS had sought to focus efforts
on other listing actions that provide greater conservation benefits,
for example, listing a species so that it can be afforded protection
under the Act.
Question. Would you agree that oftentimes when we delay listing
species we end up making it more difficult to save them because
conservation options are foreclosed during the delay as species further
decline?
Answer. Yes. In some cases listing delays do affect species'
recovery. This is particularly the case when listing under the Act is
the principal means to initiate action to address threats to the
species survival. Without the additional resources requested in the
President's Budget, and the ability to hold to a biologically based
priority system in 2002, final listing decisions will likely be delayed
for the 39 species that are currently proposed for listing. Similarly,
FWS will be further delayed in proposing to list candidate species as
threatened or endangered species (there are currently 235 candidate
species nationwide). As a result of existing court orders and
settlement agreements, the resources required to complete critical
habitat designations has substantially reduced the number of species
that will be listed or proposed in 2001. In 1998, 90 species were
listed; in 1999, 67 species were listed; and in 2000, 57 species were
listed.
Question. Would you agree that citizen enforcement of our
environmental laws is a critical principle designed to ensure that
administrative agencies are forced to implement the law in politically
difficult situations?
Answer. Yes, citizen suit provisions are an important component of
environmental statutes, and citizen enforcement plays an important role
in preserving the Nation's natural resources. In addition, ESA provides
an important tool through the petition process that allows citizens the
opportunity to identify species that need to be listed through an
administrative process. Nearly all of the 2001 listing program is
directed by litigation. The Department does not believe the listing
program should be fully implemented through litigation. Species that do
not have a plaintiff advancing their cause through litigation may not
receive the attention or protection they desperately need. Citizen
suits are best used as a last resort rather than first resort or as the
only means by which actions may be undertaken.
The Administration's proposed budget language would not restrict
the ability of citizens to advocate for and secure the listing of
imperiled species under the ESA. The objective of the proposed
appropriations language included in the 2002 budget is to move towards
a system that would allow FWS to spend its ESA listing appropriation in
accordance with biological priorities.
Petitions are the primary tool available to the public to identify
species that need to be listed. Anyone can petition FWS to list a
species as threatened or endangered. FWS is required, within 90 days if
practicable, to evaluate the petition to see if it contains substantive
information indicating that listing may be necessary. If the petition
does include substantial information, FWS is required to determine,
within 12 months of the date the petition is received, whether the
petitioned listing action is warranted. If listing is warranted, FWS
may immediately issue a proposed rule to list the species, or, when
faced with higher priority listing actions, find that listing is
warranted but precluded. FWS reviews each warranted-but-precluded
finding every year.
Unfortunately, FWS has been largely unable to process citizens'
petitions during 2001. Instead, FWS has been forced to dedicate almost
all available funds from its listing budget to designate critical
habitat under court orders. This effectively prohibits FWS from
addressing species that have greater biological needs, including
species identified in citizen petitions. The proposed language, if
adopted, would help ensure that FWS could work through the substantial
workload resulting from current court orders and settlements, and
establish a priority system for 2002 that will prevent remaining 2002
funding from being subsumed by additional court orders. This should
allow FWS some latitude to respond to and act upon citizens' petitions.
With regard to citizen suit provisions in ESA, the budget proposal
does not change the substantive provisions. Citizens would still be
entitled to sue FWS regarding any deadline FWS misses. A court could
rule and impose a remedy. The proposed language would merely limit the
remedy by precluding the court from ordering FWS to spend 2002 listing
funds on lower priority actions. That is, the language would prohibit
courts from redirecting FWS's listing budget from higher priorities to
lower priorities.
In addition, citizens would retain the right to legally challenge
FWS if they believe that FWS is not spending 2002 funds as provided
through its appropriation. Citizens could challenge the listing
priority system as somehow being in violation of the ESA, or as being
arbitrary and capricious. Finally, citizens could also challenge the
implementation of the priority system, if FWS does not fund an action
that the priority system indicates should be funded.
bureau of land management
Question. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for
administering the right-of-way access for the Department of Energy's
site characterization work at Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy
recently applied for a seven-year extension for two right-of-way
reservations (N-48602 and N-47748), which expired in January 2001. It
is my understanding that the BLM granted the extensions for both
applications. How much additional time did the BLM grant the DOE right-
of-way access to the relevant areas?
Answer. DOE requested a seven-year renewal for both right-of-way
reservations N-48602 and N-47748. Two right-of-ways (ROWs) exist for
one application because the original DOE application, submitted on
January 24, 1987, distinguished between lands withdrawn for Nellis Air
Force Base and lands that were not withdrawn. N-48602 required Air
Force concurrence prior to renewal because part of the ROW lands is
withdrawn to the Air Force. The Air Force recommended a three-year
right-of-way because such time would be adequate to complete the study.
Therefore, N-48602 is issued for a period of three additional years and
is subject to concurrence terms from the Air Force. BLM granted N-
48602's ROW for the withdrawn lands on October 10, 1989; the ROW
expired on May 1, 2001. N-47748 was granted on June 1, 1988 and also
expired on May 1, 2001. BLM granted DOE three-year right-of-way
renewals for both reservations.
Question. If BLM granted a multi-year extension to the DOE, what
activities will the DOE be allowed to undertake?
Answer. The DOE submitted a Plan of Development with the renewal
application that was reissued. The Plan of Development is consistent
with the prior Plan of Development and the Environmental Assessment
completed for the project, which will allow DOE to continue to conduct
characterization studies.
Question. Did the BLM place any restrictions on the access to the
site in the event that the DOE completes its site characterization
study?
Answer. Restrictions are placed on the use of these two rights-of-
way. They are renewed for the purpose of conducting characterization
studies of Yucca Mountain consistent with the use originally proposed.
WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM
Question. The wild horse and burro program received a $9 million
increase in fiscal year 2001. I am deeply concerned that this money may
once again be wasted by the BLM in Washington and at the Eastern States
Office. What percentage of America's wild horses and burros live in
Nevada?
Answer. Approximately fifty two percent.
Question. What percentage of the overall wild horse and burro
program appropriation will be spent in Nevada?
Answer. Nevada BLM will directly spend approximately thirteen
percent of the total Bureau wild horse and burro allocation. Palomino
Valley Corrals, located in Reno, Nevada, funded by the BLM Washington
Office organization, will spend approximately an additional six percent
of the total. Funds for wild horses and burros gathered in Nevada and
adopted in other States, such as the Eastern States office, are not
included in these percentages.
Question. What percentage of the overall wild horse and burro
program appropriation will be spent on Nevada horses?
Answer. Approximately 38 percent of the total Bureau wild horse and
burro appropriation is spent to benefit animals originating from
Nevada. It is important to note that Nevada's program is heavily
focused towards on-the-ground management of herd management areas, and
the necessary removal of excess animals. The Nevada organization plays
a very small role in the preparation, care, and adoption of removed
animals. In contrast, other States prepare, care for and adopt the
majority of animals removed from their areas of jurisdiction. The
reason for this is that Nevada's potential adoption market is very
small. The preparation and care of Nevada animals occurs primarily at
national program facilities, and to a lessor degree, at the facilities
of other States. The BLM's Eastern States Office is responsible for
adopting the majority of animals removed from Nevada, with the other
western States adopting the balance. All cost associated with the long-
term care of animals, regardless of the State in which they originate,
is charged to the National Program. To date, no attempt has been made
to break this cost out by those benefiting states.
When considering fiscal allocations it is important to note that
Nevada's wild horse gathers are generally of a very large scale
relative to the other States, making the gathers ideal for completion
by contractors. For example, two of Nevada's fiscal year 2001 gathers
are slated to capture 2,505 and 2,200 animals each. Individually these
gathers are greater than the yearly total for any other State. A
significant economy of scale is realized on Nevada gathers. The cost of
removing an animal from the range in Nevada is significantly lower than
that of a majority of the other States. Although Nevada is home to
approximately fifty-two percent of all animals nationally, over the
last four years (1998--2001) Nevada's share of animals removed from the
range has averaged 60 percent, with the remaining States collectively
averaging 40 percent.
Question. What percentage of the increased wild horse and burro
appropriation will be spent in Nevada?
Answer. Nevada BLM will directly spend thirteen percent of the
additional $9 million increase appropriated to the BLM. Palomino Valley
Corrals, located in Reno, Nevada, funded by the BLM Washington Office
organization, will spend approximately an additional six percent of the
total. (See answer to Question 7.)
Question. What percentage of the increased wild horse and burro
appropriation will be spent on Nevada horses?
Answer. Forty-four percent of the budget increase for the wild
horse and burro program will be spent on Nevada wild horses and burros.
Question. How does per horse management cost vary between states?
Answer. Unit costs vary widely from state to state, across all
aspects of wild horse and burro work. The variables that affect costs
are numerous and range from local policy direction to physical
characteristics of the habitat, to scale of effort, to the cost of hay.
For example, costs that affect capture include whether the animals can
be water trapped, like burros in the southwestern states, the density
of tree cover, the severity of topographic relief, access, etc. Fiscal
year 2000 capture costs varied from $184 per animal to as mush as $965
per animal. Preparation and care costs varied from $280 per animal to
$1,350 per animal. Adoption costs varied from $346 per animal to $1,500
per animal. The same variability is seen in the other aspects of wild
horse and burro work, including: AML establishment, compliance checks,
census, and monitoring. No State was consistently the highest or lowest
across the various types of work.
Question. I understand that it is less expensive to achieve herd
management levels in Nevada on a per horse basis than in any other
state. Do you share this understanding with me?
Answer. It is true, that because of economy of scale, the cost to
remove an animal in Nevada is significantly less than the majority of
other states. But because of the large size of the herds in Nevada, it
does not necessarily follow that it is less expensive to reach AML on
an HMA in Nevada.
Question. Given that we have limited resources to care for wild
horses and burros, do you agree that we should target our monies where
they do the most good?
Answer. Yes. We believe that the current strategy goes along way in
this regard. Under the current strategy all herd management areas
(HMAs) are gathered on a four year cycle. Under this strategy, states
ensure that the highest priority HMAs are gathered to appropriate
management levels (AML) first.
Question. Would you be willing to examine how we can get ahead of
the wild horse and burro population curve so we can reduce our long-
term expenditures on this program and further the recovery and
protection of the rangeland upon which these and many other animals
depend?
Answer. Yes. The Department and the Bureau stand ready to work with
all partners for the betterment of wild horse and burro management. The
current strategy, if fully funded, will achieve AML on all HMAs by
year-end 2005. The BLM is confident that it has a strategy in place
that will provide for healthy rangelands and viable wild horse and
burro populations in a timely fashion.
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY
Question. Nevada has tremendous geothermal energy resources. We
already have more than 200 megawatts of geothermal electricity
production in the Silver State and the potential for 10 times that
amount. Does the President's budget include funding adequate to address
the backlog of geothermal energy applications in Nevada.
Answer. Currently BLM doesn't have a backlog of geothermal energy
applications in Nevada, however, interest in geothermal resources in
Nevada is growing and additional applications are expected. The
President's budget does include funding to process expected lease
applications. An additional $50,000 is requested in the 2002 budget to
help address this growing interest. Since the beginning of 2001, Nevada
BLM has received 44 noncompetitive lease applications totaling
approximately 100,000 acres. The geothermal industry has also requested
BLM Nevada conduct a competitive lease sale this summer. Within the
availability of 2001 funds, Nevada will prioritize workload, reassign
staff, and centralize functions to address the increasing workload.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE--SNOWMOBILES
Question. This weekend the Administration announced that it will
move forward with phase out of snowmobiles at Yellowstone National
Park. I applaud your decision on this issue. Protecting the air and
water quality and wildlife at Yellowstone National Park is a critical
mission of the Park Service, and I am encouraged that you intend to
keep this rule in effect.
As you know, the Park Service held 22 public hearings and gathered
65,000 public comments from Americans nationwide. They received 48,000
comments on the draft environmental impact statement, a majority of
which favored phasing out snowmobiles at Yellowstone national Park.
They received 11,000 comments on the final environmental impact
statement, roughly two-thirds of which favored the phasing out of
snowmobiles at Yellowstone National Park. And, they received 5,000
comments on the final rule, 80 percent of which favored phasing out
snowmobiles at Yellowstone National Park.
Do you agree with me that the American public had ample opportunity
to comment on the Yellowstone National Park snowmobile rule and support
the rule by a wide margin?
Answer. By any standard, the number of comments received from the
public on this issue indicates there was ample opportunity for the
public to participate in this fashion. The issue clearly was networked
through channels that are maintained by all the interested advocacy
groups, both pro and con. The range of comments was broad, as
documented in a 370 page appendix to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) describing the comments and responding to them.
Support for banning snowmobiles specifically, based on comments from
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), exceeds support for
retaining snowmobiles by 5 percentage points (49 to 44 percent). From
comments on the FEIS, support for the ban was indicated by 54 percent
of the respondents compared to 46 percent for those against the ban. As
indicated, the preponderance of comments on the rule supported the ban.
Considering the history of the issue and the number of comments
received throughout the process described above, the NPS believes there
was ample time for commenting on the rule. Also, considering that few
new issues of any substance were raised in the 5000 comments on the
rule--that most were repetitive of previous comments--illustrates the
sufficiency of the opportunity in light of the entire decision process.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, that concludes the
hearing. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 10 a.m.,
Tuesday, May 1, when we will meet in room SD-138 to hear from
Dale Bosworth, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., Tuesday, April 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
May 1.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Bennett, and Byrd.
Also present: Senator Craig.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
STATEMENT OF DALE N. BOSWORTH, CHIEF
ACCOMPANIED BY:
RANDLE PHILLIPS, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS AND LEGISLATION
HANK KASHDAN, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM AND BUDGET ANALYSIS
MICHAEL T. RAINS, DEPUTY CHIEF, STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY
CHUCK MYERS, FOREST SUPERVISOR, MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST,
WEST VIRGINIA
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. We will call the subcommittee to order, the
Subcommittee on Appropriations on Interior. This morning we
will be visiting with the brand new Chief of the Forest
Service, Mr. Dale N. Bosworth. We want to welcome you this
morning. Mr. Bosworth and I have had a relationship a long
time. He comes from Region One of the Forest Service in
Missoula, Montana. I will tell the folks here, if you do not
think that this is a sacrifice, you need to see his home down
on the Bitterroot River. He has made a sacrifice to be here.
On a personal note, though, I am very serious when I say
congratulations on being appointed the new Chief.
The Forest Service budget for fiscal year 2001 represented
a dramatic increase over the Agency's budget in previous years.
This is mostly due to the devastating fire season of last
summer. The Congress appropriated almost $2 billion for the
Agency's fire program, an increase of a billion dollars in that
program alone.
President Bush's budget proposes modest growth for most of
the Agency's programs, while retaining the bulk of the funds
that were included last year to improve the Agency's
firefighting capability. I am very pleased that the budget
maintains the majority of funding added to the fire program
last year. Addressing the severe fire hazards we have had in
our forests is going to take a sustained effort over the long
term or we will have more devastating fires. We still have a
lot of work to do in the areas that were devastated a year ago.
This year seems to be shaping up to be another bad fire
season because of the lack of precipitation in many areas of
the West. I know in my own home State of Montana our snow pack
is only about 45 or 50 percent of normal and our moisture this
spring has been minimal at best. Therefore, it is critical that
we maintain adequate resources to protect our communities and
forests from fire.
There are some areas of the budget request that do concern
me, however. For example, most of the funding for long-term
restoration of burned-over lands was eliminated. I think that
is shortsightedness because I still think we have some work to
do there. Restoring some of the lands that burned will take a
number of years, and if it is not done properly we may lose
these lands to the sexiest issue that you want to talk about in
Washington, D.C., and that is weeds, invasive weeds.
I am also concerned about the budget for the timber program
this year. The Agency has asked for a $6 million increase in
its program. Yet the total planned offer level is only 2.1
billion board-feet. This is 1.5 billion board-feet below what
the Congress directed the Agency to offer and what the Agency
said it could deliver for 1 year. I think many of us want to
know why the timber program continues to fail in meeting its
accomplished levels or set levels by Congress and what the
Agency can do to fix that problem.
Finally, I hope the Forest Service can get its books in
order. The Agency has yet to obtain a clear audit opinion and
remains on the GAO's list of agencies at high risk of waste,
fraud, and abuse. The Forest Service has been making progress
on the issue in recent years, but I encourage you to keep this
top priority so that we can assure the public that the funds
provided to the Agency are spent appropriately.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you for joining us today, Dale. We appreciate that.
We are looking forward to a long relationship and working with
you on the many challenges that we face on our forest lands.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
I am very pleased to welcome the new Forest Service Chief, Dale
Bosworth, before the Interior subcommittee today. Dale was previously
the Regional Forester for Region 1 in Missoula, so Dale and I have
worked together on a number of Forest Service issues in Montana.
I believe that Dale will be an excellent Chief and I look forward
to hearing your testimony today in support of the Agency's fiscal year
2002 budget. On a personal note, I know that Dale is very serious about
becoming Chief because he's giving up a beautiful home on the
Bitterroot River in order to come to Washington.
The Forest Service budget for fiscal year 2001 represented a
dramatic increase over the Agency's budget in previous years. This was
mostly due to the devastating fires of last summer. The Congress
appropriated almost $2 billion for the Agency's fire program--an
increase of $1 billion for this program alone.
President Bush's budget proposes modest growth for most of the
Agency's programs, while retaining the bulk of the funds that were
included last year to improve the Agency's firefighting capability.
I am very pleased that the budget maintains the majority of the
funding added for the fire program last year. Addressing the severe
fire hazards we have in many of our forests is going to take a
sustained effort over the long term or we will have more devastating
fires.
This year seems to be shaping up to be another bad fire season
because of the lack of precipitation we've had in many areas in the
West. Therefore, it is critical that we maintain adequate resources to
protect our communities and forests from fire.
There are some areas in the budget request that do concern me. For
example, most of the funding for long term restoration of burned over
lands was eliminated. Restoring some of the lands that burned will take
a number of years and if it's not done properly we may lose them to
invasive weeds.
I am also concerned about the budget for the timber program this
year. The Agency has asked for a $6 million increase for this program
yet the total planned offer level is only 2.1 billion board feet. This
is 1.5 billion board feet below what the Congress directed the Agency
to offer, and what the Agency said it could deliver, for this year. I
think many of us want to know why the timber program continues to fail
in meeting accomplishment levels set by Congress and what the Agency
can do to fix the problem.
Finally, I hope that the Forest Service can get its books in order
this year. The Agency has yet to obtain a clean audit opinion and
remains on the GAO's list of Agency's at high risk of waste, fraud and
abuse. The Forest Service has been making progress on this issue in
recent years but I encourage you to keep this a top priority so that we
can assure the public that funds provided to the Agency are spent
appropriately.
Thank you for joining us today Dale. I look forward to working with
you in your new role as Chief. I believe that my fellow Committee
members will come to enjoy working with you as much as I have during
these past years.
Senator Burns. Now, a great deal of pleasure to recognize
at this time our ranking member and sort of my mentor, Senator
Byrd.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your kind
words. Let me assure you that I enjoy working with you and I
know that it is going to be a fine team here as we demonstrate
that key word, bipartisanship, which we hear being bandied
around a good bit.
Chief Bosworth, let me join in welcoming you here this
morning. We appreciate your being here. Your presence today is
especially notable, given the fact that this is only your
second week on the job. I commend the Forest Service for
proposing to maintain base funding for its operations in West
Virginia and for adding a liaison position at the Wood
Education Resource Center in Princeton. That is Princeton, West
Virginia, of course.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request provides a strong level
of funding for Forest Service recreation and research
activities in my State. Last year I dedicated the new visitors
center at Seneca Rocks, which joins with Cranberry Mountain
Nature Center to form the basis for the Monongahela Institute.
These centers in the Monongahela National Forest enjoy great
popularity with the public, but the forest still needs master
plans to guide future recreational services for the centers.
Additionally, the Monongahela National Forest, like
national forests throughout the country, has serious
maintenance problems that you will need to take care of as the
new Chief of the Forest Service. Much research needs to be done
to identify new uses for hardwoods, especially from small
diameter and low value hardwoods.
West Virginia is home to a system of forest research
facilities that are ideally suited to lead these efforts,
including laboratories in Princeton, or Gardner to be more
correct, Morgantown, and Parsons. The Wood Education Resource
Center in Princeton and the Wood in Transportation Center in
Morgantown are leaders in expanding the uses of hardwoods.
There are, as there have been in the past, contentious
issues facing the Forest Service today: the level of timber
harvests, the amount of grazing on Forest Service lands, the
litigation concerning roadless areas, and the staggering
maintenance backlog. All of these are matters you will be
forced to address in the near term.
In addition, you have inherited an Agency struggling to
regain control of its financial management systems. I am deeply
concerned with the less than acceptable performance in that
area. Let me say again, you have inherited an Agency struggling
to regain control of its financial management systems. I do not
know of any Agency that has appeared before any Appropriations
subcommittee that I have sat on in the last few years that has
done such a poor job in its financial management systems.
When the Forest Service Chief and his associates were up
during the past few years, they were poorly informed. I was
critical of them here, and they did not seem to get any better
as time went on. So the Forest Service has justifiably received
pretty low marks in my judgment, and I am a friend of the
Forest Service. I am encouraged to believe that you are going
to bring about some improvements and that over the next few
years you are going to have this Agency in the front row, and
you are going to correct the things that have been wrong.
I will certainly be watching and I will certainly want to
be helpful. I want to be cooperative. This is a very important
Agency to West Virginia.
The members of this committee and the American taxpayers
expect nothing less than full accountability when it comes to
the spending of tax dollars. This subcommittee will encourage
your efforts for reform.
Mr. Chairman, I will reserve my specific questions until
after the witness has had an opportunity to offer his
testimony.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Byrd. I appreciate that
very much.
Senator Bennett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I welcome you
to the chairman's chair. I was distressed that Slade Gorton had
to leave the committee, as I think we all were. But you will
prove a worthy replacement and we are delighted to see you
there.
I want to welcome and congratulate the Chief of the Forest
Service, Dale Bosworth. We consider him a Utahn. He was Forest
Service supervisor for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest,
headquartered in Salt Lake, and then as the regional forester
for the Inter-Mountain region was headquartered in Ogden before
he left to region one. So we feel we have a friend and a Utah
native in this position. Chief, we think it is refreshing to
have a man of your experience and skill, and I congratulate you
on your appointment.
There is a great deal of work ahead of you. Not only do the
forests need tending, but, frankly, so does your Agency. I
spend time out in Utah talking to Forest Service employees and
there are some of them who feel professionally diminished by
their experience in the last few years. They feel that their
ability to make intelligent decisions has been taken away from
them, pulled to Washington, and made by administrative judges
who have been empowered by what was originally called the 29-
cent appeal, and now I guess is the 34 or 35-cent appeal, where
someone writes a letter and brings to a halt the intelligent
management of the Forest Service by the folks on the ground
while the appeals process goes through.
Now, you cannot change the appeals process, but you can
empower the field employees to make decisions. I believe many
of us here would be supportive of a limited Washington role and
more support for the folks on the ground.
As I said, the forests need tending. One of Utah's national
forests is in bad shape. I say that after a very frank and open
discussion with the forester on the ground, and I have nothing
but respect for her and her ability to make the intelligent
decisions for the Dixie Forest. But the Dixie Forest, a good
portion of it has been consumed by bark beetles, and what
started as a limited infestation has spread rapidly, wiped out
hundreds of thousands of acres of forests, and treatment has
been complicated by the former administration's attitude,
particularly with respect to the roadless initiative.
The forester on the ground has been hampered by what I
consider to be political decisions aimed at the national media,
rather than intelligent management decisions done by the people
on the ground. I know that you are as concerned about the
health of the Dixie as I am, but this is an example where in
the name of headlines and publicity in the national media sound
forest decisions on the ground have been compromised.
Unfortunately, the situation in the Dixie I am led to
believe is not unusual or unique. It is the situation in many
national forests.
So, Chief Bosworth, we welcome you. I think you are going
to open a new chapter of intelligent management in our national
forests, and I look forward to working with you. I appreciate
the good relationship my office had with you when you were in
Utah and assure you that we will do everything we can to see to
it that my office is as responsive as we can be to helping you
with your problems now that you are in this position.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
Senator Craig.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Dale, welcome to the U.S. Senate.
Mr. Bosworth. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, because I have had the
privilege of working with this gentleman for a good number of
years out in the field, first in Ogden and then in Missoula, as
he was the caretaker of the forest of south and southwestern,
southeastern Idaho, and then became the caretaker of the
forests in northern Idaho. He also happens to be a graduate of
the University of Idaho School of Forestry, which is pleasing
to me because that is a fine institution with an excellent
reputation.
Senator Burns. We are scrutinizing that.
Senator Craig. And we will. And we will, Dale. That alone
will not get you through this committee.
I have had the opportunity of working with the gentlemen to
your right and now I look forward to the opportunity of working
with you. I am not going to repeat what my colleague from Utah
has said because I agree with it.
As you know, I chair the Forestry and Public Lands
Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and
I have spent the last decade reviewing the Forest Service. I am
now told that I have held more hearings on it than Hubert
Humphrey held prior to the crafting of the National Forest
Management Act of the seventies.
But the reason I did that, Chief, was because not only of
the importance of the Forest Service and its responsibilities
to millions and millions of acres of natural resources in our
country, but because it has had and still today has a profound
impact on my State and many States and communities of people
across the Nation.
About a decade ago, assembled in Sun Valley, Idaho, were
foresters from around the Nation to review the health of the
forests. They concluded that the forests of the Great Basin in
most instances were sick, dead, and dying, and said that
without an active management scheme to relieve that condition
of forest health that we could expect massive forest fires to
sweep the countryside.
That was a decade ago. Last year, because of a near decade
of inactive management, fires swept the countryside. It was the
worst fire season in our Nation's history. The chairman lost
over 800,000 acres in his State. I lost nearly a million in my
State, most of it forested land. A severe impact on the
economy, the watersheds, the wildlife habitat, and the
communities directly associated with those forests.
Not all of that could have been avoided, but a forest
health program, an active stewardship program, an active
concept of management, could have helped a great deal. I
believe we are on the threshold of that opportunity. No longer
can some of our critics simply say the best way to manage a
resource is to lock it up and walk away. We now know that some
58 million acres that are in question at this moment will
probably not be locked up, because of the failure of a process
or the damaging of a process that attempted to do so, and that
is all good. Because I think it is time we review our forests
on a forest by forest or watershed by watershed basis and
determine what role of active management we ought to play and
what we ought not play, get on with the business of our forest
plans, and deal with stewardship in a way that it demands we
deal with it.
I have got a new fire policy to implement that can be a
part and parcel of all of that. There is a great many other
things that have to be done out there. I think we stand ready,
Mr. Chairman, to do a lot of that with you in cooperation.
Your presence before the committee today is a profound
statement in my opinion, because what it says to me is that we
will not follow the last 8 years of practice, and that is to
politicize the Forest Service from the top and to disallow its
management decisions to work their way up from the bottom.
About a month ago, Mr. Chairman, I spoke to a group of
foresters in the Capital Chapter of the American Association of
Foresters. The first question asked after I had made comments
on what we believe this new President would do was a very
simple one. It came from a forester. He said: If I make
decisions at the field level that are based on good science and
the law, will they be allowed to stand? In other words, what he
was saying: Or will they be overruled like in so many instances
they have been over the last 8 years?
My answer to him was: The law and science should stand,
effectively reviewed by his peers; and of course, if there is
an appeal, to work the process up through the system, but not
to reach out from the top and to make the kinds of decisions
that follow the political edicts of the day. That cannot stand.
It will destroy the remaining forests of our country and it
will not revitalize them in the health we need.
Your job is substantial. So is ours, to make sure you have
the resources to do what is necessary to be done across the
forests and forest preserves of our Nation. I look forward to
working with you, Chief, and with your colleagues.
Thank you.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Craig.
On your first appearance, everybody wants to claim a piece
of you, Dale. It goes back to the old story of Buffalo Bill.
They said, you know, Nebraska spawned him, Wyoming claimed him,
Colorado got him. So that is kind of the situation we are in
right here.
Welcome to the committee. We look forward to your
testimony.
Summary Statement of Dale N. Bosworth
Mr. Bosworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Byrd, members of the subcommittee: It is a great privilege to
be here today to talk about the President's budget for the
Forest Service for fiscal year 2002. I would also like to say
that, as Chief of the Forest Service for now 8 days, I am
really deeply honored to have this opportunity.
I have with me today Randy Phillips, who is our Deputy
Chief for Programs and Legislation; and also Hank Kashdan, who
is the Director of Budget for the Forest Service. They will
help me out with some questions that I may have a little
difficulty answering.
I would also like to express my gratitude to Secretary Anne
Veneman for the confidence that she has shown in me in
selecting me for this position. I really want to thank the
thousands of employees in the Forest Service, outstanding
employees in my judgment, that have expressed encouragement and
support for me. I really appreciate that.
I would also like to express my appreciation to this
subcommittee for working with the Forest Service through this
transition.
Priorities
Today the things I want to talk about are the priorities
that I am looking at for the transition period, at least the
next 6 or 8 months, the first year, and talk about the National
Fire Plan, protecting communities, and getting the broader
focus of managing the Nation's forests and rangelands. And I
want to talk about accountability, that several of you brought
up. I recall Ralph Regula saying that accountability is more
than simply good accounting, and I really agree. I think it is
also delivering on our performance commitments, and we have to
reestablish that capability and that reputation.
On the Ground Work
Talking about the priorities, first I am going to talk
about on the ground work. It is extremely important that the
Forest Service get work done on the ground. I recognize the
fact that taxpayers do not want to see their dollars going into
paperwork and not end up with results on the ground. I think
that getting work done on the ground has been the foundation
for our credibility in the past, and we need to regain that.
We also need to re-establish the connection between the
headquarters, our Washington office, and the field. I feel like
there has been some disconnect in the last few years and it is
going to take some work, but I believe that we can re-establish
that connection between the ranger district and the Washington
headquarters and, that will help.
We also need to make sure that the initiatives and the
policies that we set here in Washington really do not hinder
the work getting done on the ground, but rather help find ways
to facilitate getting that work done. I believe that we need to
empower line officers. The Forest Service's greatest strength
is the ability of our line officers to make and implement
decisions that take local needs into account, that work with
local people. I am concerned that that ability has become
limited some in the last few years.
Each field unit has different needs, and we have got to be
very careful that when we look at the whole 192 million acres
of national forests and grasslands across this country that we
do not come up with one single management philosophy and expect
that to work on every single case. So we have to clearly
understand what the differences are across the country, and
that is why we need to make sure that those local line officers
have as much decision space as possible.
Leadership
I think we need to take a hard look at our leadership, at
the structure that we are using in the Forest Service right now
in terms of our organization. We need to ensure access for the
field folks to our people in Washington, to make sure that when
the people in the field get to Washington they have an
opportunity to have access to the deputy chiefs, to the
associate chiefs, and to me.
Oversight
I think we need to place a higher priority on oversight. I
feel like in the past few years that we have dropped the ball
in terms of our responsibility at the national headquarters to
make sure that things are working well on the ground and doing
the management reviews and expecting at the regional offices
that they do management reviews of the forests and so on. It is
much better to have broad direction from here and follow up
with reviews to see whether or not it is working.
Off the Top Funding
I want to take a hard look at the off the top funding. We
need to assess our strategic goals and our objectives, but we
need to make sure that the funds that are held in headquarters
are essential to accomplishing the mission of the Agency. We
have begun a process of assessing the off-the-top dollars. That
is probably the biggest effort that has been made along those
lines in quite a few years, and we have more work to do and I
want to assure you that I will be personally involved in that
assessment.
Aging Workforce
Another area of concern is the greying of the work force.
Over the next 5 years, about 32 percent of the Forest Service
employees will be eligible for retirement. We will lose a lot
of experience and a lot of knowledge when those folks retire.
Fortunately, we are going to be recruiting some fairly large
numbers of new employees, and I think that gives us an
unprecedented opportunity to get the skills and the talents
that we are going to need to manage and lead, and it will allow
us to balance permanent employment with providing jobs in local
communities through contracting.
My fear is that as these folks go out that we will not have
had an opportunity for them to mentor some of these new people.
So I am going to be trying to convince some of these older
folks that have been around for a long time to stick around and
help mentor some of these new employees.
National Fire Plan
I want to talk about the National Fire Plan. The
restoration work that is necessary in the areas of burn-over in
the huge fires that we had last year is a big job. We have,
through your help, gotten significant investments that we can
put into that, but it is a big job and we are moving forward in
all these places where the fire burned and trying to restore
those ecosystems.
We need to continue to respond to the increasing presence
of people in the wildland-urban interface. As you know, the
more people that move into those areas, the more problems that
we have in terms of trying to help them protect their homes
from fire. We need to work with people through education, we
need to work with people through figuring out how they can
manage their land, as well as how we manage the national forest
lands, so that fire will not impact the communities and people
in the wildland-urban interface as much.
The President's budget calls for about $1.3 billion for the
national fire plan. That is going to allow some continued
investments to reduce the threat and the severity of wildland
fire. It seems expensive, but I assure you that it will not
approach the future cost if the current practices continue, the
future costs of suppressing wildfires and protecting
communities.
Implementation of the long-term strategy can provide
healthy forests that provide a sustainable flow of products and
services. I believe that. The National Fire Plan I think is a
really good example of what can be achieved when Congress and
the administration cooperate. It provides an opportunity for us
to balance forest restoration and community protection. It
integrates community employment and expands the economic
capability with the generation of forest and range land
products to accomplish restoration activities. I am looking
forward to working with you to extend that kind of balanced
policy in other areas aside besides fire.
Accountability
A little bit about accountability. As you know,
accountability has been a significant emphasis for us for the
past 3 years. I believe that my predecessor, Chief Mike
Dombeck, did a good job of building a framework, but we have a
long ways to go to regain the financial credibility that we
need to have. We are going to continue on that path. We are
going to work toward obtaining a clean audit opinion.
We need to be accountable, as I said earlier, for more than
just financially accountable. We need to have some performance
accountability in the Forest Service. We need to do what we say
we are going to do. We need to deliver on our program
commitments.
We are presenting our budget based on our capability to
perform and the budget is displayed in terms of activity and
output measures that directly correlate to performance
outcomes. We started that last year and we are continuing on
with that this year. Starting in 2003, we will have the basis,
I believe, for a field-based budgeting process that will be
more effective. It will ensure consistency throughout the
budget formulation, presentation, and accounting process.
Forest Products
We are going to emphasize performance as an integral part
of these budget requests. Now, I know you have a concern about
forest products, an area of concern about forest products and
our ability to perform there. I know that there is an
appearance of reduction in the target. But it is very important
to me that part of the accountability process to be realistic.
I want to be very, very honest with you about what I believe
our capacity, our capability, is to perform and then I expect
to perform.
Partly because of past policy and limitations, our
capability to deliver Forest Products has been reduced. In
fiscal years 2000-2001, we were expected to offer 3.6 billion
board-feet each year. 1.7 billion board-feet is what we
produced in fiscal year 2000. We expect to offer similar levels
this year, and in fiscal year 2002 we have closely assessed our
capacity based on a variety of factors, and we estimate that
that level is going to be around the 2001 level.
We are going to assess our programs and try to determine
what kind of opportunities we have in the future to increase
production, especially in concert with restoration and
protection. It may take several years to build up that
capability and be able to increase it, and I do not think, nor
do I believe, that we should attempt to reach the levels of
forest products and revenues that we had in the late 1980's.
But I do believe that we can do a lot better than what we are
doing right now.
I also believe that that will lead to healthier, more
productive forests. We need to recognize that Forest health and
production is interwoven and it is compatible and we can do it
in an environmentally sensitive way.
Stewardship Contracts
Through your help, Mr. Chairman, we have got the
opportunity to experiment with stewardship contracts. Those are
sort of outcome, end results projects. In the northern region,
the Forest Service had now I think 18 of those projects. I
think it is a model approach to how we can collaborate up
front, how we can look at the end results, how we can bundle
all the projects into one contract, and then achieve the end
results that we would all like to see on the ground. It is an
opportunity to accomplish integrated resource management
objectives and to work with the public and to get more work
done on the ground that is dearly needed. We will find out how
those work as the work continues to get done on the ground.
Cooperative Stewardship
Accountability for production also has to take into account
the non-industrial private lands, and through our State and
Private Forestry program we are going to continue to emphasize
cooperation to enhance stewardship.
Range Allotments
I am concerned that we have fallen behind in the
environmental analysis of our range allotments. We are going to
focus on the factors to that shortfall and we will develop
actions to improve that situation, or we will develop more
realistic schedules.
Recreation
Recreation is another place where we need to be accountable
for the quality of the recreation opportunities that we
provide. Over 70 percent of the U.S. population lives near a
national forest or a national grassland. We need to erase the
maintenance backlog that we have, and it is going to require
more than just increased appropriations. We would like to work
with this subcommittee on developing innovative solutions.
The President's budget proposes, for example, a 4-year
reauthorization of the recreation fee demonstration project.
That project has been successful in my judgment, although we
have had a few places where we have had some difficulties. It
has been fairly successful.
Conclusion
So in conclusion, Secretary Veneman has stated very clearly
that she would like the Forest Service to be a world class
provider of goods and services. I believe that the Forest
Service has the capability to do that. I am going to be
personally devoting attention to achieving that goal through
emphasizing the reconnection between the headquarters and the
field units, by integrating the National Fire Plan with the
management of the natural resources, and through improved
accountability.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Again, I am deeply honored to be here. I look forward to
working with you and I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dale N. Bosworth
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Byrd, and members of the Subcommittee, it is a
great privilege to be here today to talk about the President's budget
for the Forest Service in fiscal year 2002. Let me also say, as Chief
of the Forest Service for only eight days, I am deeply honored to have
this opportunity.
First, I want to express my gratitude to Secretary Veneman for her
confidence in me, and to say thank you to the dedicated, hard working
employees of the Forest Service for their support and encouragement.
Let me also express my appreciation in advance to you Mr. Chairman, to
you Mr. Byrd, and members of the Subcommittee for working with the
Forest Service and me during this transition. Chairman Burns, you and I
worked together for quite a few years while I served as the Regional
Forester in Region One. I look forward to continuing that excellent
relationship.
I would like to start my testimony by saying a few words about
myself and my long-time commitment to the Forest Service. I have worked
in the Forest Service for 35 years. I am what in the Agency is often
called a ``Forest Service brat,'' a title I inherited because my father
was also a leader in the Agency. It is fair to say I have a lifetime of
being part of the Forest Service culture, traditions, and debates about
management of America's forests and rangelands. Coming from this
background, I am truly humbled by the duties entrusted in me as Chief
and I am eager to lead this Agency through challenging times.
In my testimony today, I will talk about three areas of emphasis.
First, I will discuss my priorities in the short term as the Agency
transitions its leadership. Second, I will discuss the National Fire
Plan and how its strong focus on protecting communities from the
dangers of catastrophic fire represents a broader focus on how, in
general, we need to manage the Nation's forests and rangelands to
protect communities and natural resources, and provide services and
products on a sustainable basis. Third, I will discuss Agency
accountability. I recall about two years ago, then House Subcommittee
Chairman Ralph Regula saying, ``Accountability is more than simply good
accounting.'' I couldn't agree more. I will talk about accountability
not only in the implementation of financial reforms, but also from the
standpoint of delivering on Agency performance commitments. In doing
so, I will need to be perfectly candid about the immediate capability
of the Forest Service to meet expectations of performance in two key
programs.
SHORT-TERM PRIORITIES
Mr. Chairman, as a Regional Forester in two regions over the past 7
years, and in many other positions in the Forest Service, I have
developed an appreciation for how the job being performed ``on-the-
ground'' by our employees is the foundation of our credibility with the
public. This applies to researchers, employees on the National Forests,
and employees who provide support to State, local, Tribal and
international stakeholders. It is the responsibility of employees in
the national headquarters and at the regional offices to ensure the
best possible support is given to that ``on-the-ground'' job. Over the
next several months, I want to emphasize what I think is essential in
establishing a ``reconnection'' between the headquarters and the field.
I want to make sure that ongoing initiatives to improve financial
compliance and track natural resource information do not
unintentionally hinder employees from performing the ``on-the-ground''
work. This assessment of ongoing initiatives does not alter the
Agency's commitment to moving forward our commitment to financial
accountability.
One of the greatest strengths of the Forest Service is the ability
of line officers at the forest and ranger district levels to make and
implement decisions that take local community needs into account. I am
concerned that in recent years this ability has been limited by an
over-reliance on top-down initiatives that have dis-empowered local
decision making, and have prevented the greatest possible funding from
reaching the field unit level. I firmly believe that each field unit
has different needs. A single management philosophy cannot produce
healthy forests and rangelands that provide opportunities to deliver
goods and services across the wide array of environments in which our
National Forests and Rangelands exist.
In the immediate future, I want to work closely with Secretary
Veneman to assess recent initiatives to make sure the ability to manage
and protect our diverse resources is not adversely affected. We will
assess the Agency's strategic goals and objectives to ensure full
compatibility with local forest plans and priorities. To get the
Agency's work done ``on-the-ground'', it is critical to ensure funds
held at the headquarters and regional levels are only those funds that
are essential to accomplishing our mission. In recent years the amount
of funds taken ``off the top'' has grown to unprecedented levels. While
the majority of this funding ultimately goes to the field, too much
does not. Too much of this money does not go to projects that directly
support ``on-the-ground'' accomplishments. Only just recently the
Forest Service, with help from field line officers, began the most
intensive screening of this ``off the top'' funding in years. I will
personally make the final decision on funds held at the headquarters
level.
I also intend to take a close look at the organizational leadership
structure of the Forest Service. I want to make sure our line officers
are empowered to make and implement natural resource management
decisions at the field level, in the best tradition of our
decentralized organization, while assuring that systems used in the
field meet best business practices and are consistent and comply with
national laws, regulations, and policies. I have already taken steps to
realign the reporting structure of our Regional Foresters and Station
Directors, so they have the best possible access to me, as Chief, and I
assure you I will place priority emphasis on providing the best
oversight possible for administration of the Agency.
An issue that concerns me greatly is often called ``graying of the
workforce.'' In the next 5 years 32 percent of the workforce will be
eligible for retirement. Only 9 years ago, the Forest Service had 643
permanent employees less than 25 years of age. At the end of calendar
year 2000, we had only 137 employees under 25. At the same time, the
number of employees over 50 has climbed from 7,814 in 1992 to 10,232
today. My fellow employees and I consider working for the Forest
Service to be a privilege and an honor. I want this Agency to be an
employer of choice. Primarily as a result of implementing the National
Fire Plan, for the first time in a long time, the Forest Service will
be recruiting large numbers of new employees who will become leaders in
the Forest Service by the end of this decade. We have an unprecedented
opportunity to emphasize recruitment of a workforce that reflects
America's broad diversity and provides the appropriate mix of skills
and talents needed by the Agency. Having described the value of new
hires, let me also emphasize the importance of an appropriate balance
of staff to other resources. This includes hiring full-time and
temporary Forest Service employees to replace the large number of
employees expected to retire in the near future. It also includes
partnering with businesses, corporations, and other groups to
accomplish important on-the-ground work and to increase the Agency's
ability to respond to local needs through increased local employment
and community involvement. I intend to personally review and monitor
how we balance the recruitment of our workforce and future leaders, and
the use of local businesses and the private sector. Only through
building an effective organization can we rise to meet the challenges
of the future.
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN
As a Regional Forester, I personally witnessed the catastrophic
wildland fire that occurred in the Bitterroot Mountains of Montana last
year. The cost to restore the lands in the Bitterroot, and other lands
blackened by wildfire throughout the country, to a healthy and
productive condition will require significant investments over many
years. Further, there will continue to be a need to respond to the
ever-increasing presence of people in the wildland-urban interface. We
must continually assess how we invest to protect communities and
resources, how we ensure our readiness to suppress wildland fire where
necessary and manage fire where it benefits the land, and how we enable
effective cooperative fire suppression and management among Federal,
State, Tribal, and local organizations.
Last year, the Forest Service spent $1.1 billion for fire
suppression. The President's budget in fiscal year 2002 provides $1.3
billion in support of the National Fire Plan. This will allow the
Forest Service to continue investments to reduce the threat and
severity of wildland fire over the long term. Investing in firefighting
and hazardous fuel reduction capability will lead to healthy, restored,
fire-adapted ecosystems. While these investments may appear to be
expensive, the annual cost of hazardous fuel reduction won't approach
anywhere near the costs of catastrophic wildland fire suppression, the
subsequent restoration of damaged lands, and the costs to the people
living in or adjacent to our forests who could lose their homes,
livelihoods, or even a loved one. The good news is that with a cohesive
investment, costs can be reduced in the long term. Beginning with the
programs implemented by the National Fire Plan we can develop a long-
term strategy to provide healthy forests resistant to wildland fire,
insects, diseases, and noxious weeds that provide a sustainable flow of
products and services.
The National Fire Plan is a good example of what can be achieved
when Congress and the Administration work together. The Plan allows the
Forest Service to improve the health of our Nation's forests by
providing the resources needed to protect communities and natural
resources from wildland fires and invasive species. Additionally,
through our outstanding Research and State and Private Forestry
programs, the Fire Plan provides funding to develop technologies that
will increase the use of forest products by communities and industry.
These programs have the potential to make it economically beneficial
for the Forest Service and private industry to restore the health of
the land by increasing the value and use of traditionally non-or low
valued forest products. The balancing process of restoring forests and
protecting communities will integrate local community employment and
expanding local economic capacity with the generation of forest and
range products to accomplish restoration objectives. The President's
budget in fiscal year 2002 provides the emphasis and funding needed to
integrate the National Fire Plan with the full array of Agency
programs. I look forward to working with you to extend this type of
balanced policy to all aspects of Forest Service natural resource
management.
ACCOUNTABILITY
Protecting communities and restoring forests and rangelands under
the National Fire Plan will require that the Forest Service be held
accountable for program accomplishment. Accountability has been a
significant emphasis of the Agency for the past three years. Former
Chief Mike Dombeck did a great job of building the framework to restore
the financial integrity of the Agency. Under the direction of Secretary
Veneman, we will continue on the path of bringing our financial
management and accounting of Agency assets into full compliance with
the best business management standards. We will continue our progress
towards obtaining a clean audit opinion.
However, as I mentioned earlier, being accountable is much more
than having good financial accountability. It is delivering on program
commitments. The President's budget for fiscal year 2002 continues what
we began in fiscal year 2001. We are presenting our budget based on our
capability to perform. Our budget is displayed in terms of activity and
output measures that directly correlate to performance outcomes. These
measures will, for the first time, be the basis for a field-based
budget, which we are implementing in fiscal year 2003 as this
Subcommittee has directed. These measures will form the core structure
of our accounting system and will ensure consistency throughout the
Agency's budget formulation, presentation and accounting process. This
structure will allow us to emphasize performance as an integral part of
budget requests.
Let me focus on areas of performance accountability that I know
concern many members of this Subcommittee. The President's budget for
fiscal year 2002 proposes what may appear to be a significant reduction
in the ``target'' for forest product accomplishment. To be accountable
for performance, we must first be realistic about our capability. Mr.
Chairman, in the area of forest products, because of policy emphasis
over the past eight years, the Forest Service's capability has been
reduced. Unfortunately, this has not been adequately reflected in past
communication to Congress. For example, in fiscal years 2000 and 2001
the Agency was expected to offer 3.6 billion board feet (bbf) of timber
volume. In reality the Agency offered only 1.7 bbf in fiscal year 2000
and expects, at best, to offer a similar level in fiscal year 2001. For
fiscal year 2002 we have closely assessed our capability based on a
variety of factors, including; the costs and time to navigate the
complex appeals and litigation processes, the need for additional work
directly attributable to legal decisions, the virtual elimination of a
forest product pipeline, and the past inability of the Agency to view
forest product production as an integral aspect of protecting and
improving forest health. Mr. Chairman, we estimate that in fiscal year
2002 the forest product offer level will be somewhere in the
neighborhood of the fiscal year 2001 level.
This lower forest products estimate is not good for forest
communities and it is not good for the environment. The lower levels
may stress the already struggling natural resource dependent economies
of many of our nation's forest communities. It also is not adequate to
reduce the extraordinary amount of woody material contained in many
parts of the National Forests to traditional historic conditions.
Active vegetative management actions, including timber harvesting can
restore forest ecosystem health, reduce invasive species, and reduce
the risks of catastrophic fires.
With this in mind, I believe being completely honest about
capability issues such as this is an essential element of being
accountable. In this fiscal year we will assess our programs to
determine future opportunities as to how we can target programs and
resources to increase the production of forest products, especially in
areas as a means of restoring and protecting forest health. It may take
several years to reach an increased level. Let me also make clear that
such increases may not approach the levels or produce the revenue
experienced in the late 1980's. However the end result will be
healthier, more productive forests.
Increases in forest products from the National Forests will require
full recognition that land health and the production of goods and
services are interwoven and entirely compatible. Consistent with these
combined goals, we must develop new methods for compatible use of
renewable resources. We will closely assess the lessons learned from
the end-results stewardship contract demonstration projects that
Congress authorized with your help, Mr. Chairman. I believe this
authority offers numerous opportunities with potential as an excellent
tool to accomplish integrated resource management objectives.
I am also concerned that we have fallen behind in the environmental
analysis of many of the range allotments on National Forest lands.
Despite a schedule that targeted completed analysis on 4,174 allotments
by the end of fiscal year 2001, we currently expect to complete 3,398
in this timeframe. We will focus close attention on the factors that
have contributed to this shortfall, and develop actions to improve the
situation within the available funding or develop a more realistic
schedule.
I believe that Agency accountability for the production of forest
and range products must take into account the capability of non-
industrial private lands to also provide a sustainable flow of
products. Forest Service programs strongly support this objective. The
fiscal year 2002 President's budget provides funding for our State and
Private Forestry program to continue emphasizing cooperation with
State, Tribal and local authorities in enhancing sustainable
stewardship of the rural and urban forest. This strong relationship
with our partners will be an integral part of our programs in the years
to come.
The Forest Service is also accountable for the services it provides
to the Nation for recreation. We are in many ways, America's backyard.
Over 70 percent of the population of the United States lives within an
easy day's drive of National Forests or National Grasslands. We are
emphasizing performance accountability in how we meet the recreation
demands of America. The attention of this Subcommittee to the condition
of facilities used by the public has been greatly appreciated. We need
to face the fact that a status quo approach to managing facilities will
not halt the decline of our infrastructure. We would like to work with
you to develop innovative solutions to this problem.
An additional element to support the demand for quality recreation
is the Recreation Fee Demonstration program. This program has been a
success. The President's budget proposes a four-year reauthorization of
this program.
I believe accountability centers on the ability of the Forest
Service to clearly state its performance objectives at specific budget
levels and then, based on final appropriations provided by Congress,
deliver on the accomplishment of those objectives. I am committed to
providing the Agency's line officers with the resources to perform
``on-the-ground'' work, and systems that allow them to report how well
they are performing. To accomplish this we must emphasize performance
accountability as strongly as we emphasize financial accountability.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, Secretary Veneman has clearly stated to me that she
wants the Forest Service to be a world-class provider of goods and
services for America. I know the Agency has that capability. To that
end, I intend to personally devote my attention to achieving this goal
through emphasis on an organizational reconnection between headquarters
and field units, integration of the National Fire Plan with the active
management of our natural resources, and continued aggressive adherence
to improved performance accountability. Let me again say that I am
deeply honored to be the Chief of the Forest Service. I look forward to
working with you and thank you for your support. I will be happy to
answer any questions.
Fire Management
Senator Burns. Thank you. Thank you, Chief.
It seems as though there has been a swirl of articles about
some mismanagement of the fire season last year. One of them
showed up in a New York Times article, and I think you read
that article. I think the author of that article in some areas
could be a little amiss and maybe really does not fully
understand the situation.
As you know, we went through a terrible fire season last
year and there is no doubt about it, there were places where we
were caught kind of flat-footed, and did not always have fire
bosses and qualified personnel to lead at times in a very
serious fire season. Last year was a wakeup call, and everybody
that I have talked to in the Forest Service are saying we
learned a lot last year and we are not going to let that happen
again.
That is the reason that the Congress chose to fund the fire
plan that gives you the resources to take care of some areas
where we were very shortsighted.
I would ask, how do you respond to these articles that we
see in the New York Times, the one specifically, regarding the
way firefighters were handled last year?
Mr. Bosworth. That particular article talks about the
waste, a lot of people sitting around without a whole lot to
do, eating really good meals, a number of similar kinds of
things; it would appear that there is a fair amount of waste
going on. Now, I think any time that you bring a whole bunch of
people together in 24, 48 hours, there is obviously going to be
some slowdown time.
When I think about the Bitterroot Valley as an example--and
you were up there and saw what was going on--the fire camp was
the second largest town in Ravalli County. That was put
together in a very short period of time and I think, was done
amazingly well.
There are lots of reasons why people might not be out
building fire lines. In some cases, we will have people that
are spiked in a spike camp when we know there is a red flag
warning, for example, where we are going to get new lightning
strikes and we want to have crews that are ready to go to
suppress new strikes. We did not want to have any new fires
start. So that could be one situation where we have people that
appear to be sitting there without actively working.
In some cases, just getting all the equipment together, the
buses to get the crews up to the fire line, the other buses to
get the crews back, sometimes leads to a little bit of lost
time in terms of having the crews on the fire.
I think we do a fairly good job in terms of keeping our eye
on how much these, these fires are costing. I know that with
the fires, at least in the northern region--I am sure it was
done in the other regions as well--where we had large projects,
we brought in a comptroller with the green eyeshades to keep
their eye on what we were spending and what we were doing.
Another issue in that article is that sometimes we are
putting fires out, suppressing fires that we should not have
been, that we were wasting dollars suppressing some of those
fires. What we were doing this past year was, again we did not
want new starts. We were strapped to the very end and so we
wanted to make sure that we did not have new starts that burned
in new project fires that we had to put numbers of new people
on.
So I guess my summary is that there probably are some
things, we can always improve upon and we can do better. I
think that article is the view of a person at a certain part of
the endeavor, the effort. I have a different view from looking
at it from a different place. But I assure you that we are
going to continue to make sure that the dollars that get spent
on suppressing fires are spent well, that we are accountable
for those dollars.
Senator Burns. Well, those of us what have spent some time
on a fire line understand some of those things. I know that we
had a breakdown as far as getting our equipment in place, and
we talked about that in the upper regions of northern Montana,
and getting our red card people in place and getting them
qualified to do the work if we have a bad fire season.
Oversight
You mentioned a thing called oversight. I happen to believe
that oversight can be a very positive thing. It brings things
out on the table in a manner in which Congress and the Agency
and the public understand it. We also get into some of those
problems and get them squared away. I know that every time you
mention an oversight hearing in a specific State, I do not care
of it is West Virginia or Montana, it seems like there is
always a negative pall that is thrown over that, that there is
something wrong or there is something going on. I think
oversight sometimes is very, very good. It enlightens and
brings to the surface some things that we should be doing.
I for one, am going to look into the idea of some oversight
hearings even this summer before we get into the depth of the
fire season, to make sure that we know where we are, where we
are going, and what has to be done. I will be hoping to work
with you and the people on the ground. You are exactly right,
that is where the rubber hits the road and accountability there
is very, very important.
Forest Products
This year's budget request for timber is $6 million more
than it was a year ago, Chief. You only proposed 2.1 billion
board-feet in production. This is a billion feet board-feet
less than a year ago. A comparison of your budget submission
from last year to this year shows that your unit cost per
thousand board-feet has gone from $120 per thousand to $180 per
thousand.
Now, we know that right now we have some depressed prices
in the forest products industry. I think that may have bottomed
out and it might be hitting another, but will begin working its
way up. But can you explain why this large increase?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, first you have to look at what I would
call comparing apples with apples. If you look at the last
fiscal year, the previous fiscal year, we were given a certain
amount of dollars, but we did not produce the 3 billion board-
feet, or the 3.3, whatever the number was. What we really
produced was something less, and the actual dollars per
thousand were more like $190 or $195 per thousand. What we are
proposing for this year would be about $180 per thousand.
So while the planned sale, if you compare it against the
planned sale program, it would have been $130. But if you
compare it against the actual accomplished sale program, it was
more like $190 or $195. So I think we are fairly similar in our
request this year from what we actually produced in the last 2
years.
Senator Burns. Chief, is there any way that you know that
we can put this in a perspective? Okay, you offered--last year
we said you had to offer 3.1 billion board-feet. How much did
we actually cut? Do you know, have any idea, last year?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, let us see if these guys have the
actual numbers for me. But we get confused, I think, between
the offer, the sold, and then the actual harvest. We will offer
timber for sale and then sometimes it sells and sometimes it
doesn't, for a variety of reasons, especially when you have a
market, a timber market like it is right now.
Then we have the figure that we actually sold. Then we have
the figure of harvested, which may be timber harvested from
sales that were sold last year, the year before last, or this
current year. We have got the figures for all of those.
What was actually harvested last year was 2.5 billion.
Senator Burns. You think the prospects are as good this
year?
Mr. Bosworth. I think the prospects are, the number should
be around 2.2 billion is probably what we would harvest. That
is what we are estimating for this year.
Senator Burns. I have some more questions along that line.
Senator Byrd. Complete your line of questioning.
Senator Burns. Well, an the effect of this timber program,
will the Agency have any more success in meeting the lower
proposed offered level this next year? That was one of the
questions. You have already answered that one.
Impact of National Fire Plan on Forest Products
Let us talk about the effect of the fire plan on that. How
does that affect your willingness and your ability to get out
these cuts mandated by the Congress?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, the National Fire Plan obviously is a
very high priority for us. I also think that there are
opportunities to be compatible through the National Fire Plan
through fuels reduction projects, restoration of the burned
areas, looking at what we need on land. Then that provides us
the opportunity to remove what is not needed through fuel
reduction projects and what-not, and it also contributes to
providing products for the timber industry.
So I think those are compatible. One of the difficulties we
have, frankly, is working our way through the myriad of
processes that we have to get through the environmental impact
statements, through the consultation, all the different kinds
of paperwork and red tape that we need to get through to
actually come out with something in the end. That is part of
the reason that we tend to fall behind, because of the long
time period that it takes. Then other factors pop in during
that period that set us back.
Those are some of the issues that we need to look at to see
how we can streamline those processes so that we are able to be
more efficient and meet our obligations.
Hartwood Court Case
Senator Burns. Categorical exclusion and forest health and
stewardship. We were told by the previous Chief that they were
going to deal with these issues and write the rules and
regulations so that they could deal with the court order. It
was never done. Will you--are you going to pursue writing the
rules and regulations so that we can get away from that and get
out from underneath that court order?
Mr. Bosworth. Yes, I need to get a better understanding
specifically of what the problem was with the Hartwood case and
why it was--why the ruling was the way it was. But I do believe
that there is a place for categorical exclusions on timber
sales. Maybe the approach needs to be more focused on the kind
of environmental effects of a project as opposed to the volume,
which is what, the volume number, is what we had in there
before.
It seems to me that there is an opportunity to take care of
that. Now, I do not think it necessarily has to be through
rule-writing, but again I just have not had a chance yet to get
that sorted through. But the answer is yes. I want to, one way
or another, have a categorical exclusion process that makes
sense, that we can withstand in the courts, that the folks in
the field can use for certain kinds of projects.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Monongahela National Forest
I call attention to the presence in the room of Chuck
Myers, who is the Forest Supervisor for the Monongahela
National Forest. Now, Chuck, stand up. I want the Chief to
really know you.
Chief, I know you are going to be very, very busy. You are
just getting started and you have got a big job to do, because
that big job was not done so well during the recent years. It
makes your job even more difficult. But I hope you will have an
opportunity to visit some of the Forest Service facilities in
West Virginia. We would love to have you down there. I would
love to visit them myself again, hopefully this year, after a
long period of years.
I hope when I go to them they will say: Well, the Chief of
the Forest Service got here before you did. He was here some
time ago. That will give us a shot in the arm and it will be
good for our people. It will acquaint you with a very beautiful
State and with the opportunities for growth in our Forest
Service facilities. I hope you will have an opportunity to go
down there.
Maintenance Backlog on Monongahela
The Monongahela National Forest features recreation areas,
campgrounds, and 700 miles of hiking trails, but much work
needs to be done to bring the forest up to its full potential.
The Monongahela, like many other national forests, has a
backlog of maintenance work that needs to be addressed.
Visitors to the Stuart Recreation Area and the YMCA camp at
Horseshoe Run are subjected to health and safety risks because
of their inadequate sewage systems. Now, I hope we can make new
sewage systems for these popular sites a priority in the 2002
budget, and I hope I can count on your support in building safe
and accessible sanitation facilities in the Monongahela
National Forest.
If you want to do something other than just nod your head,
you may do so. We like to have it on the record.
Mr. Bosworth. I would like to say a couple of things. The
first is I want to go back to your introduction of Chuck Myers
and I want to say that I intend to know every forest supervisor
in the Forest Service personally and spend time with every
forest supervisor, so that I understand clearly the issues and
the problems that those folks are dealing with. I am looking
forward very much to doing that.
I agree with you that the backlog is serious and I have
been to the Monongahela National Forest. I took a tour there in
1991. But I have not spent a lot of time there, and I am
looking forward to getting back to that part of the country and
seeing more of that national forest. It really appeared to me
to be one of the really beautiful national forests.
I also visited some of the visitors centers when I was
there. I cannot remember the names of all of them. One of them,
Cranberry something----
Senator Byrd. Seneca Rocks and Cranberry Mountain.
Mr. Bosworth. It looked to me like some of those facilities
back then were in need of some improvements. I do know that we
have a serious backlog.
Senator Byrd. Thank you.
Road Stabilization and Watershed Restoration
The Monongahela National Forest has been working for many
years to assess the damage caused by sedimentation in streams
and rivers. Stream sedimentation is largely the result of
previous forest activities, such as logging and road-building
in streambeds. Several roads in the forest have been identified
as high priorities for stabilization or reconstruction to
protect nearby streams. One is in the May-Little River
watershed. Another is in the Williams River area. The third
provides access to the Highland Scenic Highway.
Do you think the Forest Service budget request will
accommodate $920,000 in 2002 for road stabilization and
watershed restoration in the Monongahela National Forest, or do
we need more money?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, we always need more money. You know
that.
Senator Byrd. That was a leading question.
Mr. Bosworth. It is just one of the inherent things about
the Forest Service.
The figures, in terms of the total amount for those
specific places, $2.8 million is the figure for now. But I want
to say that the backlog--and I am not sure that I clearly
understand the specific areas. But I do know that, for example,
the backlog in the Monongahela is $23 million just for roads,
and another $466,000 for other facilities. I am not familiar
enough to be able to split those out among each individual
area.
Senator Byrd. Well, yes, I can appreciate that. Just review
these questions later and give whatever attention you can give
us for these matters. That is all I could ask you for now.
Wood Education Resource Center
Let me call attention to the Wood Education Resource Center
in Princeton, West Virginia. I spoke with you about that
recently when you were kind enough to visit my office. There
had been a serious management and financial problem several
years ago and I asked the Forest Service to rectify the
situation, and it did.
I especially want to call attention to the good work done
by Michael Rains. You may or may not know Michael yet, but he
is a good man to know. Is he in the audience today?
Mr. Bosworth. Yes, he is.
Senator Byrd. Oh, in the front seat, in the front now. That
is where he belongs. He is a good man.
Now, I would like to know the status of the management
reforms at that center. Can we hear about that?
Mr. Bosworth. I will let Michael help a little bit on this,
but my familiarity with the project is that there is a fair
amount of work that is being done there to be able to use and
figure out how to use wood products in highways, bridges,
signs, places where we can develop barriers to sound, some of
those kinds of things.
I think there are some great opportunities to pass that
technology along, to help inform people. I know that those
folks are working hard on that. I know Michael has a lot more
specifics that he could supply.
Senator Byrd. That research center has been there over 40
years, and it is the result of an effort that I made when I
first came to the Senate, going on 43 years ago. I took Dr.
Ralph Marquis--he is now deceased--from the office in
Pennsylvania. Would that have been Philadelphia?
Mr. Rains. It was Upper Darby.
Senator Byrd. Upper Darby, that is right. We went down
there at that time and took a tour of several counties. I
believe I spoke to you about that when you were in my office.
As a result of our visit, Dr. Marquis recommended that a
laboratory be established there. I asked him how much money he
needed. I believe he requested $400,000. That is the figure
that sticks in my mind.
In any event, the laboratory was established there and has
been doing great work. In conjunction with that laboratory,
came the Wood Education Resource Center. Mr. Rains has done
yeoman's work there. I personally want to thank you publicly
here this morning.
If you would not mind, I would like to ask again, what is
the status of the management reforms at that center?
Mr. Rains. Thank you, Senator. As you recall, a couple
years ago it was a private enterprise, the Wood Education
Center, and through your leadership we were able to move that
over to a Forest Service facility. Actually, it is doing really
quite well right now. Our proposed budget has a level of
funding for the maintenance of the program.
The focus of the center, as you know, is on training. It is
really, the overall objective is to be a center, a national
center of excellence for hardwood utilization through training,
technology transfer, applied research, and also to make sure
that the research stations in West Virginia and across the
country are linked well with the applications.
The people that were there at the center before are now
Forest Service employees. Our next step is to take the
management of the center and actually have a private group come
in and begin to manage the day to day operations. We think that
will probably take place late summer, maybe early fall. That
will really be the capstone of, I think, the efficient running
of that center.
Senator Byrd. Very well. I do not want to belabor the point
here. We are being pushed for time. We have a roll call vote
coming around 11:00.
Let me ask, Mr. Chairman, if you will, just two other brief
questions. Thank you, Mr. Rains.
Small Diameter and Lower Value research
A research project that is of special interest to me
utilizes wood products from small diameter and lower value
trees to filter water runoff. West Virginia has a bountiful
supply of small diameter wood, and an extensive system of
rivers and streams and a superb forest products laboratory,
which we have just been talking about, at Gardner, which is
near Princeton in Mercer County, where I first started school
in 1923 in a little two-room schoolhouse. When you go down to
Princeton and visit that fine lab there, just remember that I
told you I started school there in 1923.
Mr. Bosworth. I will remember that.
Senator Burns. Is the school still there?
Senator Byrd. The school is not there, and no other two-
room schools are there, I am sorry to say. I wish we had more
two-room schools and one-room schools, where teachers could
really get to know the students and the students could get to
really love the teachers. Each could teach and learn,
respectively, without all the problems of discipline that they
have in many of the schools today.
Well, I should not get off on that. I could speak the rest
of the day. So West Virginia has a superb laboratory there, and
I think it would be well suited to test and further develop
this promising approach to cleaning runoff water before it
enters municipal water supplies.
Do you see this as an effective and affordable technology
that might be extended to new test areas, especially in West
Virginia?
Mr. Bosworth. Yes, I do. In fact, I have an example of the
storm water filtration mat that I think you are talking about.
It is made from small diameter wood fibers, and it was
developed at the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison,
Wisconsin. I think we have an opportunity to work with the
Princeton lab to see if we can establish some kind of test site
at least and then apply it, see how that would apply in West
Virginia.
I think that there may be some very interesting
opportunities from this wood product.
Senator Byrd. You also have an ongoing project that uses
trees to clean contaminated groundwater. I would be especially
interested to know if that approach would be a cost effective
way to improve the water quality in West Virginia.
Mr. Bosworth. Well, from what I can gather there is a high
potential for that. It has been fairly effective, the tests
have been effective, in removing contaminants from water. There
has been some study to see what further applications there
could be outside of urban areas in rural areas and in the
forest as well. I do not think that the research has been
completed in terms of finding out exactly how it is from a cost
effective standpoint.
But like many things, as you study it more and learn more
about it does become more cost effective. So I think it does
have a high potential of being a cost effective way of removing
contaminants.
Senator Byrd. I am glad to hear you say that.
Drug Problem in the National Forests
Finally, I am concerned about the continuing drug problem
in America, particularly among our young people. The Forest
Service has done a commendable job of finding and eradicating
cannabis, marijuana plants, in the national forests. The Forest
Service reports that it eradicates over 700,000 plants year
after year. This would indicate that we are not making much, if
any, headway in preventing the use of national forests by
marijuana growers.
Your budget request asks for $76 million for law
enforcement operations and for only 460 uniformed officers to
cover 192 million acres of forest and rangeland. That is an
average of 417,000 acres per law enforcement officer. One agent
cannot possibly cover that much territory. The Service's law
enforcement plan for 2002 is for a law enforcement capability
of only 30 percent. That does not sound like a very ambitious
goal, and the administration does not propose any program
increases for law enforcement operations.
By comparison, the Congress appropriated $1.3 billion last
year for emergency drug eradication in Colombia, which is 17
times more than we spend to control drug production in our own
national forests. I do not think that is a very good message to
be sending to the world when we cannot control drug production
in our own national forests.
This final question is, naturally, what does the Forest
Service need to get this under control?
Law Enforcement
Mr. Bosworth. Well, first let me say that I would like to
go back to the 30 percent figure that you talked about. For 30
percent of the incidents that occur, we have an agent who can
respond to that incident. That seems maybe--that is low in my
view. I think it ought to be higher, up near 50 percent. Some
people may think that is low.
But I think the important thing is, are we responding to
the high priority incidents? Some of those may be things like a
bullet hole in a sign or some of those kind of things that we
may not be able to respond to, where others, there are people
that are threatened and what-not, so we respond to those. So it
kind of depends if we are doing a good job of prioritizing how
we respond. That is the important thing.
I think there is a lot we can do in terms of working with
other law enforcement agencies, trying to make sure we leverage
the capacity on the national forests. But there is no question
that the drug problem on our national forests, the growing of
drugs on national forests, is an important issue. It is my
understanding something like 50 percent of the marijuana that
is grown comes off of public land, not just national forests.
That is a huge amount.
There is a problem with methamphetamine labs on national
forests. They are increasing significantly. It is also
important to note that the Forest Service has seized more
marijuana, at least to my understanding, than both Customs and
the Border Patrol did along the Southwestern border. So we are
focusing our efforts in some of the right places.
I do not know that I can really give you a specific answer
at this point about how much specific dollars, but we do need
to cost out the additional needs to be able to respond to the
problems that we are having on the national forests and
grasslands with drugs. We need to have, I think, a little bit
better strategy on how we are going to--what we are going to
get from the additional funding levels.
Senator Byrd. Well, Chief, thank you for your testimony and
for that of your associates. You are off to a good start and I
wish you well and I want to be as helpful, as I can.
Mr. Bosworth. Thank you very much.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid was unable to be
here this morning. I request that his statement and questions
be made part of the record, and I have some additional
questions for the record likewise. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Without objection, that will be made part of
the record. Thank you very much, Senator Byrd.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid
Welcome Chief Bosworth, I am pleased to see you today and look
forward to discussing the budget request made by the Administration for
fiscal year 2002 for the Forest Service.
I am particularly interested in the Forest Service's role in the
restoration and stewardship of Lake Tahoe.
Due to decades of damage caused by many different activities, Lake
Tahoe is in grave danger of losing its famed clarity--forever.
In response to this danger, last year Congress passed the Lake
Tahoe Restoration Act, which authorizes $300 million for a cooperative
effort to ``keep Tahoe blue.''
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act represents the accomplishment of
many years of local level cooperation involving environmental,
business, and governmental interests throughout the Lake Tahoe basin.
The money we authorized will be directed primarily to the Forest
Service so that the Agency can partner with the Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency and local communities as we work to save this national treasure.
Those of us who developed the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act and worked
to pass it recognize that the only way to rescue this national treasure
is through bold action.
This bold endeavor already enjoys strong support from the States of
California and Nevada, as well as local governments and private
stakeholders.
I am very interested in your vision for how the Department of
Agriculture will implement the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act from both
programmatic and budget perspectives.
I would also hope that you will join with me and Senator Ensign and
the rest of the Congressional delegation at a Lake Tahoe Forum later
this summer to develop a work plan so that we can achieve the goals of
the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act.
I think you will probably agree with me that as the largest
landowner in the basin, the Federal government must do its share to
save and protect Lake Tahoe.
This Federal commitment will require great dedication on your part
and by your Forest Service employees in the field.
Salvage Timber
Senator Burns. We are coming up on the first year after
those fires. Salvage is still a question. On State lands in
Montana we are just about completed in our salvage, we have
completed the salvage operations on what we could salvage and
sent the lumber to our mills. However, we have got more mills
that really need the wood off of Federal lands in the State of
Montana.
The longer it goes untouched, the less value that salvage
wood laying on the ground holds. Have you got plans to expedite
or to look at ways we can speed up this salvage business?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, yes. First let me say that I know
personally that the folks on the Kootenaiy National Forest, the
Bitterroot National Forest, the Lolo National Forest, the
Helena, the Custer, where they had the major fires last year,
are working very hard to get salvage out. Again, they are
looking at it from a landscape standpoint, trying to figure out
what needs to be left and then what could be removed.
NEPA Analysis
There are just some huge processes that they need to go
through: as I said earlier, the NEPA process; the consultation
process. It takes an awful lot of time. Frankly, the State of
Montana does not have the same level of I analysis that they
need to go through.
There are some things that I believe we can do to speed
that up. We need to be looking at the NEPA process to see, and
in fact we are looking at it from both a national as well as
regional and forests levels that we can implement that would
streamline some of those NEPA processes. There are some places
where we have the opportunity to have an exemption from stay if
we can demonstrate a good reason within the requirements. We
need to look at what those requirements are and see whether or
not those are still valid.
Consultation analysis
There are some things that we are doing with the Fish and
Wildlife Service to look at developing screens where the folks
in the forest know that if they apply these screens then the
consultation process will be sped up. There is also--I think
there are some other things such as the way we organize at the
forest and district level, to be able to get things done a
little bit quicker.
I think we offered 40 million board-feet in 2000. 150
million could be offered in fiscal year 2001, and we think that
we are going to be pretty close to 150 million. But again, your
point, I agree with your point, and that is that when it takes
a year to do the salvage you have lost a lot of the value. Then
you end up having to invest dollars in order to remove some of
that material that needs to be removed from a fire fuel
standpoint.
So if we can speed up our process, still involve the
public, still do all the right things to make sure that we have
environmentally sound decisions, I think we would all benefit
from being able to do it quicker and do it in a way that gets
the value when we are going to remove it, the full value.
Senator Burns. Let us also talk about--and we are voting
now and I think we can round this hearing up. There will be
some written questions to you and if you can respond to the
committee and to the individual Senator, do that.
Washington Office
I just want to point up that, on your Washington
initiatives, we have seen an explosion of personnel in
Washington, D.C. I for one, I like to spend the money on the
ground, out in the field, rather than here in this 17 square
miles of logic-free environment, because it gets swirled around
and it does not always produce what we think it should--it does
not contribute a lot to our forests, or forest health.
Senator Byrd. How many square miles?
Senator Burns. 17 square miles. That is about right. There
might be more, I do not know.
Senator Byrd. Well, more square miles than that of logic-
free environment.
Senator Burns. Well, yes, but it tends to drop off as it
moves out.
Senator Byrd. You see, the Constitution provides for more
than 17.
Senator Burns. Do you have any suggestions on how you are
going to handle that and to sort of trim this explosion we have
seen in Washington, D.C., and move some money into the field?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, there are a couple of things I want to
say. First I would like to say that from my observation, folks
that we have working in our Washington headquarters are
intelligent, bright, hard-working people who are doing a job
that they have been asked to do. The thing where I think we
have made a mistake is that we have not looked at priorities
very well.
You know, it is sometimes easy to add 2 or 3 people or 10
or 15 people here and not look at what tradeoff that has for
some on the ground field work. Maybe we cannot keep the camp
ground open, and we are going to have people here. There is
work that cannot be done out there, and we need to do a better
job of figuring out what the tradeoffs are if we are going to
add or remove a person here at the national headquarters.
That is one thing that I think is important, because I want
to make sure that people understand that I believe that the
folks that are here working are working hard, doing good work.
A lot of them came from the field. A lot of them did not, but
they have lots of good ideas and lots of energy.
OFF THE TOP FUNDING
I think we need to be really strict about the funds that we
are holding here that have strings attached to them. A lot of
these dollars that are held in Washington get sent back out to
the field, but they get sent back out with strings attached. I
am more inclined to believe that we ought to get the dollars
out with as much flexibility as we can possibly get and hold
the regions and the forests accountable for meeting the
performance that we had agreed too.
We are taking a hard look at all these off the top dollars
I mentioned earlier to make sure on almost a project by project
basis, to decide which ones are okay and which ones we are just
going to have to forego.
So again, there are a lot of good things that are being
done, but some of the good things that are being done in here
we cannot afford to do. We have got to get the dollars to the
ground.
Senator Burns Concluding remarks
Senator Burns. Well, I will have some more questions and we
will get them to you in writing. I just want to say here in
Washington, D.C.--I just finished a little book that is a very
easy read and it is very light, but I think it has some very,
very interesting things in it. It was written by Mo Udall,
``Too Funny To Be President.'' It went through his trials and
tribulations of running for President. He said he ran into a
guy down in Oklahoma that was sort of a Will Rogers type.
He said: You live in Washington, D.C, do you? And the guy,
Mr. Udall, said: Yes, I do.
He said: You got some awful smart fellows there.
Yes, we have got some of the smartest people that there is
in the world there.
He says: And you have got some that ain't so smart.
He said: Yes, we have got some of them, too.
He says: Pretty hard to tell the difference, is it not?
I think we have to sort through those things whenever we
start initiatives and try to formulate policy. But again, we
want to congratulate you for your appointment. We want to work
with you. I think after you are here a year, you will have a
better idea on what needs to be done and what can be done. I
think next year's appearance before this committee will be a
little bit different, and we look forward to that one also.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
So thank you for coming this morning. We have got a vote on
right now. We have got about 7 minutes to make it. I call these
hearings to a close, and we will send you some questions and
then some other Senators have some questions. If you could
respond, that would be great. We look forward to working with
you.
Mr. Bosworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[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 Conrad Burns
FIRE PROGRAM--BUDGET ISSUES
Question. The proposed budget request for fire does not continue
much of the funding for rehabilitation and restoration work. In fact,
it is reduced from $142 million to $3.6 million. What will be the
impact of this reduction?
Answer. Rehabilitation and restoration of the burned areas will be
completed with funding provided in fiscal year 2001 over a period of
several years. There is no needs assessment that would indicate greater
funding is required. There are opportunities for the Agency to work
with other kinds of funds to achieve multiple benefits and complete
some of the restoration work planned in the National Fire Plan.
Question. Will the Agency be able to fully restore all the areas
that were burned under the proposed level of funding?
Answer. A total of 602 restoration and rehabilitation projects were
identified from the fiscal year 2000 wildland fires. Fiscal year 2001
funds ($142 million) are being used to implement 437 of these projects.
Funds have been used for vegetative management, heritage projects,
recreation, etc. We will fund the priority projects. To the extent that
any additional projects are considered valuable, we will fund these
through other sources.
Question. If we have another serious fire year, will this amount of
money be sufficient to address new areas that are burned and require
restoration?
Answer. Yes and no. Funds will be available to complete the
emergency rehabilitation of burned areas. Burned area restoration is
viewed as an emergency (immediately after the fire). Restoration
activities are more long-term (1 to 2 years). Funds for restoration
included in the fiscal year 2001 appropriation to provide long-term
treatments for the 2000 fires will not be available for long-term
treatments needed for subsequent fires. The NFS appropriation would
fund these treatments.
Question. The Committee is also concerned about the funding
renovating and construction of fire facilities. The budget request
reduced the additional money we provided last year by $23 million. Does
the current state of Forest Service fire facilities place any of our
firefighters at risk?
Answer. No, they do not. The FS will not place any employee in a
facility considered unsafe. Original direction that went out in the
development of the fiscal year 2001 facility list was to identify
projects with deferred maintenance needs and/or to address health and
safety requirements that have changed since original construction as a
result of new legislation. None of these facilities are considered
unsafe for use but many are currently substandard and inefficient for
increased workload of the National Fire Plan. The proper condition of
USDA Forest Service fire management facilities is critical to
protecting lives, property, and natural resources. This fact has been
identified in the National Fire Plan.
Question. Won't the increased number of firefighters require more
facilities?
Answer. Yes, more facilities are required and the construction
requests reflect the need and are in concert with the increased
workforce being hired under the National Fire Plan. The greatest need
is for crew housing, fire engine facilities, and helicopter facilities
as well as for additional renovation of airtanker facilities.
Question. How many facilities do we need to renovate or construct?
Answer. Due to a long-term backlog of deferred maintenance coupled
with an increased workforce, we estimate that over the long-term (10
years) approximately 1,500 facilities will need to be renovated or
constructed.
Question. How long will it take to do this work at the levels
proposed in the budget?
Answer. Current levels of funding to maintain facilities are
inadequate to meet needs for scheduled annual maintenance. When
maintenance is not performed on schedule it becomes deferred
maintenance. Without addressing this, there will be additional annual
maintenance which is deferred every year, which will in turn increase
the deferred maintenance backlog. As a result of reduced resource
levels, bringing facilities up to standard may never be completely
realized. With the current level of funding we would not be able to
meet deferred maintenance needs as well as new construction needs.
SUBURBAN-WILDLAND INTERFACE COMMUNITIES
Question. Last year's bill required the Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior to report to the Congress on May 1, with an
inventory of communities at risk that need fuels reduction treatments
and any additional authorities needed to increase the number of fuels
reduction projects in the urban wildland interface. Briefly, what are
the findings of the report?
Answer. The list of communities has been completed and includes
both communities in the ``vicinity'' of public lands and other
communities in harm's way. The list is expected to be published in the
Federal Register shortly.
The report is being finalized and will be provided to the Committee
when completed.
Question. How many communities are at high risk and require fuels
reduction projects?
Answer. There are a total of about 22,000 communities listed--9,000
in the ``vicinity'' of public lands and 13,000 other communities in
harm's way. Most will require some level of land treatment or fire
prevention efforts.
Question. How long will it take to do fuels treatments in areas at
highest risk at current budget levels?
Answer. Currently, the exact delineation of fuels projects needed
is being finalized and determination on fuel treatments needed will be
made at that time.
Question. Does the Forest Service need any additional statutory
authority to increase the number of fuels reductions projects in the
urban wildland interface?
Answer. No. The Agency is currently reviewing whether additional
legislation is needed.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
Question. In the fiscal year 2001 Interior bill Congress expanded
the Forest Service's authority to enter into stewardship contracts.
These contracts allow the Agency to exchange forest products for forest
health work to be performed by private contractors. What role could
these contracts have in reducing fuel loads, particularly around urban-
wildland interface communities?
Answer. Many of the projects being implemented under the Forest
Service's current stewardship pilot authorities, both Section 338 and
Section 347, are being used to address fuels related issues and, in
some instances, in wildland-urban interface areas. Two of the
procedures being tested in connection with the pilots, the exchange of
goods for services and the retention of receipts, effectively increase
the total number of acres that can be treated within a project as
compared to either by Forest Service crews or standard contracting
methods.
Question. Should the authority to enter into stewardship contracts
be expanded?
Answer. The Forest Service supports aspects of stewardship
contracting authority, which may provide flexibility in accomplishing
resource management activities to improve forest health and reduce fire
risks while providing jobs and products for people. Adding additional
projects under the pilot authority granted in Section 347 of Title III
of Section 101(e) of Division A of Public Law 105-277 poses some
complications. Section 347 requires all project contracts to be awarded
before September 30, 2002. This does not leave sufficient time to
initiate, design and complete NEPA for additional pilots. In addition,
the benefit of conducting more projects to test the new authorities
adds little to the information being derived from the current projects.
The Agency will continue to monitor, evaluate, and report on the
implementation of the existing 56 pilot projects. The results of the
monitoring will provide the basis for making adjustments to the new
authorities or requesting additional authorities. The Pinchot Institute
of Conservation is under contract to carry out monitoring and
evaluation of the existing pilots in collaboration with a variety of
interest groups.
LONG-TERM FIRE STRATEGY
Question. The fiscal year 2001 Interior bill required the Forest
Service and the Department of the Interior to work with the governors
on drafting a long term strategy for wildland fire management and
hazardous fuels reduction. What is the current status of this strategy?
Answer. The long-term strategy entitled, ``A Collaborative Approach
for Reducing Wildfire Risks to Communities and Fire-Prone Ecosystems,''
is in the process of being finalized by the agencies involved.
Question. When will it be finalized?
Answer. The goal is to have the strategy approved by the summer of
2001.
Question. Has there been general agreement among the stakeholders
on what needs to be done?
Answer. Yes. The following are the nine goals that have been
discussed:
--Increase public and firefighter safety;
--Reduce the risk and consequence of catastrophic wildfire;
--Improve conditions of fire-prone ecosystems (e.g., through the
reduction of hazardous fuels) to make them more resilient;
--Coordinate fire prevention messages to targeted audiences at the
local, state and federal level;
--Promote local action by increasing public awareness and providing
tools to enhance local responsibility;
--Maintain and enhance community health and economic well-being;
--Increase resource protection capabilities;
--Provide for the restoration and rehabilitation of fire-damaged
lands; and,
--Enhance collaboration and coordination among all levels of
government, tribes, private landowners, and other stakeholders
for joint planning, decision-making, implementation, monitoring
and learning.
SALVAGE
Question. There are a lot of dead trees on the landscape that could
be salvaged and used to supply local mills, but if these trees are not
removed soon they can degrade so much that they lose their commercial
value. In Montana, the state has had very good success in conducting
salvage sales on state lands but the Forest Service has not done much
at all. What progress is the Forest Service making on conducting
salvage sales in areas that were burned last summer?
Answer. To date, the Forest Service has offered nine timber sales
in areas burned in 2000, with a total offer volume of 39.9 MMBF. In
2001, the Agency plans to offer a total of between 124 to 139.5 MMBF in
28 sales.
Question. Why is it taking so long for the Forest Service to
conduct salvage sales?
Answer. There are certain minimum timeframes associated with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), and the Forest Service's administrative appeal process (a
process mandated by the Appeal Reform Act). These requirements are well
defined and have been refined by court decisions. Salvage sales may be
administratively appealed, and these same sales may be challenged in
court if an appeal is not successful.
Environmental analysis to meet legal requirements of NEPA, ESA, the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA),
and other laws can typically take three to six months to complete. In
order to make informed decisions, field surveys must be completed,
mitigation measures developed and analyzed, and public scoping of
issues completed. All of these actions take time, but the result is a
legally defensible and scientifically credible resource decision.
Additionally, environmental analyses often include consultation
procedures with the Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS) and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and must be integrated to properly
evaluate environmental effects. This process sometimes involves
extended time periods because of limited resources of F&WS and NMFS.
Further surveys needed for both plants and animals are often time
sensitive and require a specific time of year to produce an adequate
survey.
Question. What, if anything, can the Agency do to expedite this
process?
Answer. The Forest Service has some limited opportunities to
expedite this process. Streamlining and additional efficiencies are
possible with the NEPA process that could facilitate improved
performance, including allowing categorical exclusions for certain
public safety, forest health, and vegetative treatments, more
standardization in analysis documentation, and increasing contracting
with outside sources.
Question. The Forest Service budget indicates that you will only
offer an additional 150 million board feet above last year's salvage
levels. Shouldn't there be a much larger increase given last year's
fires?
Answer. The increase is consistent with our ability to offer
salvage sales in fiscal year 2001. Some additional sales may be sold in
fiscal year 2002, provided the wood has not been significantly affected
by insects and rot.
Question. In the previous Administration the Forest Service did not
request expedited NEPA procedures for the purpose of salvage logging in
burned areas. Is this a decision that should be reconsidered?
Answer. The current Agency planning and environmental analysis
procedures enable thorough and quality decision-making. When and where
we need expedited procedures, the NEPA and Forest Service policy allow
for such exceptions. We have used such procedures in the past and will
use these procedures in the future where appropriate.
TIMBER PROGRAM
Question. This year's budget request for timber is $6 million more
than last year but only proposes to offer 2.1 billion board feet. This
is more than 1 billion board feet below what the Agency said it could
offer in its budget request from last year. A comparison of your budget
submission from last year to this year's request shows that your unit
cost per thousand board feet has gone from $120 per thousand to $180
per thousand.
Answer. No answer required.
Question. What explains this large increase?
Answer. Appeals and litigation on timber sales have consistently
delayed our ability to achieve our planned offer of timber sales. In
many cases, litigation has resulted in further delay as sales are
reworked to incorporate new standards and direction. In some cases
timber sales have had to be withdrawn or reworked such that the planned
timber sale volume cannot be accomplished. All of this work has
contributed to additional costs with no increase in offer volume.
Question. Does this explain why the Agency has been missing the
congressionally directed timber offer level of 3.6 billion board feet
by almost one-half for the past few years?
Answer. Yes, in part the reasons contributing to increased costs
provide some explanation. Higher priority work, such as responding to
last summer's wildfires and implementing the National Fire Plan, use
the same field personnel as those involved in the timber program, and
the Agency does not have the flexibility to complete all of this work.
Finally, the Agency no longer can effectively maintain a timber sale
pipeline to be used to replace those sales that are delayed.
Question. What specific things can the Agency do to improve
performance in the timber program?
Answer. The Agency needs to provide a more realistic estimate of
costs and capability to offer sales. The program estimate should allow
for commonplace rework required due to appeals and litigation and
sufficient field personnel to rebuild essential skills that have been
lost. Streamlining and additional efficiencies are possible with the
NEPA process that could facilitate improved performance, including
allowing categorical exclusions for certain public safety, forest
health, and vegetative treatments, more standardization in analysis
documentation, and increasing contracting with outside sources.
Question. Will the Agency have any more success in meeting the
lower proposed offer level, or will the Agency miss this target by 50
percent as it has in the last few years?
Answer. The timber sale offer volumes planned in each of the past
four years could only have been accomplished had there been no serious
problems experienced during those years. However, appeals and
litigation on timber sales have consistently delayed our ability to
achieve our planned offer of timber sales. All of these difficulties
will continue to contribute to shortfalls in achieving the planned
timber sale offer volume. However, for fiscal year 2002, we have
attempted to determine and provide more realistic timber offer numbers
that reflect the uncertainties the timber sales program continues to
face.
EFFECTS OF FIRE ON OTHER PROGRAMS
Question. I know that many are concerned that in a bad fire year
personnel are diverted from their primary activity to work on fires.
What was the impact of last year's major fire season on the
accomplishments of the timber sales program and other Agency programs?
Should this be less of an issue for the timber program as well as other
programs since we have given the Agency additional funds for fire
personnel?
Answer. The Agency has not collected specific information about the
impacts to the timber sales and other programs resulting from the shift
in personnel to respond to last year's fires. However, last year's fire
emergency did affect the accomplishment of other work. With specific
regard to effects on the timber sales program, Regions 1 and 4 both
indicated that responding to the wildfires and/or burned area recovery
work following the fires did reduce the amount of timber sales planning
and preparation work that was planned last year, and was also a reason
for the Regions' timber sales offer shortfall.
The additional funding to implement the ``most efficient level''
fire preparedness organization will help reduce the effects of fire
response on other programs of work during a normal fire season.
However, it will take some time to accomplish that staffing level and
also achieve the level of training required so that these new hires can
replace seasoned personnel from other functions who currently perform
these duties in response to fire outbreaks. In the case of a severe
fire season, such as last year, impacts will be significant given it
will require the commitment of all of our fire resources, both new and
old.
Question. Has the Agency identified the number of positions it
needs to fill to complete work that supports firefighting, as well as
rehabilitation and restoration efforts, such as biologists, NEPA
coordinators, and the like?
Answer. The Agency has tentatively identified approximately 4,000
positions needed to complete work identified in the National Fire Plan,
including firefighting, rehabilitation and restoration work, technology
development, fire facilities reconstruction and construction,
assistance to States, and community protection and assistance.
Question. How will the Agency ensure that it does not significantly
hamper accomplishment by pulling personnel from performing their core
functions to perform National Fire Plan-related work?
Answer. At the requested fiscal year 2002 Wildland Fire Management
funding level, the Forest Service will be able to continue to ensure
its workforce is the appropriate size, and contains the appropriate
skills mix to effectively reduce hazardous fuel, undertake
rehabilitation and restoration work, provide community assistance, and
handle needed firefighting capability. Requested funding levels in
other program areas are adequate to complete planned on-the-ground
resource objectives.
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Question. One tool that the Agency has had in the past was the
Categorical Exclusion from NEPA for small timber sales. This allowed
the Forest Service to expedite the NEPA process for small sales. In the
fall of 1999, a judge in Illinois prohibited the Forest Service to
continue using the Exclusion. The last Administration promised to fix
the problem by initiating a new rule-making but this never happened.
Does this Administration plan to do a rule-making so that this
Categorical Exclusion can be used again?
Answer. The Forest Service is collecting information on the scope
and environmental effects associated with small timber sales, fuel
reductions, and forest health. After this information is compiled, the
Agency will determine if a need exists for a categorical exclusion for
small timber sales. If a Categorical Exclusion is needed, the Agency
will begin a public process to amend our NEPA procedures. The Agency
currently has other categorical exclusions that are used for thinning,
hazard tree removal and other forest vegetation improvements.
Question. How long will it take to go through the rule-making
process?
Answer. A rule-making process takes about 18 months. The process of
amending our NEPA procedures could take as long as a year. We are still
evaluating the processes that re needed.
FIRE--TRAINING AND HIRING OF LOCALS
Question. SPF SASI-32. Last summer in Montana, a lot of local
people wanted to help on the fires but they didn't have the required
training and certification. Many of these people also had equipment but
it was not certified by the federal agencies for use on fires. Has the
Agency done anything to address the issue of training people in local
communities to work on fires?
Answer. Workforce training programs instituted in fiscal year 2001
will enable local residents to develop more competitive skills specific
to the projected work and government contracting processes.
Question. Are funds appropriated for the National Fire Plan being
used to address the problem?
Answer. Yes, for example on the Bitterroot National Forest the
Agency plans to expend about $6,000 in fiscal year 2001 to provide
local training opportunities.
Question. Can the Committee be assured that similar problems will
not occur this fire season?
Answer. In an effort to prevent similar problems from occurring
this fire season, the Forest Service has implemented partnerships to
facilitate local workforce hiring. Partners include U.S. Department of
Labor, State Job Services, AFL-CIO, Local Resource Conservation and
Development Organizations, and other sister agencies such as the Bureau
of Land Management.
WASHINGTON OFFICE INITIATIVES
Question. Agency personnel and the public are frustrated with the
lack of money that makes it to the field for on-the-ground work. In
recent years, it seems that the Washington Office headquarters has
grown and takes more and more money ``off the top'' for overhead or
dubious ``national initiatives.'' What is your opinion about what
appears to be excessive ``off the top'' charges?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, as a result of mid-year review,
Washington Office (WO) funding--off the top--was reduced to $350
million. This amount includes funding not only for the WO, but includes
resources to support for detached units such as the National
Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) and funding for nationwide costs paid
centrally which support such things as costs for the National Finance
Center, financial management systems, telecommunications. In addition
this amount includes resources for priority projects where funding is
shown as ``off the top'' but goes out to the field as a specific
earmark. The Agency is committed to sustaining this reduced level,
absorbing all uncontrollable costs in fiscal year 2001 and aggressively
moving towards reducing this level in fiscal year 2002. In order to
establish the level of funding for the WO for fiscal year 2002 and
reduce the number of off-the-top projects, we are in the process of
evaluating projects by a team of WO and field personnel. We expect this
process to be completed and finalized by mid-June.
Question. What can the Agency do to become more efficient and get
more money to the field for projects?
Answer. The Agency has begun an intensive review of ``off the top''
funding with the objective of maximizing funds to the ground. We are
currently in the final stages of this review. While every effort is
being made to keep the headquarters office lean, it is also clear that
new ways of doing business must be found for many ``off the top''
activities which support field operations. Some examples include
possible changes in how detached units are funded and managed, how
nationally significant field based projects can be accomplished without
the holding of funds in headquarters, and how transfers are managed for
departmental assessments.
Question. Do we need fewer people in the Washington Office and more
people at the Regional or Forest level?
Answer. Employees in the Washington office perform a valuable
function for the Agency. Critical jobs that support Agency
accountability, communication, and program leadership reside in the
Washington Office. It is not sufficient to simply say the Washington
Office has too many people. A thorough review of how headquarters
operations are funded is necessary. Additional reviews of the efficient
placement of people performing work in support of the field, and the
processes and systems associated with headquarters support must be
examined. We expect these evaluations will be an integral part of
Agency and departmental streamlining initiatives.
CONTROVERSIAL RULEMAKINGS
Question. In the final days of the last Administration, a number of
controversial rulemakings like the Roadless rule were promulgated. Some
of these are being litigated and the Agency may be limited in what it
can say about them. Which of the major rulemakings of the Clinton
Administration are being reviewed by the current Administration?
Answer. The Department of Agriculture is reviewing two major Rules
concerning the management of National Forest System lands that were
promulgated during the final days of the Clinton Administration: the
Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the National Forest Management Act
(NFMA) Planning Rule.
Question. What is the timeframe for decisions to be made about
whether to modify or maintain these rules in their current form?
Answer. Roadless Rule: On May 4, 2001, Agriculture Secretary Ann M.
Veneman announced that the Forest Service would implement the Roadless
Area Conservation Rule, effective May 12, 2001. The U.S. District Court
for the District of Idaho on May 10, 2001, preliminarily enjoined the
Department from implementing the Rule. However, the decision does not
preclude the Department from taking steps to address the concerns
raised about the Rule by interested parties, local communities, tribes,
and states impacted by the Rule.
Planning Rule: Many Forest Service employees, retirees, elected
officials, and representatives of external organizations interested in
National Forest System management have expressed serious concerns to
the Administration regarding the Agency's ability to implement some of
the provisions of the November 9, 2000, planning rule. A modification
extending for one year the date by which all plan amendments and
revisions must comply with the new planning rule was prepared and
published in the Federal Register on May 17, 2001. The Department has
made the decision to review certain provisions of the planning rule
carefully and identify and propose any adjustments that may be
necessary in a future rulemaking effort.
Question. What, if any, budgetary impacts might there be if these
rulemakings require modification?
Answer. The costs associated with modifying the Planning Rule will
be covered by the Agency out of funds appropriated by the Congress in
fiscal year 2001 for land management planning purposes. Funds set aside
for implementing the new Planning Rule will now be used to modify and
implement it. No reductions in field allocations will be made as a
result of this decision.
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Question. The latest report from the GAO continues to list the
Forest Service as an Agency at high risk for waste, fraud, and abuse.
When will the Forest Service be able to obtain a clean audit opinion so
that it can be removed from this list?
Answer. The GAO added the Forest Service to the high risk list in
its January 1999 report, identifying ``pervasive and long-standing''
weaknesses in the financial accountability area. The Forest Service
replied to the GAO, outlining its corrective action plans for this
area. When GAO issued the January 2001 high risk list, the same issues
were not addressed, but were replaced by two new areas: need to improve
its organizational alignment and control by linking its budget and
organizational structures as well as its budget allocation criteria,
forest plans, and performance measures to its strategic goals,
objectives, and strategies; and lacking financial accountability within
its existing field structure.
The Forest Service has prepared and is implementing corrective
action plans for each of these areas. The Forest Service anticipates
obtaining an unqualified audit opinion on a significant portion of
fiscal year 2001 financial statements, i.e., the Agency's balance
sheet. The Forest Service anticipates obtaining an unqualified audit
opinion on all of the Agency's fiscal year 2003 financial statements.
GAO requires the receipt of unqualified audit opinions for two
consecutive years before removing an Agency from the high risk list.
Therefore, the Forest Service anticipates to be removed from the high
risk list two years after receipt of an unqualified audit opinion.
Question. What are the key problems that the Agency faces in
getting a clean audit?
Answer. Based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of
Inspector General (OIG) Audit Report of Forest Service fiscal year 2000
Financial Statements, the following key problems have been identified
as hindering the Agency from obtaining an unqualified audit opinion in
fiscal year 2000:
--The Forest Service converted from the legacy Central Accounting
System to the new Foundation Financial Information System
(FFIS) during fiscal year 2000. Due to the complexity of FFIS,
Forest Service and OIG unfamiliarity with extracting data from
FFIS, and difficulties in extracting data listing all Unpaid
Obligations, Accounts Receivable, and Accounts Payable as of
yearend and data for Revenues and Expenses, there was a
substantial delay in OIG statistical sampling and field-testing
until mid-January, 2001. OIG audit fieldwork was further
hindered because the Forest Service was unable to trace many of
the sample transactions related to automated processes for
indirect cost distribution and automated processes used to
compensate for problems in interfacing other accounting systems
with FFIS.
--The OIG was unable to determine the accuracy of total fund balances
with the U.S. Treasury in the Forest Service balance sheet as
of September 30, 2000. However, the Forest Service has made a
significant improvement in this area. Last year, fiscal year
1999, the OIG reported that the fund out-of-balance condition
between Treasury records and the Forest Service general ledger
totaled about $674 million. For the fiscal year ended September
30, 2000, the absolute value of the out-of-balance amount
totaled about $180 million. The Forest Service is continuing
its reconciliation efforts in cooperation with USDA and the
OIG.
--The OIG was unable to determine the reliability of individual real
property assets that comprised $1.8 billion, i.e. 38 percent,
of the Agency's book value of General Property, Plant, and
Equipment. However, during fiscal year 2000, the Forest Service
successfully implemented a road costing methodology that
provided an auditable value of $2.57 billion for the Agency's
381,000 miles of roads. The Forest Service is aggressively
continuing corrective actions through fiscal year 2001 to
provide auditable values for real property.
--The OIG was unable to determine the reliability of the Statement of
Budgetary Resources because significant adjustments were made
to the FFIS general ledger trial balances for various Treasury
symbols to equal amounts shown in treasury records. The
Statement of Budgetary Resources was incorporated into the
Federal financial statements in 1998 and was created as an aid
in controlling the use of budget authority, consistent with
requirement of fiscal laws such as the Anti-deficiency Act.
Because the Statement of Financing is used to reconcile the
differences from accrual-based measures in the Statement of Net
Cost with the obligation-based measures used in the Statement
of Budgetary Resources, the scope limitations relating to the
Statements of Net Cost and Budgetary Resources also affected
the Statement of Financing.
Due to the extent of the limitations noted above, the OIG was not
able to express an opinion on the financial statements.
Question. This has been a problem for years. Why is it taking so
long to fix it?
Answer. Until fiscal year 2000, the Forest Service did not have an
integrated accounting system. While the Forest Service is still using
some antiquated subsidiary (``feeder'') systems, the Agency's Federal
Financial Managers Integrity Act (FFMIA) remedial action plan includes
corrective actions to enhance the performance of some of these systems
and to integrate other activities into FFIS. Major efforts have been
focused on improving system availability, data credibility and system
reports, eliminating ``feeder'' systems, aligning financial management
processes, and linking financial and program data.
FIRE DEFICIENCY
Question. The Forest Service fiscal system had a major backlog at
the end of the fiscal year which resulted in a large number of fire-
related transactions being posted on the last day of the fiscal year,
and before additional funds could be advanced to cover these expenses.
This resulted in the Forest Service being in technical violation of the
Anti Deficiency Act. What exactly occurred?
Answer. The Washington Office staff closely monitored obligations
the closing weeks of the fiscal year. At the end of the day on Friday,
September 29th, it appeared that the approved apportionment of an
additional $76 million from KV would provide sufficient resources to
close the books for the fiscal year in a state of solvency. The
Wildland Fire Management appropriation had $1.3 billion available for
Wildland Fire Management activities. At the end of September, with fire
suppression obligations around $800 million and total obligations of
just over $1.2 billion, it appeared that sufficient funds were
available.
However, additional transactions input on the evening of September
29th, weekend processing of payroll and upload from feeder systems, as
well as missed obligations reported as part of the year end close
process revealed that total obligations for fire suppression activities
topped $1 billion, and total appropriation spending was close to $1.5
billion.
Over $200 million was obligated the last day of the year, which
prompted an in-depth review. In addition to only 50 percent system
availability the month of September, and a slow system due to a severe
overload of activity from the worst ever fire season, this review
revealed:
--Obligations for payments to states should have been entered
earlier.
--Timely estimates were not received from state firefighting
organizations.
--Many of the large contracts for catering and aircraft were not
obligated until the last few days of the year.
--Many obligations had to be entered the first few days of the new
year against the prior year because the system was not
operating smoothly.
Question. What steps are being taken to prevent this from happening
again?
Answer. As a first step, the Forest Service conducted an in-depth
review which identified a number of improvements to prevent a future
anti-deficiency. In working with the USDA Project Office, the Forest
Service has taken many steps to reduce the time needed to run the
nightly cycle, which has resulted in a stable system and full
availability during the day.
A team was formed to look at both improved methods of payment and
more timely obligations. Direction will be issued to the field units in
early June with alternative payment methods to be implemented when
overloads occur at any location. This will overcome many of the delays
that took place last year. Additional detailed direction will be issued
regarding obligations, ensuring that all obligations will be entered
into FFIS on a more current basis. The Washington Office will have a
better understanding of obligations being incurred throughout the year,
and increased emphasis placed on compliance with due dates the last
month of the fiscal year. Special emphasis is being placed on the big
ticket items, such as contracts and the agreements with the states.
Question. Why is the Forest Service still having such a difficult
time getting its fiscal and accounting systems in order?
Answer. The implementation of FFIS has been a challenge for the
Forest Service. However, the vast majority of problems recently being
experienced are related to the old feeder systems still in use. These
feeder systems were built 20 or more years ago to facilitate the
processing of payments and intra-governmental transactions. Many of
these old technologies still require intensive manual input and the
interfaces to submit the transactions from these feeder systems to FFIS
are complex. The manual input is prone to human error. These interfaces
need to connect the old technologies to the more modern technology of
FFIS. Often the old technologies were designed to work in ways that are
not compatible with FFIS processing and, likewise, FFIS works in ways
not compatible with the feeder system processing. Minor, seemingly
inconsequential, mistakes can lead to significant problems in payment
and billing processing. Edits needed to successfully process
transactions in FFIS are too complex to be incorporated in the feeder
systems or the interfaces with the feeder systems. This means
transactions can still fail to be recorded in FFIS even though they are
successfully recorded in the feeder system, thus delaying payment until
the problem in FFIS is corrected.
The feeder system processes are often transparent to the user.
Users often consider FFIS as the problem when, in fact, a feeder system
has created the problem. It's also common for any payment-related
problems to be characterized as ``FFIS problems'' because payments are
closely associated with the accounting system. The new financial
environment of tighter controls and more stringent standards coincided
with the implementation of FFIS. The resultant policies from this
stricter environment were not always readily acceptable by all users or
otherwise created more work for them. Displeasure from this stricter
environment was often blamed on FFIS since FFIS is the new accounting
system.
The complexity of FFIS has also created training issues. Some
processes are, unfortunately, necessarily complex and any error in the
process of establishing or recording a transaction will cause the
transaction to fail. Often these processes are performed only on an
occasional basis, so user familiarity with the process is diminished
making errors more likely to occur.
The Forest Service has initiated a new training program to
explicitly address the training issues. New training courses are being
developed with a focus not just on how FFIS works, but also on how to
specifically perform Forest Service business processes using FFIS.
The USDA Associate Chief Financial Officer (ACFO) for Financial
Systems is working cooperatively with the Forest Service to resolve the
feeder system issues. Processes and solutions to existing problems have
been and continue to be pursued. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
was established to allow the Forest Service, the National Finance
Center (NFC), and the ACFO to work cooperatively and provide a formal
tool to address issues and operations. Summit Teams with members from
the Forest Service, the NFC, and ACFO office were created in October
2000 to specifically address and resolve the significant issues. Many
of the issues addressed by the Summit Teams have been resolved and the
teams continue to work on remaining issues. An issue tracking system
was established to record issues and monitor progress on the resolution
of issues. The ACFO conducted a formal study to specifically address
the feeder systems with recommendations on replacement, integration, or
enhancement of them.
The Forest Service created a special team tasked to resolve data
quality issues that resulted from the problems experienced from feeder
systems and implementation. This team is called the Financial
Accountability and Stabilization Team (FAST). FAST has already resolved
most of the original issues it was chartered to fix and it continues to
evolve to address additional issues as they arise.
The Forest Service conducted a Post Implementation Assessment (PIA)
of the FFIS implementation. The PIA identified both the strengths and
weaknesses of the implementation effort. The PIA provided the Forest
Service with a roadmap to improve upon the FFIS implementation to help
assure success with continued FFIS operations.
While problems and issues are still present, significant progress
has been made towards resolving them. To fully resolve all the problems
with the feeder systems will take several years as resolution may
require the complete replacement of most feeders. However, short-term
solutions to problems will continue to be sought and implemented.
TIMBER QUESTIONS
Question. The Chief has stated recently that one factor limiting
the Forest Service's capability to offer timber is attrition of
employees with special skills in timber sales preparation and
administration. What steps is the Agency taking to address its need for
employees with special skills in timber sale preparation and
administration?
Answer. The Agency is making a concerted effort to identify key
skill deficiencies and fill vacant positions, as needed.
Question. The Chief has also commented that the timber pipeline has
been virturally eliminated. Would additional funds for the Forest
Service timber program to add pipeline volume help address this
problem, or is this the amount requested the total amount the Agency
could expend in fiscal year 2002?
Answer. Additional funding could be dedicated to preparing pipeline
volume in advance that could hopefully be offered two to four years
later, however only if the current issues surrounding the timber sale
program can be resolved would we be successful in increasing the timber
sale program. This is because the nature of the issues is such that
they not only affect the sales offered and under contract, but also the
sales in the pipeline. We cannot guarantee that additional sale
pipeline work could be offered as planned if future issues about the
timber sale program continue to be raised.
Question. What specific actions could Congress take that would help
the Agency increase timber pipeline?
Answer. The Administration is evaluating its administrative
authorities, which is an appropriate first step to take.
Question. What administrative actions can the Agency take that help
increase timber pipeline?
Answer. We can allocate sufficient resources within our budget
request to increasing the timber sale pipeline by maintaining a cadre
of dedicated field personnel. However, as we stated in answer above,
unless the nature of the issues surrounding the timber sale program
change, these issues are likely to affect the timber pipeline as well,
resulting in no appreciable increase in timber sale offer in future
years.
Question. Currently, there is litigation in the South, the Pacific
Northwest, and Alaska that has caused enormous problems for the timber
program in those areas? What is the status of litigation in these
areas?
Answer. It is correct that litigation has caused an enormous impact
on the programs of almost every Region. This impact has resulted in
longer timelines and increased cost to the program, in addition to the
delays or cancellation of proposed sales. None of the cases noted above
are on a timeframe to suggest an early resolution partly because there
has been a history of appeals after decisions have been made.
Generally, it will take 2-3 years to resolve a case. Afterwards, most
of the projects involved need to go through an evaluation of new
information and changed circumstances that can lead to reinitiation of
the NEPA process. This can add considerable time to get a project under
contract.
Question. What amount of volume is currently being held up because
of litigation in these areas?
Answer. The best estimate we can provide at this time is that 40-50
percent of these regions' programs is being held up by the present
litigation. We do not have a specific figure because we do not track
litigation delays separately.
Question. When does the Agency expect that the most significant
lawsuits in these areas can be resolved?
Answer. There is no way to definitively say when these lawsuits
will be resolved. Although there are ongoing settlement discussions in
the South, we have found that additional lawsuits by other parties
continue the delay. And, as noted, there are often additional appeals
to the decision and/or motions to amend complaints that make this an
impossible process to predict.
Question. The Committee is concerned about reports that the Salvage
sale fund is seriously depleted due to rising preparation costs and
litigation. What is the current amount in the Fund?
Answer. At the start of fiscal year 2001, the regions reported
total funds available of over $129 million.
Question. Is this sufficient to conduct all proposed salvage sales
for fiscal year 2002?
Answer. As a permanent appropriated fund, our policy requires that
each unit manage its respective Salvage Sale Fund (SSF) and plan its
salvage sale program to ensure SSF is available to meet the timely
salvage of insect-infested, dead, damaged, or downed timber, and
associated trees for stand improvement. National direction expects each
unit to maintain its salvage sale fund at one and one-half times its
three-year average salvage sale program needs. The $129 million
available to start the fiscal year 2001 program is at least $45 million
less than this level. Since the preparation and submission of the
President's fiscal year 2002 Budget, it has become apparent that the
balance within some regions' salvage sale accounts will not be
sufficient to conduct all proposed salvage sales in fiscal year 2002,
without deleting reserves. This is due to low values for the salvage
being sold, and therefore low collections into the salvage sale fund.
Additionally, large-scale, catastrophic events similar to those that
occurred last year could quickly exhaust the available SSF.
Question. If not, how much additional funding is needed?
Answer. The Regions have the opportunity to use appropriated funds
to carry out their salvage sale program if they do not have adequate
funds in their salvage sale account. The use of appropriated funds in
this manner may affect the total amount of timber offered by the Agency
because appropriated funds are limited. We continue to work with the
field units to ensure that they are maximizing the opportunity for
placing collections into the salvage sale fund.
PLANNING
Question. The Agency anticipates that 18 forest plans will be
completed, 9 forest plan revisions will be initiated, and 16 forest
plan revisions will continue during fiscal year 2002. Is it possible to
take these actions on forest plans given the Acting Deputy Under
Secretary's report to the Forest Service concerning problems with the
recently issued planning rules? How will the Agency's review of the
planning rule affect the budget request for fiscal year 2002 Land
Management Planning funds?
Answer. Work on all on-going Forest Plan revision efforts,
including those initiated this year, will continue even though the 2000
Planning Rule will be reviewed and possibly adjusted. The Agency
prepared and published a modification extending the transition language
in the 2000 Planning Rule that allows these revision efforts to be
completed either under the 1982 Rule or the 2000 Rule. The Agency
expects most of these efforts will continue and be completed under the
1982 Rule.
Question. How will the Agency's review of the planning rule affect
the fiscal year 2002 budget request for Inventory and Monitoring funds?
Answer. The Agency's review of the of the 2000 Planning Rule will
not affect the fiscal year 2002 budget request for Inventory and
Monitoring funds. The workload and accomplishment during the year may
shift somewhat to reflect a greater emphasis on conducting inventories,
watershed assessments and monitoring instead of the up-front broadscale
assessment work required under the new Rule.
Question. How would the Agency's unit costs for planning and
inventory and monitoring be affected if the new planning rules were
fully implemented in the planning process for fiscal year 2001 and
fiscal year 2002?
Answer. The 2000 Planning Rule has some new and different
requirements regarding collaboration, the integration of science into
planning, and conducting assessments and analyses related to
sustainability and species viability. A Forest Service review team
recently concluded that problems identified as a result of these
changed requirements raise questions as to the Agency's ability to
implement the final Rule. Implementing these requirements could
increase the unit cost for conducting a Plan revision. However, the new
Rule also provides more flexibility for Agency line officers in
determining how many of these and other requirements are implemented in
any given revision effort. As a result, the cost of conducting a Forest
Plan revision could vary significantly and may be less than under the
1982 rule. The Agency is currently reviewing the new Rule to determine
if any adjustments are needed and will also be developing guidance for
implementing the Rule. Until this implementation guidance is developed,
the effect of the new Rule on the cost of conducting Plan revisions
will not be possible to estimate; however, it is our intent to reduce
costs wherever possible.
Question. What, if anything, is the Agency doing to reduce unit
costs for forest planning activities?
Answer. The Agency is trying to ensure that Plan revisions are
conducted in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Unit
costs are being reduced by combining specific revision activities
within and among Forests. In some cases, Administrative Units with
multiple Plans are conducting simultaneous revision efforts or
combining the revision of two Plans into a single Plan. Similarly, the
Agency is scheduling joint revision efforts on adjacent Forests with
similar issues and land conditions to increase efficiency and be more
responsive to local publics. The Agency is also trying to ensure that
Forest Supervisors have as much flexibility as possible in determining
the scope of individual revision efforts and don't have to conduct
unnecessary analyses or go through other irrelevant planning steps.
SURVEY/MANAGE
Question. Due to a provision in the Northwest 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. What is the
current status of the Agency's efforts to address this problem?
Answer. A Northwest Forest Plan amendment, known as the Survey &
Manage Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines (ROD), was
signed by the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture in January
2001. With implementation of this ROD in February 2001, the problem
described above was fully addressed and resolved. As a result of this
ROD, timber sales are no longer enjoined, as the injunction, as well as
a consequent court settlement, has ended.
In this ROD, species (such as some fungi and mollusks) that were
too difficult and inappropriate (i.e., not practical) to survey prior
to projects such as timber sales, require broader and more suitable
survey efforts called strategic surveys. Thus, only those species that
can be adequately located and identified in a reasonable timeframe
(i.e. practical, pre-disturbance surveys) are surveyed prior to timber
sale plan completion. Throughout Washington, Oregon and California, 67
species are currently considered practical to survey prior to timber
sale plan completion.
Additionally, in this ROD, some species were removed from the
Survey & Manage lists.
Question. What level of timber will the Agency offer in fiscal year
2001 and fiscal year 2002 in areas covered by the Northwest Forest
Plan?
Answer. The Agency can offer up to 421,000 CCF (Hundred Cubic Feet)
equivalent to about 211,000 MBF (Thousand Board Feet) in fiscal year
2001, and 310,000 CCF (about 158 MBF) in fiscal year 2002. If the
current lawsuits affecting the Northwest Forest Plan Forests can be
resolved before year-end, substantially more volume could be offered.
These numbers include regular program, salvage, and anticipated fiscal
year 2000 carryover sales.
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 2001 and in fiscal year 2002?
Answer. To meet survey requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan,
the funds received and distributed to Regions 5 & 6 for the fiscal year
2001 Survey & Manage species surveys within planned timber sale areas
was $10 million ($3 million to R5 and $7 million to R6). These surveys
are called pre-disturbance surveys. These timber sale survey funds were
divided into several parts: pre-disturbance surveys (required before
sales can be awarded) and re-work on awarded, enjoined sales; pre-
disturbance surveys and rework for replacement volume sales; pre-
disturbance surveys of timber sales not awarded, but delayed; and
surveys of new timber sales.
To meet survey requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan in fiscal
year 2002, we project up to a 20 percent reduction from the fiscal year
2001 funding level to implement pre-disturbance surveys on timber
sales. Besides meeting fiscal year 2002 timber sale work, the Agency
would conduct initial surveys for future timber sales.
Another type of survey effort, called a strategic survey, is used
for all species, and especially for species that are not practical to
survey for. In fiscal year 2001, $10 million was received and
distributed in Regions 5 and 6 for strategic surveys. Several
activities are funded in the strategic survey efforts including:
information/data management; management recommendations that provide
guidelines for species site management; strategic surveys (e.g.,
habitat modeling, random plot surveys, known site re-visits); and
survey protocol development. For fiscal year 2002, $9.5 million is
needed to meet strategic survey needs of the Northwest Forest Plan.
Question. What line items will be assessed to pay for these costs?
Answer. Pre-disturbance surveys within planned timber sale areas
are funded by the Forest Products budget line item. Strategic surveys
were funded out of the Inventory and Monitoring budget line item in
fiscal year 2001.
interior columbia basin ecosytem management project (icbemp)
Question. After years of work, a final Record of Decision has not
been issued with respect to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project. When does the Forest Service and BLM anticipate
issuing a final ROD? What obstacles remain before this ROD can be
finalized?
Answer. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Proposed
Record of Decision (ROD) were released on December 15, 2000. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Regional Executives asked
their staffs to develop options to address how to proceed with ICBEMP.
An initial set of options was identified. Additional staff work is
being done on a subset of these options that will include the
identification of any major implementation obstacles. The Regional
Executives will forward one or two recommended options on how to
proceed to the Chief and Acting BLM Director, most likely in July 2001.
These recommendations will then be discussed with the Secretaries of
Agriculture and Interior. If the decision is made to finalize a ROD,
the Agency will develop an implementation plan that will address any
identified obstacles.
Question. What options are agencies considering for implementation?
(All the ones stated in the EIS, or potentially other ones that would
require additional NEPA documentation.)
Answer. As the agencies implement the ICBEMP (with or without a
ROD), they currently plan to do so in general conformance with one of,
or a combination of, the options identified in the EIS.
RESEARCH
Question. 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 United States. This information is very important
to industry and state foresters, among others. What is the cost to
perform inventories on an annualized basis?
Answer. We estimate that it will cost $6.5 million in 2003, the
anticipated first year of full implementation, to deliver a basic level
of FIA service to all customers.
Question. Given the importance of the program, why hasn't research
increased funding for it for fiscal year 2002?
Answer. The President's Budget is prioritized and balanced to focus
resources on the programs and outcomes that are most vital to achieving
the objectives and goals of the Agency. The fiscal year 2002 funding
level for FIA reflects the Agency's capability to complete priority
work activities within the framework of the total Research budget.
Question. Last year, 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. What
amount of funding is stated in the MOU for fiscal year 2002?
Answer. $56,700,000 was the funding level specified in the MOU.
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. The Agency is currently reviewing the applicability of the
non-binding MOU and alternatives to achieving the level of funding
suggested.
Question. Will the Agency submit this ``redirection'' for a
reprogramming?
Answer. The Forest Service will comply with the applicable laws and
guidelines regarding reprogramming.
Question. If money is redirected within research, from what program
areas would it come?
Answer. If the redirection involves reprogramming of appropriated
funds across appropriation ``mainheads'', then the Agency will submit
this request. However, all three Forest Service resource Deputy Areas--
Research, State and Private Forestry, and National Forest Systems--have
existing Congressional authorizations to spend appropriated funds on
forest inventory and monitoring as a normal part of their work.
Question. Currently funds are appropriated for FIA in the Research,
State and Private Forestry, and National Forest System appropriations.
What, if any difficulties, does this cause in administering the
program?
Answer. Dispersion of funding results in two challenges. Because
FIA is jointly administered by six Regional Research units, there is a
need to negotiate and transfer the four different sources of funding to
their management destinations in the FIA units in Research stations.
Secondly, cost-sharing of S&PF funds in future years will be a
challenge. Western states may be less-willing to cost-share an
inventory program that takes place primarily on federal lands and does
not qualify for cost-share matches.
Question. What has been the position of program stakeholders like
the state foresters and industry with respect to the current funding
mix?
Answer. Most program stakeholders are not aware of or exposed to
the challenges caused by the funding mix; as long as the program is
delivered, they are satisfied. The National Association of State
Foresters (NASF) is aware of the issue due to its unique role as
program partner as well as customer.
Question. For example, would it be more useful to have more money
in S&PF versus Research or vice versa?
Answer. There are some difficulties that arise, however the Forest
Service is reviewing methods for better coordination among the staffs
and possible consolidation of resources in one line item.
Question. The Forest Service is proposing in the fiscal year 2002
budget to reduce funding for the Joint Fire Science Program from $8
million to $4 million. The Department of the Interior has maintained
the funding at $8 million. Why has the Forest Service proposed reducing
this program, particularly given the severe fire risk in our nation's
forests?
Answer. Based on competing priorities for Wildland Fire Management
and other program funds to implement the range of wildland fire
preparedness, fire operations, and other critical activities in fiscal
year 2002, the $4 million level is the amount available for the Joint
Fire Sciences Program in fiscal year 2002.
Question. What, if any, problems will be caused by the proposed
discrepancy in funding between DOI and the Forest Service?
Answer. The Joint Fire Sciences Program (JFSI) was designed to
operate with equal contributions from each of the two departments.
Unequal representation could be an impetus for having to change the
representation on the Governing Board and in the newly established
Stakeholder Advisory Group.
MISCELLANIOUS
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. The Forest Service is currently tracking the vast majority
of its real property assets within the Agency's Infrastructure (INFRA)
asset management system. Within INFRA modules, the Forest Service is
tracking buildings, dams, roads and road bridges, trails,
administrative sites, campgrounds and other Recreation developed sites,
and other assets that are used as part of the management of the Agency.
However, INFRA modules for assets used for fish and wildlife habitat,
geology and minerals, and parts of the Agency's watershed programs have
not yet been developed. Because there are fewer of these assets and
they generally have a lower value, the development of other asset
modules took precedence. The mining site module is currently under
development and Forest Service will develop modules for the remaining
assets in the future.
Question. Has agreement been worked out with the Inspector General
regarding threshold values that Question trigger requirement to
inventory, and sample size for roads?
Answer. The Forest Service and USDA regulations require an
inventory of all real property assets every two years, regardless of
value. The current capitalization threshold for all USDA agencies is
$5,000. The Forest Service and the OIG have discussed threshold values
which would in turn trigger an inventory or the development of a
sampling methodology for inventorying all real property. The USDA
Office of the Chief Financial Officer is in the process of
recommending/negotiating a Departmental policy which would increase the
current capitalization threshold. While the amount of the new
capitalization threshold is unknown at this time, it is anticipated to
be agreed upon by July 31, 2001.
Question. How is the effort to interface the INFRA database with
the Agency's new FFIS accounting software progressing? Have any
compatibility problems arisen? If so, what is the Agency doing to
resolve these problems?
Answer. The Forest Service is aggressively pursuing efforts to
interface the INFRA database with FFIS. Toward this end, the Agency
routinely incorporates necessary attributes within the development of
INFRA modules to assure compatibility between INFRA and FFIS.
Question. Last year, a major budget restructuring was approved by
the Committee. Has this reduced the number of accounting transactions
that were overloading the accounting system? If so, how much have they
been reduced.
Answer. FFIS is a financial management system that is in compliance
with the implementation of the U.S. Government standard general ledger
(SGL) at the transaction level. Implementation of the SGL at the
transaction level assures that the reporting and accounting comes from
the accounts and the journal entries. The impacts of the budget
restructuring did not result in a reduction of full time equivalents
(FTE's), closing campgrounds or offices, or reducing the number of
contracts and/or agreements that the Forest Service has with
cooperators, government agencies, or commercial vendors for the
delivery of goods and/or services. Thus, a reduction was not realized,
and there was no significant impact on the number of initial
transactions processed from the various feeder systems, such as,
purchase orders, payment of telephone and utilities, or payroll.
However, the budget restructuring significantly improved the overall
time required to execute offline processing jobs supporting FFIS.
The monthly cycle, as the name suggests, occurs once a month. The
purpose of the monthly cycle is to close that month (accounting period)
for internal and external reporting purposes. The Forest Service runs a
series of jobs during the monthly cycle to support the payment and
billings processes, as well as perform general ledger updates. Cost
allocation, which is a major part of the monthly cycle, is the process
of distributing costs or revenues from a pool to one or more bases. For
the Forest Service, this equates to distributing from a pool budget
line item to prospective budget line items. This process distributes
actual indirect costs associated with providing services that are not
directly identifiable with a specific accounting entity.
The budget restructuring process, along with a few other changes,
significantly enhanced the efficiency of the job processing time. From
October through March of fiscal year 2000 compared to fiscal year 2001,
we have reduced the number of general journal records produced as a
result of the cost allocation process from 152,264,388 to 99,488,178,
which is a reduction of 52,776,210 records. Reducing the number of
journal records also improved the efficiency and processing time of
other jobs that run in the monthly cycle, such as, maintenance
(performing backups of tables and journals), and the process to copy
and store records in the Financial Data Warehouse. Also, by default the
number of records stored in the Financial Data Warehouse has been
reduced. With improved performance in the monthly cycle FFIS is
available to the users two days earlier (i.e. currently down only one
day at the end of the month as opposed to three days in fiscal year
2000).
Question. Have any unanticipated problems occurred because of
budget restructuring?
Answer. The Agency is very satisfied with the new budget structure.
There is some concern that on a stand-alone basis the information
collected through accounting and formulation operations using only this
structure may not be sufficient. The Agency has developed over 50
activity/output measures that tier directly to the new budget
structure. Incorporation of these measures into the full cycle of
formulation, presentation, and accounting will assure a greater quality
of information is provided in support of this new structure. Such
integration will be fully implemented in fiscal year 2003.
Question. In accordance with recommendations from the National
Academy of Public Administration, the Agency has plans to adopt a
field-based budget formulation system. When does the Agency plan to
have this budget system implemented?
Answer. The budget system is being implemented to support
formulation of the fiscal year 2003 budget request. Field units
including the National Forests, Regions, Research Stations, and
Northeastern Area used this new system to develop field-based requests
for fiscal year 2003.
Question. What will the cost be for this system?
Answer. The software costs were about $1.2 million. An additional
$650,000 was spent for contractors to help reengineer the budget
process, develop a change-management plan, and develop training for the
field on how to use the new system.
Question. What has the Agency done to ensure that the system is
easy to operate and meets the needs of end-users?
Answer. The Forest Service purchased an off-the-shelf system with a
reputation of being easy to use. Furthermore, end users participated in
the development phase and offered many suggestions for improving the
system. The Forest Service also plans on conducting a post-
implementation review to concentrate on ways to streamline the process
and improve the system for fiscal year 2004. This review will rely
heavily on input from the field to make the system more user friendly
and effective for the fiscal year 2004 process.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
SIERRA NEVADA FRAMEWORK
Question. Chief, I have a question about a large planning effort
that the Agency is working on called the Sierra Nevada Framework. I
understand that this planning effort is focused primarily on the
habitat needs of the California spotted owl. The reason that I ask this
question is that I have close friends who operate a boys' camp in a
forest that will be affected by this plan. We are very concerned that
the Sierra Nevada Framework plan may put restrictions on the camp that
may force this camp for disadvantaged boys to close down. What kinds of
restrictions will this plan impose on current users of the forests?
Answer. The Sierra Nevada Framework decision provides new
protections for old forests, wildlife, meadows, streams and lakes, and
calls for aggressive treatment of fuels to reduce severe wildfires that
threaten ecosystems and communities. Implementation of this strategy is
expected to affect grazing and other vegetation disturbing activities
on the National Forests covered by the Plan. The strategy does not,
however, place any restrictions on use by humans using the forests.
Question. Will the new Administration be reviewing the impacts of
this plan on operations like this camp?
Answer. The Forest Service will evaluate the impacts of this plan
on specific forest operations on an as-needed case-by-case basis.
Question. When do you expect a final decision on the plan?
Answer. The Record of Decision (ROD) amending Forest Plans on 11
National Forests in the Sierra Nevada of California was signed in
January 2001.
SOUTHEAST ALASKA INTERTIE
Question. As you know the Alaska delegation is very concerned with
the impacts of the March 30th injunction issued by the District Court
in Sierra Club v. Lyons will have on SE Alaskan communities. What
specific steps is the Agency taking to address this problem in regard
to the SE intertie?
Answer. Judge Singleton stayed the injunction on May 24, 2001 in
response to Forest Service motions. Timber sale contractors have been
permitted to resume work on open contracts. The judge will hold an
evidentiary hearing in mid-July where one of the outcomes could be
another comprehensive stay, a more focused stay or no stay on
activities.
While the Agency cannot predict the outcome, the Forest Service is
working on the permit for the project.
CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST YAKUTAT MAN (TONGASS NF)
Question. I am also concerned with actions occurring in Yakutat
with the former District Ranger, who filed six criminal charges against
Ken Fanning over a failure to report his use of the Situk River on 6
occasions with fees totaling less than $15. Mr. Fanning may also loss
his Special Use Permit. Prosecuting technical permit violations that do
not raise security or resource issues and involve the collection of
less than $15 in user fees does not seem to be a cost effective use of
valuable Federal resources. Please file for the Record an explanation
of the Forest Services actions pertaining to Mr. Fanning's case and
inform the Committee when these charges are resolved.
Answer. During the summer of 2000, Alaska Airport Properties Inc.,
dba Yakutat Lodge, repeatedly violated the terms of its Special Use
Permit issued by the USDA Forest Service for commercial use of the
Situk River in Yakutat, Alaska. After Yakutat Lodge failed to respond
to several requests that it comply with its permit obligations, the
Forest Service referred the matter to the United States Attorney's
Office. This action was taken for the protection and management of the
Situk River and to uphold the integrity of the Special Use Permit
system. This case was not referred for criminal enforcement to recover
user fees.
BACKGROUND
The Situk River runs through the Tongass National Forest from Situk
Lake to the Gulf of Alaska. It is a relatively small river but produces
a world-class fishery, including steelhead and all five species of
Pacific salmon. As a result, the Situk is heavily used each year. In
fact, 22 percent of the freshwater fishing on the Tongass occurs on the
Situk.
As a result of over-crowding on the river, and in order to protect
and manage the resource for the future, a program of permits was
instituted to regulate the commercial outfitter/guide operations on the
Situk. This program was the result of an extensive management planning
effort undertaken by the Forest Service in conjunction with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, City and Borough of Yakutat, and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Over 80 percent of the boat use on the Situk is outfitted or
guided. Ten outfitting/guiding operations currently hold permits to use
the river. The Special Use Permit system allocates a limited number of
``boat days'' (boats per day on the river) to each outfitter/guide,
limiting the total number of boats they can guide or outfit each
season.
In 1999, the Forest Service instituted a system whereby outfitters/
guides are required to turn in a reporting card for each boat that they
outfit or guide each day. The reporting cards gather valuable
information about how many boats are on the river each day and what
species of fish are caught. The daily reporting system was designed
both to assist with permit administration and to gather additional data
for future planning and management of the river.
YAKUTAT LODGE
Mr. Ken Fanning, owner of Alaskan Airport Properties in Yakutat, is
the holder of a special-use authorization for outfitting and guiding on
the Yakutat Ranger District. His advertised activities, associated with
the Yakutat Lodge, include sport fishing, boat rentals, sight seeing,
beach combing, photography, and kayaking
During the summer of 2000, Yakutat Lodge, despite requests to
comply, repeatedly violated the terms of the Special Use Permit by not
reporting boats that they outfitted on the Situk River.
This matter is now the subject of a pending criminal investigation
and prosecution. Any inquiries about the factual details should be
addressed to the Unites States Attorney's Office for the District of
Alaska.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
ROADLESS BAN
Question. The judge in the Idaho lawsuit, he noted, ruled on April
5th that federal law had been violated because the rulemaking process
had a ``pre-determined outcome.'' The roadless rule was originally
scheduled to go into effect March 13th, but the Bush Administration has
delayed the implementation until at least May 12th. The judge in the
Idaho lawsuit has given the federal government until May 4th to issue a
response in the case. Mr. Bosworth, I know that you are just getting
settled in to your new position as the Chief Forester and the roadless
issue is in litigation. What are your thoughts or comments on the
approach that was conducted under the past administration?
Answer. The Forest Service will move forward with a responsible and
balanced approach that fairly addresses concerns raised by interested
parties, local communities, tribes, and states impacted by the Rule
based on the following five principles:
--Informed decision-making.--USDA will examine more reliable
information and accurate mapping, including drawing on local
expertise and experience through the local forest planning
process;
--Working together.--USDA will work with states, tribes, local
communities and the public through a process that is fair,
open, and responsive to local input and information;
--Protecting forests.--USDA will protect roadless areas from the
negative effects of severe wildlfire, insect, and disease
activity;
--Protecting communities, homes, and property.--USDA will work to
protect communities, homes, and property from the risk of
severe wildfires and other risks that might exist onadjacent
federal lands; and
--Protecting access to property.--USDA will ensure that states,
tribes, and private citizens who own property within roadless
areas have access to their property as required by existing
law.
FIRE ASSISTANCE
Question. Forest Fires usually occur in rural areas and other out
of the way places that are only served by volunteer fire departments. A
vast majority of the fire departments in Colorado are staffed by
volunteers, and fires such as the ones we had last year can quickly
drain a small fire department's budget. I am pleased to note that there
is a small increase in the budget foe State and Volunteer Fire
Assistance, where many of Colorado's volunteer fire departments obtain
much of their financial assistance. Are there any plans by the Forest
Service to further aid volunteer fire departments in the annual battle
against forest and wildfires?
Answer. In addition to the requested regular State and Private
Forestry program funding of $5,053,000 for Cooperative Fire--Volunteer
Fire Assistance there is also $8,262,000 of National Fire Plan funding
in the Wildland Fire Appropriation. At this funding level there are
plans to assist a total of 6,660 rural community volunteer fire
organizations in fiscal year 2002.
Question. If so, when might these plans be implemented?
Answer. When final appropriations are received the Forest Service
will work cooperatively with the States to deliver assistance to the
volunteer fire organizations. The funding is supplied to the
communities/volunteer fire organizations on a 50/50 match basis.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
WOOD IN TRANSPORTATION
Question. West Virginia is home to the Wood in Transportation
Center in Morgantown. This Center designs and produces the finest
timber bridges in the world. What are the Forest Service plans for the
Center in the fiscal year 2002 budget?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 Wood In Transportation budget of
$3,000,000 will be used by the National Wood in Transportation
Information Center in Morgantown, W.V. with $1,000,000 focused on
commercialization projects associated with the National Fire Plan.
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN
Question. The Congress appropriated almost $1.9 billion to the
Forest Service for Wildland Fire Management in 2001. Your 2002 request
is for nearly $1.3 billion, which is still much higher than the 2000
appropriation. The budget justification does not mention firefighting
funds for the Monongahela National Forest. Does this mean the
Monongahela is not in danger of fires or that there are no wildland
urban interface communities in need of hazardous fuels removal in West
Virginia?
Answer. The State Forester or the State Natural Resource Agency
provides identification of communities at risk in their state and this
list is provided to the Forest Service and the Department of Interior
(DOI) for consideration in development of the national program.
Information from West Virginia was not received in time to include in
the first list of communities at risk. However, 167 West Virginia
communities are on the list currently being prepared, of which 127 were
in the vicinity of Department of Interior or U.S. Forest Service lands,
with the other 40 shown as being in the vicinity of other federal
lands.
Question. The National Fire Plan requests funding in several
different Forest Service accounts. Please provide for the record a
table that shows fiscal year 2001 and 2002 funds broken out by account
and program.
Answer.
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2001-FISCAL YEAR 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT 2001 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT:
PREPAREDNESS........................ $611,143 $622,618
OPERATIONS:
Suppression--Title II........... 140,718 325,321
Suppression--Title IV........... 178,606 ..............
Hazardous Fuels--Title II....... 85,422 209,010
Hazardous Fuels--Title IV....... 119,736 ..............
Forest Health (Transfer to S&PF-- 11,974 11,974
FHM)...........................
State Fire (Transfer to S&PF-- 50,383 50,383
Coop Fire).....................
Volunteer Fire (Transfer to 8,262 8,262
S&PF--Coop Fire)...............
EAP (Transfer to S&PF--Coop 12,472 12,472
Forestry)......................
Fire Facilities (Transfer to 43,903 20,376
CI&M)..........................
Rehab and Restore (Transfer to 141,688 3,668
NFS)...........................
R&D (Transfer to F&RR).......... 15,965 16,265
Com & Private Land Fire 34,923 0
Assistance (Transfer to S&PF)..
-------------------------------
Subtotal--Operations.......... 844,052 657,731
EMERGENCY FIRE CONTINGENCY.......... 425,063 ..............
===============================
Total, WFM........................ 1,880,258 1,280,349
STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY:
COOPERATIVE FIRE PROTECTION:
State Fire Assistance........... 24,945 25,310
Volunteer Fire Assistance....... 4,989 5,053
===============================
Total, S&PF................... 29,934 30,363
-------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL FIRE 1,910,192 1,310,712
PLAN.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOREST SERVICE OVERALL MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Question. The President's budget request is very generous with
respect to National Park maintenance but I am quite concerned that the
President may be giving short shrift to the maintenance needs of the
Forest Service. This budget requests $440 million toward the backlog of
national park facility infrastructure needs. Only $50 million is
proposed to address the $6 billion deferred maintenance backlog for the
Forest Service. In fact, the entire request for the Forest Service
Capital Improvement and Maintenance budget does not even keep pace with
the Service's annual maintenance requirement. How much would the Forest
Service need just to hold the maintenance backlog steady in 2002?
Answer. The total annual maintenance funding needed for all Forest
Service Programs is approximately $873.6 million. Direct costs of
managing maintenance programs and Agency indirect costs are not
included. Most unmet annual maintenance becomes deferred maintenance,
but some does not. Of the $873.6 million needed for maintenance,
approximately $800 million in fiscal year 2002 for roads and facilities
would prevent growth of the maintenance backlog.
TIMBER SALES
Question. The Forest Service sometimes conducts timber sales that
actually result in losses to the government. I am sure there must be
some good reasons for below cost sales. Why does the Service sell
timber below the cost?
Answer. We attribute the resultant below cost sales to
implementation of a new accounting standards for road prisms, less
volume being sold affecting our economies of scale, and the sale of
more salvage and smaller trees of lesser value as we shift our program
to respond to forest health needs rather than focusing on the
production of wood as a commodity. In addition, expenditures have
significantly increased to meet more stringent environmental protection
standards. The National Forests are not managed like a for-profit
business, and our mandate is to charge fair market value, not to
recover all related costs. Timber sales are still commonly the least
net cost way to achieve important vegetative management objectives, and
timber sales provide many public benefits beyond that of the revenues
collected. These include direct benefits to the National Forests
resulting from the improved vegetative management applied, the indirect
benefits from expenditure of Knutson-Vandenburg (K-V) and Brush
Disposal (BD) funds collected from timber purchasers, and the jobs
maintained and the resulting personal income and tax effects.
ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT VIOLATION
Question. The Forest Service Wildland Fire Management account was
found to be in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act in fiscal year
2000. Will you please explain the reasons for the violation and what
you are doing to rectify the situation?
Answer. Refer to attached report: USDA Forest Service Review of
fiscal year 2000 Spending in the Wildland Fire Management Appropriation
(April 2001).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
Question. To what extent does the Administration's budget for
fiscal year 2002 reflect the mandate of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act?
Answer. The table below indicates a preliminary projection of what
types of work will be accomplished in fiscal year 2002. The Act calls
for an annual $30 million from the Federal Government. At this time,
the final program of work decisions for fiscal year 2002 have not been
made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Tahoe/ President's
Activity Restoration Budget Fiscal
Act Year 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptive Management: Monitoring, $1,000,000 $200,000
research, evaluation...................
Vegetation management: Mechanical 2,900,000 1,400,000
treatments and fuels reduction.........
Wetland/riparian restoration: Streamside 3,000,000 1,750,000
habitat improvement stabilization and
planning...............................
Recreation development and 2,000,000 150,000
transportation: Replace aging
infrastructure and increase
interpretative programs................
Road/Trail improvements and 3,000,000 2,200,000
decommissioning: To meet water quality
Best Management Practices and convert
unneeded roads or closed roads to
trails.................................
Land Acquisition (includes staffing and 6,600,000 4,250,000
processing): Purchase of
environmentally sensitive lands........
Urban Lot Management: Management of over 1,500,000 400,000
3,500 parcels--fuels reduction,
thinning of overstocked stads, trespass
reduction, boundary location, and
watershed restoration..................
Erosion Control Grants: Grants to local 10,000,000 0
governments for planning and
construction of water quality
improvements...........................
-------------------------------
Totals............................ 30,000,000 10,350,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Does this represent full funding as authorized by the
Lake Tahoe Restoration Act?
Answer. No, this does not represent full funding as authorized by
the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act.
lake tahoe land acquisitions
Question. The second issue I would like to address is the role the
federal government plays in acquiring and managing environmentally-
sensitive urban lots in the Lake Tahoe basin.
This work is critically important to the efforts to Save Lake
Tahoe. It is one of the most important contributions the Forest Service
can and should be making.
The federal land acquisition is the heart of the conservation and
mitigation program established a number of years ago and this effort
continues to serve as a model for other cooperative restoration
programs around the country.
The land acquisition program is the bedrock foundation of the
partnership between the local communities, the States, and the various
federal agencies at Lake Tahoe.
Abandoning this program would undermine the efforts to save Lake
Tahoe and the intent of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act.
What is your view of this program and will you maintain the Forest
Service's commitment to these restoration efforts?
Answer. The Forest Service has prepared a Report on Legislative
Options To Transfer the Lake Tahoe Urban Lots Program to State or Local
Governments. House and Senate Conferees for the Committees on
Appropriations requested this report in the Conference Report
accompanying the fiscal year 2001 Appropriation Act. The Forest Service
is also following specific congressional directives for Lake Tahoe
stating, ``None of the funding provided for Federal land acquisition
shall be used to acquire additional lots. Acquisition of larger
resource lands adjacent to National Forest System land to protect
watershed values and provide recreation opportunities should be the
focus of the Forest Service land acquisition program at Lake Tahoe.''
The Forest Service commitment at Lake Tahoe remains strong. We will
work in a cooperative manner with the states, local communities, and
the Congress to maintain clear expectations on the future role that the
Forest Service will retain in the continuing acquisition and management
of urban lots.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Question. In the Forest service budget justification, $4.2 million
is identified for projects to commemorate the Lewis and Clark
Bicentennial--primarily in Montana and Idaho. As you know, part of the
Lewis and Clark National Historic trail in North Dakota lays adjacent
to the Little Missouri National Grasslands, which is the National
Forest System. Do the planned projects for fiscal year 2002--identified
in your budget justification as interpretive sign plans, supplemental
law enforcement staffing, and funding for managing invasive weeds--
include this area in North Dakota?
Answer. Yes, the Forest Service's budget request for the Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial includes projects in the state of North Dakota on
the Dakota Prairie National Grasslands unit. Bicentennial planning by
the Dakota Prairies National Grasslands includes enhanced Lewis and
Clark interpretation as well as interpretive development of other
recreation sites, which may be of interest or provide recreation
services for tourists following the designated Lewis and Clark highway
routes in the State of North Dakota.
The Little Missouri National Grassland borders the Missouri River
in the vicinity of the April 18, 1805 campsite in an area called
Tobacco Gardens. This area overlooks the place where Meriwether Lewis
was accidentally shot while hunting. The Dakota Prairie National
Grasslands unit is planning for the development of an interpretive site
at Tobacco Gardens that includes an overlook, parking area, and
interpretive trail. Funding for interpretive planning and survey and
design of this site is included in fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Other cultural sites where improved heritage interpretation is
being planned and/or implemented includes sites associated with the
Custer Campaign, the Maa-Daah-Hey Trail, and Buffalo Gap Campground.
Additional programs in the fiscal year 2002 budget request include
funding for enhanced traveler information at Forest Service offices,
which on the Dakota Prairie is at Watford City, Medora, Lisbon, and
Bismark ND, and partnerships and coordination with the Tribes (Three
Affiliated Tribes at Ft. Berthold).
The extent to which these Bicentennial projects are funded will
depend on the total final fiscal year 2002 allocations to the Regions.
Question. I noted that the President's budget includes an increase
of $495,000 for advanced technology in housing at the Forest service
Products lab in Madison, WI. It is my understanding that this housing
research will, among other things, improve housing durability and
energy efficiency. Given the extreme weather and persistent flooding in
my state, this seems like a wise investment of federal research
dollars. Do you foresee a sizable increase for this research in this
area in the future at the forest products lab? It is my understanding
that the chemistry department at the University of North Dakota has
expertise in the area of housing research. Would the Forest Products
lab in Madison reach out to institutions like UND with the increase in
funding requested in the President's budget?
Answer. The $495,000 increase in the President's budget for the
Advanced Housing Research Center at the Forest Products Laboratory
reflects the high priority we place on this program within the stated
budget constraints. We feel that this is an important research area
that will have significant benefit to the American public.
We have had a working relationship with the chemistry department at
the University of North Dakota for over 3 years and they have been a
key partner with us in developing the portion of our housing research
program that addresses disaster-related issues such as flooding.
Currently, a member from the University of North Dakota has been
appointed as co-chair of an academic/industry consortium which will
provide research recommendations to our Advanced Housing Research
Center. Implementation of our multi-year research program would include
work with the University of North Dakota to examine several issues
related to wood-frame housing in floods, if funding becomes available.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Lugar
hardwood tree improvement and regeneration center
Question. Please describe the construction and renovation needs for
the Hardwood Tree Improvement and Regeneration Center (HTIRC) at Purdue
University. What funds are needed to meet those needs? Are those funds
included in the Forest Service budget request for 2002?
Answer. Currently, the FS has employees from the North Central
Research Station, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry and NFS
Region 8 Cooperative Forestry stationed at the HTIRC. Initially, the FS
only planned to have 6 employees, but the strategic needs of the region
have required the program to expand to over 22 staff, with expected
growth to over 30. Purdue University has supported the program with
space and facilities, but labs are crowded and the university is unable
to house the current program. Purdue University has proposed
construction of new offices, research and field laboratories to meet
the Center's program requirements. The Purdue is seeking a partnership
with the FS in this construction project and has requested that the FS
provide $7 million, of which $300,000 was already appropriated in the
fiscal year 2001 FS budget. The balance, $6.7 million, is not in the
fiscal year 2002 President's budget.
Question. Are there opportunities to share the costs with Purdue
University, or other private and public institutions?
Answer. The total cost of the project is $25 million. Purdue
University has $18 million in gifts to fund the project.
Question.: Who are the recipients of the research provided by the
facility? Who are the research partners involved with the HTIRC?
Answer. HTIRC is a regional (11 state) partnership that is seeking
to meet the hardwood tree improvement and non-industrial private forest
land management needs in the Midwest. The region is experiencing an
annual production shortfall of 50 million hardwood seedlings that is
increasing by 20 percent annually.
HTIRC has partnered with the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources Division of Forestry, American Chestnut Foundation, Indiana
Hardwood Lumbermen's Association (IHLA), National Hardwood Lumber
Association (NHLA), Walnut Council, Fred M. van Eck Forest Foundation
and Indiana Forestry and Woodland Owners Association (IFWOA). IFWOA
represents over 30,000 forest landowners in Indiana, and IHLA and NHLA
represent the majority of the hardwood producers and manufacturers in
the Eastern United States.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, that concludes the
hearing. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 10 a.m.,
Tuesday, May 8, when we will meet in room SD-124 to hear from
Secretay, Department of Engergy, Spencer Abraham.
[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., Tuesday, May 1, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 8.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Campbell, Byrd, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER ABRAHAM, SECRETARY OF ENERGY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. The hearing will come to order. We have a
vote coming up scheduled at 10:15, and I chose rather than to
start the hearing after the two stacked votes to begin now.
Sometimes in this body when they schedule a vote it always
happens about an hour later, so we can control the time of the
hearing and we may have to get up and go vote. There may be a
break in this, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate you coming this
morning, and I want to welcome our colleague back to the U.S.
Senate, Spencer Abraham, to testify this morning on the
Department of Energy's fiscal year 2002 budget request. We are
glad to have you with us today.
The Department's budget request for fiscal year 2002
arrives at a difficult time for our Nation's energy sector.
While the national press has extensively covered the rolling
blackouts and fiscal crisis that has plagued California this
year, the problems in our energy sector are far more widespread
than California alone. Energy shortages and soaring energy
prices are, without question, contributing to the economic
slowdown of this country.
I do not think there was anybody, at the front end of this
crisis that has happened in California, that had any idea the
effect it would have, or the ripple effect it would have across
this country, but with an economy as large as California's we
were all bound to be affected. In my own State of Montana,
thousands of jobs have already been lost, with mining
operations, aluminum smelters, and other industries being idled
by the cost of power.
Some of these operations will recover if energy prices
return to more typical levels, but some will not. For some, the
cost associated with closing down and restarting are simply too
great for those operations to remain competitive. It is ironic,
Mr. Secretary, it is also tragic that such a thing can happen
to a State like Montana. A State that has an immense wealth of
coal and gas resources, and a State that is part of one of the
world's greatest hydroelectric systems. Throughout this town,
there are many discussions taking place about how we got into
this mess, and what policy changes are necessary to get us out
of it. Have individual States enacted flawed deregulation
statutes? If Federal legislation is necessary at this time, has
the uncertainty of deregulation itself stifled investment in
new generation capacity? Are environmental restrictions on new
plant construction too stringent, and have we been vigorous
enough in our pursuit of energy conservation?
While I imagine we may get into some of these broad policy
issues today, I hope that our limited time can focus a bit on
those things that are under this subcommittee's direct control,
particularly the Federal funding of fossil fuel R&D, energy
efficiency R&D, the strategic petroleum reserve, and the Energy
Information Administration.
The administration's 2001 budget makes good on two of
President Bush's campaign promises, to nearly double the
funding of the weatherization assistance program, and to invest
in new resources and demonstrations of clean coal technologies.
Both of these initiatives will be well-received by most of the
members of this subcommittee.
Regrettably, these proposed increases come at the expense
of ongoing R&D efforts on fossil fuels and energy conservation.
While I have little doubt that some reordering of R&D
priorities are appropriate, the magnitude of the
administration's proposals causes me grave concern, given our
current energy situation. Taken as a whole, these cuts are
unacceptable. I think many of my colleagues on this committee
will feel the same way.
That said, Mr. Secretary, I hope you will help us today to
better understand this budget request and the considerations
that are factored into its development. While I fully expect
your support for the President's budget request, I hope you
will also be candid with us. We need to hear your thoughts on
which programs are working and why.
Were certain programs reduced in the President's request
because they are not effective, or were they reduced simply
because of the fiscal restraints under which we had to operate?
Can increases for clean coal technologies and weatherization be
spent effectively in the coming fiscal year, and will the
budget request be adequate to support the energy policy
recommendations that we are expecting from the Vice President
later on this month?
Before I let you answer some of these questions that we
will have, I will turn to my Ranking Member on the committee
for his opening statement, Senator Byrd.
Opening statement of Senator Robert C. Byrd
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, you are a man after my own
kidney, as Shakespeare would have it. I could almost stop right
here, but I will not quite stop.
Welcome to the Interior and Related Agency Subcommittee,
Mr. Secretary, and welcome back home, which is a better place.
Because you and I have previously discussed the Energy
Department's budget request for fiscal year 2002, specifically
as it relates to the Office of Fossil Energy, it will come as
no surprise to you when I say that I am dumbfounded by what the
administration has proposed.
The President often speaks of our need to increase domestic
energy supplies. I know the Vice President has said that the
supply problems we face throughout this Nation are largely the
result of short-sighted policies. I am aware, Mr. Secretary,
that you have told the people at the National Energy Technology
Laboratory that the research and development work that they
oversee is important to our Nation's energy security.
Unfortunately, what I heard with my ears is not the same as
what I am now seeing with my eyes, and I am at a loss as to how
to reconcile the verbal pronouncements with what the
administration has actually proposed in its budget. Your
prepared statement says that the Energy Department's fiscal
year 2002 budget submission is a, quote, prudent transition,
close quote, between the past and present administrations. I
disagree.
When I consider the request for the Office of Fossil
Energy, for example, and to which the distinguished chairman
has already referred, I see budget cuts of 40 percent, 50
percent, and in the case of some programs, even 100 percent. I
do not see the prudent transition that your statement speaks
of. Rather, what I see is a Department that is effectively
telling its research and development team to hang a sign on the
door that says, going out of business.
It is simply wrong for this administration to think that we
can increase domestic energy supplies without also making a
concerted effort at developing the kind of technology that will
make that possible. The oil and gas which everyone seems to
want to get their hands on is not going to rise from the ground
in an environmentally sound manner all by itself, nor can we
find new uses for coal, our most abundant energy supply,
without a strong commitment to basic scientific research.
Mr. Secretary, I can assure you that I intend to work with
the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee to rectify what
I believe is a gross error in judgment. I hope that the
administration will reevaluate its policies and reconsider its
position with respect to this budget, because as I see it today
I do not believe that this request is capable of being enacted
into law.
Mr. Chairman, as always I appreciate your courtesy, and I
will reserve my specific questions until after the Secretary
has submitted his statement and, of course, as you have
indicated we have some votes coming up, but I do look forward
to returning after those votes, if they really occur, and I
look forward to the hearing, and I again thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Byrd. Senator Campbell.
Opening statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, to our colleague,
Spence Abraham. It is nice to see you here. I am sorry they did
not let you into the building as easy as you got in when you
were a Senator, but that is what happens when you leave, I
guess. Thanks for being here.
I am somewhat concerned, too, about the President's budget
dealing with energy, Mr. Chairman. I know that we had kind of a
bumper year last year, but it looks to me like the President's
policy in dealing with a long-term solution to the problems we
find ourselves in in energy is focused primarily on oil, and as
I look at some of the others, I think there needs to have more
resources in terms of money like coal, methane, and coal in
itself and oil shale, a lot of other things as alternatives to
just oil. I think they are really going lacking in this budget.
There is one in particular I wanted to mention. We have the
National Renewable Energy Lab, as you know, Secretary Abraham,
in Golden, Colorado, and under the President's budget there is
basically a huge cut in this, and frankly I do not know how you
can have a complete budget policy, or a complete energy policy,
excuse me, without including the importance of renewable
energy, and I would hope you would take a look at that, because
it is something I think could be devastating. Something like
one-third to one-half of the whole workforce under this budget
will have to be let go. It really severely limits our Nation's
research into renewable energy technologies.
I would also hope that, as former Secretaries in your
position have, that you would find time to visit Rocky Flats in
my home State of Colorado. The cleanup is destined to be done
by 2006, and we hope it is, and it seems to be going alone
pretty well now, but it is a commitment we have made, literally
every administration has for the last 15 years, on getting that
area cleaned up, so I would hope you would find the time to
come out and visit us when you can.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Senator Dorgan.
Opening statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Mr. Secretary,
thank you for being here. Let me just associate myself with the
remarks of the chairman, and Senator Byrd and Senator Campbell.
I think we all feel that this is a complicated set of issues.
There is not necessarily one simple solution to it, and we feel
that we ought to do a lot of things and do them well in order
to respond to these issues.
But you know, the cuts in fossil fuels, the cuts in
renewable energy, the cuts in natural gas research, natural gas
exploration research--some of them 50 percent cuts--this just
does not make sense, given where we are and what we need to do.
Because I have the opportunity and I may not later, let me
also go afield just for a moment from the appropriations side
and say that we have had a lot of hearings in the Energy
Committee. You know, the California circumstance of going from
$7 billion to $70 billion in 2 years, the cost of electricity,
you know, you would call that grand theft in any other
circumstance. The sale of natural gas from an unregulated
entity outside of the State to a regulated entity inside the
State, you cannot track the transparency of the pricing.
All of these issues with pricing, natural gas, oil,
electricity not just on the West Coast and not just in
California, raise a lot of important questions. I frankly think
we ought to have a joint House-Senate investigative committee
to take a look at a wide range of energy pricing.
We seem to be willing to investigate almost anything at the
drop of a hat in recent years. It seems to me it might be
useful to put a spotlight on energy pricing with a joint
investigating committee that represents the time-honored
tradition of the Senate. We legislate, and we also investigate
in Congress, and have done so with some success. I think it may
well be time to do that now.
FERC has done its best imitation of potted plants for the
last several years, where they sit around and watch all this
develop around them. I think we have to be very active on these
issues of energy prices and policy.
Getting back to the appropriations, we are going to have to
change the recommendations of this administration dealing with
fossil fuels and research and renewable technologies and so on,
because that has to be a part of the solution to this energy
problem.
Mr. Secretary, you are good to come. I look forward to
hearing your testimony.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. I think when you
take a look through this, and I will wait for the testimony of
the Secretary this morning, I think there is general agreement
on what we have to do as far as the development of energy and
an energy policy.
Maybe our priorities are not the same as the
administration, but through, I think, constructive talks and
negotiations, and I look forward to those and working with
Senator Byrd and with the administration on identifying those
priorities and coming with an appropriations bill that I think
will serve it.
Summary Statement of Hon. Spencer Abraham
I think right now what we have, looking just as a note of
introducing the Secretary, that we are waiting for the report
from the Vice President and his energy, and how that fits, how
the policies we will talk about today, in the funding today,
how that fits with his priorities also in this energy mix.
We do know this, though, the insatiable demand for energy
in this country has not gone away, and one law that we did not
write, that works very well, and that is the law of supply and
demand, and that happens to be working very well at the present
time.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming this morning. We look
forward to your testimony.
Secretary Abraham. Well, thank you all, and it is obviously
for me a pleasure to be back with my former colleagues, and I
appreciate the gracious welcome I have received here, and to
confess that I certainly miss the chance to serve alongside
each of you and our other colleagues, my former colleagues.
I would like to perhaps depart a little bit from the
prepared testimony, and if we could submit the full statement
for the record----
Senator Burns. The full statement will be made part of the
record.
Secretary Abraham. Let me just try to, at least as a
threshold matter, address some of the issues that have been
already raised, and which I am sure in our question and answer
period we can get into in more detail, to try to at least give
a sense of priority to what we have done, as well as to try to
put this year's budget, at least for this subcommittee and the
full Department of Energy, into perspective.
DOE BUDGET REQUEST
First, let me just say that our Department's budget for the
2002 fiscal year, as proposed and submitted, is $19.2 billion.
That is actually a $275 million increase over the submission
that was made a year ago, so it is at approximately the same
level, but it is $456 million below the fiscal year 2001 final
appropriations level.
I would note for the record, though, that if one removes
from the final fiscal year 2001 appropriated level certain one-
time-only expenses, such as the funds which were provided for
the Cerro Grande fire emergency, and one-time projects directed
by Congress, this year's submission is $13 million less than
the final appropriated level of last year, minus those one-time
expenditures, which are add-ons for the most part during the
course of the year.
With respect to the specific budget of this subcommittee,
the programs within your jurisdiction which we propose are
approximately $1.6 billion. This request is about .7 percent,
or $11 million below 2001 appropriation levels. However, it is
$284 million above the fiscal year 2001 request, and $384
million above the fiscal year 2000 appropriations.
BUDGET CHOICES
Now, a question was raised as to why some of the choices
were made as they were, and what I would like to do is just to
give you a quick sense of some of the priorities that we have
set.
First of all, when one enters into a new administration,
well into the budget process, the guidance for our Department
was somewhat limited. It was limited to those positions and
platform statements that had been made during the campaign by
the President. Where there was clear direction for establishing
priorities, we used that direction.
You already mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the investments in
clean coal technology, which the President had enunciated
during his campaign, and even after the election. You also
mentioned the commitment to increasing substantially our
weatherization program. Those are reflected in the budget.
However, we are still waiting, as you indicated, for the
guidance, the much more broad, sweeping guidance in terms of
energy policy and subsequent budget, that will come about as a
result of the work that is being directed by Vice President
Cheney, our Energy Policy Task Force efforts, the results of
which will be announced on May 17.
We did not feel it appropriate to make preliminary
judgments as to what the results of that effort would yield, so
this budget has not tied to prejudge policy changes as might be
reflected in budget emphasis from that task force effort, but I
can assure the committee that once we receive that guidance,
whether in the context of the discussions that will ensue this
year, as we move to the final budget work, or certainly in 2003
and subsequent year budgets, that once we have that much more
comprehensive policy guidance, we will reflect it in terms of
the emphasis both within this subcommittee as well as the
Energy and Water Subcommittee.
We did, however, have to make some choices in putting this
together, and as we increase, for example, our commitment to
weatherization programs based on the President's establishment
of that priority, we made some decisions as to what the
priorities within the fossil energy and the energy efficiency
programs ought to be addressed.
WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
For example, we concluded that it made sense, given the
energy costs that less-advantaged Americans are confronting
right now, to go forward with that presidential priority of
virtually doubling the weatherization program. We sought, in
order to fund that, some shifts, and the shifts that took place
were from programs which the Department engages in, research
programs and others, which for the most part provide benefits
to a variety of industries in this country, industries which we
feel can bear a greater share of the research and technology
and other responsibilities than they currently do, in light of
the success that those very industries have been enjoying.
We believe that the success they have enjoyed, in fact,
will incentivize them to engage in a vast amount of additional
activity in the areas that we have diminished, and so as a
consequence we felt that the choice was between funding
research and development activity in support of industries of
the future, and in that context some of the most successful and
prosperous industries in America, or providing weatherization
assistance to less-affluent Americans, that the shift to
support for the weatherization programs made sense.
PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES
The other thing which we tried to do in the brief period of
time we had in putting together this year's submission was to
analyze to the extent we could some of the existing programs to
determine whether or not the current funding levels were
rational and made sense for the future. One area, for example,
in the area of efficiency, that we have changed, is the level
of commitment to the Partnership for a New Generation of
Vehicles.
To use it as an illustration, because it is not only an
area where we have made some major changes, but it is one with
which I am pretty familiar--in fact, its inclusion in the
category of programs that were reduced I think indicates that
there are no sacred cows. PNGV programs, when I was a Senator,
I was one of the strongest advocates for. The benefits of this
program accrue in no small measure to the companies in my home
State of Michigan, the automobile makers, who entered into
partnership with the Federal Government that many in this
committee were involved with at its inception to try to design
vehicles which were more fuel-efficient. I think that is a very
important commitment for us to make.
But what we concluded, after sitting down with the auto
companies and analyzing the program in light of the program as
it was now versus how it was envisioned in the year 1993, was
that a substantial part of the program's mission had been
changed, and that in fact some of the research and technology
investments which we were continuing to make were with respect
to the development of components for vehicles that would never
be manufactured, and so in a very cooperative effort with the
auto makers, we concluded that those parts of the program that
just were on track towards development of a mid-size sedan just
did not make sense for the Federal Government and the
taxpayer's money to be continued.
The program remains intact, at approximately a $100 million
level, but about $40 million has been reduced because we have
concluded that that research really is not going to translate
into a real-world application.
So some of the changes that you see are based on a shift
from support for industries who we believe can bear a greater
share of the burden, to less affluent Americans, others, as in
the case of PNGV, represents an analysis that we have already
made that we concluded did not wisely invest the taxpayer's
money.
So that is the basis that was used to try to put this
budget together. I recognize I talked to several members of the
subcommittee, and obviously to House side members as well, that
there remain areas where we not only need to have further
discussions, but where, obviously, questions exist, and I look
forward to addressing them, but I did want to give the
subcommittee just a threshold, a sense of the way we attacked
the process, how we tried to analyze it, the priorities which
we had guidance to set, and those which remain in no small
measure areas in which further guidance will be forthcoming
where the Vice President's task force is completed.
But in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I just look forward very
much to having an opportunity to address more specific
inquiries, talk further about this, and, of course, to continue
the process into the remainder of the appropriations work that
we will do this year.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Spencer Abraham
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
appear before you for the first time to discuss the Department of
Energy's fiscal year 2002 budget request. The Department's total budget
request for all appropriations is $19.2 billion. This amount is $456.4
million, or 2.3 percent, below the fiscal year 2001 level and $1.4
billion above the fiscal year 2000 level. Of the total budget, $1.6
billion is for programs within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee.
This budget is a prudent transition between what was left to us by
the previous Administration and our policy priorities in the budgets
for 2003 and beyond. In the limited time given us to formulate this
budget, we turned its focus as much as we could toward our ultimate
goal of major DOE reform. We also initiated a broad range of strategic
and policy reviews that will fully shape future budgets. As a result,
this budget begins reform in some important program areas. Make no
mistake, more change is coming. Some may fault this approach, saying it
changes too much or too little. But I believe this is the right budget
for this year; it's a responsible start to change the course of
business at the Department.
principles guiding the fiscal year 2002 department of energy budget
This budget is a principled and responsible effort, one that keeps
President Bush's commitment to control the growth in discretionary
spending, while meeting critical requirements in national security,
energy, science, and environmental quality. This budget adjusts program
requests to reflect reviews underway to reevaluate and refine the
Department's missions, and to implement management strategies that meet
the challenges of the future. Based on this request, the Department
will:
--Enhance complex-wide safeguards and security efforts
--Eliminate programs that have completed their mission, are
redundant, ineffective, or obsolete
--Review all private-sector subsidies and maximize cost-sharing
opportunities
--Finish promising R&D projects where investment installments are
nearly complete
--Establish baselines and improve accountability for project and
capital asset management
--Arrest deterioration of infrastructure through stronger management
of maintenance
--Utilize computer information systems to improve management and
promote efficient use of resources
--Eliminate unnecessary layers of management, and direct personnel to
high-priority missions
--Achieve savings in management expenses through comprehensive,
creative management reform
--Recognize and respect Congressional policy determinations for
operating the DOE complex.
This budget also maintains the Administration's flexibility to
respond to government-wide policy reviews now underway. Vice-President
Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group, figures heavily in
the Department's current budget and its future year planning. Pending
future decisions, the budget preserves program options by maintaining
core requirements in areas under review, unless a change was dictated
by a Presidential commitment. We stand ready to work with you and the
other Members of this Subcommittee as recommendations are made.
INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BUDGET REQUEST
Approximately eight percent of the total Department of Energy
budget, or $1.6 billion, is for programs funded in the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriation under the jurisdiction of this
Subcommittee.
The $1.6 billion is $10.7 million, or 0.7 percent, below the fiscal
year 2001 level and $384.3 million above the fiscal year 2000 level.
Programs include Fossil Energy Research and Development, $449.0
million; the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, $169.0 million; Naval
Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, $17.4 million; Energy Conservation
Research and Development, $795.0 million; Elk Hills School Lands Fund,
$36.0 million; Energy Information Administration, $75.5 million; and
Economic Regulation, $2.0 million. The programs funded by this
Subcommittee play a critical role in the nation's energy future.
The dominant energy issue confronting the Department over the next
20 years is the growing disparity between energy supply and demand.
Current events in California serve as a warning to the rest of the
nation of the importance of--or lack of--a thoughtful, effective energy
policy.
Energy demand is rising across the board, and in particular for
natural gas and electricity. At the same time, supplies are
increasingly limited by an antiquated regulatory structure that, in
many respects, has failed to keep pace with technological advances and
societal needs. Our current energy infrastructure is woefully out-of-
date and inadequate. This must change.
President Bush committed this Administration to develop and
implement a new long-term national energy policy. Vice President Cheney
is working with us at the Department to develop clear strategies to
allow environmentally responsible exploration and recovery of our
domestic resources, enhance conservation and energy efficiency, and
encourage new technology investment in renewable energy sources.
Our future budgets will be shaped by the conclusions of this Task
Force. We are currently maintaining core competencies, but expect
changes. For those who might argue that we should spend more money on
existing energy programs, continuing and expanding programs that have
been in place as we drifted to the brink of an energy crisis would not
appear a wise course to follow. We need a better measure of success
than ``dollars spent.''
Critics have long claimed that DOE programs have produced few
results. Wholesale dismissal would be unfair. Many of our energy
programs are effective and should be continued. On the other hand, the
taxpayers sent us here to weed out the waste and to address growing
problems of energy supply. The weeding begins in this budget. But make
no mistake, we won't just be downsizing. We intend to rebuild our
energy resources programs so they are productive, so taxpayers receive
a better value, and the programs deliver results measured against
rigorous standards.
FOSSIL ENERGY PRIORITIES
The fiscal year 2002 budget for the Fossil Energy program contains
two of the three DOE Presidential Initiatives. They are the Clean Coal
Power Initiative and the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
Clean Coal Power Initiative
The fiscal year 2002 budget includes $150.0 million for the Clean
Coal Power Initiative, a high priority effort that reflects the
President's commitment to clean coal technology. Coal supplies 54
percent of the nation's current power demands. Virtually every credible
energy forecast shows that coal will continue to supply around half of
the nation's power through at least 2020 and probably beyond.
The Bush Administration is proposing a new vision for research in
clean coal technology. In setting the direction for new, competitively
awarded clean coal research, development and demonstration efforts,
greater emphasis will be placed on seeking the advice of industry in
shaping the program. We intend to investigate the use of consortia of
companies, an industry board, or other mechanisms that can enhance the
private sector's participation in planning this initiative.
New clean coal technology efforts will target the power industry's
top priorities in solving problems generic to the way coal is used to
generate electric power. Industry will be required to share the costs
of projects, with the level of private sector financing ranging from 20
percent for the earliest stages of research to at least 50 percent for
larger scale demonstrations.
The program will also solicit participation by universities as well
as government laboratories in a broad-based effort to apply the best
minds and institutions to eliminate barriers to enhanced coal use.
Successfully implemented elsewhere in DOE, industry-guided research
will choose the most important projects based on industry-defined
merit.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
The Reserve provides an important 2-million-barrel ``safety
cushion'' for the millions of families in the Northeast that depend on
affordable heating oil to stay warm in the winter. Currently, one
million barrels are stored in New York Harbor and one million barrels
are stored in New Haven, Connecticut. Three companies--Amerada Hess
Corp., Morgan Stanley Capital Group, and Equiva Trading Company--store
the oil at their terminals, rotate the oil to maintain DOE
specifications, and manage the delivery of the heating oil in the event
of an approved use of the reserve.
On March 6, 2001, I signed letters notifying Congress of the
Administration's intent to establish the heating oil reserve on a
permanent basis. DOE intends to exercise the optional 1-year extension
clause in its current contracts for storage of the emergency heating
oil.
The fiscal year 2002 budget continues operation of the Reserve with
support for leasing commercial storage space, quality assurance,
auditing, oil sampling and inspections.
OVERALL FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
Our budget request for Fossil Energy R&D is $449.0 million. Fossil
fuels--coal, oil and natural gas--supply 85 percent of the nation's
total energy, nearly three-fourths of its electricity, and almost 100
percent of its transportation fuels. The President's energy policy task
force is examining a wide range of options to achieve the full
potential of these fuels while safeguarding our environment.
Recognizing this, our fiscal year 2002 budget strikes a balance by
focusing primarily on those areas where federal involvement is most
critical.
Fuels and Power R&D.--Within the $159.8 million budget request, we
have concentrated our efforts on research that will:
--directly support the Clean Coal Power Initiative, both immediately
and over the 10-year life of the President's clean coal
commitment,
--provide new, more reliable power systems for the joint Fossil
Energy/Energy Efficiency effort to develop distributed energy
resource technologies (for the localized generation and use of
power), and
--expand the menu of options for managing carbon gases by developing
affordable carbon sequestration technologies.
Emission Controls for Existing Plants.--America has made
remarkable progress in cleaning its air due largely to new technology.
Coal use, for example, has doubled since the early 1970's but emissions
of sulfur and nitrogen pollutants are down 70 percent and 45 percent,
respectively. Yet, further challenges remain, especially in addressing
emissions concerns and microscopic airborne particles. There may be
opportunity for innovative, low cost technologies that address two or
more pollutants simultaneously.
The Fossil Energy program is developing technologies that are
intended to achieve future emission limits at costs far below what
industry would pass on to consumers using today's technology. This is
particularly important as support grows for an integrated emission
reduction strategy that would sharply reduce key pollutants in exchange
for long-term regulatory certainty.
Our fiscal year 2002 budget contains $18.0 million for these
efforts. This is a slight decrease from the fiscal year 2001 level of
$20.1 million reflecting the elimination of a program aimed at
optimizing performance of coal-fired power plants in other countries.
Vision 21.--Vision 21 is the core of our long-range power research
program. It draws from several budget areas, including: gasification
combined cycle, pressurized fluidized bed combustion, fuel cells, and
advanced research (the latter involving new materials research and
advancements in supercomputing modeling and simulation).
Through this program, we believe it is possible to develop a new
type of power facility that will virtually eliminate environmental
concerns over the future use of fossil fuels.
A Vision 21 plant would be fueled by coal, or natural gas, or
perhaps biomass or municipal waste. It would emit virtually none of
today's air pollutants and produce no harmful solid or liquid wastes.
This extraordinary achievement could ensure that America--and other
countries--benefit from the full potential of their available energy
resources without compromising environmental goals. A complete Vision
21 prototype is 10 to 15 years into the future, but many of the
critical technology modules are already taking shape, and some are
likely to be adopted by industry in the next few years.
In fiscal year 2002, we propose to fund Vision 21-related efforts
at $37.5 million. The request is about $14.0 million below the fiscal
year 2001 budget due primarily to completion of advanced turbine
systems research and the redirection of funds from the indirectly-fired
cycle program (this combustion technology is being refocused toward
developing combustion/gasification hybrid systems under the Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle budget).
Carbon Sequestration.--The Administration recognizes the
importance of continuing to develop lower cost options for reducing the
buildup of greenhouse gases. Voluntary emission reductions, for
example, could become much more attractive if low-cost carbon
management options result in commercial benefits--for example,
injecting carbon dioxide from power plants into oil fields or coal
seams to produce marketable crude oil or natural gas. If more emission
reductions are needed in the future, research must be conducted now so
that lower cost sequestration options are available. In fiscal year
2002, we propose to increase funding for carbon sequestration research
to $20.7 million, a 10 percent increase that will enable the first
limited field tests for the most promising approaches.
Fuel Cells.--Our research into fuel cells focuses on lower-cost,
high performance units that can provide localized power supplies for
factories, hospitals, military installations, and other distributed
power applications. (The complementary program underway in the Office
of Energy Efficiency is developing fuel cells for vehicular and home
use.) At modular scales of 5-kilowatts to 1-megawatt or more, the
advanced fuel cells we are developing could be in growing demand as
businesses and factories look for more reliable ways to generate
premium-quality electric power onsite.
A high priority in this program will be to begin completing efforts
that represent more than 20 years of development and are within 1 to 2
years of achieving their objectives. We will also allocate a smaller
portion of the budget to the much longer-range future of fuel cells.
The focus will be to co-fund competitively selected industrial teams
that will develop new types of all-solid-state fuel cells that can
break through the cost barrier currently limiting widespread market
acceptance.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request for fuel cells is $45.1
million, a decrease of $7.5 million from the fiscal year 2001 level
that reflects a shift from generic research to the development of a low
cost five-kilowatt solid state fuel cell.
Fuels R&D.--In fiscal year 2002, the $7.0 million budget request
will support research to reduce the cost and broaden the range of
feedstocks that can be processed into clean transportation fuels
suitable for tomorrow's high-fuel-efficiency vehicles. Funding is
requested for the continued development of improved ceramic membranes
for producing synthesis gas that can be chemically recombined into a
variety of clean liquid fuels. A small portion of this budget will also
be used to support a university-industry consortium that is developing
ways to use coal to produce high-value carbon products.
The Department does not propose to continue funding for developing
new fuel processing approaches for producing ultra low-sulfur diesel
and gasoline. The President has decided not to relax the requirements
for cleaner automotive fuels. Industry now understands the need to meet
the new standards, and this will create an incentive for private sector
research into cleaner fuels.
Petroleum and Natural Gas R&D.--The United States has experienced a
decline in its domestic oil production for most of the past 30 years,
yet huge quantities of crude oil remain. In fact, nearly two-thirds of
all the oil found in the history of the United States remains
unproduced, and much of it is beyond the capabilities of today's
petroleum industry. There is the need for access to better technology
and for validating that improved technologies will perform as expected.
These smaller companies now account for 40 percent of the oil
produced in the United States and almost two-thirds of the natural gas.
They account for 85 percent of new domestic drilling. The Department
will continue to fund efforts that will encourage these smaller
domestic producers to adopt optimum technologies that can find and
produce oil and natural gas that might otherwise be left in the ground.
The overall funding for Petroleum & Natural Gas R&D reflects a
significant decline compared to the current level of effort. This will
require the program to be reoriented toward three primary objectives:
--A concentrated effort to transfer improved technologies and ``best
practices'' to the nation's smaller independent firms in the
very near-term--the next 1 to 5 years--and to lower the cost of
environmental protection through a combination of risk
assessments, technology development, regulatory streamlining,
impact analysis, and improved federal-state-local coordination;
--Much longer-term research--10 or 15 years into the future--to
develop technologies that could locate and produce oil and gas
that are beyond the reach of current technologies or those that
industry is developing; and
--Efforts to enhance the reliability and deliverability of the
Nation's natural gas pipelines and gas storage facilities.
The fiscal year 2002 request for Petroleum and Natural Gas R&D is
$51.5 million.
Other Fossil Energy R&D.--Among the other Fossil Energy research
and development efforts in the fiscal year 2002 budget are (1) $5.2
million to continue advanced metallurgical activities at the Albany
(OR) Research Center, including efforts that are helping to develop
better materials for the Vision 21 concept, and to study new carbon
sequestration approaches; (2) $9.5 million for corrective actions at
Fossil Energy R&D facilities to meet environmental, health and safety
requirements and for other locations where environmental remediation is
necessary; and (3) $1.0 million for regulatory activities involving
natural gas imports and exports, exports of electricity, and
authorizing Presidential permit applications from the private sector
for constructing and operating electric transmission lines that cross
U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada.
PETROLEUM RESERVES
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.--The Strategic Petroleum Reserve
provides the United States with strategic and economic protection
against disruptions in oil supplies. The fiscal year 2002 budget
request of $169.0 million will maintain the Reserve's readiness to
respond to a Presidential directive in the event of an energy
emergency. During fiscal year 2001, the inventory of 561 million
barrels will provide 53 days of net import protection. By fiscal year
2002, with the receipt of crude oil returned in the 2000 exchange
initiative and all royalty-in-kind oil, the Reserve inventory is
projected to grow to more than 591 million, its historical highest
level. Even with the increase in inventory, the days of import
protection are projected to increase only slightly, to 55 days, because
of the continuing rise in oil imports.
Recently, the Energy Department renegotiated the delivery dates for
23.8 million of the 30 million barrels of crude oil released in last
year's exchange initiative. Under the original agreements, companies
would return 31.35 million barrels later this year--the additional 1.35
million representing a premium in returning for obtaining crude oil
when inventories were tight last year. Now, under the renegotiated
contracts, which defer deliveries until December 2001 through January
2003, the Strategic Reserve will be replenished with 33.54 million
barrels--2.4 million more than originally anticipated. It may also be
possible that delivery dates will be renegotiated for at least some of
the oil currently scheduled to be returned this year, further adding to
the emergency crude oil inventory at no additional cost to the
taxpayer.
In fiscal year 2002, $3.0 million is included in the budget request
to begin dealing with a recurrence of gas buildup in the Reserve's
crude oil.
Naval Petroleum Reserves.--The $17.4 million budget request will
permit continued operations of the NPR-3 (Teapot Dome) stripper well
field in Wyoming and activities associated with the co-located Rocky
Mountain Oilfield Testing Center.
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, and the fiscal year
2000 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act provided an
advance appropriation of $36.0 million to become available in fiscal
year 2001.
The fiscal year 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act provided an advance appropriation of $36 million to become
available in fiscal year 2002 that, consistent with the budgetary
treatment of other advance appropriations in the budget, would not be
counted as discretionary funding for fiscal year 2002 but would still
be available next year. The fiscal year 2002 budget requests $36.0
million in additional new budget authority for fiscal year 2002. Thus,
the budget proposes that a total of $72.0 million be available for this
purpose in fiscal year 2002.
ENERGY CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
The fiscal year 2002 budget for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) incorporates: concern for our low-income
citizens--we have doubled our Weatherization Assistance Program;
improved energy security--we are refocusing our transportation
programs, particularly the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicle;
and energy reliability--ensuring grid reliability and advancing small-
scale, on-site power generation through Distributed Energy Resource
programs. This budget redirects our energy efficiency resources to
benefit consumers, with emphasis on those least able to afford the high
cost of energy. To do this, cuts are made to programs where industry
and others can step in--sharing costs or pursuing research
independently.
Weatherization Grants
Household energy needs consume a disproportionate share of expenses
in low-income households. The Department's Weatherization Assistance
Program reduces the heating and cooling costs for low-income families--
particularly households that include the elderly, persons with
disabilities, and children. To help correct the heavy energy burden
faced by low-income Americans, the Administration proposes to increase
the Weatherization Assistance Program in fiscal year 2002 to $273.0
million, an increase of $120.3 million above current levels.
The funding level of $273.0 million will weatherize approximately
123,000 low-income homes plus 108,000 additional homes with other
leveraged Federal resources, such as Low Income Home Energy Assistant
Program funds, and State and Utility funds, saving $2.10 in energy
costs for every dollar invested over the life of the energy efficiency
measures. In order to ensure the necessary expansion of the
Weatherization network's production capacity, enabling it to deliver
services to many more low-income households over the ten-year period
beginning in fiscal year 2002, the program will work with the
stakeholders to ensure investment in such essential elements as
equipment and training for additional crews, and to test improved
implementation approaches for the Weatherization Program. This year's
budget marks the beginning of a 10-year commitment to increase funding
for the Weatherization Assistance Program by $1.4 billion.
Transportation Programs
The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program
involves companies in my native State of Michigan, and I supported it
when I was a Senator. While developing the fiscal year 2002 budget,
together with our automotive partners, we reviewed PNGV and agreed the
program needed to be redesigned toward solving today's problems.
The current popularity of the sports utility vehicle raised
questions about one of the basic premises under which the PNGV program
was initiated. When PNGV began in 1993, it was directed at building
only one type of automobile--the mid-sized sedan. Today, we believe
greater benefit could be achieved by developing energy-efficient
components that can be adapted for use in several models throughout our
fleet of vehicles. That is principally why in the fiscal year 2002
budget we are reformulating and streamlining the PNGV program--to make
it more flexible for automakers, of greater benefit to the taxpayer,
and more realistic in the face of today's diverse challenges.
A new PNGV approach can help Detroit with promising, longer-term
technologies that will produce a range of cleaner, more efficient
vehicles. The Administration will offer a budget amendment to support
this new PNGV program at $100 million.
The 21st Century Truck Program is a relatively new multi-agency
partnership with sixteen companies from the truck manufacturing and
supplier industries and is aimed at developing technologies needed to
produce trucks and buses with higher fuel economy, reduced emissions,
and improved safety. The Department of Energy has been a leader in
planning and research related to this effort. The partnership is
proceeding well, with over 65 scientists and engineers from industry
and government having completed an extensive technical plan that will
guide the development and implementation of this program. Our fiscal
year 2002 budget contains $70.6 million for this program.
Distributed Energy Resources
Over the next two decades, industrial, commercial, institutional
and residential customers will be able to choose from a diverse array
of ultra-high efficiency, ultra-low emission, fuel flexible, and cost-
competitive distributed energy resource products and services. These
will be interconnected into the nation's infrastructure for
electricity, natural gas, and renewable energy resources. Distributed
Energy Resources--the localized generation and use of power--can
greatly enhance reliability and power quality and provide a strategic
alternative to new transmission lines as we replace the aging
electricity and natural gas infrastructure in the United States. This
is critical to new industry growth, including the high technology e-
commerce needs for up to 100 times the power density and 10,000 times
the power quality and reliability requirements of standard buildings.
The Distributed Energy Resources program, which is shared with the
Office of Fossil Energy, supports research and development on thermal,
electrical, and mechanical power technologies and provides crosscutting
assistance to the commercial, residential (rural and urban), utility,
and industrial sectors.
The programs called for in this budget address many challenges that
today inhibit the widespread adoption of distributed energy resources.
System related barriers include limitations in efficiency, emissions
and cost problems, and systems that are not flexible for remote
control, smart control, and system optimization. Near-term market and
institutional barriers include a lack of interconnection standards,
lack of new technology building and fire codes, and a need for
consistent siting and permitting rules. Energy Efficiency program
funding for this activity remains constant at $47.3 million.
OVERALL ENERGY EFFICIENCY BUDGET REQUEST
The Energy Efficiency programs funded by this Subcommittee work to
reduce energy use in buildings, in the industrial sector, by vehicles,
in power generation, and in federal facilities--all while increasing
long-term economic growth. The fiscal year 2002 budget requests $795.0
million for the Department's Energy Conservation programs. Shortly, a
budget amendment will be forwarded by the Administration to reflect
proposed changes in the Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle
(PNGV).
Building Efficiency Improvements.--In the U.S., buildings account
for more than one-third of the annual energy consumption and use two-
thirds of all electricity generated. Americans spend approximately
$240.0 billion per year to heat, cool, light, and run equipment and
appliances in residential and commercial buildings. The Office of
Building Technology, State, and Community Programs, in partnership with
industry, develops, promotes, and integrates energy technologies and
practices to make buildings more efficient and affordable. Our fiscal
year 2002 budget request is $367.1 million and contains funds for
Buildings Research and Standards, $30.6 million; Building Technology
Assistance, $321.5 million, including the Weatherization Assistance
Program at $273.0 million and the State Energy Program at $38.0
million; the Community Energy Program, $8.5 million; and the Energy
Star Program, $2.0 million.
Improving Our Transportation Efficiency.--Transportation today
accounts for 67 percent of the nation's oil use, and our vehicles
remain 95 percent dependent on a single fuel--petroleum.
Transportation's need for oil has brought our country to the point that
it uses 4.7 million more barrels of oil per day--just for cars and
trucks--than it produces. Imports, which account for more than 52
percent of our consumption, are at an all-time high and currently add
an estimated $100 million per year to our balance of payments deficit.
Working with partners in industry, research organizations, State
governments, and other Federal agencies, the Department's Office of
Transportation Technologies programs support research, development, and
deployment programs which will reduce oil consumption by achieving: (1)
significant improvements in vehicle fuel economy; and (2) displacement
of oil by other fuels which are domestic, clean, and cost-competitive.
For our transportation programs, we are requesting $239.4 million in
fiscal year 2002. Programs include Vehicle Technologies R&D, $154.1
million; Fuels Utilization R&D, $23.5 million; Materials Technologies,
$41.3 million; and Technology Deployment, $10.2 million.
Industrial Technologies.--Industry today accounts for 38 percent
of all U.S. energy use. Moreover, just nine industries B agriculture,
aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, metal casting, mining, and
steel B account for 27 percent of all U.S. energy use. These industries
ship $1 trillion in products annually, employ over 3 million people,
and generate four additional jobs in the economy for each manufacturing
job. The Office of Industrial Technologies partners with key energy-
intensive industries to develop and apply advanced technologies and
practices that reduce energy consumption, maintain and create jobs,
boost productivity, and significantly improve the competitiveness of
the United States. In fiscal year 2002, we are requesting $46.4 million
for Industries of the Future (specific); $31.9 million for Industries
of the Future (crosscutting); and $9.4 million for management and
planning. The fiscal year 2002 request for Industry programs reflects a
shift to areas with greater potential for industry participation.
Federal Energy Management (FEMP).--As the nation's largest energy
consumer, the Federal government can lead the nation in becoming a
cleaner, more efficient energy consumer. In 1999, the Federal
government spent almost $8 billion to provide energy to its buildings,
vehicles, and operations. Over 40 percent of the government's energy
bill is spent on heating, cooling, and powering its 500,000 buildings.
The Office of Federal Energy Management Programs reduces Federal energy
costs by advancing energy efficiency and water conservation, promoting
the use of renewable energy, and managing utility costs in Federal
facilities and operations, including those of the Department of Energy.
The FEMP program facilitates alternative financing, bringing private
resources to bear on the up-front investment needed to make efficiency
and conservation improvements at federal facilities. The program also
provides technical assistance to help federal facility managers better
address their energy needs. In fiscal year 2002, we are requesting
$13.3 million for FEMP.
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
For the Energy Information Administration (EIA), we are requesting
$75.5 million for ongoing data and analysis activities and critical
data quality enhancements. EIA's base program includes 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; and the maintenance
of the Short-Term Integrated Forecasting System for near-term energy
market analysis and forecasting
In fiscal year 2002, EIA will focus on three multi-year
initiatives. They are: (1) redesigning the 20-year old energy
consumption surveys to update the survey frames, sampling design, and
data systems, and realign them with the information on residential and
commercial buildings populations resulting from the 2000 census; (2)
revising EIA's natural gas and electricity surveys and data systems to
reflect changes in these restructured energy industries; and (3)
addressing critical petroleum and natural gas data quality issues to
facilitate EIA's ability to collect and disseminate reliable and
accurate energy data needed to assist the Administration and Congress
in making informed energy policy decisions.
ECONOMIC REGULATION
The fiscal year 2002 budget request of $2.0 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 funds from refund processing are transferred to the
Treasury.
CONCLUSION
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 Burns. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and we have about
7 minutes remaining on this vote. You can rest now----
Secretary Abraham. All right.
Senator Burns [continuing]. And we have two votes, two
stacked votes. We will all go vote, and I will just recess this
committee and take care of those two votes, then we will be
right back and get into the question and answer session. Thank
you very much. We appreciate your consideration.
We will call the committee back to order.
Mr. Secretary, I must apologize that the Senate is not any
more well-behaved than it was when you were a Member of it.
Secretary Abraham. So blaming me all those years----
Senator Burns. I am sorry it takes 35 minutes on a 15-
minute vote and 16 minutes on a 10-minute vote, so I must
apologize for that.
EARMARKS
Last year, Mr. Secretary--and the ranking member will be
along momentarily, because I know you have got other things to
do and so do we. Last year, Senator Gorton and Senator Stevens
and Senator Byrd and I sharply criticized your predecessor for
withholding the allocation of funds appropriated by this
committee for specific purposes and specific projects. Can I
have your commitment that once the President has signed this
appropriations bill, that you will move as swiftly as possible
to allocate and obligate the funds provided for the purposes
laid out in this bill and our committee reports.
Secretary Abraham. We will do that. We actually, as you
know, I have directed the Department to move forward with
respect to previous congressionally directed appropriations,
and I believe we have acted with respect to 1999 and 2000
approps, and are moving to do the same with respect to those in
this fiscal year, although obviously there are some time
considerations this year that we are part-way through, but we
will work with the committee.
Senator Burns. I think what frustrates a lot of us up here
on the Hill is that we get an agreement with the
administration, and then those agreements kind of go by the
wayside after the President finally signs the bill.
Under the last administration, it seems EPA regulations
were often not consistent with the goals of R&D programs
supported by the Department of Energy and their funds. I was
heartened by the meetings we have had with Ann Veneman, the
Secretary of Agriculture, and the Director at EPA, because the
two of them have sat down and are talking, because we have
certain things going on in agriculture that has a lot to do
with the EPA.
I would like to hear from you if you are willing to sit
down with other Departments such as the Director of EPA, Ms.
Whitman, and to iron out some of your differences in policy
direction. I think you understand the demands of energy for
this country, and the environmental rules that may impede
development. Hopefully we can then get more cooperation between
the EPA and your Department.
Secretary Abraham. Senator, we actually have been trying to
proceed along that very approach since we took office. One of
the arguments that supported the President's decision to create
an Energy Policy Development Task Force, made up of a variety
of members of the Cabinet, was the need to have an
interdepartmental look at these issues, because we recognize
that while the Department of Energy would have a lot of
priorities with respect to generating new sources, that the
Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Interior
had ultimate authority with regard to either regulations or the
availability and use of public lands or whatever issue might
come up.
So we have already begun that, and that is what this Energy
Policy Task Force has been created for, and I would just
indicate, Governor Whitman and I have worked together on a
variety of different issues over the years in her previous
role, and in addition to the work we do on the task force
together have been working together on other matters where the
Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency
policies converge.
Senator Burns. Well, right now I think the most important
thing that you have got on your plate is the dialogue between
Secretary Norton and Director Whitman and yourself in these
agencies on how we can coordinate and move this country
forward. I would also point out there was a report recently
released by the Coal Council saying that over 40,000 megawatts
of power can be available in retrofitting or upgrading existing
coal powered generation plants.
They do not do it because of the EPA's rules on new source
review. I think this is an example where you have got to
develop a dialogue with the EPA. If we have a shortage of
power, but we still have a credibility problem with the people
who generate it, then I think we should investigate ways that
we can increase the output or the efficiency of existing coal-
powered plants.
I am a big proponent of coal, because we have a lot of it
in Montana, much of it compliant coal, that we could use to get
our electricity rates back into an acceptable range. We are
going to have to use this resource, because that is where over
50 percent of our production is, from coal-powered generation.
Now, the Energy Policy Task Force, being led by Vice
President Cheney, will soon announce its recommendations within
the next few weeks. These recommendations will play an
important role in shaping the energy-related legislation moving
through Congress, including this appropriations bill. Are you
confident that right now you are on the same track as the
recommendations that will be forthcoming from this task force?
Secretary Abraham. Do you mean with respect to our budget?
Senator Burns. Yes.
Secretary Abraham. I am, and the point that was made in the
questions, and the earlier statements that were made, was a
comment on the text of my written submission here today that we
felt this was a prudent transition budget, and the point I
attempted to make in using that expression was simply this.
When we took office, the budget process was well-advanced, and
the timetable for preparing a budget was very constrained.
We attempted, as best we could, recognizing that the Cheney
task force recommendations could conceivably drive new
priorities, or adjust existing ones, we tried to put together a
budget that gave us as much flexibility as we felt we needed to
address priorities that emerged from the task force while still
moving ahead with what we thought were the core competencies of
the different programs within the Department and, to the extent
we already knew them, the President's priorities.
We knew he had placed the priority on clean coal
technology, it is reflected in the budget, that he had a
priority for introducing weatherization support, it is in the
budget, and what we tried to do in the other areas is to not
anticipate the results of the Cheney task force, but to try to
maintain the core competencies of the various areas subject to
the recommendations, that might therefore result in changes in
terms of budget emphasis.
FOSSIL ENERGY R&D BUDGET
Senator Burns. In terms of the priorities, Mr. Secretary,
the current administration request for fossil energy research
and development total was $448.8 million. Last year, we
provided a total of $545.2 million in the same programs. These
programs include research and development to increase turbine
efficiency of our power plants, reduce admissions, and recover
natural gas and oil in an environmentally sensitive manner.
Considering the situation that we are in, of extreme
supply-demand pressures on fossil fuels and transportation,
electricity generation, how can you justify this severe
reduction in the types of research that will allow us to
address our Nation's growing energy needs in a responsible
manner?
Secretary Abraham. Mr. Chairman, the submission for this
year, as I indicated earlier, is actually larger than the
submission that was made to this committee by the previous
administration for last year in this area. Some things changed
subsequent to that submission that caused the final
appropriation level to be higher to the amount that you
indicated, approximately $545 million.
One of the factors that differentiates our situation from
that of a year ago is that I believe we were somewhere in the
vicinity of $132 million of rescission dollars that were
available to be used in this budget. That is money that was
available from the previous year, that I do not have the
benefit of being able to apply in this budget that we have
submitted here.
I would also point out that with regard to one of the line
items that is included in the 2001 appropriation, that is, the
power plant initiative, which is I think at about $95 million,
that there is, in fact, a triggering mechanism whereby the
actual release of those moneys and their expenditure for the
most part is actually going to occur in the year 2002 fiscal
year. As a consequence--not that that is not money that is in
the 2001 budget, but it is largely going to be money that is
going to be spent in 2002--I do not consider our appropriation
request to be deficient, for those two reasons.
However, I would return to the point that I made earlier.
We did make some decisions with regard to priorities. One of
them was the priority of the clean coal technology investment
that the President recommended during his campaign, and which
is reflected here in terms of an initial $150 million down
payment towards a $2 billion 10-year commitment.
To accommodate that, we have moved some resources within
the finite amount that we had available from some of the
research and development programs, those that relate to oil and
gas, and some of the others as well, the power and fuels area.
We believe that the industries that benefit from these
technologies are in a much stronger position today than they
have been in a long time, to be greater participants in funding
this sort of research, and I would say that with due respect to
the industries, but in areas like natural gas and areas like
power systems and so on, we are talking about an era in which
profits are up, in which prices are up, in which we believe
that the cost-share that the industry participates at should be
greater, and we intend to try to examine that issue.
Now, some would say without Government, none of this
research will go on. I question that in some of these areas,
because I think the interests of the industries themselves are
so great, and their position financially is strong enough now
to make up those differences, and that is something we will
have time to explore.
Senator Burns. Well, I was looking here at some numbers
that were not matching up. Of course if the $95 million's to be
spent in 2002, as you said, you are still requesting another
$150 million on top of that. Can we assume that that will be
spent in the year of 2002 also?
Secretary Abraham. Well, that is our plan. We have just
begun the process of seeking bids, if you would, for the
expenditure of the first $95 million. That process has begun.
We have been quite gratified by the amount of response we have
received. In fact, there will be no trouble finding partners to
share in the research that the $95 million will trigger. In
fact, we have already received well over $95 million, more than
enough, should we choose to fund all the projects that have
come in, so not just spend that initial power plant initiative
$95 million, but also the $150 million that we propose could be
added on.
FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY
Senator Burns. Let us talk about an area where there was a
significant cutback, and an area also that I think has
significant support in this committee and in this Senate, fuel
cell technology. I happen to believe that we have great
opportunities there, because I have worked very hard in the
last 4, 5, 6 years--well, maybe going all the way back to 1991,
in the development of fuel cells, and watched their development
both in this country and abroad.
As a result, Montana has received funding for multiple DOE
projects propelling fuel cell research forward, and we live in
a State where we have all of the elements to work with when we
talk about fuel cell development. I happen to think that from
an environmental standpoint, and in areas where we know that we
have distribution problems, fuel cells will be the answer of
the future.
Despite the proposed cuts in the fuel cell program, I am
sure you understand the potential of this technology, and what
it holds. I need your assurance that you are as dedicated to
fuel cell technology and R&D work as this Congress is.
Secretary Abraham. Mr. Chairman, we are, and I would just
note that the cumulative commitment with respect to fuel cell
technology is approximately $92 million in the total budget, if
you add those which fall into the category of energy efficiency
programs in transportation sector and so on, along with those
that fall within the fossil energy share, the distributed
generation system share of the budget, and the fact is that
that is a number, as you acknowledge, that is lower in the
fossil side by about $7 million from last year.
It is my understanding that this is largely a reflection of
the fact that we completed the demonstration of the 250-
kilowatt molten carbonate fuel cell power plant system program,
which as I understand it, the completion of which is the reason
that there is a slightly lower amount. In fact, in that
category the reduction that that brought about was about $19
million, so in fact we overall are committed in our judgment at
least as much as before.
But if I could just expand briefly, not only do I share the
views that I do recognize are widely held by the Members of the
Senate and Congress, but we view the investments in this area,
in the areas that relate to the distributed generation systems
and distributed energy investments in hydrogen research, to be
ones that have a tremendous amount of promise in terms of
alternative energy approaches, and so it is a commitment that
is reflected if you look at the renewable side of the
Department budget, and it is a commitment that is reflected
here. We really see that as the future.
We believe that a lot of the research has matured in some
of the other areas which we focused on in the areas like wind
and solar and others, that these are areas that need more
commitment, and we intend to provide it.
Senator Burns. Well, we are very interested in it in
Montana, but I would say that we get the feeling every now and
then that maybe some of the research has kind of run its
course, and maybe we ought to take off in another direction,
but we do not believe that is the case in fuel cell research.
Secretary Abraham. We do not, either.
POWER SYSTEMS
Senator Burns. So we think that is a very important
situation.
However, over in fossil energy, in power systems, in the
power systems where you have had severe cutbacks this time, is
it your feeling that most of those programs have been completed
and need to be phased out?
Secretary Abraham. Well, you know, we have analyzed them on
a program by program basis, obviously, and I will give one
example in the fuel and power system area. As I said, there are
sort of two thoughts that have governed this process. One is
the question of whether we believe that the private sector
participation level could be increased, and I happen to think
that--you know, one of the issues that we raised during opening
statements here, and is in the ongoing discussions of energy,
is the question of, or the concerns--people say, well, the
companies involved are doing very well, and somehow we need to
investigate.
Maybe we should, maybe we should not, but we do know that
energy companies are in a position right now, I think, to make
some of these investments at a greater participation level than
they have, and we are going to explore that, but there is
also--we tried to analyze some of the programs more
specifically. One area where in the power systems there is a
zeroing out is the turbines.
Senator Burns. We noticed that.
TURBINES
Secretary Abraham. And what I will tell you is this. We
worked in the Department on major R&D commitments over a period
of time on a $400-megawatt utility scale turbines, big
turbines, those that provide major, major energy production,
but that work is finished. The product, or the science and the
research program ended, and so right off the bat we would not
continue something that was now a completed project.
The question became whether or not to launch a new
initiative with respect to research and development in terms of
turbines technology in the area of mid-size turbines. These
would be smaller turbines. They can move round and about. These
would be in the 40-megawatt kind of area of generation, up to
100, or even some would say 200.
What I found interesting in considering this line of items
is an experience I had right after I became named--actually
became Secretary. I heard from General Electric Company that
they had a demand that has a 5-year backlog in terms of the
production of these very types of turbines.
What they contacted me to inquire about is whether or not
there was any way that perhaps some of these that are coming
off the production line soon could be made available for
California's energy shortages this summer. Not that we could
just order that, obviously people had already paid for those,
but to perhaps let California know that such turbines were out
there, perhaps see if some of the people in line ahead of
California would consider changing places.
But the thing that became clear to me is that this is
technology that is already out there, that the expenditure of a
large amount of taxpayer money at this point, before I could
analyze further that there needed to be additional
investigation and research and development in this area, was
not really justified.
To put $30 million more dollars in, to be able to say well,
we are keeping it steady, when it would seem that the product
of that work might already be available, and where there was
such a large market for it that they have 5-year backlog, and I
guess Westinghouse has a similar kind of a system available,
that it sounded like plenty of incentives already existed to
generate and bring to market these kinds of generation, these
sources of generation, and probably a lot of incentive to
improve them and make them more efficient simply because of the
backlog.
So that is the kind of decisionmaking we did.
Senator Burns. The same would be true of oil and gas and
coal fuels, because you have got an 83-percent cut there.
Secretary Abraham. Well, again, you know, some of these are
questions with respect to markets.
Senator Burns. Most of that is transportation fuels, you
know.
Secretary Abraham. Right, and again, obviously, I make no
statement here that suggests that there cannot be differences
of opinion as to what the emphasis should be. In the fossil
energy program we have increased, with $150 million, our
commitment to clean coal technology. Some worry about the fact
that to make that kind of increase we have moved resources from
other areas.
We actually felt that the incentives for technology
advances in the area of oil and natural gas right now in the
private sector were greater than they had been in a long time,
and that the rationale for Government stepping in and taking as
big a role as it had previously taken to fund that sort of
research had diminished.
You know, I say this against the backdrop of being
inundated by calls from Governors, Members of Congress and
others concerned about the high gas prices, high natural gas
prices, high prices at the gasoline stations people are paying,
and the so-called record profits companies are making. I am not
suggesting--I believe the companies are, you know, in a
position to basically do a little more in terms of this
research because we are now in a different period.
A few years ago, the price, as you know, of oil, the price
was much lower, natural gas was much lower. The incentives to
engage in this kind of technology in our opinion were far
greater, and that is why Congress made the kinds of investments
it did, but I question whether we need to keep funding at that
level, given the incentives that I think are available in the
private sector, given the profit margins and the prices today.
That is the choice we made, and again I can understand that
people would have a different perspective on it, but we thought
that moving more into clean coal technology right now, in light
of the, as you indicated earlier the situation that exists with
respect to the potential reserves there, the questions that we
confront with regard to the ability of maintaining, producing
the coal in a sufficiently clean way to be able to take
advantage of the 250-year reserve, warranted that kind of
priority.
NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY COOPERATION
Senator Burns. I just think that we have--I am going to ask
one question, and then I am going to--and I have taken up way
too much of your time already, but President Bush recently held
meetings with two North American leaders, Vincente Fox of
Mexico and Jean Chretien of Canada, to discuss energy
development in cooperation between our two countries. Did you
go to Quebec City, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Abraham. I did not participate.
Senator Burns. Do you believe that the oil and gas
exploration and the shipments from outside nations will serve
as a viable solution to some of our energy problems we are
experiencing here?
Secretary Abraham. I believe, and I think the President has
taken very positive steps, and I believe that we can expand our
hemispheric energy cooperation activities. I recently had the
chance to represent our country at the Hemispheric Energy
Ministers Conference that took place in March in Mexico City,
and we had I thought a very positive set of meetings there on a
variety of fronts, and if you will give me a minute or two, I
would just like to highlight a couple of the positive
developments.
On the one hand, within our North American energy
community, my counterparts, the energy ministers of Mexico and
Canada and I met on a trilateral basis and have agreed to
launch a North American energy initiative, or framework, to
work together to see how we can, in a cooperative sense,
maximize opportunities in our North American subcontinent.
There are a lot of options, and we are looking at them
through a working group that will be meeting in Washington in
June, but the kinds of things we are looking at is where
greater interconnectivity could provide for more export and
import potential.
For example, California's energy problem in electricity is
aggravated by an infrastructure limitation right now that
prohibits California from importing more than a small amount of
electricity from Mexico.
When I was in Mexico I met with both the electricity and
the energy minister in Mexico and ask if they could increase
their supply to California from their Baja California power
facilities, and they indicated they could increase by about 50
to 100 megawatts by the summer, and then by maybe as many as
500 or more megawatts by the fall. The problem is that on our
side of the border, we can only at total move 408 megawatts
from the border to San Diego.
So working on those kinds of shared problems is one thing
that came out of that conference, and another is that there is
considerable interest in Mexico and other countries in South
America to promote a much higher level of private investment in
terms of the development of potential reserves, natural gas in
particular, which was one full day of our conference was
devoted to how to bring more private investment into countries
where that has not always been culturally or even legally the
tradition.
So I see a great opportunity to answer your question, and
we intend to work closely with our neighbors in the hemisphere.
Senator Burns. Well, I think it is very important, and when
we consider that 95 percent of the power generation that is on
the drawing board right now is powered by natural gas, I think
we are going to have to have our gas lines and what we use out
of Canada and Mexico in natural gas is going to be very, very
important.
We do have a difference in our priorities, and as we move
through this thing we will be in discussions with you and your
staff, Mr. Secretary, to iron out those differences. Now I
would move to my good friend from West Virginia, Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, I want to beg the chair's
pardon and yours for being tardy, but I voted twice on this
last vote. I voted, and then I came back over here and was told
that my vote had not been recorded, so I had to go back and
cast that vote. That makes 15,959 votes that I have cast in the
43 years I have been in the Senate, a roll call attendance
record of 98.7 percent.
Senator Burns. Have all of them been good?
Senator Byrd. No. There are a few I have regretted.
As I examine your budget request, Mr. Secretary, and try to
square it with the rhetoric that I hear coming from the
administration, frankly, I am more than just a little bit
perplexed. Last week, the Vice President was in Toronto to
preview your energy policy, and the Vice President said, and I
quote, the technologies are proving that we can save energy
without sacrificing our standard of living, and we are going to
encourage it in every way possible. That is a very good sound
bite, but the budget figures do not mesh with the Vice
President's statement.
I do applaud the administration's support, as I said
earlier, for clean coal technologies. I started that program in
1985 with a $750 million authorization, and since then, through
my Appropriations Committee, we have appropriated $2.4 billion
for that program, so I am a supporter of it without any
question, but a national energy plan must have fuel diversity
at its core. Your administration is proposing a 53-percent cut
in natural gas reserves.
Let me have this chart over here. Put it over here.
Now, for coal and power systems, that is not including
clean coal technology. Can you see it over there? The chart
shows that in fiscal year 2001 there were $229,234,000
appropriated. In fiscal year 2002, there is being proposed
$159,801,000. That is a reduction of $69,433,000, or 30
percent. That is coal and power systems. That excludes clean
coal technology.
For natural gas technologies, fiscal year 2001, we enacted
$45,029,000. For next year it is proposed $21 million, a
reduction of $24,029,000, or 53 percent.
Oil technologies, fiscal year 2001, $66,874,000, fiscal
year 2002, $30,499,000, a reduction of $36,375,000, or 54
percent.
Salaries and expenses, down 13 percent, other R&D, $29.2
million in fiscal year 2001, 2002, $17.7 million, a reduction
of $151,463,000 total, R&D 40 percent reduction, and total, for
all these categories, total reduction, 34 percent.
Now, let us look at clean coal technology, $95 million in
fiscal year 2001, $150 million in 2002--we will all applaud
that. That is an increase of $55 million, 58 percent, but note
that for fiscal year 2002, clean coal technology is going to be
$150 million. We are losing $150 million up here, so we are
picking up $55 million in clean coal technology in 2002, if
what has been requested is enacted, picking up $55 million
more, while we are cutting back $151,463,000.
So in this budget request I do not see the Bush
administration encouraging energy technologies in every way
possible. On the contrary, I see a budget that discourages
research into new, more efficient, more environmentally sound
technologies. I see a budget with artificially set numbers that
were designed to fit in a predetermined mold.
I do not think that this budget request is defensible in
light of all the rhetoric coming from the other end of the
avenue about new technologies and cleaner-burning fuel. Mr.
Secretary, can we expect that the administration will soon
submit a revised budget plan for the Department that more
accurately reflects the costs associated with an overall
national energy policy?
Secretary Abraham. Senator, as you know, we are on the
verge, probably within the next 10 days, of having the final
results of the President's national energy plan presented to
the country, to the Congress and the American people. All of
the areas you have mentioned are areas which have been under
serious scrutiny as part of the development of that plan, and
it was our view that to begin, in areas where we did not feel
we had a clear guidance, as I said in my opening comments, from
the President in his campaign platform or in his initial
comments after the Inaugural, where we did not have clear
guidance, we have tried to retain the flexibility to move in
the directions recommended by the policies that are advocated
as part of the national energy plan, because I believe, and I
know you do, that budgets should be driven by policy
priorities, and I expect that next week we will get a lot of
clear guidance in terms of the policies that this
administration seeks to establish as our energy priorities, and
that, in turn, translates into, I suspect, significant budget
ramifications.
What I cannot tell you today is whether or not that would
take the form of any changes with regard to this year's budget
in terms of any kind of resubmission, whether there might be a
supplemental, whether there might be negotiations that would
take place as just part of the normal appropriation process.
I can indicate to the committee, for certain that it will
be reflected in our 2003 submission, because then we will have
the full budget process in place, but as to how we might take
those new priorities and shape them into any kinds of
alteration of the budget submission here, which of the possible
courses--I am not sure that it is ultimately a decision I would
make, it is one OMB and the White House would make, but----
Senator Byrd. Well, I wish it were a decision you would
make.
I do not go to lunch in the Senators' dining room, very
seldom, once or twice a year. We have a special place there for
Senators, a little room in which they eat. I never go there. I
bring a sandwich. Sometimes it is a baloney sandwich. It may be
peanut butter. I especially like peanut butter sandwiches, and
above all I like crunchy peanut butter.
Now, you, in your position, are in a position of that
sandwich. You have got the administration biting at you on one
side, and you have got Senators like Robert Byrd on the other
side, and you are going to get eaten if you are not careful.
You are going to be cannibalized.
Let me ask specifically----
Secretary Abraham. Well, I have noted a slight change in
responsibility from being on that side of the table.
I cannot say that all the changes have been ones that are
preferable.
Senator Byrd. Well, with so much focus placed on increasing
the supply of fossil energy sources, I find it rather curious
that the Bush administration wants to cut the Energy
Department's research and development funds, as I have
indicated, outside clean coal, by 34 percent from the fiscal
year 2001 levels. To me, that is a shortsighted budget that
fails to meet our Nation's long-term energy needs. How do you
explain that?
We are beefing up clean coal technology, but we are
cutting--we are helping to pay for that by taking money from
fossil fuels energy research.
Secretary Abraham. Well, let me talk about it on three
levels, if I could, and just take a little extra time in this
answer.
Senator Byrd. Not too much. Not too much.
Senator Burns. He will miss his sandwich.
Secretary Abraham. There are three issues I would note. The
first one I have already indicated, which is that it is
entirely possible that the budgets of the future certainly
would reflect changes in terms of priorities that come about
after the results of the task force are released.
Second, I would point out that we do have some constraints
this year that did not exist last year, or at least that I have
been constrained by. One of them, as I mentioned a few minutes
ago before you were here, in answer to Senator Burns, is that
last year we had, I think, about $132 to $136 million of
rescissions that were available to be used in the fossil energy
budget that I have not--there may be some additional dollars
available this year, but they were not available to me in terms
of preparing this submission. That constrained the latitude
that we had in terms of program considerations.
But also, I do want to go back to a point I made before.
There were some areas here where we made some decisions that
continuing programs as they had been before was just not a
warranted use of taxpayer money, and I mentioned before you
arrived one area, the turbines area, where the work was
completed on the large turbine program, and the question was,
do we now enter into a major commitment--last year that
commitment level was almost $31 million--with respect to mid-
sized turbines.
Senator Byrd. Would you focus on clean coal technology----
Secretary Abraham. Sure.
Senator Byrd [continuing]. What I asked the question about?
Secretary Abraham. Well, I am sorry. I guess my
understanding was that you wanted a sense of how we were
committing to more fossil research and other research and yet
cutting down the amount.
Is your question with regard to clean coal, then, how we
arrived at this amount?
Senator Byrd. My question is, how do you square all this
great rhetoric about where we are going in energy--and heaven
knows, we have got a job to do with regard to energy, but I
find that the clean coal technology program has increased, in
keeping with the President's campaign promises while he was in
West Virginia. If West Virginia had not gone for this
President, if West Virginia had gone for Mr. Gore, Mr. Gore
would be President today, and his Secretary of Energy would be
sitting there.
Now, that is all well and good, and I talked with Mr. Bush
about this on the plane. He had the courtesy and had the
goodwill to invite me--me, a poor boy from down the sticks of
west Virginia. I used to slop pigs, you know, gather up the
scraps and feed the pigs, and I did not have any running water
in the house. We did not have any bathroom in the house. We
went outside to the toilet. You know, things have changed. It
used to be that people ate on the inside of the house and went
outside to the toilet. Now they eat on the outside and go
inside to the toilet. Think about that.
Well, I am a--you people do not know anything about that. I
lived in the Depression, you see, and when I married, 64 years
ago, 3 weeks from today, I was making $75 a month. Can anybody
in the office beat that, anybody in the audience beat that? If
you can, raise your hand.
What I am saying is, the President was kind enough to
invite me. I did not have anything when I was a boy. My dad was
a coal miner. My wife's father was a coal miner. He invited me
to go to West Virginia with him on a plane.
So you can see why I have got the big head, and on that
trip I said to Mr. Bush, I said, Mr. President, you know I
support your idea of increasing moneys for clean coal
technology, but do not take it away from fossil fuels research.
I hear that that may be where the money is going to come from,
part of it, and I wrote him a letter, handed him a letter
saying that, do not take it from fossil fuels research, and lo
and behold, that is exactly where a lot of it is coming from,
fossil fuels research.
My question is to you, this is a short-sighted budget.
Explain why you want to cut fossil fuels research in view of
the energy problem that faces this country. Clean coal
technology is fine. You are looking at the daddy of that
program, the daddy, but fossil fuels research is also
important. Why are we cutting that?
FOSSIL FUELS RESEARCH
Secretary Abraham. Well, first of all, the President in the
campaign and subsequently in conversations with you, as well as
in conversations you and I had, has launched, as you know, a
10-year commitment, a $2 billion commitment to clean coal
technology, and that was a commitment that was publicly made by
the President, which you are supportive of, I know, and we will
fulfill that commitment.
The question of how we will fund that commitment over 10
years is one that we will work at after the task force
completes its work, in conjunction with other energy
priorities, within this budget.
To answer your question as to reducing fossil research in
other areas, here is the rationale. Again, within the finite
dollars that we had to work with, we made some choices of
priorities and we felt clean coal was a priority.
I felt turbines research, as I indicated earlier, was not a
priority because we had completed work on the $31 million
program that finished in the fiscal year 2001 year, and the
next generation of that research in our judgment was
unnecessary, because programs in that area of mid-sized
turbines already were in the marketplace and moving forward.
With respect to some of the other areas, we made a
decision, and believed that in light of the strength of the
industries involved, particularly in the areas of oil and
natural gas, that the share of research that can be borne by
those industries at this time can be greater than what it has
been, and should therefore be increased, and that is the
direction in which this budget will move.
Senator Byrd. Now, Mr. Secretary----
Secretary Abraham. There is certainly a debate on that, I
understand, but we believe that that potential certainly
exists.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, what you are saying is that
the administration is shifting funding away from programs where
the private sector could make and is expected to make a bigger
contribution. That is what you are saying, is it not?
Secretary Abraham. Yes, exactly.
Senator Byrd. Let me tell you the problem with that. The
problem with that is that you are betting on the fact that
corporate CEO's will take up the slack and invest hundreds of
millions, or even billions of dollars, corporate dollars, in
technologies that may not pay off--may not pay off in 3 years,
or 5 years or 10 years, or more. These are the same people who
in many cases cannot see beyond the next quarterly report, and
how the companies stock price will affect their pay check. Now,
that is the problem. We cannot depend upon private industry
here.
Private industry responded in a great way on clean coal
technology, and has supplied, as a matter of fact, two-thirds
of the money, instead of the required 50 percent. We cannot bet
on it in this--long-term, we cannot bet on private industries
picking up that slack.
I have got some more questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. You keep on going, because I took about 35
minutes, you know, right in front of you.
Senator Byrd. Thank you very much.
Senator Burns. I took advantage of your absence.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Abraham. Can I make just a comment, though,
Senator?
Senator Byrd. Yes, certainly.
PRIVATE INDUSTRY INCENTIVES
Secretary Abraham. Because obviously we believe that the
incentives for private industry to engage in this technology
are quite substantial right now. That is our look at it,
particularly in the area of oil and natural gas. Prices in
these areas are at very--significantly higher levels than they
have been in recent years, therefore the return on these
investments we believe is now much more attractive for the
companies, who maybe a few years ago, when prices were low,
would not have picked up that responsibility to the extent we
project.
I guess, you know, I think at this point that we should
look to those industries, as we have looked to the coal
industry with regard to clean coal technology to increase their
share, and frankly I think the idea that the taxpayer should
pick up the $60 million that we propose in these areas be
reduced at a time when we are seeing record profits in these
industries, it was hard for me to justify that kind of
priority-setting.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, I am sorry you are saying it
was hard for you to justify it. I thought this was the other
crowd that was making these decisions, and you were on the side
of really doing something about these brownouts, rolling
blackouts and all of that.
The record does not show--look at the record. The record
does not show that private industry is picking up these huge
amounts like this on fossil energy. How did we ever get started
in this? We got started because there was a need for the
Federal Government to do something about this.
I am not for the Federal Government doing everything, but
there are some areas in which the Federal Government has to do
it, and at least has to lead the way, and so I think that the
budget would play havoc with the Nation's preeminent fossil
energy research program, and we are going to do whatever we
can, Mr. Secretary, to put you and the Vice President and the
President on the right track.
NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY
Let us talk for a moment about the National Energy
Technology Laboratory. What do you expect would be the
repercussions of your budget request on the staffing levels at
that facility?
Secretary Abraham. We have not been able to make a final
decision on that, and I would be happy to keep you informed as
we reach that. I think obviously, as you are aware, there is a
reduction in our salaries and expenses line item, and so
obviously that leads to the potential for a reduced employment
level. We think that there is----
Senator Byrd. I am listening.
Secretary Abraham. But what we have not assessed is to what
extent attrition will be a factor between now and when these
changes would come into place, but I would acknowledge that
there will be a decease in the amount of dollars available, and
that therefore we would expect the total employment level would
be lower.
Senator Byrd. As I understand it, it will be about 58 at
the lab.
Secretary Abraham. 58 is one number, the highest number I
have heard, but we are not sure whether or not that takes into
account either attrition or some changes that we are still
examining here.
Senator Byrd. Certainly we will be losing many critical
energy technology scientists and experts. Do you think this is
being short-sighted?
Secretary Abraham. Well, in my judgment we have a
tremendous complex both there and across the labs, all of the
labs that we have. We have tried in this budget to take an
approach towards the support of the sciences and the research
programs in a way that will minimize the effect of it, and I
think we have done that.
Senator Byrd. Well, obviously we have a chasm here that is
going to be hard to bridge, but we will bridge it, and I will
still have your friendship, and you will still have mine.
Secretary Abraham. I am sure of that, sir.
Senator Byrd. But this is one Senator that is just not
going to go along. This is flim-flam that we are getting from
the administration.
Let us see what that task force comes up with. Maybe I will
be shown to be wrong, but I want to see what the task force
says, but we have got to talk about these figures as we see
them presented now. Why not follow the example set by Secretary
Rumsfeld, who is waiting to submit his budget until he has
completed his review of the Nation's defense policy?
Secretary Abraham. Well, we----
Senator Byrd. I have another question. That was a
rhetorical question.
Secretary Abraham. Oh, okay.
I did not have that answer here, either, so I am glad it
was rhetorical.
Senator Byrd. Maybe you had a good answer on that one.
Well, industry--we have been talking about industry--has
been an important partner in the clean coal technology effort.
The successes that we have seen to date would not have been
possible without such a public-private partnership.
At the same time, I do not think that it is plausible to
believe that industry will pick up a 34-percent cut in the
Department's overall nonclean coal research and development
program. The President has stated that his energy plan will be
a long-run solution to the energy problems we now face. If the
President thinks we face problems now, those problems will only
be compounded by a short-sighted budget that sacrifices the
Federal commitment to energy research and development.
Now, just to be right to the point, the basic reason why we
are seeing these reductions, and it is not just in this budget,
and redirecting program moneys from one program to another,
which is robbing Peter to pay Paul, the basic reason is to pay
for this huge tax cut.
Now, you are kind of in that sandwich again, and I can
understand. I do try to feel for you on these things, but that
is the basic reason why we are being underfunded, but that will
have to be settled another day and elsewhere.
But Mr. Secretary, thank you for appearing here. Thank you
for your responses, but just be ready, because we are going to
change those figures on this committee, and bless your heart, I
think you are going to like it better, because I think you will
have more money and more people and more research, and a better
program.
Secretary Abraham. Senator, thank you, and I look forward
to continuing both our meetings as well as hearings as we work
together on this.
Senator Burns. Thank you Senator Byrd, and before you got
here, my first question was--and you probably are not aware of
it. I remember last year when Senator Gorton and I and you and
Senator Stevens were sharply critical of the Secretary moving
some money around and not expending it on those line items, if
you will remember. The Secretary very graciously said today
that whatever comes down, that is where it will be spent, and
it will not be moved unless he has consultation with this
committee. I was very happy to hear him say that, and I think
it is one of your concerns also.
Senator Byrd. And hopefully not rescinded. I had to fight
those rescissions in the last administration, so I am not
picking on you, or your administration by itself. I have been a
critic of the previous administration trying to rescind clean
coal technology money, and I fought them at every curve, and so
we have got some problems you are not accountable for.
Senator Burns. I have but just a couple of questions, and I
think there are some questions that Senator Campbell indicated
that he had, and Mr. Secretary, we will submit those to you in
writing, and if you would respond to the individual Senator and
to the committee, why, that would be good.
I appreciate your patience today.
Secretary Abraham. No problem.
Senator Burns. I apologize for the Senate. The behavior of
the Senate has not changed a lot since he was a Member, so we
appreciate your patience in this regard. We will submit written
questions, and Mr. Secretary, we look forward to working with
you and working out our difficulties and our priorities. I
think it is a question of priorities more than anything else.
It is not a question of money.
The money is there, but we have to put some emphasis on
where I think, and where Senator Byrd and the committee thinks,
is the direction we are going. That being the case, I think we
can work it out, but there will be a lot of consultation
between the entities before we have got a final appropriations.
Secretary Abraham. There will be. I just thank both of you
and the other members of the committee. Obviously, just on a
personal level it is enjoyable to work with our friends on
things, and I really regard, obviously, my former colleagues as
good friends that help us to work together more effectively,
and I look forward to doing that with both of you and the other
members of the subcommittee.
Additional committee questions
Senator Burns. 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 Conrad Burns
WEATHERIZATION VS. RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Question. The President's request for Energy Conservation increases
funding for the Weatherization grant program by $120 million, but
reduces funding for Energy Conservation R&D by an even greater amount.
Instead of grants making up about a quarter of the Energy Conservation
budget as they currently do, grants would be nearly 40 percent of the
total. Do you think this is an appropriate balance between Grants and
investments in R&D?
Answer. The Administration has proposed a $120 million increase in
funding for the Weatherization Program in fiscal year 2002 as part of a
10-year commitment to increase funding by $1.4 billion. The President
has made this commitment because he understands that the Weatherization
Assistance Program provides home energy efficiency retrofits to
materially reduce energy bills for low-income American families. Energy
cost burden for low-income American families is four times greater, as
a proportion of their income, than for other households, and who are
least able to afford the cost of energy or the cost of improvements to
make their homes more energy efficient.
Weatherization and R&D do very different things and have very
different purposes. As President Bush has noted, we have a long-term
energy crisis on our hands that will take considerable effort and time
to overcome. In the meantime there will be a considerable and growing
need to help less fortunate Americans to deal with high and volatile
energy prices. The Weatherization Assistance Program has demonstrated
that it can cost-effectively meet that need for many of our nation's
poor.
Question. Are you confident that the increase requested for
Weatherization can be effectively spent by the states in fiscal year
2002?
Answer. The proposed $120 million increase in DOE funding for the
Weatherization Program in fiscal year 2002 will enable States to
weatherize 123,000 low-income homes. This represents an increase of
48,000 homes weatherized compared to fiscal year 2001. Many States will
need to expand capacity to deliver these services and invest the
increased funding. To meet the production goals defined by DOE, States
will need to begin planning now for the proposed increase, in order to
be prepared to deliver expanded weatherization services as soon as
their Program Year 2002 begins. DOE will assist States in their ramp-up
activities by providing planning tools, flexible program guidance, and
the option to receive advance funds from their fiscal year 2002 grant
amount as soon as appropriations are allocated. Based on our
experience, we are confident that this increase can be absorbed and the
increased number of weatherized homes can be achieved.
Question. According to the budget request, DOE's Buildings R&D
programs will result in energy savings of 2 quads (quadrillion BTUs) by
2010. The Weatherization program is projected to result in energy
savings of only \1/10\ of a quad by 2010. In light of these numbers,
how do you justify nearly doubling the Weatherization program while
cutting Buildings R&D in half?
Answer. The Administration's position on this question is
straightforward. The purpose of the Weatherization Assistance Program
is not to save quads of energy for their own sake, but to use energy
efficiency to reduce low-income household energy bills to affordable
levels and to improve the health and safety of the vulnerable elderly
and young among us. We justify the Weatherization Budget by noting that
the Administration's plan, in conjunction with leveraged state and
local resources, will weatherize 2.3 million low-income households over
the next ten years, saving an average of more than $300 per year on
each of those household's energy bills. The cumulative savings on low-
income energy bills will be nearly $4 billion. This is not to say that
high energy savings in other buildings programs is not a worthy
objective; it most certainly is. But it is no more appropriate to
measure the impact of Weatherization based simply on quads of energy
saved than it would be to assess the impact of a commercial roofing
program, for example, based on how much that program might reduce the
percentage of income that low-income households spend on energy. Each
has its own merits and should be judged on those merits. It is also
important to note that Weatherization has proven itself to be a cost
effective program, with a positive benefit/cost ratio of 2.1 to 1.
The Administration recently released its National Energy Plan which
makes two specific recommendations with respect to the DOE
Weatherization Assistance Program. (1) Recommends that the President
increase funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program by $1.4
billion over 10 years. Consistent with that commitment, the fiscal year
2002 Budget includes a $120 million increase over 2001. The Department
will have the option of using a portion of those funds to test improved
implementation approaches for the Weatherization Program. (2)
Recommends that the President support legislation to allow funds
dedicated for the Weatherization and State Energy Programs to be
transferred to LIHEAP if the Department of Energy deems it appropriate.
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
Question. The budget request for the Energy Information
Administration is at roughly the fiscal year 2001 level ($75.5
million), but within the amount requested EIA would have to absorb
roughly $4 million in fixed costs for pay increases, etc. In light of
the current crisis in our energy sector and the increasing demand being
placed on EIA's services, is the budget request adequate?
Answer. The demand for EIA data, analyses, forecasts, special
reports, and briefings, and the call on EIA to provide timely analyses
and reports, especially during recent volatility in energy prices, has
grown significantly. EIA's priority, as reflected in the fiscal year
2002 budget, is to maintain energy data programs and forecasting
systems needed to provide timely information during this period and in
future periods of high interest in energy. This includes continuing
improvements in EIA's electricity, natural gas, petroleum and energy
consumption surveys, and selected area where the quality of energy data
needs improvement.
EIA is able to fund the fiscal year 2002 fixed cost increases,
which includes the Federal personnel pay raise, with minimal impact to
programmatic activities by taking the following actions:
Reduce printed publications. In keeping with EIA's Strategic Plan
to reduce printed publication and make greater use of EIA's web site,
EIA plans to discontinue the publication of the State Energy Price and
Expenditure Report, the State Energy Data Report, the Renewable Issues
& Trends, the Electric Power Annual Volume I, and produce the Changing
Structure of the Electric Power Industry every two years instead of
annually.
Complete in fiscal year 2001 the Interruptible Natural Gas Contract
Study.
Defer maintenance on lower priority energy data surveys and
processing systems.
Downsize plans for the integration of current information
processing technology, and continue dependence on aging data systems
and infrastructure.
Complete the development of the 15 regional models on greenhouse
emissions, but defer plans to integrate the models into one
international model.
These actions are in-line with EIA's Strategic Plan to reduce
printed publication by making more energy data available on EIA's web-
site, and to maintain EIA's core energy data quality and analysis
capabilities.
Question. Will EIA be able to provide the Administration, Congress
and other users the information they need to assess energy markets and
policies?
Answer. EIA's mission is to gather and analyze a broad array of
energy data, disseminate energy information, and prepare reports and
forecasts to assist energy policy makers in making informed decisions.
EIA will continue to provide the energy data, analyses and forecasts
needed by energy policy makers.
Question. In fiscal year 2001 Congress provided EIA with additional
funds for a number of specific projects. Will these projects be
completed prior to fiscal year 2002? If not, can they be continued or
completed in fiscal year 2002 if EIA is provided the amount requested
in the budget?
Answer. EIA is progressing on each of the activities earmarked by
Congress in our fiscal year 2001 appropriation. In summary: (1)
Establish an outlet level sampling frame for gasoline and diesel
fuels--For fiscal year 2002 the new frame design will be completed and
implemented. (2) Expand weekly publication of gasoline prices to
include key States and cities--Prior to Memorial Day weekend 2001, the
weekly survey will be expanded to include prices for 6 cities and 5
States. For fiscal year 2002 EIA will integrate a new sample, and
additional cities and States. (3) Improve reliability and accuracy of
weekly petroleum data--With the primary focus is on the accuracy of
imports and refinery production data, to date EIA has determined that
several large companies were misreporting and several importers were
not reporting at all. By the end of fiscal year 2001 these problems
will be corrected. (4) Institute heating season biweekly survey of
companies' interruptible natural gas contracts--EIA has developed and
implemented a survey. In July 2001, the database for the months January
through March 2001 will be completed. By September 2001, EIA will
prepare a report to summarize: (a) the basic measures provided by the
data, (b) an analysis of industry and market behavior, and (c) an
assessment of data quality issues with recommendations for further
work.
BUDGET AMENDMENT AND PNGV PROGRAM
Question. The President's budget request maintains level funding
for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program. As
you note in your testimony, however, a budget amendment will soon be
submitted to move roughly $40 million out of the PNGV program and into
renewables programs funded in the Energy and Water bill (primarily
superconductivity and hydrogen research). Can you tell as a little more
about what is driving this budget amendment?
Answer. Together with our automotive partners we have reviewed the
PNGV program and agreed that it was time to revisit its goals. We will
streamline and refocus our joint automotive R&D efforts to provide
greater emphasis on those long-term technologies that offer major
societal benefits, while affording the broadest flexibility in
application. As detailed in the amendment, we seek to maintain
significant efforts in fuel cells, power electronics, advanced
batteries and carbon-based materials. Relatively more mature
technologies such as spark ignited engines, will receive less federal
emphasis; we expect that our private sector partners will assume the
major burden of further development of the most promising of the mature
technologies. We understand that our private sector partners would
welcome the increased flexibility that a revision to PNGV goals could
provide, seeing opportunities to better align their efforts with market
sectors where the best business cases could be made.
Question. What have you learned in the last month that leads you to
believe the PNGV program is no longer worth maintaining at current
levels, and can be cut by more than a third?
Answer. Over the past two months, senior members of my staff have
been engaged in discussions with representatives of our Partnership for
a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) industry partners regarding the
future of the partnership. The current program provides support for a
portfolio comprised of high risk research projects which have the
potential for benefits within the near-, mid-, and long-term. In
agreement with our industry partners, and in coordination with the
upcoming National Energy Plan, greater emphasis will be placed on the
long-term portion of the research portfolio, that is aimed at
overcoming fundamental obstacles to vehicle technologies offering the
highest potential for significant public benefits. This will enable us
to get the program's projected benefits at a lower cost for the
taxpayers.
Question. Will this amendment have an impact on the speed with
which DOE and its industry partners will reach PNGV program goals and
what will that impact be?
Answer. The PNGV program goals are set jointly by industry and the
Federal partners. We expect the current program goals can be met
through a different combination of resources and activities between
government and industry. We anticipate that changes in the research
targets and milestones will be reflected in revision of partnership
goals. Since fuel cell research is proposed at the 2001 level, we do
not anticipate that research targets and milestones in that important
area will be impacted. In other research topics, especially those
associated with mature relatively near-term technologies such as
combustion engines, we expect that the possible near term delays from
reduced federal funding will be resolved by our private sector partners
assuming the major burden of further development toward our long term
goals and their near term adaptation of those technologies for their
nearer term vehicles. Since approximately 54 percent of our PNGV
funding supports research at the national laboratories, and these
efforts are also the ones that can most easily be refocused, we expect
that the major impacts of reduced DOE funding will be felt by the
national laboratories as the development and investment shifts from the
labs to the industry.
Question. The broad goal of the PNGV program was to produce a
vastly more fuel efficient four passenger sedan. You have indicated
that one of the reasons for shifting funds out of the PNGV program is
to place a greater emphasis on fuel efficiency in SUVs, which now
command a substantial share of the automobile market. Isn't much of the
work being done on SUVs supported by funding in the Advanced Combustion
Engine R&D and Materials Technologies activities that would be reduced
by your budget amendment?
Answer. Clearly the majority of work in Advanced Combustion Engine
R&D and Materials Technologies can be applied to light-duty trucks
(SUVs), as well as passenger sedans. In deciding with our industry
partners to emphasize longer-term research opportunities in our joint
efforts, reductions will be taken in the Federal contribution to
relatively more mature technology areas. These technologies include
spark ignited internal combustion engines and lightweight metals such
as aluminum and advanced steels. We expect that our private sector
partners will assume the major burden of further development of the
most promising of the mature technologies.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Question. The Federal Energy Management Program supports efforts
throughout the Federal government to reduce Federal energy use. The
budget reduces funding for the FEMP program to almost half the current
year level. The budget justification also notes that the value of Super
ESPC (Energy Savings Performance Contracts) delivery orders placed will
drop from $120 million to $30 million. Is the reduction in Super-ESPC
orders directly linked to the proposed reduction in FEMP's budget, or
is it a result of other limiting factors?
Answer. The estimated reduction in Super-ESPC orders is linked to
the proposed reduction in FEMP's budget. FEMP uses experts in the
national laboratory system and other organizations to provide direct
project support and technical assistance to Federal facilities. The
level of delivery order support facilitated by FEMP is correlated to
the funding obligated to the laboratories and other experts who carry
out these services. The President's recent directive and the National
Energy Policy Development Group recommendations may result in more ESPC
orders than anticipated in the budget justification. The reduction in
Super ESPC funding is larger than the 48 percent FEMP budget cut
because we needed to maintain funding for Congressionally mandated
activities and to support other high priority initiatives (such as Peak
Load Management.)
Question. What will be the overall impact of the reduction in FEMP
on energy savings government-wide?
Answer. The impact will depend on the extent to which Federal
agencies are successful in leveraging private funds and paying for
their own energy management. FEMP's service vehicles--project
financing, technical and design assistance, and outreach--provide
expertise and experience that assist agencies with the implementation
of energy efficiency retrofit projects, incorporation of energy
efficient design into new construction projects, efficient operation
and maintenance, and the procurement of energy efficient products. FEMP
will continue to assist Federal agencies and assess Federal Agency
performance as defined in the Executive Orders.
Question. Is it your expectation that other agencies will be able
to implement cost-effective energy conservation measures using their
own resources, rather than relying as heavily on FEMP expertise?
Answer. FEMP experience and expertise has assisted many federal
agencies to create a core of competency in energy efficiency. Agencies
will still be able to use their own resources to implement cost-
effective energy conservation measures.
Question. On Thursday of last week, President Bush called on
Federal agencies to take immediate steps to reduce energy at Federal
facilities. Is the budget request for FEMP consistent with the spirit
of the President's directive?
Answer. The directive indicated that the work be accomplished
within current budget authority. The directive requires heads of
executive departments and agencies to take appropriate actions to
conserve energy use at their facilities, especially to conserve
electricity during peak periods in regions where electricity shortages
are possible. The National Energy Plan includes similar language.
Agencies should also review their existing operating and administrative
processes and conservation programs and identify and implement ways to
reduce such use. Near-term activities, including reporting on actions
taken within 30 days, will be covered with existing fiscal year 2001
funding. FEMP assists Federal agencies in reducing their energy demand
and in assessing Federal Agency energy performance and, as such, is
well positioned to help agencies meet their obligations under this
directive.
Question. Does the FEMP request reflect a policy decision that the
goals for reductions in energy use established in Executive Orders
12902 (Bush I) and 13123 (Clinton) are no longer appropriate, or does
the Administration simply feel these goals can be attained within the
budget proposed for fiscal year 2002?
Answer. The administration believes these goals may be accomplished
through increased use of private financing resources and by funding
FEMP activity through cost sharing from agencies benefiting from energy
reductions. FEMP is committed to the important goals set by these
energy efficiency Executive Orders.
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
requires the Department to establish performance goals for itself.
Given that the budget proposes significant shifts in funding
priorities, has the Department proposed any commensurate changes in its
GPRA goals?
Answer. Yes. The Department prepared an Annual Performance Plan
with the budget and ensured the performance goals were consistent with
the Administration's funding priorities. The published plan contains
the resulting performance measures for fiscal year 2002 and shows where
changes were made to measures for fiscal year 2001 resulting from new
direction and priorities.
Question. If so, can you provide a few examples? If not, why not?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 budget request embodies changes in
Departmental and program priorities that are also reflected in changes
to performance measures for fiscal year 2002. Changes in energy-
efficiency priorities are reflected in proposed performance targets,
such as the increased funding for the Department's weatherizing homes
of low-incoming families. The performance targets for fiscal year 1999,
2000, and 2001 were and are 67,845 homes, 68,000 homes, and 75,350
homes respectively. For fiscal year 2002, the proposed target is
123,000 homes consistent with the increased funding. Another visible
example of a new priority is the intent to eliminate unnecessary layers
of management which is included in the Department's performance
measures concerning human capital management. Other changes in
priorities reflect the elimination of programs that have completed
their mission, are redundant, ineffective, or obsolete.
Question. Does the Department feel it can still attain the most
recently stated GPRA goals under the budget proposal for fiscal year
2002?
Answer. Yes. The performance goals contained in the Department's
Annual Performance Plan for fiscal year 2002 are consistent with the
proposed budget for fiscal year 2002 and are attainable at the funding
requested.
INDUSTRIES OF THE FUTURE--GENERAL
Question. The budget requests for the various sector-specific
programs with in the Industries of the Future Program are reduced by
varying amounts. What methodology was applied in determining where
these reductions would be taken?
Answer. The budget request for the Industries of the Future program
is part of the integrated budget request for the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Within the overall budget
request for EERE, priorities were given to maintaining core
competencies and certain high priority activities such as the biomass
R&D efforts. Since the Agriculture and Forest Products Industry of the
Future programs are part of the bioenergy programs, the budget requests
for these programs were maintained at the fiscal year 2001
appropriation level. Adjustments were made for activities that appeared
to be ready for industry to adoption or private sector research. In
addition, emphasis was placed on meeting commitments to ongoing multi-
year projects rather than initiating new projects as we undertake the
project reviews provided for in the National Energy Plan. With the
funds remaining for these programs, proportional reductions were made
to protect the core competencies of these programs. No funds were
requested for the Petroleum Industry of the Future program, where
research projects are not yet underway. Also, since Supporting
Industries was a new start in fiscal year 2001, we decided to not to
make any present commitments that could not be met with fiscal year
2001 funding.
Question. Are the reductions based on completion of individual
projects currently underway, an across-the-board proportionate
reduction, or a mixture of both?
Answer. Emphasis was placed on meeting commitments on existing
multi-year projects. For many programs, where the budget request levels
were less than the previous fiscal year, a proportional reduction was
often used, recognizing that within each industry projects underway
range include items nearing completion.
INDUSTRIES OF THE FUTURE--BLACK LIQUOR GASIFICATION
Question. The budget request includes $6.6 million within the
Industries of the Future program for Industrial Gasification, a
decrease from $12.7 million in fiscal year 2001. This amount will allow
for one black liquor gasification demonstration project rather than
three originally planned. What are the impacts of supporting only one
demonstration as opposed to three?
Answer. In the forest products industry, there are three major
process waste streams that would yield significant energy savings if
gasified. Each waste stream has different components and unique
technical challenges for gasification. Each of the three planned
demonstration projects focuses on a different waste stream. The costs
of the design and engineering phases for these demonstration projects
are modest compared to the costs of the equipment purchase and
construction phases. In keeping with the administration's commitment to
moderate discretionary spending, we have planned to proceed from the
engineering phase to the equipment and construction phases for one
project. This allows us to maintain core work and positions us to make
a decision on proceeding on the other two projects, after an assessment
of the performance of energy efficiency research and development
programs is made consistent with the recommendations of the National
Energy Policy.
Question. Does the Department envision supporting additional
demonstrations in the future, or does it feel one demonstration is
sufficient to allow industry to commercialize the technology without
Federal support?
Answer. The merits of proceeding past the design and engineering
phases with the other two demonstration projects will be considered in
an assessment of the performance of energy efficiency research and
development programs, which is a recommendation of the National Energy
Policy. The issue of respective Federal and industry roles will be
addressed as part of this assessment.
CARAT & GATE PROGRAMS
Question. My recollection is that the fiscal year 2001 Interior and
Related Appropriations Act included no funds for the GATE program, and
$1.5 million for the CARAT program. However, the fiscal year 2002
budget justification indicates that $500,000 was allocated for GATE in
fiscal year 2001. Setting aside the merits of the GATE program, how
does the Department explain allocation of funds to this program in
light of the Committee's reprogramming procedures?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act provided $1,500,000 for ``cooperative automotive
research for advanced technologies'' (CARAT), which is a discrete
budget key activity in the Transportation Sector. CARAT and GATE
(Graduate Automotive Technology Education) are also the titles of sub-
key activities within the overall CARAT line item. CARAT and GATE are
integral and complementary parts of the CARAT line item, which was
established to assure that the creative capabilities of the
universities could be fully utilized in the Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) effort. The appropriations language did
not specify zero funding for GATE. Additionally, reprogramming
procedures are not required when the programs in question are within
the same control level.
DISTRIBUTED GENERATION
Question. The Department has reorganized some of its R&D programs
to focus on distributed energy resources. Some proponents of DER
systems have complained that although many DER technologies are cost-
competitive, their deployment is frequently blocked by State commission
rules, State legislation and local utility practices. Is this a
complaint that has been brought to the Department's attention?
Answer. The Department is aware of problems associated with the
deployment of Distributed Energy Resources (DER) systems due to state
rules and legislation, local utility practices, and siting and
permitting. The Office of Distributed Energy Resources has a number of
efforts completed and underway to address these problems. In May 2000
the DER Office published ``Making Connections, Case Studies of
Interconnection Barriers and their Impact on Distributed Power
Projects.'' The report documents the difficulties experienced by DER
projects related to interconnection and is the first step to removing
these barriers. The DER Office is currently working on a similar report
to document Environmental Barriers to DER, which is expected to be
published later this year. In addition, the DER office is working with
the EPA to ensure that siting and permitting rules are not biased
against DER and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems. The DER office
is also working with a number of key states (states that could be used
as examples of the advantages and benefits of DER) to address state
barriers to DER system installations. The office published a report
with the state of California analyzing the impact that distributed
generation technologies would have on air emissions in the state. The
DER office is initiating a similar study with the Texas Public Utility
Commission and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission to
analysis and identify the impacts of different distributed generation
emissions limits for Dallas and Houston, develop market penetration
scenarios for DG in Texas, and estimate how various DG emissions limits
will affect the costs of DG technologies. Additional efforts with the
states will be undertaken as interest and resources allow.
Question. Is the Department involved in efforts to reduce barriers
to the deployment of DER technologies, in addition to helping develop
the technologies themselves?
Answer. The first step in reducing and removing barriers to the
deployment of DER technologies is to identify precisely what those
barriers are. The Office of Distributed Energy Resources has been
engaged in a substantial effort to identify various barriers to
distributed generation. Work is continuing with the appropriate
organizations to remove identified barriers. Examples would include
creating and implementing interconnect standards through the IEEE,
working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address
output based emissions standards and other siting issues, and working
with several prominent states to ensure that regulations do not
discriminate against distributed generation. Research and development
work on distributed generation technologies will also expedite the
implementation of DER because technologies will be more efficient,
cleaner, and more cost competitive.
FOSSIL ENERGY--FUEL CELLS
Question. Mr. Secretary, I believe fuel cell technology may offer
us a great opportunity. Because of this I have worked very hard to
ensure that the progress in the fuel cell sector does not pass without
Montana being involved. As a result, Montana has received funding for
multiple DOE projects propelling fuel cell research forward. Despite
the proposed cuts in the fuel cell program, I am sure you understand
the potential this technology holds. Can I have your assurance that the
ongoing fuel cell initiatives in Montana will receive your full
support?
Answer. Fuel cells indeed offer us a great opportunity as a clean,
efficient source of electricity and energy. The ongoing fuel cell
project in Montana is currently being conducted under the Department's
Energy and Efficiency Office's Hydrogen Program.
FOSSIL ENERGY--COOPERATIVE RESEARCH
Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget zeroes out cooperative
research from $8.1 million in fiscal year 2001. This program supports
research facilities in the West, including WRI in Wyoming that works
closely with Montana's natural resource producers. These programs focus
in increasing efficiency and reducing environmental impacts to promote
domestic production. At the same time, they leverage private
investment. Can you provide for this Subcommittee an estimate of the
amount of private matching funds that will be lost with the elimination
of this program?
Answer. When these institutes were privatized in the early 1990's,
they pledged to be independent of federal funding within a few years.
Both organizations are eligible to compete for Fossil Energy R&D
funding through the normal solicitation process, one that generally
gives added consideration to projects with high levels of non-federal
cost-sharing. The reduction in federal funding is not intended to
reduce the amount of private funding; rather the opposite is the case.
Based on Energy Environment Research Center's (EERC) and Western
Research Institute's (WRI) success in attracting matching funding over
the last several years, these institutes are in a strong position to
receive DOE competitive awards and leverage private funds in the
process.
Question. How much will be lost in matching funds if we allow your
proposed budget cuts to stand?
Answer. At EERC, the $2.2 million in fiscal year 2001 federal funds
is matched with $3.3 million in private matching funds. At WRI, the
$2.6 million in fiscal year 2001 federal funds is matched with $3.3
million. However, to assume that these funds would be lost requires
that one assume that private funders will no longer find merit in the
programs and that they could not successfully compete in DOE's normal
solicitation process.
Question. Finally, how many jobs in North Dakota and Wyoming will
be placed at risk with this cut in the Cooperative Research budget?
Answer. Funding received by EERC and WRI through Fossil Energy's
Cooperative R&D program supports approximately 50 percent of EERC's
total staffing, and 60 percent of WRI's. Based on current staffing
level and the portion of EERC's budget this funding represents, it is
estimated elimination of this funding would result in at least 75 full-
time jobs being put at risk at EERC, and 40 full-time jobs at WRI.
However, to assume that these funds would be lost requires that one
assume that they could not successfully compete in DOE's normal
solicitation process or that private funders will not find sufficient
merit in the programs to make up for federal funding.
FOSSIL ENERGY--IMPORT/EXPORT PROGRAM
Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget drastically cuts the import/
export program that is responsible for processing applications to
import fossil fuels, and is a partner with FERC and other agencies on
NEPA compliance issues. Having spent numerous years on the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, I can assure you that these activities are
vital to meeting America's energy needs, and by all indications it
appears the Vice President's recommendations to address the nation's
energy needs will focus on most of these issues. Considering this
budget is responsible for allowing for the import of fossil fuels,
including natural gas, and that our reliance on these imports is
increasing, how can you justify cutting the program?
Answer. The import of fossil fuels, especially natural gas, will
indeed be a part of the broad mix of energy supply options that will
provide for a diverse supply of energy for the United States. Also, in
several regions of the country, imports of electric energy represent 10
percent or more of total electricity requirements. However, as part of
the Administration's efforts to streamline permitting and to reduce the
burden on the taxpayer, we are considering a number of options that
would reduce the need to use federal funds for these programs. Among
the possibilities to be considered will be fees on those requesting
permits, similar to EERC, a possible transfer of jurisdiction to EERC,
as well as repeal of those portions of the Fuel Use Act and other
requirements that have become obsolete. In the meanwhile, we will
carefully marshal our resources so that the current energy problems in
these regions will not be exacerbated. Fossil Energy will seek a
reprogramming of funds sufficient to meet statutory requirements, if
necessary.
Question. Considering that the administration is calling for
increased transmission improvements, new power plants, and a NEPA
process that proceeds at an efficient pace, why would you slash the
DOE's budget to help move these activities forward?
Answer. The construction of new transmission lines and electric
powerplants will indeed be a part of the future energy supply options
for the United States. The funding level requested for DOE's electric
power regulatory program is austere but adequate. As part of the
Administration's efforts to streamline permitting and to reduce the
burden on the taxpayer, we are considering a number of options that
would reduce the need to use federal funds for these programs. Among
the possibilities to be considered will be fees on those requesting
permits, similar to EERC, a possible transfer of jurisdiction to EERC,
as well as repeal of those portions of the Fuel Use Act and other
requirements that have become obsolete. In the meanwhile, we will
carefully marshal our resources so that the current energy problems in
these regions will not be exacerbated. Fossil Energy will seek a
reprogramming of funds sufficient to meet statutory requirements, if
necessary.
Question. President Bush recently held meetings with two North
American leaders (Vicente Fox of Mexico and Jean Chretien of Canada) to
discuss energy development and cooperation between our countries. Do
you believe that oil and gas exploration in, and shipments from, allied
nations will serve as a viable solution to the looming energy crisis?
Answer. Natural resource development and free trade in energy
resources with our North American trading partners can serve as a part
of the solution to our current energy crisis. We have begun trilateral
meetings of the heads of energy for the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. Our three countries have formed a North American Energy Working
Group to begin developing a joint comprehensive energy strategy. In
addition, we have formed an Electricity Working Group that will focus
on enhanced cross-border electricity trade between the United States
and Mexico.
Our energy policy will look beyond our borders and recognize the
global nature of energy needs. While we value the longstanding
relationships we have built around the world, we will place at least as
much emphasis on our relations with our neighbors in the Western
Hemisphere as elsewhere on the planet. Our approach will be
hemispheric, and our goal will be to build relationships among our
neighbors that will contribute to our shared energy security and to
adequate, reliable, environmentally sound, and affordable access to
energy.
Question. Also, would it be consistent with Administration policy
if Congress were to take steps in its annual authorization and
appropriations duties to encourage fossil fuels research and
development activities in other U.S. allied countries?
Answer. The Administration is supportive of carrying out
cooperative research and development (R&D) with allied countries, which
is the most common way the Department encourages R&D in these
countries. For example, the May 2001 National Energy Policy includes a
National Energy Policy Development Group recommendation ``that the
President direct the Secretaries Commerce, State, and Energy to explore
collaborative international basic research and development in energy
alternative and energy-efficient technologies . . . ''. The extent to
which this recommendation might affect future budget requests has not
been determined yet, but Congress has traditionally funded the
Department to carry out a low level of international cooperative R&D.
Question. Is the import/export authorization account the proper
avenue to explore this option?
Answer. The import/export authorization account includes management
of the regulatory review of natural gas imports and exports, exports of
electricity, and the construction and operation of electric
transmission lines which cross U.S. international borders. These are
very different kinds of activities than research and development, so we
do not believe that this would be the best account for funding to
``encourage fossil fuels research and development activities in other
U.S. allied countries.'' If the activities envisioned are not program-
specific, one possibility would be to expand the scope of existing
activities under an existing line item such as International Program
Support, which is under our Advanced Research Program. If the
activities are program-specific, then we would prefer the funding be
included with the program.
POWER PLANT IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE
Question. Congress last year initiated the Power Plant Improvement
Initiative by transferring $95 million in unobligated balances from the
Clean Coal Technology program. The Initiative is designed to support
demonstrations of advanced, clean coal technologies. I understand the
Department has recently received responses to the Power Plant
Improvement Initiative solicitation. Have you had the opportunity to
review the proposals? If so, what are your impressions?
Answer. The Department did recently receive proposals in response
to the Power Plant Improvement Initiative solicitation aimed at
improving the reliability of the U.S. coal-based electric power system.
Although we are in the early stages of the review process that will
continue over the next few months, summary abstracts of the proposals
were also submitted. Based on our reading of the abstracts, it appears
that there is a range of potentially good ideas for projects being
proposed over a broad range of project locations.
Question. How many proposals did you receive?
Answer. The Department received a total of twenty-four proposals.
Question. Do you feel there are enough high quality proposals to
fulfill the purposes of the initiative?
Answer. Based on our perusal of the abstracts, it appears that
there are sufficient high quality proposals to more than fulfill the
purposes of this solicitation. The value of the proposed projects
represent almost $535 million, $251 million of which is being requested
from the Federal Government, which is more than two and one half times
the available funding for this solicitation ($95 million). Upon
completion of the review process, we will know more details of the
individual proposals. Based on previous experience in the Clean Coal
Technology program, some proposals will not be accepted, some will be
abandoned by their sponsors or fail to receive the necessary private
backing, and some will proceed to successful completion. The Department
will carefully review all proposals and attempt to selected those with
the greatest potential benefit to the industry.
VICE PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP
Question. The energy policy task force being led by Vice President
Cheney is soon to announce its recommendations within the next few
weeks. These recommendations will play an important role in shaping any
energy-related legislation moving through this Congress, including this
appropriation bill. Are you confident that the fiscal year 2002 budget
request for the Department of Energy is adequate to support the
recommendations that the Vice President's task force will make?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 budget request is sufficient to meet
the needs of the Department for the next fiscal year. The Task Force
recommendations may impact future budget requests.
Question. Do you expect to submit a formal budget amendment to
reconcile the two documents?
Answer. No budget amendment is planned for submission to the
Committee regarding the recommendations from the National Energy Task
Force.
Question. If not, will you work with us informally to make certain
we understand how the recommendations of the task force match up with
the Department's ongoing programs?
Answer. The Department is more than willing to work with the
Committee to implement the elements of the National Energy Policy,
including assisting in the understanding of how the recommendations and
implementation match up with Department of Energy's programs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE
Question. Lignite coal is an abundant resource in North Dakota
which provides a low-cost, reliable energy resource for more than 2
million people in the upper Midwest. On several occasions, I have
written you requesting that lignite coal projects would be funded
through the Power Plant Improvement Initiative that this Subcommittee
included in the fiscal year 2001 Interior Appropriations bill. I
contacted you on these occasions because I wanted you to know of my
interest in making sure that low Btu coal projects are given fair
consideration in any new demonstration projects at DOE.
In the new Clean Coal Power Initiative proposed by the
Administration, I am interested in the making sure that this project
encourages the development of clean coal projects using North Dakota
lignite. The Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAAP)--which includes
Minnesota, the two Dakotas and the eastern half of Montana--estimates
it will be short 5,000 Mws by 2006. I think it would be prudent for DOE
to give detailed attention to projects such as the Lignite 21 Vision
Project in North Dakota, which has already gotten a commitment of funds
from the state.
Although I haven't seen many details of the Clean Coal Power
Initiative, I know that later this year the Office of Fossil Energy
will convene a workshop with utilities, equipments manufacturers, fuel
suppliers, universities and others to work out some of these details
that will guide the initiative. What is the Office of Fossil Energy
doing to ensure that lignite interests are included in this meeting?
Answer. First I want to thank you for your keen interest in the
very important Clean Coal Power Initiative proposed by the
Administration. I also want to assure you that each and every proposal,
including the proposed Lignite project, will receive a fair and
thorough review based on the merits evaluated against the criteria in
the competitive solicitations that will be issued under the Initiative.
The Clean Coal Power Initiative will be carried out cooperatively with
industry. The nation's power generators, equipment manufacturers, coal
producers and others will help identify the most critical barriers to
coal's use in the power sector. Industry also will be required to share
the costs of the initiative, with the private participants' share
rising to 50 percent or more by the time new technologies are ready for
testing at market-entry scales.
To obtain industry's views on the content, coordination and scope
of the Clean Coal Power Initiative, the Department of Energy's Office
of Fossil Energy will convene a workshop later this year with
utilities, equipment manufacturers, fuel suppliers, universities and
others. Among the discussion topics will be the feasibility of
establishing a more formal consortium of private organizations that
would help coordinate and guide the initiative. We will be sure that
all interested stakeholders, including those representing the lignite
interests, will be afforded the opportunity to participate in the
workshop.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH
Question. In North Dakota, the Energy and Environmental Research
Center (EERC) at the University of North Dakota has expertise in the
area of fossil fuel research and development. In fact, over the last
several years, co-funded research under a cooperative agreement between
the EERC and DOE has invested more than $56 million in 126 projects.
More than half of the funds for this research have come from non-
federal sources, so the EERC has done a fantastic job leveraging
federal dollars for fossil fuel research.
Given that the Department will need to rely on the research done by
universities and others to guide the new Clean Coal Power Initiative, I
was very disappointed that the Administration's budget eliminated
funding for the cooperative agreement that the DOE has had with the
EERC for the last several years. By cutting these kinds of existing
fossil fuel R&D programs to pay for the $150 million clean coal
initiative, the Administration gains no ground in developing new fossil
fuel technologies. Can you explain why the Administration zeroed out
cooperative research fossil fuel projects?
Answer. The Administration's policy is to have funding allocated on
a competitive basis. Since the Cooperative Research and Development
portion of the Fossil Energy budget provides directed funding to two
institutions without competition, it is one of the lower priorities in
limited budgets.
EERC has developed an excellent program of cooperative research
which combines industry talents and capabilities from an effective
State and Federal program. Indeed, this capability is best illustrated
by the growing involvement of industry and their continued willingness
to invest their resources in this program. The Department believes that
EERC and WRI are capable of competing for Fossil Energy funds under
various competitive solicitations, including the Clean Coal Power
Initiative.
Question. Senator Byrd spoke on the Senate floor last week about
the need for a sound energy policy and the need for commitments to
reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, including efforts on the parts
of developing nations. Please explain the ongoing voluntary research
and development programs and other initiatives that have been developed
over the last several years to address our critical climate change and
energy needs.
Answer. The Department's energy mission is to provide appropriate
assistance to help providers ensure adequate supplies of energy at
reasonable prices, with appropriate environmental protection. As part
of this mission, DOE supplements private investment in energy R&D when
market failures cause the private contribution to fall below the
optimum levels for public benefits. Our climate program is a subset of
this larger mission and is focused on improving our understanding of
the dynamics of global climate change, and on the developing and
deploying technologies that reduce net emissions of greenhouse gas
emissions.
Existing programs that directly or indirectly contribute to climate
change science or emissions limitations are described below. Our fiscal
year 2002 budget request and the recommendations contained in the
recently released National Energy Policy call for a reevaluation and
redirection of some of these efforts. In addition, the Cabinet-level
review of climate policy that is now underway is also likely to have
ramifications for these DOE programs.
DOE's Industries of the Future Program focuses on generic pre-
competitive, cooperative research with nine of the major process and
extraction industries in the private sector. These industries include
aluminum, steel, metal casting, forest products, glass, chemicals,
mining, agriculture, and petroleum. These activities seek to improve
the energy efficiency of industrial processes in these most energy-
intensive industries, which account for 75 percent of industrial energy
use. This includes collaborative road-mapping of technology needs with
each industry, and cost-shared R&D to meet those needs that provide
significant public benefits that the private sector would not invest in
on it own. Cross-cutting technologies applicable to many industries,
such as advanced materials, sensors and controls, are also supported,
where appropriate..
This program has had notable success. For example, the Oxy-fuel
firing process for glass melting furnaces is now used in 20 percent of
glass furnaces, reducing fuel use by 48 percent. Cathode research for
the aluminum industry has achieved an 8 percent energy savings.
The DOE Transportation Program supports the development of more
efficient cars and light and heavy trucks. The majority of the R&D
effort supports the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)
and 21st Century Truck initiative. The goals of these programs include
tripling the fuel economy of today's mid-size cars (e.g., 80 miles per
gallon) and delivery vans and doubling the fuel economy of heavy
trucks. Activities supported by DOE include pre-commercial development
of efficient vehicle components, such as low-emissions diesel and
gasoline engines, hybrid powerplants, fuel cells, power electronics,
high power batteries, and lightweight materials, as well as
improvements in aerodynamics for trucks and buses. Many of the
technologies developed in the DOE program are beginning to be
incorporated in industry concept cars exhibited at auto shows and some
are being used in production vehicles. In 2000, the three PNGV partner
companies produced concept vehicles that reached the 80 mpg target,
although the incremental vehicle cost is still too high to allow market
introduction today.
The DOE Buildings Programs seeks to improve the energy efficiency
of building in the residential and commercial sectors. Included are
more efficient building equipment and materials such as furnaces, air
conditioners, lighting systems, materials for roofs and walls, and
windows. Improvements are sought in whole building design (systems
integration) and construction techniques. An important part of the
overall program is establishing federal minimum energy use standards
for appliances, and collaborating with industry and States to develop
new building energy codes.
The Weatherization Program, which is not an S&T activity, provides
grant funding for energy efficiency improvements to low income houses.
These efficiency improvements reduce heating, cooling, and hot water
energy use. Five million homes have been weatherized to date.
The State Energy Program and the Community Program work with state
and local governments to identify local opportunities for using energy
more efficiently, and for incorporating alterative fuels and renewable
energy into local energy markets. These federal, state, and local
partnerships provide a on-going means of helping consumers and
businesses improve their energy efficiency. Energy Smart Schools,
Energy Star, and Rebuild America are examples of efforts undertaken
through these programs.
DOE's Fossil Energy Program supports the development of cleaner,
ultra-high efficiency technologies for electricity generation. This
includes coal-fueled technologies with a goal of 60 percent efficiency
(versus the middle 30's for a new plant today), and natural gas-fueled
options with efficiencies above 70 percent (versus the mid-50's for a
new plant today). Technologies include integrated coal gasification
combined cycle (IGCC) for central station applications, and advanced
fuel cells and fuel cell/turbine hybrids for distributed power
generation. Products are incorporated from the advanced research
program, including advanced materials for heat exchangers and
innovative membranes for separation of hydrogen and carbon dioxide from
other gases. While these systems have not achieved widespread
deployment, the IGCC technology is being successfully demonstrated and
finding its way into niche applications. Advanced fuels cells and
turbines are being demonstrated and commercialized, and are expected to
achieve significant deployment in distributed and hybrid applications
in the next decade. In particular, the General Electric 7H series
turbines have just been deployed, achieving 60 percent efficiency and
substantial reductions in NOX emission with no additional
post-combustion control technology.
The Climate Challenge Program is a joint partnership between DOE
and the electric utility industry that has been very successful. To
date, more than 600 electric utilities have pledged to limit their net
emissions by more than 170 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent in the year 2000. Electric utilities represent about 85
percent of voluntary actions to reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse
gases, as reported by the Energy Information Administration under
Section 1605 (b) of the Energy Policy Act. Results include: (1) Major
reductions in the potential cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions;
(2) Increased participation by the electric utility industry compared
to other reduction approaches, resulting in additional emission
reductions.
DOE's supports research to improve the efficiency of electricity
transmission and major electrical devices through activities such as
the Superconductivity Partnership Initiative and the Second Generation
Wire Initiative. These initiatives are aggressively pursuing the
development of high temperature, superconductivity electric equipment.
Important advances have been made this area, including development of
breakthrough methods for making superconducting wires with over 10
times the current-carrying capability of wires made with older methods,
and development and successful testing of the world's first
superconducting motor.
DOE supports the development of a range of electric generating
options that can be located near the point of consumption
(``Distributed Generation''). These technologies can reduce overall GHG
emissions through improved efficiencies, use of waste heat, and reduced
transmission losses. Distributed generation technologies can be based
on fossil or renewable energy sources.
DOE supports the development of a wide range of non-fuels solar and
renewable energy technology, seeking to improve their reliability,
expand their applicability, and reduce their costs. This includes solar
electric and thermal energy, wind, hydropower, and geothermal energy.
These activities have been very successful in bringing down
technology costs. For example, the cost of producing photovoltaic
modules has been cut in half since 1991, and the cost of wind power has
decreased 85 percent since 1980. Both of these technologies have been
commercially successful in certain applications.
The Biofuels Program develops technology to enable and support the
expansion of an indigenous, integrated biomass-based industry that will
reduce reliance on imported fuels and provide for productive
utilization of agricultural residues and municipal solid wastes.
Included are the development of superior biofuel feedstocks and
processes for converting feedstocks to electricity (both directly and
by co-firing with coal), as well as to biodiesel, ethanol, and hydrogen
for clean transportation fuels applications. This is supported by the
Biobased Products and Bioenergy Initiative, which is an interagency
initiative aimed at tripling the use of biobased products and bioenergy
in the U.S. by 2010 (compared with 2000.)
The Clean Cities Program assists in the demonstration and adoption
of alternative fuel vehicles, variously capable of operating on
biofuels (such as ethanol), natural gas, or electricity. This increased
fuel flexibility in the transportation sector can provide a basis for
reducing GHG emissions associated with automobiles.
The Hydrogen Program is pursuing the use of hydrogen as a source of
energy for transportation, electricity, and heat that has lower or no
net GHG emissions (depending upon how the hydrogen is produced).
Hydrogen can be separated from fossil sources or from water utilizing
renewable energy. Today, hydrogen is primarily produced from methane,
and a by-product of its production is CO2. Thus, alternative
sources of hydrogen production is a key focus of this program. Hydrogen
can be used to operate fuel cells in vehicles and buildings. Success
will require reducing the cost of producing, storing, and using
hydrogen, especially from renewable feedstocks (e.g., bioenergy) and
resources (e.g., solar energy).
The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) is helping Federal
agencies make cost-effective investments in energy efficient and
renewable energy technologies and resources.
DOE's Sequestration R&D Program focuses strictly on greenhouse gas
reduction. Along with improved efficiency and lower carbon fuels,
carbon sequestration provides an important third pathway for greenhouse
gas reduction. Since it is completely compatible with the existing
energy infrastructure, its deployment would not lead to costly early
replacement of capital investments. The program is pursuing a suite of
technologies to capture and store greenhouse gases. Near-term research
focuses on technologies that provide multiple benefits in addition to
climate mitigation, such as soil conservation, or production of high
value energy products (enhanced oil recovery or production of coal bed
methane) to offset sequestration costs. Longer term efforts are focused
on a range of technologies capable of permanently storing carbon
dioxide in geologic formations or other storage media.
DOE and its predecessor agencies have actively supported the
development and demonstration of civilian nuclear power technologies.
Each year nuclear power plants in this country, which generate 20
percent of domestic electricity, avoid about 180 million tons of carbon
emissions that would have come from burning coal, gas, and oil. The
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) invests in researcher-
initiated ideas that seek to reduce the impediments to further
deployment of nuclear power. NERI funds research in areas related to
economic competitiveness, safety, and non-proliferation. It also funds
research into fundamental engineering and scientific principles that
have broad power generation applications, such as the innovative use of
nuclear power to make hydrogen fuels for the future U.S. economy.
The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program (NEPO) invests in
technologies and ideas aimed at improving the reliability, safety, and
capacity of operating nuclear power plants. Nuclear power has enjoyed
steady gains in capacity and availability over the past ten years, the
NEPO program is intended to help maintain this trend.
The Nuclear Energy Technologies Program is developing a Generation
IV Technology Roadmap to identify and establish R&D leading to the
deployment of improved reactor technologies in the coming decades. The
Roadmap will be completed in fiscal year 2002. This program also funds
a study of the potential for deployment of a special class of Small
Modular Reactors to locations ill served by the infrastructure required
for coal, oil, or gas fueled power plants. Finally, this program funds
studies of the potential commercialization of the plutonium burning
modular helium reactor and of the deployment of advanced light water
reactors.
Within the Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) program has a long-standing, comprehensive Global Change
Research Program (GCRP) that contributes to the interagency U.S. Global
Change Research Program (USGCRP). Since 1978, the Office of Science
began funding basic research needed to understand, model and assess the
effects of energy production on atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate.
The BER activities seek to establish the detailed scientific
understanding necessary to predict the effects of increasing greenhouse
gases on the Earth's climate and the potential consequences of human-
induced climate change. An important focus of the research is on the
effects of atmospheric properties and processes on the Earth's radiant
energy balance, including the role of clouds. This is the key
uncertainty in global climate change science.
The research also seeks to elucidate the processes affecting the
atmospheric chemistry, transport, and fate of energy-related emissions.
This includes improving scientific understanding needed to predict and
assessing the both effects of energy-related emissions on air quality
and atmospheric composition and the quantities of carbon removed from
or released to the atmosphere naturally by terrestrial and oceanic
ecosystems. It also includes research to develop methods or approaches
to purposefully enhance carbon sequestration in land and in the ocean
and to understand the potential environmental implications of enhanced
sequestration. BER also funds research to characterize and sequence the
genome of microbes that could be used for producing alternative energy
sources (e.g., methane or hydrogen producing microbes, energy from
biomass) and for carbon sequestration.
CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
Question. Mr. Secretary, Congress required a report of the
Administration's activities last year, and that was supposed to be
submitted with the fiscal year 2002 Budget. Please explain the status
of the report, and whether, and when, we can expect to see the report.
This report is critical for Congress' efforts to develop our funding
needs for climate- and energy-related programs.
Answer. Climate change mitigation technology research by the U.S.
Government is conducted at a number of agencies, including the
Department of Energy. In order to include all research activities, the
Office of Management and Budget prepares the report. The report is now
under preparation at the Office of Management and Budget, and we will
ensure you receive a copy as soon as it is completed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Question. From what I understand, the Department is contemplating a
decrease in the Environmental Management Program to meet budget
constraints. Can you confirm what, if any, reduction the Environmental
Management Program will receive in fiscal year 2002?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 budget is a principled and responsible
effort, one that fulfills President Bush's commitment to moderate
discretionary spending while meeting critical requirements in national
security, energy, science, and environmental quality. The budget
request for Environmental Management activities is $5.9 billion. This
request is approximately $354 million less than the comparable fiscal
year 2001 appropriation, but essentially the same level as fiscal year
2000.
Cleanup of the Department's sites is an important and a very
complicated endeavor. I am concerned, however, that the estimated
length of time to complete the work is too long, and the costs to the
taxpayer too high. As with other DOE programs, the budget request
reflects my challenge to the Environmental Management program to become
more efficient. I also have initiated a sweeping Environmental
Management Mission Assessment to identify efficiencies and ensure that
our principal focus is on accelerating the cleanup of those sites with
significant environmental, health, and safety risks. We need to find
ways to continue progress and meet our commitments more efficiently and
at a lower cost.
Question. Can you explain how you will allocate these cuts, both
between headquarters and among the field offices?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 budget was allocated between
headquarters and among the sites by using the program's priorities.
Highest priority was given to protecting worker health and safety, then
addressing higher-risk problems such as high-level waste, spent nuclear
fuel and special nuclear materials. Priority was also given to making
progress towards closure at our major closure sites, i.e. Rocky Flats
and Fernald. Priority was also given to increasing shipments of
transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and for developing
and deploying innovative technologies.
ROCKY FLATS
Question. As you are aware, Congress established a dedicated
Closure Fund within the Environmental Management Program for DOE sites
that could close on an accelerated schedule. Congress did this to
encourage DOE to focus resources and management attention to get a few
sites closed quickly, to reduce risks and to free up funds for other
projects. Presently, only the Rocky Flats site in my state of Colorado
and a few sites in Ohio are funded from this account. Do you agree with
the basic strategy of the closure fund--to close a few sites on an
accelerated basis to reduce mortgage costs and to reduce risks?
Answer. Yes, the Department believes it is very important to
continue accelerated cleanup at its closure sites. Completion of work
at closure sites demonstrates to Congress and other stakeholders that
the DOE can successfully close and remediate major contaminated sites
in the near-term. Progress towards site closure requires dedicated
resources to fully define and implement the plans for accelerated
closure. Upon completion of these closure projects, the annual funding
used for their closure will be available to support other priority
cleanup projects across the country.
This targeted commitment to site closure is evidenced in the Rocky
Flats closure contract awarded to Kaiser-Hill. This contract is
significantly different from the previous management and integration
contracts the Department has entered into. It is a cost-plus-incentive-
fee contract that defines a target cost ($4 billion) and schedule
(December 2006) for the project. It also includes significant
incentives for the contractor to achieve, and even exceed, the
contractual goals.
This contracting approach is innovative, and is a model for other
closure efforts within the DOE complex. It is not necessarily
applicable for all cleanup efforts, but comparable, innovative
techniques are being pursued for other contracts to reduce the planned
cleanup baseline costs.
Question. What is your policy regarding how budget cuts for DOE
will be allocated to the closure fund and to the sites funded out of
the closure fund?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 budget was prepared based on the
program's priorities. At all sites, whether funded from the closure
account or one of the other accounts, priority was given to protecting
worker health and safety. Also, at each site we are requesting adequate
funds to address higher potential risks, i.e. high-level waste, spent
nuclear fuel, and special nuclear materials. After these priorities
were met, the budget does give priority to the closure of our large
closure sites, Rocky Flats and Fernald.
GAO REPORT ON ROCKY FLATS
Question. The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently released a
report indicating that, not surprisingly, completing the cleanup of
Rocky Flats by 2006 would be a monumental achievement. One of GAO's
observations is the need for DOE to more comprehensively address the
issue of complex-wide integration of activities. Successfully closing
Rocky Flats requires the coordination of many different DOE sites and
many diverse DOE activities. GAO also observed that closing Rocky Flats
requires not only full funding for Rocky Flats at previously committed
levels--$657 million a year through 2006--but also funding for other
sites around the complex. This funding is not listed in budget
documents, but GAO estimated it at $130 million for fiscal year 2002
alone. Does DOE agree with the analysis and recommendations of the GAO
that Rocky Flats can only close with enormous cross-complex
coordination and with focused leadership from the highest levels of the
Department?
Answer. The Department is fully aware that the closure of Rocky
Flats requires the support of numerous other DOE sites and
organizations. Many of these inter-site activities are actually
specified in the Rocky Flats Closure Contract as government-furnished
services and items--particularly those related to providing receiver
sites for Rocky Flats special nuclear materials and waste material. The
Office of Environmental Management has been working to develop detailed
project baselines for these inter-site activities. These schedules are
being developed in cooperation with the DOE supporting organizations
and will be integrated with the contractors' baseline; together they
will comprise the Rocky Flats Integrated Closure Project Baseline. This
Integrated Closure Project Baseline was reviewed by the GAO and has
widely been recognized as a key tool for the management of the Rocky
Flats Closure Project and execution of the Rocky Flats Closure
Contract.
We would like to clarify that the $130 million referenced in the
GAO report is the estimated cost incurred by other DOE sites and
organizations in support of Rocky Flats closure from fiscal year 1996
through closure. The costs include container certification and
procurement expenses, transportation of special nuclear material and
wastes, receiver site facility modifications, and Federal personnel
costs at DOE Headquarters for their support to the Rocky Flats closure,
as well as other support costs.
Question. Does DOE agree with the GAO that funding activities at
other sites is critical to meeting the Rocky Flats schedule?
Answer. Yes, the Department agrees with the GAO report that funding
activities at other sites is critical to maintaining the Rocky Flats
closure schedule.
Question. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the
necessary coordination takes place to enable Rocky Flats to close on
schedule? How do you plan to address the issues among different
departmental elements--Defense Program, Health and Safety,
Nonproliferation--that must be resolved, according to the GAO, in order
to close Rocky Flats on schedule?
Answer. The development of the Rocky Flats Integrated Closure
Project Baseline is the key step towards ensuring the necessary
coordination among the various Departmental sites and organizations.
With the support of the Rocky Flats Field Office and other DOE sites
and programs, EM has made significant strides towards implementing a
process to identify and address issues related to the provision of the
necessary Departmental resources required to support the closure of
Rocky Flats.
The establishment of the Integrated Baseline included the
development of detailed schedules for those activities by the
Department contractually required to support Rocky Flats closure. The
effort also included the development of a draft project implementation
and management plan that will specifically delineate the
responsibilities, authorities and control processes that will be
implemented. A process of monthly project status briefings to the
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management has been initiated.
During these briefings, the status of the detailed schedules and
delivery of contractually required activities is presented in detail,
and any issues related to these schedules and activities are identified
and discussed. On a quarterly basis, management representatives from
the other Departmental sites and programs needed to support the closure
of Rocky Flats are invited to participate. In the interim, the
Assistant Secretaries work directly with one another to address and
resolve any resource issues. To date, these interactions have proven
productive. However, in the event that an issue cannot be resolved
within 30 days of its identification, the issue will be elevated for
resolution.
Question. What steps is DOE taking to ensure all sites that support
Rocky Flats closure receive the funding they need to enable a 2006
closure, especially in light of the proposed cuts in the overall DOE
program?
Answer. Efforts are underway to enter the resource needs into the
Rocky Flats Integrated Closure Project Baseline. This will provide a
comprehensive picture of the funds required throughout the DOE complex
to support the closure of Rocky Flats. The cost of the activities at
other sites have been identified to the extent possible, and were
included in the fiscal year 2002 Congressional Budget.
RENEWABLES AND NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY (NREL)
Question. Mr. Secretary, I have an overall concern that the energy
efficiency and renewable energy budgets are being reduced at a time
when our energy demand has exceeded our energy supply and we should be
investing in every available means of producing and saving energy. I
have two specific questions about the budget, especially since this
affects part of my home state of Colorado.
You may be aware that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory is
located in my state. The budget reduction for renewable energy research
and development will directly impact the core scientific competency at
this laboratory. For example, both the highly-successful wind and
photovoltaic programs are cut 50 percent, resulting in potential 50
percent staff reductions in those programs at the laboratory. In the
last 20 years, the price of wind energy has dropped from 30 cents/kWh
to between 4-6 cents/kWh. Photovoltaic modules have lowered their cost
by nearly a factor of ten; the cost of solar systems has been reduced
by 50 percent in the last decade. Reducing these programs so
dramatically at a time when energy resources R&D is so critical
concerns me. Can I get your views on how to bring those budgets back up
to more stable funding levels.
Answer. The just released National Energy Policy (NEP) provides a
blueprint for how the Administration will increase energy supplies,
including renewable energy, and reduce energy demand. The NEP
recommends that the President direct the Secretary of Energy to conduct
a review of current funding and historic performance of renewable and
alternative energy, as well as energy efficiency, research and
development programs in light of the recommendations of this report.
Based on this review, the Secretary of Energy is then directed to
propose appropriate funding of those research and development programs
that are performance-based and are modeled as public-private
partnerships. The Secretary has announced the start of the strategic
reviews, which will involve public input. July 10 is the deadline for
the initial phase of the review.
It should be noted that much of the reduction in the requests for
renewable R&D reflects proposed cancellation of low priority earmarks
that have been funded year after year. Moreover, the budget proposes
significantly expanded tax credit programs to promote renewable energy.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Question. Another important area that has been cut is in Federal
Energy Management Program (FEMP) funded out of Interior Appropriations.
The federal government consumes more energy than any other single
entity--2 percent of our nation's energy. The FEMP program has been
working successfully to reduce spending by the federal government on
energy so that our tax dollars can be put back into the Treasury. For
example, the Federal building energy bill is down $2.23 billion from
1985 levels; about $900 million of this is due to Federal energy
management. These projects leverage $4 in net savings for every $1
invested. Yet, this program has been cut by 50 percent in your budget
proposal. Since this program can help taxpayers in the same way a tax
cut to the American people can help, can I get your views on how to
increase that funding level?
Answer. FEMP services and programs have significantly contributed
to the amount of energy used in federal facilities. However, FEMP, like
other programs, can and should do more with less. By using their
contractors more effectively and by relying more heavily on private
sector funding, FEMP can still help the federal government meet the
goals of the energy efficiency Executive Orders.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
CLEAN COAL INITIATIVE
Question. I compliment the Administration on creating a new $150
million Clean Coal Power Initiative. I firmly believe that we should
capitalize on our two greatest strengths in electricity supply, coal
and nuclear. In both cases, we should address risk areas. This new
Initiative should be a good start for coal. I'd like to ensure that the
Initiative will address issues associated with mining as well as the
subsequent combustion processes. For example, a small New Mexico
company in Raton has worked with Russian institutes, through the
Department's Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program, to
develop instruments that allow remarkable refinement in how coal is
mined. This instrument, which actually mounts on the drill head,
enables the drill to automatically leave the last few inches at the top
and bottom of a coal seam. The majority of the serious heavy metal
contaminants in the seam are concentrated at the edges of the seam;
thus this new tool allows dramatically cleaner coal to be mined. When
burned, that coal then burns much cleaner. Will the Clean Coal Power
Initiative include opportunities for advanced exciting new technologies
like this, no matter what part of the overall coal utilization cycle
they impact?
Answer. The Clean Coal Power Initiative has, as its primary aim,
the use of advanced clean coal technology to improve the Nation's
electricity supply and availability. To the extent that any proposed
project using advanced coal technology can be shown to have a potential
significant impact, it will receive due consideration in the review
process when competed against other proposed ideas.
OIL AND GAS RESEARCH
Question. I'm very disappointed to note that gas and oil research
and development funds were sharply cut in the Administration's budget,
by over 50 per cent. These two energy sources play major roles in the
current national energy supplies. In New Mexico, I've noted how
improved extraction technologies, which depend on continued research
and development, have helped to boost production of old wells. I hope
that these cuts can be revisited as part of the Vice President's review
of energy supply issues. One example of excellent research and
development in petroleum production involves the Petroleum Recovery
Research Center at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in
Socorro. With the reduced budget, will you plan to continue the ongoing
strong programs, such as this one at New Mexico Tech?
Answer. While complying with the President's spending priorities
and overall budgetary restraint, many of the existing oil and gas
technology research and development projects will be continued in the
areas of exploration and production. We will continue to provide
funding for better technologies that can help producers--especially the
smaller, independent companies--produce more oil and gas in the shorter
term, the next 1 to 5 years. We also have included money for new
drilling and production technologies that would be ready in the much
longer-term, 10 years or more into the future. For example, projects
with New Mexico Tech could be funded in the President's budget include:
Optimization of Infill Drilling in Naturally Fractured Tight-gas
Reservoirs and Risk-Based Decision Making Tools.
FUEL CELLS
Question. Fuel cells are generally viewed as one of the most
promising technologies for generation of distributed power in the
future. They accept a range of fuels and their operation is
environmentally friendly. They may represent one of the best ways to
move away from our heavy reliance on petroleum products for
transportation. The Department's ``Budget Highlights'' book notes that
fuel cells ``continue to hold much promise as an on-site generator of
electricity, meeting requirements for high efficiency, premium-quality
power, and environmental protection.'' It seems to me that this could
be an area that will help to address our energy supply issues in the
future. Given the enthusiasm for fuel cells, I'm puzzled by plans to
cut the funding for fuel cells by about 14 percent next year. As one
example of the excitement and promise of fuel cells, researchers at Los
Alamos are proposing a new Center devoted to fuel cells studies. This
Center would integrate a number of separate specialities to more
efficiently develop commercially-ready systems. What level of funding
for fuel cells could be effectively utilized to advance this exciting
technology as rapidly as possible?
Answer. Fuel cells, as you indicate, are one of the most promising
technologies for distributed generation technology. Although the fuel
cell funding request in fiscal year 2002 is less than that in fiscal
year 2001, it does reflect a balanced funding approach. We are nearing
completion of the fuel cells effort focused on the near-term market
entry over the next 2 years. We are now turning our attention to an
exciting new program that holds much promise in dramatically reducing
fuel cells to less than $400 per kilowatt. Fuel cells, at this cost,
could capture much broader market applications in addition to
distributed generation. As such, given the stage of program
development, the need for fiscal restraint and competing program
priorities, we believe that the fuel cell budget request is at an
appropriate level.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS)
I apologize for bringing the Department of Energy's fiscal year
1902 budget up in this hearing, but the Secretary is not testifying in
front of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, so this may
be my only time to discuss this issue with him. After reviewing the
fiscal year 2002 budget for the Department of Energy's Savannah River
Site (SRS), I have noticed that the fiscal year 1902 budget is $159
million less than the amount appropriated for the current fiscal year--
a year when many important activities were deferred. I am extremely
concerned about the unrealistically low level of Environmental
Management (EM) funding proposed for the many priority waste management
and environmental remediation programs needed at SRS.
I feel that your budget request for the Department of Energy is not
adequate for your agency to meet its responsibility to safely store,
treat, remediate, and dispose of wastes currently at SRS. Specific
examples include:
The removal and vitrification of high-level liquid wastes from
underground storage tanks is significantly impacted. These wastes are
the greatest threat at SRS to offsite population and the environment.
The budget reduction in this area represents a serious violation of
previous commitments made by DOE.
DOE activities to develop and test a new capability to process
radioactive salt wastes are not adequately funded even though it has
been more than three years since the cancellation of the In-Tank
Precipitation process (ITP). This capability is necessary to address
the space problems at the Tank Farms.
In light of today's historic shipment of Transurantic Waste from
SRS to the Waste Isolation Pilot Program in Caralsbad, NM, in your
budget funds will no longer be available for shipment of solid wastes
to offsite permanent repositories.
Many Federal Facility Agreement commitments for environmental
restoration will not be met.
Some commitments associated with the Defense Nuclear Safety Board
recommendation 2000-1 will not be met.
Funds for construction of the plutonium storage facility have been
deleted.
Programs to receive, store and treat offsite research reactor spent
nuclear fuels have been significantly reduced.
Approximately 18 months ago, DOE made the decision to locate all
three parts of the plutonium disposition program at SRS. With the
importation plan for the plutonium, there was also a clear exit
strategy. But, your budget eliminates one of these parts (Plutonium
Immobilization) and reduces another (Pit Disassembly and Conversion).
Other commitments for environmental restoration involving high-level
wastes as well as other on-site wastes were also made. When compared to
the total EM reduction of six percent, a cut of 14 percent for SRS is
unreasonable and inequitable treatment for South Carolina. With SRS
housing 60 percent of the Department's inventory of stored high-level
wastes, DOE's responsibility for environmental remediation and waste
management are as great or greater at SRS than any other DOE site, yet
your budget priorities are not consistent with this fact.
While I know this is not the proper committee for these questions
to be raised, I do hope that you will work with the Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee to restore proper funding to these areas.
I also would like you to please respond to the address the
following questions:
Question. Mr. Secretary, last week you testified to the House
Appropriations on Energy and Water that the Department of Energy Budget
for 2002 was sufficient. How are you able to make such a representation
when the President's fiscal year 2002 budget will not result in
compliance with RCRA and CERCLA requirements at SRS?
Answer. Maintaining compliance at the Savannah River site is a
priority. However, we face significant challenges in meeting some of
our lower-risk environmental restoration commitments in fiscal year
2002.
The schedule calls for the remaining cleanup to take some 70 years
and cost some $200-$300 billion. We believe that is not good enough.
Consequently, the Department will undergo a top-to-bottom assessment to
focus on what has prevented us from narrowing the cost and efficiency
gap and whether our current strategies are appropriate. We are
concerned that DOE's own policies and procedures may well cause some of
the inefficiency in the program. If the assessment concludes that the
Department's own policies are attributable to the lack of efficient
progress, the policies and procedures will be changed.
In addition, the Department has asked the Governor in each state in
which a major DOE site is located, and the Administrator of EPA, to
work with us in this assessment. The Department looks forward to
working with the members of Congress, the States and regulatory
community to ensure that DOE's environmental management program
executes its mission effectively, safely, and in a timely manner.
The Department's goal is for the cleanup program to proceed as fast
as possible, and with the minimum necessary commitment of federal
resources. Given the pressing needs of the nation in many other areas
that affect citizens' well-being, health, and safety, it is DOE's
responsibility to ensure that funds are spent wisely and results are
maximized. Until our assessment is complete, it is unclear whether any
work will need to be deferred.
Question. With the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget reductions at
SRS, will the DOE be able to perform all obligations required by the
Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (FFA)?
Answer. The Environmental Management budget continues to place the
highest priority on protecting the health and safety of workers and the
public at all DOE sites, and continuing work to mitigate higher
potential risks. We will ensure that nuclear materials are properly
managed and safeguarded. Priority is placed on a number of key projects
that reduce potential high risks, provide significant mortgage
reduction, or are key to completing activities at other sites. For
Savannah River, these projects include producing at least 150 canisters
of vitrified high level waste, shipping up to 600 cubic meters of
transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, completing
construction of the melt and dilute technology demonstration facility,
beginning construction of the Salt Processing pilot plant and
initiating conceptual design of the full-scale plant, and completing
all currently planned F-Canyon dissolution campaigns.
Maintaining compliance at the Savannah River site is a priority.
However, we face significant challenges in meeting our lower-risk
environmental restoration commitments in fiscal year 2002. The
Secretary has directed a top to bottom reassessment of the
Environmental Management program to examine opportunities for program
efficiencies and review existing cleanup strategies. Until this review
is completed, it is unclear whether any work will need to be deferred.
Question. With the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget reductions at
SRS, will the DOE be able to maintain High Level Waste Vitrification
operations and investments needed for continuity of operations to meet
the SRS Site Treatment Plan?
Answer. The Department has produced 1,106 canisters of high-level
waste glass as of May 15, 2001, which is ahead of our planned
production rate. We will continue to meet, or surpass, our goal in
fiscal year 2002 with the production of a minimum of an additional 150
canisters of high-level waste glass. Throughout fiscal year 2002, we
will maintain the waste removal activities supporting the delivery of
feed to the Defense Waste Processing Facility, while optimizing the
ratio of sludge and salt to minimize the total number of canisters
required to be produced during the life of the project.
Question. With the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget reductions at
SRS, will the DOE be able to meet commitments for shipments of
Transuranic Waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 request continues funding for
deployment of a ``mobile'' facility that will characterize and prepare
transuranic waste for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(WIPP). We expect approximately 600 cubic meters of transuranic waste
to be shipped to WIPP during fiscal year 2002. This will allow us to
meet our transuranic waste shipment commitments for fiscal year 2002.
Question. With the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget reductions at
SRS, will the DOE be able to meet the stabilization of nuclear
materials commitments to the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 request supports the operation of F-
Canyon and FB-Line for stabilization of plutonium residues and Rocky
Flats plutonium scrub alloy, and for material characterization, re-
packaging and vault operations. The requested funding also provides for
startup and operation of HB-Line Phase II for stabilization of
plutonium solutions, and operation of H-Canyon for processing of some
spent nuclear fuel. These activities support the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) recommendations 94-1/2000-1.
However, performing some stabilization and packaging activities
associated with the DNFSB recommendations will be a challenge. We are
exploring options for meeting these commitments at a lower cost.
Regardless, we will continue to store all nuclear materials in a safe
and secure configuration.
Question. If Congress restores funding to the DOE EM budget for
fiscal year 2002, will you, in turn, restore nearly $160 million to the
SRS EM budget to assure regulatory compliance?
Answer. Maintaining compliance is a priority for the Environmental
Management Program. However, until Congress passes a final
appropriations bill and the Department has had an opportunity to
evaluate the direction provided by Congress and to consider all program
priorities, it would be premature to say how much funding would be
provided to any individual site.
Question. Also, it is my understanding that you have suspended the
Plutonium Immobilization project at SRS. This project would have taken
the plutonium from Rocky Flats that will shortly be received at SRS and
converted it to a glass form that would be sent out of South Carolina
to Yucca Mountain. Now that you have suspended the PIP project, what
are your plans to deal with the Rocky Flats material being received at
SRS?
Answer. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) remains
committed to having a pathway out of South Carolina for the surplus
plutonium that will come to the Savannah River Site for disposition.
Our present intent is to pursue the irradiation of mixed oxide (MOX)
fuel in domestic reactors and immobilization for the disposition of
surplus U.S. weapon-grade plutonium. While work on immobilization is
currently suspended, we plan to resume work on this technology at a
future date.
Question. If your plans included using the aging canyon facility
for another 20 or more years, doesn't that appear to be a significant
risk?
Answer. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is
evaluating the potential to dispose of surplus plutonium using existing
facilities located at the Savannah River Site. Part of this evaluation
will address the risk of using the Savannah River Site canyons.
Question. Instead, why don't you consider building a new chemical
processing capability to substitute for both the immobilization plant
and the pit disassembly and conversion plant to supply plutonium to the
MOX facility? It would appear that this would be a much less expensive
route than using the aging canyon facility.
Answer. The evaluation study previously referred to will also
explore the option of building new capabilities and facilities, such as
you suggest, to substitute for the Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Facility and the Plutonium Immobilization Plant.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
NATURAL GAS
Question. Over the last several years, federal government energy
and environmental policy have had the effect of driving more and more
electric power generators into constructing (or converting facilities
into) natural gas-fired, rather than coal fired, plants. Mississippi
has more than two dozen peaking plants in planning and construction
phases along our state's numerous gas pipelines, all intended to wheel
wholesale power to other parts of the country. Other plants that have
been constructed for intrastate power usage have been gas fired. The
one notable exception is the TVA Red Hills power generation project in
Ackerman, Mississippi, which utilizes Mississippi lignite coal.
Natural gas does possess certain environmental and energy
efficiency advantage, and its uses extend far beyond energy generation
and into areas of pharmaceutical and fertilizer production. However,
Mississippi natural gas prices were unaffordable for residential and
commercial customers this year, and we are told that the worst may come
three years from now when all the new power plants go on line and start
to draw from available gas supplies. What projections has the
Department made with respect to future demand for natural gas over the
next few years?
Answer. Natural gas demand increased by 1 trillion cubic feet from
1999 to 2000, reaching a record high of 22.7 trillion cubic feet. In
the May 2001 Short-term Energy Outlook forecast, natural gas
consumption is expected to continue this record growth, increasing
between 2000 and 2001 by over 1 trillion cubic feet to 24.0 trillion
cubic feet. It is expected that the growth will slow to a rate closer
to the average annual rate of growth of 2.3 percent per year that is
forecast over the longer-term in the Annual Energy Outlook 2001,
reaching 24.6 trillion cubic feet in 2002 and 25.2 trillion cubic feet
in 2003.
Question. Will the prices for natural gas this year pale by
comparison to three years from now?
Answer. We do not expect that to be the case. Natural gas prices
have been high in 2000 and 2001 due to higher than expected demand and
to tight supplies, resulting from reduced drilling in reaction to low
prices in 1998 and 1999. Although EIA's May 2001 Short-Term Energy
Outlook (STEO) anticipates that natural gas prices will be considerably
higher in 2001 than in 2000 (2000 and 2001 STEO wellhead prices in
nominal dollars are $3.62 and $5.27, respectively), prices are expected
to subsequently decline to $4.86 in 2002 as increased drilling leads us
into a transition period during which natural gas stocks can be
replenished. It is not expected that prices will fall to 2000 levels by
2003, but prices around $4.00 are not inconceivable. In the longer-
term, technological improvements in natural gas exploration and
production and relatively abundant resources are expected to cause
prices to continue to decline and slow eventual price increases.
GAS HYDRATE STABILITY ZONE
Question. Deepwater offshore oil and gas development depends on
state of the art drilling technology, if we are to tap the once
unattainable supplies particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. Mississippi
has been a center of this new era of development, and our state looks
forward to your Department's focus and encouragement in bringing the
new fields on line.
However, many of these deep water resources lie in sections of the
Gulf within the gas hydrate stability zone. These frozen methane
hydrates may appear to be stable sea floor, but without adequate
detection and planning, can destabilize and represent a serious geo-
hazard, particularly for any drilling or production rig or pipeline
mounted to a section of the sea floor. The methane hydrates also
represent a tremendous energy source, which may be important with
adequate development to supplying future energy needs. Last year,
Congress appropriated $10 million to this problem. The Mississippi
Minerals Resource Institute has been an international leader in methane
hydrate research, through its marine program known as the Center for
Marine Resources and Environmental Technology. Is the Department of
Energy committed to continuing this level of research and development
in this gas hydrate stability zone?
Answer. The Department of Energy plans to continue its program of
methane hydrate research and development in fiscal year fiscal year
2002, at a level of $4.7 million. The program aims to develop the
knowledge and technologies necessary for commercial production of
methane from hydrates by 2015 while protecting the environment. The
work focuses on resource characterization, production, sea floor
stability and global carbon cycle implications of methane hydrates.
The methane hydrate program's significant expansion in fiscal year
2001, from $3 million to $10 million, allowed almost $5 million to be
committed to funding multi-year, competitively selected projects in the
Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. These projects will be started in late
fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, the department will continue its
core research with other government agencies and universities. In
addition, joint-industry projects selected from the fiscal year 2001
competitive solicitation will continue.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. The subcommittee will
stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., Tuesday, May 8, 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 2002
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
hearings on nondepartmental witnesses, the statements and
letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to
provide this testimony for the record to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies as it considers fiscal
year 2002 appropriations for the Energy Conservation programs of the
U.S. Department of Energy. Within this appropriation, the CONEG
Governors request that funding for the Weatherization Assistance
Program be increased to $306 million and that funding for the State
Energy Program be increased to $75 million in fiscal year 2002.
Recent increases in the price of energy, coupled with the strain on
energy infrastructure created by the rapid growth in energy demand,
place a new emphasis on making the most efficient use of the nation's
energy resources. Energy efficiency is a vital component to a balanced
energy policy that yields multiple economic, environmental and national
security benefits. Efficient use of energy helps reduce the nation's
energy costs and contributes to improved economic productivity.
The Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program and
State Energy Program provide valuable opportunities for the states,
industry, national labs and the U.S. Department of Energy to
collaborate in moving energy efficiency and renewable energy research,
technologies, practices and information into households, businesses,
schools, hospitals and farms across the nation. Administered by the 50
states, District of Columbia and territories, these programs are an
efficient way to achieve national energy goals, as they tailor energy
projects to specific community needs, economic and climate conditions.
The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) helps low income
households better manage their ongoing energy use, thereby reducing the
heating and cooling bills of the nation's most vulnerable citizens.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, low-income households spend
14 percent of their annual income on energy, compared to 3.5 percent
for other households. The Weatherization Assistance Program strives to
reduce the energy burden of low-income residents through such energy
saving measures as the installation of insulation and energy-efficient
lighting, and heating and cooling system tune-ups. These measures can
result in energy savings as high as 30 percent.
The State Energy Program (SEP) helps move energy efficiency and
renewable energy technology into the marketplace and ensure that states
and communities are prepared for and respond to energy emergencies.
Through the SEP, states assist schools, municipalities, businesses,
residential customers and others in both the private and public sectors
to incorporate the practices and technologies which help them manage
their energy use wisely. The modest federal funds provided to the SEP
are also an efficient federal investment, as they are leveraged by non-
federal public and private sources.
We request that the Subcommittee increase funding for both the
Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Programs. These
programs have demonstrated their effectiveness in contributing to the
nation's goal of environmentally sound energy management and improved
economic productivity.
We thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to share the views
of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors, and we stand ready to
provide you with any additional information on the importance of the
Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program to the
Northeast.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lower Colorado River Basin States (Arizona,
California, and Nevada)
INTRODUCTION
It has long been said that the Colorado River is the lifeblood of
the West. Today, the Colorado River supplies vital water and power
resources for more than 20 million people in Arizona, California and
Nevada.
Concerns have been raised about the reliability of these water and
power resources following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994
designation of critical habitat for four endangered fish species in the
Colorado River Basin.
In response, representatives of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Arizona, California, Nevada and Native American tribes, along
with various stakeholders and water and power agencies along the Lower
Colorado River, have formed a regional partnership, which is developing
a first-of-its kind Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) aimed at
protecting sensitive, threatened and endangered species of fish,
wildlife and their habitat.
The partnership formed a 35-member steering committee, which has
been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an Ecosystem
Conservation Recovery Implementation Team (ECRIT) under the federal
Endangered Species Act. The steering committee has retained the
services of professional facilitator and technical consultant teams to
help develop a plan for the MSCP. The MSCP is scheduled for completion
in Fall 2002.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The MSCP will work toward the recovery of listed species through
habitat restoration and species conservation, and reduce the likelihood
of additional species listings under the federal and California
Endangered Species Act.
The MSCP planning area includes the historic floodplain of the
Lower Colorado River and reservoir full-pool elevations from Lake Mead
to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. MSCP habitat
restoration and preservation activities are intended to address the
following habitat types: aquatic, wetland/marsh, riparian and upland
desert fringe. It is the intent of the MSCP to re-vegetate native
cottonwood-willow and mesquite trees in the floodplain, and remove the
non-native salt cedar, or tamarisk, that has become established.
The MSCP will be implemented over a 50-year period. The long-term
program is also intended to accommodate current water diversions and
power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
development. This comprehensive program will provide long-term
environmental compliance for participating federal agencies, pursuant
to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, and non-federal
agencies under Section 10. California Agencies will also pursue
programs and actions to achieve compliance with California
Environmental Quality and Endangered Species Acts.
Over the past four years, interim conservation measures (ICMs) have
been developed and implemented to address the immediate critical needs
for certain endangered species. ICMs benefiting the endangered
Razorback Sucker, Bonytail and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher were
initiated.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT COST
Current program development costs are projected at about $6.7
million over five years for planning needs and implementation of ICMs.
A federal/non-federal cost-sharing agreement is in place for
development of the program and implementation of interim conservation
measures. The federal and non-federal participants shared program
development costs on a ``50/50'' basis. Among the non-federal
participants, the shares were distributed as follows: 50 percent of the
non-federal share was borne by California, 30 percent by Arizona, and
the remaining 20 percent by Nevada.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The MSCP will be implemented over the fifty-year period beginning
in late-2002. However, MSCP proponents are desirous of implementing a
series of ``pilot projects'' in order to begin evaluating potential
habitat restoration and species conservation technologies within the
planning area. Additionally, the pilot projects would be supplemented
with species and habitat monitoring and research programs, providing
the basis for a comprehensive adaptive management approach.
proposed planning & implementation pilot project description
In order to complete the Lower Colorado River MSCP by Fall 2002,
and support Reclamation's continued compliance with the 1997 biological
opinion, the MSCP Steering Committee has identified several critically
needed planning projects which, if developed, ensure overall
comprehensiveness of the MSCP. These planning projects are necessary to
accomplish the following:
--Provide additional or lacking species and habitat data, evaluations
and analyses ($200,000);
--Provide critically needed groundwater and soils data ($200,000);
--Provide for the development of conservation opportunity area site
suitability assessments ($500,000);
--Develop conceptual habitat restoration site designs for
approximately six sites within the MSCP planning area
($500,000);
--Develop digital elevation mapping (1-2 foot contour intervals)
within the MSCP planning area ($200,000);
--Develop updated detailed vegetation mapping within the MSCP
planning area ($200,000);
--Provide funds for completion of conservation planning on the
Colorado River Indian Reservation ($500,000);
--Provide funds to the California Department of Fish and Game,
through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in support of the
Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act requirements and
requisite Scientific Review Panel ($200,000); and,
--Provide funds for completion of the development of the LCR MSCP
($500,000).
PILOT PROJECT FUNDING
It is respectfully requested that this suite of proposed LCR MSCP
habitat conservation planning and data acquisition projects should be
funded with an additional appropriation of $3.0 million to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Conservation Planning budget line
item.
______
Prepared Statement of the Choctaw Indian Nation
On behalf of the Choctaw Indian Nation of Oklahoma, I would like to
present the following statement representing our funding requests, for
your consideration in the fiscal year 2002 Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets. In addition, we have
also identified several national concerns and recommendations for your
consideration.
tribal-specific appropriation priorities
1. $40 million added to the Indian Health Services Division of
Facilities & Environmental Engineering (DFEE) to rebuild two tribally-
owned clinics on the Choctaw Reservation which will expand the Tribe's
health service delivery capability.
self-governance and other national considerations
1. Restore $256,000 for the Self-Governance Communication and
Education Project;
2. Provide increase for IHS and BIA to fully fund Contract Support
Cost (CSC) to address documented Tribal needs;
3. Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority
Allocation (TA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment;
4. Provide $325,000,000 increase for IHS unfunded mandatory,
medical inflation, pay costs and population growth needed to maintain
existing health care services;
5. +$5 million in the IHS Division of Clinical and Preventive
Services to support Oral Health Initiative;
6. Provide increases to allow for Improved Data Quality in the IHS
Division of Information Resources;
7. Increase of $100,000 in the Self-Governance Office in DOI for
the Tribal Leaders Self-Governance Advisor Committee; and,
8. Support all requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians.
TRIBAL SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION REQUEST
$40 million added to the Indian Health Services Division of
Facilities & Environmental Engineering (DFEE) to rebuild two tribally-
owned clinics on the Choctaw Reservation which will expand the Tribe's
health service delivery capability to an under-served population in
southeastern Oklahoma.
The Choctaw Nation Health Care Center in Talihina, Oklahoma opened
its doors in June 26, 1999. We were the first tribe anywhere in the
United States to build and open our own hospital which is comprised of
147,000 square feet and is built in five main sections. This new Health
Care Center features a huge array of services, such as respiratory
therapy, outpatient surgery and a women's health clinic. Additional and
improved services at the new facility will greatly decrease the need
for contract health referrals.
Even with the new health center, we are still unable to provide
ample health services to an under-served population of members
throughout the southeastern Oklahoma corridor which comprises the
Choctaw Nation. The health service needs of the Choctaw people, exceeds
its capability and capacity to fulfill these needs because of the
remoteness of the reservation.
We are therefore requesting funds to rebuild two deteriorated
clinics, which currently have limited capacity, on the Choctaw
Reservation. Both the McAlester and the Broken Bow clinics are more
than thirty-year old facilities. Our patient load requires additional
service capability, even with the Health Care Center in TalihinaI. If
these facilities were rebuilt and equipped with state-of-the-art
technology, we could expand the capability of the Health Care Center
with these satellite facilities which would allow much better access to
health services by our people.
Our service delivery area is comprised of 10\1/2\ counties in the
southeastern part of Oklahoma. Our need is as great as any comparable
service area in a metropolitan city. Yet, due to the lack of
accessibility such services by our people, there are medical needs
which can not be addressed because there are not enough accessible
facilities to take the needed health services to the people.
We ask the Committee to consider our request of $40 million to
rebuild these two clinics on the Choctaw Reservation.
NATIONAL AND SELF-GOVERNANCE REQUESTS
Restore $256,000 to Self-Governance Office in order to fund the on-
going Self-Governance Communication and Education Project (SGCEP).--We
are concerned that the Administration's proposal seeks to eliminate
critical funding for these Self-Governance activities. Over the past 10
years, the SGCEP has provided technical assistance and factual
information about Self-Governance. There are now over 266 Tribes
implementing Self-Governance and the request for information regarding
this initiative continues to increase. The SGCEP is vital to ensure
that Self-Governance and its purposes are clearly understood and
consistently developed by participating Tribal governments, federal
agency officials and non-participating Tribes. The funding for this
Project has never been increased and is now inadequate to keep up with
information request. We respectfully request that this funding not only
be restored, but increased to meet the real cost of providing these
communication services.
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 2002 includes a modest increase for CSC--(1) an
additional $65 million is needed in IHS (excluding the $40 million that
has been estimated, but negotiated for the new Navajo Nation contract
proposal); and (2) an additional $25 million is needed in BIA to fully
fund CSC (excluding direct contract support costs). This shortfall
continues to penalize Tribes which elect to operate BIA and IHS
programs under the self-determination policy. Additional CSC
appropriations are needed to implement the self-determination and self-
governance policy as supported by Congress. We urge the Subcommittee to
fully fund CSC for Tribes equal 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 2002 includes a $17.5
million increase over fiscal year 2001, this is the third year in a row
that the request contains no general increase for TA. 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 resource management and Tribal government services. A recent
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report on Indian-related federal
spending trends for fiscal years 1975-2000 states increases in the
combined BIA/Office of Special Trustee ``current'' dollars averaged $46
million per year. But as ``constant'' dollars (adjusted for inflation),
there has actually been a decline of approximately $6 million per year.
Over this 25-year period, the total is $150 million! At a minimum, the
requested amount will provide for a modest 3.5 percent inflation
adjustment for existing Tribal programs and services. We further
recommend that TA be revised and possibly re-named ``Tribal Family &
Community Services'' to better reflect the true nature and intent of
these programs. We believe that this title will help the Congress
better understand the use of these resources.
Provide $325 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services.--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 costs
are unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay costs
and staff for recently constructed facilities. 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.
Provide funding of $5 million in the IHS Division of Clinical and
Preventive Services to support the Tribal Leaders Oral Health
Initiative.--This initiative seeks to improve oral health status and
increase access to oral health services for Indian people. Indian
people experience dental disease at rates 2 to 10 times the national
average and Tribes currently have great difficulty recruiting dental
staff with 25 percent of dentist positions currently vacant. The $5
million will permit the tribes to increase their recruitment
activities, improve availability of community water fluoridation, and
collaborate more effectively with the IHS and other partners to curb
the epidemic of oral disease that confronts Indian people.
Provide increases to allow for Improved Data Quality in the IHS
Division of Information Resources.--Tribes are not equipped or
financially able to respond to the information gathering and reporting
requirements as identified in the Governance Performance and Reporting
Act without additional funding to update their reporting capability at
the reservation level. Unlike States, they do not receive the
assistance from the Federal government to maintain data collection
practices and technology. We therefore, request that the Committee
seriously considers increasing funds for this effort. Otherwise, the
expectations that the remotest of remote populations in this country
[Tribal communities] can participate in or keep pace with the
economical benefits associated with or resulting from data collection
and reporting is truly an unfair expectation.
Increase of $100,000 in the Self-Governance Office in DOI for the
continuance of the Tribal Leaders Self-Governance Advisory Committee.--
This Committee provides advice and guidance to the Assistant Secretary
for Indian Affairs on key policy issues that impact Self-Governance
Tribes and has proven to be an effective forum for Tribal leaders to
debate and discuss these issues.
Support all request and recommendations of the National Congress of
American Indians.
Thank for your allowing me provide this statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, of which I am a
member, is comprised of representatives of the seven Colorado River
Basin States appointed by the respective Governors of the States. The
Forum has examined all of the features needed to control the salinity
of the Colorado River. Those features include, in addition to BLM,
activities by the States, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department
of Agriculture. Because of the budgeting process utilized by BLM, I can
only presume that there are adequate dollars in BLM's proposed 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 President's budget is unknown at
this time.
BLM is the largest land owner in the Colorado River Basin and much
of the lands that are managed by the BLM are heavily laden with salt.
When salt-laden soils erode, the salts are dissolved and remain in the
river system affecting the quality of water used from the Colorado
River by the Lower Basin States and Mexico. BLM needs to target the
expenditure of funds in the amount of $5,200,000 in fiscal year 2002
for activities that benefit salinity control in the Colorado River
Basin. It is particularly of concern that the line item titled
Management of Lands and Renewable Resources is adequately funded. In
addition, BLM needs to target the expenditure of $800,000 of the
$5,200,000 specifically for salinity control projects. Experience in
past years has shown that BLM projects are among the most cost-
effective of the projects undertaken to control salinity in the
Colorado River Basin.
The water quality standards adopted by the Colorado River Basin
States include a plan of implementation that has a goal of 38,000 tons
of salt per year to be removed or controlled by BLM from reaching the
Colorado River to prevent exceedance of the standards and unnecessary
damages in the United States. Recent studies show that every increase
of 30 milligrams per liter of salinity in the waters of the Colorado
River can cause an incremental increase in damages of $100,000,000 in
the United States. Control of salinity is necessary for the Colorado
River Basin States, including New Mexico, to continue to develop their
compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River.
The salinity control program has been adopted by the seven Colorado
River 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 United States treaty with Mexico
that sets limits on the salinity of the water.
I believe that the Federal Government has a major and important
responsibility with respect to controlling salt discharge from public
lands. Congress has charged the Federal agencies to proceed 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 BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to
some of the most cost-effective salinity control measures available. In
addition, these programs are environmentally acceptable and will
control erosion, increase grazing opportunities, produce dependable
stream run-off and enhance wildlife habitat.
I request the appropriation of $5.2 million in fiscal year 2002 for
BLM for Colorado River salinity control activities of BLM in its budget
line item Management of Lands and Renewable Resources. Also, I request
that $800,000 of that amount be marked specifically 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 submitted by Jack Barnett, the Forum's Executive
Director, in request of appropriations for BLM for Colorado River
salinity control activities.
BLM has not had a history of adequately reporting its efforts, the
associated expenditures and its accomplishments with respect to
Colorado River salinity control. Legislation passed last year (Public
Law 106-459) requires BLM to report its program for salinity control to
the Congress. I fully support this requirement. It is commendable that
BLM's budget focuses on ecosystems and watershed management, but 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. I
request that the Committee require accounting by BLM that reports the
results of salinity control activities in connection with activities
that benefit salinity control.
______
Prepared Statement of Crownpoint Institute of Technology
This testimony addresses appropriations to U.S. Department of
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Activity: Special Programs and
Pooled Overhead: Subactivity: Community Development.
The Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT) requests $1.8 Million
appropriated through the authorizing authority of Public Law 84-959,
``The Adult Vocational Training Act.'' This Act enables appropriations
for tribally controlled vocational/technical colleges, which are not
eligible to participate under Public Law 95-471, ``The Tribally
Controlled Community Colleges and Universities Assistance Act.'' There
are only two such tribal colleges in the nation: Crownpoint Institute
of Technology and United Tribes Technical College in Bismarck, North
Dakota.
On behalf of the hundreds of primarily New Mexico and Arizona
citizens whose lives are greatly improved through the vocational
educational offerings of CIT, I thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of
this Subcommittee for your fair and generous assistance in fiscal year
2001 in the amount of $897,000. This funding has been critical in
keeping our institution in operation.
We believe that the Subcommittee is already aware that the CIT is a
postsecondary vocational/technical educational Institution. CIT is
chartered by the Navajo Nation, licensed by the State of New Mexico,
and fully accredited as a postsecondary educational institution by the
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. In academic year
2000-2001, CIT enrolls 492 students (headcount), or 423 Indian Student
Count/Full Time Equivalency (FTE). Most students reside on the CIT
campus. CIT exists entirely as a postsecondary educational institution,
campus based on reservation with dormitory student housing.
The Administration's fiscal year 2002 Budget Request to the
Congress proposed a decrease of $897,000, essentially an elimination of
CIT's entire BIA funding. The appropriation has been utilized to
support the operations of our educational institution. The Interior
funding has enabled CIT to remain in operation. This proposal to
eliminate our educational institutions funding is particularly
perplexing in that ``Education'' is a stated top priority of President
Bush's Administration. Eliminating this funding would close down the
only vocational/technical college on the Navajo Nation. In fact, the
proposal to eliminate CIT's funding would be the only tribal college in
the nation so affected. No other tribal college is target for
elimination in the Administration's proposal. In view of this, it seems
possible that the Administration proposal to single out one tribal
college and close it down by eliminating its funding may be based on
some misunderstanding about what kind of an entity CIT is.
The Crownpoint Institute of Technology, located on the Navajo
Reservation, is a tribal college according to every definition of a
tribal college. CIT's is a vocational/technical college with emphasis
on vocational/technical education. It is our understanding that CIT is
funded under an authorizing statute, Public Law 84-959, ``The Adult
Vocational Training Act,'' and is therefore not a line-item or earmark.
Providing appropriations to CIT does not give CIT favored treatment,
but rather is equitable because there is no tribal college in existence
that does not receive Interior appropriations. There are only two
tribally controlled vocational/technical colleges in the nation, and
they are referenced by name in the appropriations report. All other
tribally controlled colleges in the nation are funded under the
``Tribally Controlled Community Colleges and Universities Assistance
Act,'' Public Law 95-471. However, CIT is not eligible to receive
Interior funding under this Act due to a technical restriction in the
law, not because there is any question that CIT meets the institutional
definition requirements as a Tribal College. The technical restriction
in the Tribal Colleges Act that precludes CIT and UTTC is a provision
that limits each tribe to one college. Except for this provision of one
college per tribe, CIT is fully eligible to be funded as a tribally
controlled college because CIT is a tribally controlled college.
On it's surface, the one college per tribe limitation may seem
reasonable. However, under closer examination, the limitation is
reasonable only if all tribes draw from tribal enrollments that can be
reasonably served by one college. That is, that all tribes have
approximately equal populations. In nearly all instances, one college
can more than adequately serve one tribe's population. The population
of most tribes having one tribal college funded by Interior
appropriations ranges from 3,000 to 10,000 members. However, the
population of the Navajo Nation is approximately 200,000. The three
States of Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have a combined Native
American population of approximately 78,000: yet, these sixteen tribes
each have a tribal college. Sixteen tribal colleges serve a tribal
population that combined is only 39 percent the size of the Navajo
population. In the case of North Dakota, each tribe charters one tribal
college and in addition charters a second, the United Tribes Technical
College. The Native American population for the entire State of North
Dakota including urban and off-reservation areas is only 30,108 (2000
U.S. Census), or 15 percent of the population of the Navajo tribe. Yet,
North Dakota has five tribal colleges funded by Interior
appropriations.
The size of the reservation served by a tribal college is an
additional factor in determining the need for a second tribal college.
A significant factor in the founding of all tribal colleges was the
geographic absence of higher education access for tribal members. The
Navajo Reservation is 26,897 square miles, extending over three State
borders (New Mexico, Arizona and Utah). This one tribe's reservation is
slightly smaller than the combined five New England States of New
Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island: and
slightly larger than the entire State of West Virginia. The driving
time across the Navajo Reservation is nine hours. In the situation of
the Navajo Nation, the factors of distance and population combine to
justify the need for a second tribal college.
The Navajo Nation is not the only tribe having a second tribal
college funded by Interior appropriations. The four tribes of North
Dakota, which charter the United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) in
Bismarck, North Dakota, each already have one tribal college funded by
Interior under the Tribal Colleges Act: (1) Turtle Mountain (2) Ft.
Berthold (3) Little Hoop and (4) Sitting Bull, in addition to UTTC
which is the fifth college.
In fact, the Tribal College Act restriction of one college per
tribe has not prevented the advent of seven Sioux tribal colleges,
three Assinoboine tribal colleges and two Chippewa tribal colleges.
Ostensibly, different ``bands'' among a tribe such as the Sioux or
Chippewa, creates a loophole in the tribal college law that enables
multiple colleges to one tribe. However, the different ``clans'' of the
Navajo tribe are essentially the same as the bands among other tribes.
Additional justifications CIT has been provided as to why some
tribes should have a second tribal college funded under Interior
appropriations while Navajo Nation should not include the assertion
that tribal colleges which recruit from a national, multi-tribal
population require additional funding. There are three colleges in the
nation which were chartered to serve a national, multi-tribal
enrollment, (1) Haskell, (2) Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute and
(3) Institute of American Indian Arts. These colleges are not tribally
controlled colleges, but are either currently or formerly owned and
operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and were originally founded to
serve multiple tribes. Unlike tribally chartered colleges, a particular
tribe did not found these colleges. The fact is that most tribal
colleges, founded by one tribe, do indeed enroll students from other
tribes. This evolution is primarily a result of tribal members
relocating to other reservations and/or inter-tribal marriages over
generations. This situation does not alter a tribal college's charter
or mission, nor does it alter a tribal college's operational funding
need. Tribes founded colleges because the population in the immediate
area lacked accessible higher educational opportunities. Tribes have
not traditionally founded colleges in order to secure federal funding
to establish national, multi-tribal college-recruiting students from a
national population. This situation would be the antipathy of the
reasons for creating tribal colleges in the first place. CIT is open to
and welcomes applicants of all tribal affiliations as well as non-
Indian citizens. As just one example, CIT has re-trained displaced non-
Indian uranium workers from neighboring towns. The fact remains that
CIT was founded on the Navajo Reservation because there was a
significant unmet need for accessible higher education opportunities
among the citizens of the immediate geographic area. This significant
tribal population had a dire unmet need due to the absence of
accessible postsecondary vocational/technical educational opportunity.
Each year, CIT must turn away approximately 200 otherwise qualified
applicants from the outlying reservation area due to the insufficiency
if campus facilities. CIT is a dormitory-based college including single
and married student housing as well as commuters. The town of
Crownpoint, New Mexico is a reservation activity center including an
Indian Health Clinic. Nonetheless, rental housing for commuting
students is exceedingly scarce. CIT's operational costs as a campus-
based, vocational/technical college enrolling students from primarily
one tribe spread over one 26,897 square mile reservation are
essentially similar to a tribal college recruiting students from
multiple tribes. The number of tribes from which enrollment is
recruited seems extraneous to determining funding need. The number of
students regardless of how many tribes they came from seems to be the
most significant factor for determining the appropriations need for a
tribal college.
The U.S. Congress has developed a long-standing policy over the
past three decades to provide federal assistance through BIA to
tribally owned and operated on-reservation educational institutions.
This Indian Self-Determination policy resulted in equalizing the
inequity of K-12 funding for Bureau and tribal-contract schools (Public
Law 95-561), for tribally controlled colleges (Public Law 95-471) and
for tribally controlled Postsecondary Vocational Technical colleges
(Public Law 84-959). If CIT is excluded from Interior appropriations,
it will be the only tribally controlled educational institution in the
nation that is eliminated. As a result, CIT will assuredly be forced to
close its doors.
CIT offers thirteen certificate and seven Associate of Applied
Science degree programs in high employment demand fields of study. CIT
is in process of developing two additional programs of Dental Assistant
and Health Technician to respond to the employment demand in these
fields as well. CIT has an outstanding student retention rate averaging
85 percent over eight years, and an outstanding job placement rate
averaging over 80 percent for that same time. The BIA has even cited
CIT's outstanding placement rate in past budget submission to the
Congress. CIT's student body is comprised of 51 percent men and 49
percent women. The average student age is 26, although the actual range
is 18 to 64. CIT offers day care of single parent families and
parenting skills courses are required for participation. CIT graduates
earn an average entry-level salary of $15,000 and of that contribute an
average of over $2,000 annually to federal taxes. Over 10,000 students
graduate from high school on the reservation each year. Only 6 percent
of these young men and women are bound for off-reservation colleges.
CIT enables these young men and women to gain meaningful vocational
skills and acquire life-long employment opportunities.
Like nearly all the nation's other tribal colleges, CIT has relied
on multiple sources of funding for its existence. CIT's Congressional
Delegation has encouraged and lauded our efforts. For the past twelve
years, CIT has relied on Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations to the
U.S. Department of Education for Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education
Act, Section 117 funding for a significant portion of support for its
base operations. This funding has been distributed to United Tribes
Technical College and Crownpoint Institute of Technology. The statute
calls for funding allocation based on Indian Student Count, however
actual allocations have been made otherwise. Over the past three years,
USDE has significantly decreased CIT's funding under this section every
year even though our Indian student count has been increasing. On March
23, 2001, USDE published its intent to eliminate this funding and award
it by competition. CIT will lose either $700,000 or all of its funding
under this radical redirection. USDE invoked this change without a
public comment period or proposed rulemaking notification. CIT was
completely unprepared for this loss of USDE funding, which has been our
only other source of stable operational funding. The competition will
be open to all tribal colleges, which already have their own
competitive set-aside under Section 116 Indian program which is an
amount more than double that of Section 117. The net effect of this
situation for the Crownpoint Institute of Technology is that CIT now
has no stable source of federal funding which it can rely on to keep
our doors open. We urge this Subcommittee to provide CIT a stable base
of operational funding as it does for all the nation's tribal colleges
and as it also does for the only other tribal vocational college, UTTC.
We deeply appreciate this Subcommittee's consideration of our urgent
request for equity in appropriations that will enable the continuation
of CIT.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oglala Sioux Nation
The Oglala Sioux Tribal Department of Public Safety submits this
statement in support of increased funding for the Department of Public
Safety in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. The Department of Public Safety supports the Administration's
request for an increase of $5 million for tribal detention programs
nationwide. The Department of Public Safety specifically requests an
increase of $7.49 million for the operation, maintenance and
improvement of our law enforcement system on the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation. The increase includes $2.199 million for the transfer of
74 current law enforcement officers to the Department's 638 contract
from a Department of Justice grant and $5.295 million to provide for
needed law enforcement officers, detention officers, criminal
investigators, traffic officers, and telecommunications officers, as
well as additional training, insurance, and equipment.
BACKGROUND
The Department of Public Safety is the Tribe's law enforcement
program and was granted a charter by the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council
(the ``Tribe'') and now operates under an Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act Contract (``638'' contract). The Department of
Public Safety's 638 contract is with the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(``BIA'') in the United States Department of the Interior. The
Department of Public Safety has operated the Tribe's law enforcement
program since 1976. The Tribe's reservation, the Pine Ridge Reservation
of South Dakota, encompasses approximately 2.8 million acres (the third
largest in the United States) and has an on-reservation tribal
membership of 35,000 and a service population of 50,000. The Department
of Public Safety patrols the roads (paved, gravel and dirt) on the Pine
Ridge Reservation which extend for 1,074 miles.
The Tribe is very proud of its law enforcement program and the
strides it has made in the past 25 years. Unfortunately, a large
population increase combined with some of the highest rates of poverty
and other social ills on the reservation have led to an increase in
crime rates. Crime incidences are up generally 7.5 percent in the past
five years.
The work is dangerous and the Tribe is very grateful for the men
and women who put their lives at risk each day. We have attached two
short news articles that stress the danger and the need for more
funding.
The Tribe's current 638 contract with the BIA provides for $3.013
million in direct funding and approximately $1.2 million in indirect
costs (a total of $4.213 million). The Department of Public Safety also
currently receives $2.199 million from the Department of Justice's
Comprehensive Indian Resources for Community and Law Enforcement
(CIRCLE) and the Community Oriented Policing (COPS) programs which
provides for 64 law enforcement officers, 6 traffic services officers
and 4 school resources officers.
The Department of Public Safety currently employs 101 officers, 27
from the BIA 638 contract and 74 from the CIRCLE and COPS program
grants.
NEEDS
The Department's force is still severely undermanned and is far
below the national statistical average of 3 officers to every 1,000
citizens. Based on that ratio, and the fact that there are 50,000 Pine
Ridge Reservation residents, the Department of Public Safety should
have approximately 150 officers on its force. In other words, the
Department should add 50 additional officers on patrol from its current
patrol size.
The Reservation has high incidences of alcohol and drug abuse,
domestic violence, assaults, alcohol-related traffic offenses,
trafficking in drugs and alcohol, child abuse, child neglect and other
crimes which require investigation and action. In 2000 there were 181
major offenses, 3,851 traffic offenses, and 22,309 misdemeanors and
minor offenses including 22 assaults with a deadly weapon, 838 public
intoxication, 86 assault and batteries, 129 thefts, 388 disorderly
conducts, and 684 instances of leaving a juvenile in need of care, as
well as 139 executions of federal warrants on the Reservation.
Unemployment on the Reservation ranges from 80 to 90 percent yearly.
The Department of Public Safety' current BIA 638 contract amount of
$3.013 million in direct costs is not enough to fully run its program,
and the Tribe is exceptionally worried about the potential layoff of 75
percent of its force when the COPS and CIRCLE program grants run out at
the end of fiscal year 2002. Thus, the Tribe must plan on finding
funding for the 74 officers they are going to lose, as well as an
additional 50 officers needed to police the Reservation.
REQUEST
Officers.--The Department of Public Safety has historically not
received adequate funding from the BIA under its 638 contract. With a
service population of 50,000, the Department would need 150 officers to
meet the national standards mentioned above. In fact, the Department
would need about 112 officers just to meet the BIA average level of law
enforcement services, based on its service area and population. But the
Department has never been able to hire anywhere near this many
officers.
In fact, without the grants from the Department of Justice, the
number of officers on the Reservation would total just 18 percent of
the actual number of needed officers.
The training the law enforcement officer have received through the
CIRCLE and COPS grants has been invaluable. Officers are being trained
to do community policing throughout the Reservation utilizing a
cultural approach that emphasizes a traditional ``Akicita'' (warrior)
society approach to policing.
The Department is seeking an increase in funding from the Bureau of
Indian Affairs to its 638 contract in the amount of $7.49 million
dollars in direct and indirect costs to fully fund its current
operations and transfer the 74 officers paid from the CIRCLE/COPS grant
to the Department's 638 contract. The funding would also allow the
Department to hire an additional 17 juvenile detention officers for the
new detention center, and 18 new adult detention officers for the Pine
Ridge and Medicine Root detention centers..
The $7.49 million increase would also fund the addition of badly-
needed 12 criminal investigators, and 1 new telecommunications
supervisor.
Training, equipment, insurance, and vehicles.--The $6.8 million
increase includes $2.059 million for the direct cost of operations
which includes training for the new officers, investigators, and
traffice services officers. The $2.059 million would also provide for
training in domestic violence response, child abuse investigations, and
drug traffiking.
Our officers and criminal investigators do not have all of the
equipment they need to perform their jobs. We have been working to
correct the situation, but we cannot remedy the problem without
increased funding. For instance, the Department's communications system
needs to be computerized and enhanced. With the increase in incidences
on the Reservation, the need for an upgrade has increased. Thus, $2.059
million request for direct operations costs also includes funding for
the lease of new vans and cruisers to replace the outdated fleet, as
well as safety equiment for the new officers, additional insurance,
computer upgrades, and a modified police communications system which we
have been requesting for several years.
Juvenile and Adult Detention Centers.--The Department is also
requesting $231,500 for the operation costs of the new Juvenile
Detention Center that is being built. This funding would pay for
training, equipment, phones, inmate care and food, maintenance and
training. As previously mentioned, the Department is seeking funding
for 17 new juvenile detention officers.
Furthermore, the Department's request includes $247,500 for the
direct operations costs of operating the two existing adult detention
facilities. The new money would allow the Department to pay for inmate
food ($100,000 a year) as well as inmate hygiene products and care,
supplies and equipment.
CONCLUSION
In furtherance of its recognition and support for law enforcement
generally, and for the safety and welfare of the Indian people, the
Department resspectfully requests that Congress fund an increase of
$7.49 million earmarked for the Department of Public Safety's law
enforcement program.
BIA COPS: LITTLE FUNDING FOR BIG PROBLEMS, MAY 2, 2001
Kelmar One Feather was alone when he was called to duty on the Pine
Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, responding to a report of two men
driving while drunk.
A 18-year veteran of the Oglala Lakota police force, Officer One
Feather responded like any officer would and picked the two men up. But
before he could reach the reservation's detention facility, he lost
control of his vehicle and it overturned.
No one can say with certainty what happened on July 1, 2000. One of
his men died in the accident. The other survived, yet was too
intoxicated to recall what happened, falling in and out of sleep during
the ride.
But the accident could have been prevented, say fellow law
enforcement authorities. As is often the case throughout Indian
Country, One Feather didn't transport the men in a standard police car
but in a sports utility vehicle with no security screen, no security
features, and no assurances that his detainees didn't interfere with
the father of three and cause the tragic accident.
Officer One Feather died.
One Feather tomorrow joins an ever-growing list of Bureau of Indian
Affairs and tribal police officers who have died while on duty. At a
special ceremony in New Mexico, One Feather's name will be added to the
Indian Country Law Enforcement Officer's Memorial, a tribute to the 78
cops whose deaths are largely the result of underfunded, understaffed,
and overworked Indian police forces throughout the country.
Men like White Mountain Apache Officer Tenny Gatewood, Jr., killed
in 1999 while responding to a burglary call on a remote part of the
Arizona reservation. Women like Officer Esther Todacheene, who died in
1998 while on duty serving the Navajo Nation.
Despite numerous Department of Justice reports pointing out the
dire crime, violence, and jail problems that exist in Indian Country,
funding for law enforcement remains low. In 2001, just $157 million was
allocated for all of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' police programs
while officials say at least $500 million is needed.
And while there are only about 2,600 officer serving tribes, there
should be, at minimum, 4,300 men and women on the job, say officials.
The rural and isolate characteristics of many large reservations pose
special requirements on police forces yet most don't have the funding
to fulfill the need. Advances made during the Clinton years have helped
Indian Country efforts. In 1998, the President directed then Attorney
General Janet Reno and then Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt to
study Indian law enforcement conditions.
The immediate result was an increase in funding. After more than 20
years of no significant movement, the BIA's law enforcement budget has
been increased by $49 million since the study's release.
Other improvements aimed at tribes include the Community Oriented
Police Services program (COPS). The program, however, is in danger of
being cut by the Bush administration just as American Indian men and
women are the victims of crime at more than twice the rate of the rest
of the country.
In spite of all the dangers, young men and women are seeking to
join BIA and tribal police forces. But they also continue to die. So
far this year, Indian Country has seen the death of 22-year-old Officer
Creighton Spencer. Working on average 55 hours a week, Spencer on March
25 lost control of his vehicle while responding to a call in eastern
Nevada, where he serves Indian communities as many as 400 miles apart.
Spencer's name will be added to the memorial next year.
NORTON LISTENS TO TRIBAL POLICE TRAGEDIES, MAY 3, 2001
Secretary of Interior Gale Norton on Wednesday heard some of the
most compelling voices in Indian Country as caller after caller to a
nationally broadcast radio program told stories of underfunded,
understaffed, overworked, and overstressed tribal police officers who
put their lives on the line every time they go to work.
``Law enforcement is pretty scary on the reservation here in New
Mexico,'' said an anonymous officer serving a Pueblo in the northern
part of the state. Most of the time, he said, ``you'll be the only one
patrolling'' an entire reservation. ``I'm a tribal police officer for
Standing Rock [reservation in North and South Dakota] and I've heard a
lot of talk about reservations being short handed,'' said Leigh.
``That's what ours is right now.''
But perhaps the most convincing words came from family members of
two recently deceased police officers. The sister-in-law of Officer
Tenny Gatewood, Jr. said the White Mountain Apache Tribe suffered
greatly when he was killed in 1999 while responding to a burglary call
on a remote part of the Arizona reservation.
``When this happened--because it was the first time--it hit the
community tremendously,'' said Dorene. ``It affected everybody.'' A
cousin of Kelmar One Feather, an Oglala Lakota officer killed last year
while transporting two detainees on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South
Dakota, said his death ``has really really affected all of us.''
``It is a very severe problem here on the Pine Ridge Reservation:
law enforcement are not funded to their full potential, police officers
are overworked over stressed, they're patrolling alone at night,'' said
Filomene, adding that Kelmar's death was ``absolutely unnecessary.''
Norton, considered the first Interior Secretary to ever appear on
Native America Calling, responded to the stories with sympathy. ``Its
very saddening to hear the situation the prior caller was talking
about,'' said Norton of Gatewood's death.
She said that the stories like those of Officer Creighton Spencer,
who died in March, were a ``real tribute to the kind of people who are
just at the core of law enforcement.'' Working an average of 55 hours a
week serving Eastern Nevada, Spencer was killed when his car
overturned.
``It was a very, very tragic situation,'' said Norton, who
personally telephoned Spencer's widow. Spencer's father, Jack Spencer,
died in 1998 under the same conditions while serving Western Nevada.
While Norton recognized the problems facing Indian Country police
forces, she said her priority at this point in time is education of
Indian youth. But she said keeping communities safe has always been one
of her top priorities since her days as Colorado's Attorney General.
Norton's fiscal year 2002 budget proposes about $160 million for
law enforcement funding at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. However,
acting director of the BIA Law Enforcement Program Walt Lamar pointed
out that Indian Country needs at least $500 million to meet acceptable
minimum standards. In addition, at least 4,300 officers are needed
while there are just about 2,600 now, he said.
Callers emotionally added their pleas for extra funding.
``The federal government passed the Major Crimes Act because they
felt . . . justice couldn't be left to the Indians because of their
primitive ways,'' said Gatewood's sister-in-law. ``Yet now its the
federal government that keeps us primitive because they're not giving
us the funding that we need . . . and [by] putting the lives of Indian
people . . . at risk every single day.''
Kelmar One Feather's name today will be added to the Indian Country
Law Enforcement Officer's Memorial, a tribute an ever-growing list of
tribal police officers who have died on the job. Family members, a
Lakota drum group, and a Lakota spiritual elder will be on hand for One
Feather's ceremony.
The memorial is located in Artesia, New Mexico, the home of the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and the Indian Police Academy.
Ed. Note: Callers' names are spelled here phonetically.
______
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 written testimony on the fiscal
year 2002 Appropriations for Interior Department funding of 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 Court Funding
(1) +$58.4 million. Full Funding for Indian Tribal Justice Act.--
NAICJA strongly supports full funding ($58.4 million) for the Indian
Tribal Justice Act (Public Law 103-176). On December 21, 2000, the
106th Congress re-affirmed the Congressional commitment to provide this
increased funding for tribal justice systems when it re-authorized the
Indian Tribal Justice Act for seven more years of funding at a level of
$58.4 million per year (see Public Law 106-559, section 202). NAICJA
strongly supports FULL FUNDING of the Indian Tribal Justice Act as
promised in 1993. NAICJA 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 eight years
ago.
(2) Tribal Courts--at least $15 million (under the Tribal Priority
Allocations Account).--NAICJA strongly supports increased funding for
Tribal Courts to a level of at least $15 million under the Tribal
Priority Allocations (TPA). This minimal 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 in the enactment of Public Law 103-176 and re-
affirmed with the enactment of Public Law 106-559), 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--specifically finding 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 $58.4 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.
--The 106th Congress re-affirmed the Congressional commitment to
provide this increased funding for tribal justice systems when
it re-authorized the Indian Tribal Justice Act in December 2000
for seven more years of funding at a level of $58.4 million per
year (see Public Law 106-559, section 202).
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.
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.
Eight 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. In December 2000, Congress re-affirmed its
commitment to funding of the Indian Tribal Justice Act by re-
authorizing the Act for seven more years of funding (see Public Law
106-559, section 202). Now is the time to follow through on this long
promised funding and provide actual funding under the Indian Tribal
Justice Act!
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 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 SY 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 United States, 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 SY 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 Colorado River Board of California
INTRODUCTION
It has long been said that the Colorado River is the lifeblood of
the West. Today, the Colorado River supplies vital water and power
resources for more than 20 million people in Arizona, California and
Nevada.
Concerns have been raised about the reliability of these water and
power resources following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994
designation of critical habitat for four endangered fish species in the
Colorado River Basin.
In response, representatives of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Arizona, California, and Nevada, Native American tribes,
along with various stakeholders and water and power agencies along the
lower Colorado, have formed a regional partnership, which is developing
a first-of-its kind multi-species conservation program aimed at
protecting sensitive, threatened and endangered species of fish,
wildlife and their habitat.
The partnership formed a 35-member steering committee, which has
been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an Ecosystem
Conservation and Recovery Implementation Team (ECRIT) under the federal
Endangered Species Act. The steering committee has retained the
services of professional facilitator and technical consultant teams to
help develop a plan for the conservation program. The conservation plan
is scheduled for completion in Fall 2002.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The multi-species conservation program will work toward the
recovery of listed species through habitat restoration and species
conservation, and reduce the likelihood of additional species listings
under the federal and California Endangered Species Act.
The MSCP planning area includes the historic floodplain of the
lower Colorado River and reservoir full-pool elevations from Lake Mead
to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. MSCP habitat
restoration and preservation activities are intended to address the
following habitat types: aquatic, wetland/marsh, riparian and upland
desert fringe. It is the intent of the MSCP to conserve, protect, and
re-vegetate native cottonwood-willow and mesquite trees in the
floodplain, and remove the non-native salt cedar, or tamarisk, that has
become established.
The MSCP will be implemented over a 50-year period. The long-term
program is also intended to accommodate current water diversions and
power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
development. This comprehensive program will provide long-term
environmental compliance for participating federal agencies, pursuant
to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, and non-federal
agencies under Section 10. California Agencies will also pursue
programs and actions to achieve compliance with California
Environmental Quality and Endangered Species Acts.
Over the past four years, interim conservation measures (ICMs) have
been developed and implemented to address the immediate critical needs
for certain endangered species. ICMs benefiting the endangered
razorback sucker, bonytail, and southwestern willow flycatcher were
initiated.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT COST
The cost to develop the long-term conservation plan is projected to
be approximately $6.7 million over five years for planning needs and
implementation of ICMs. A federal/non-federal cost-sharing agreement is
in place for development of the program and implementation of interim
conservation measures. The federal and non-federal participants shared
program development costs on a ``50/50'' basis. Among the non-federal
participants, the shares were distributed as follows: 50 percent of the
non-federal share was borne by California, 30 percent by Arizona, and
the remaining 20 percent by the State of Nevada.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The MSCP will be implemented over the fifty-year period beginning
in late 2002. However, MSCP proponents are desirous of implementing a
series of ``pilot projects'' in order to begin evaluating potential
habitat restoration and species conservation technologies within the
planning area. Additionally, the pilot projects would be supplemented
with species and habitat monitoring and research programs, providing
the basis for a comprehensive adaptive management approach.
VIRGIN RIVER PILOT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Located in the northeastern corner of Clark County, Nevada, the
Virgin River Pilot Project is approximately 60 miles northeast of the
City of Las Vegas. This project area is to the south of Interstate 15,
and it extends from the City of Mesquite southwest nearly 35 miles to
the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Encompassed within this project
area is a mosaic of Federal, State and privately held lands totaling
sum 31,300 acres.
The Virgin River Pilot Project provides numerous opportunities for
LCR MSCP covered species conservation, and it has a high potential of
creating synergies between the LCR MSCP and a number of other regional
planning and environmental programs. Over 300 wildlife species occur
along lower Virgin River corridor. Of these, at least 23 have been
proposed for coverage by the LCR MSCP. Anticipated actions for this
pilot project include acquisition/conservation of privately held lands,
enhancement of riparian and wetland habitats, and collaboration with
ongoing Federal, State, and local agency planning and environmental
efforts.
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
The Virgin River is a natural flowing perennial stream, which
originates in the mountains of southern Utah and terminates at the
Overton Arm of Lake Mead, Nevada. Within the project area, the
floodplain is broad (over a mile in several places) and the stream is
braided during most of the year. Soils are predominately sands, and the
riparian vegetation is dominated by the nonnative shrub Tamarix.
Relatively small clusters of native riparian and wetland vegetation are
scattered throughout the floodplain. These clusters of native
vegetation provide valuable habitat for many native and several
federally listed threatened and endangered species.
The lower Virgin River corridor is biologically rich as it supports
over 300 wildlife species. During the spring and fall, migrating flocks
of ducks, geese, white pelicans and many other birds forage and take
refuge along the river corridor as they migrate through the region.
Other bird species like the western yellow-billed cuckoo and the
Federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher use the area for
breeding and raising young. Presently, the Colorado River Basin's
second largest breeding population of southwestern willow flycatcher is
located in this area. Other federally listed endangered species that
are known to occur within the project area include the following:
--Yuma clapper rail;
--Woundfin;
--Virgin River Chub; and,
--Desert Tortoise.
Human land use activities within the project area include urban
development within and around the City of Mesquite, agriculture, and
motorized recreation. All three of these activities are potential
threats to the Virgin River ecosystem and could potentially be
mitigated with this project.
PROJECT ACTIONS
In keeping with the intent of the LCR MSCP, acquisition and/or
conservation of privately held lands in the Virgin River floodplain is
a primary component of this project. There are over 9,000 acres of
private lands within the project area, and approximately 1,000 acres
are proposed to be acquired and/or conserved as part of this project.
There are currently parcels available for purchase, but values vary in
price to a large extent.
Restoration of riparian and wetland habitats on acquired/conserved
private lands and on existing public lands will be an important
component of this project. As stated above, the nonnative shrub Tamarix
dominates the riparian community, and relatively small clusters of
native riparian and wetland vegetation provide substantial benefits to
the native vertebrate species. An aggressive program of Tamarix
eradication and native species revegetation in the project area will
provide significant benefits to those species of interest to the LCR
MSCP.
In addition, implementation of this pilot project will potentially
enhance ongoing regional planning and environmental programs that
intersect at the Virgin River corridor. These programs range from
endangered species recovery implementation to public lands disposal.
Following is a partial list of these programs:
--Bureau of Reclamation Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat
Acquisition;
--Clark County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan;
--Lincoln County Land Act of 2000;
--Southern Nevada Riparian Restoration Initiative;
--Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998;
--Virgin River Fishes Recovery Implementation Team;
--Virgin River Resource Management and Recovery Program; and,
--Virgin River Tamarix Workgroup.
potential project benefits
Potential benefits of this pilot project include:
--Habitat conservation and restoration for several Federally listed
and sensitive species that are proposed covered by the LCR MSCP
(most importantly southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper
rail and yellow-billed cuckoo);
--Consolidation of land use types in an area troubled by checkerboard
land use;
--Opportunities for collaboration among several regional planning and
environmental programs; and,
--Potential to provide a portion of Nevada's overall commitment to
long-term implementation of the LCR MSCP.
FUNDING
It is proposed that the acquisition, preservation, and restoration
of lands along the Lower Virgin River, on behalf of the LCR MSCP, be
funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, for which the
federal, tribal, and state MSCP participants shall receive credit as
part of their conservation commitments. Currently, it is estimated that
approximately $7,000,000 will be required toward this effort. Once
acquired, title to these parcels would be transferred to adjacent
federal or state land managers.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe
The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, in Washington State, has 240
members and is signatory to the 1855 Point Elliott Treaty. An historic
land survey was conducted to establish a reservation base for our Tribe
but it was never finalized due to the untimely death of the surveyor.
We were a landless tribe prior to 1980, when we purchased 23 acres of
land 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 costs are funded under grants and contracts, as there are no
tribal funds, meaning shortfalls and the Tribe can not cover
reductions. These requests for increases are to be added to the base
budgets in the fiscal year 2002 on the following priority. Tribe's
total request is $7.746 Million.
TRIBAL LEVEL APPROPRIATIONS PRIORITIES
1.+$250,000 to Tribal Budget Base for Government operations, in the
BIA TPA Tribal Government Account to strengthen core administrative
staff & update equipment. Request 100 percent Contract Support (not 75
percent);
2. +$3.5 Mil. for planning and acquisition studies to address the
threat to the reservation property, homes, and infrastructure,
impending from the Migration of the Sauk River. The Sauk River is
regulated by the Federal Wild and Scenic River Act. Current planning by
the Corps of Engineers is underway to protect the reservation but only
guaranteed for the short term;
3. +$600,000. For community water and sewer systems improvements.
This includes a number of projects described in the IHS engineering
report;
4. +$1.626 Mil. to restore the Mountain Goat herds depleting in the
North Cascades and for a 5 yr. study. The mountain goat is integral to
the cultural heritage of the Sauk-Suiattle. The last hunt was 6 yrs.
ago;
5. +$100,000 to Education in the BIA Education Program Account.
Other requests.--+$100,000 to do a Comprehensive Needs Assessment,
a one-time non-recurring cost to TPA, BIA. 1989 is the last and only
study; +$750,000 for Cultural Research funding for anthropological and
archaeological studies specific to Sauk-Suiattle. No research studies,
published or unpublished, exist on the Sauk-Suiattle. Needed for Land
Acquisition, to preserve tribal history, and to restore language. To be
added to the BIA Office of Trust Responsibility Account for the Tribe;
+$575,000 to develop economic enterprises, added to BIA Tribal
Government Account; +$95,000 to Tribal Base for Indian Child Welfare
for additional staff, program enhancements, program resources, and the
development of a much needed short term emergency placement home for
foster children, add in the BIA, TPA for Human Services, ICWA Account;
+$100,000 to BIA Law Enforcement, addition for program operation,
salary increases, equipment, training, and jail contract funds. To be
added to the BIA TPA, Public Safety and Justice, Law Enforcement Tribal
Agency Account; +$50,000 to Tribal Housing Base Budget for HIP and
administrative management; Request U.S. Goverment to streamline the
Fee-to-Trust process and make it less complicated. Place acquired 9.98
acres land, adjacent to the Tribe's Administrative Office, into trust
status. This land will not to be used for gaming. Also, the Caskey Lake
50.8 acres land, 3 miles from the reservation, into trust land status;
Request U.S. Government to place Indian allotments under `638
Management and for title ownership of the Tenas Creek and Suiattle
Cemetery lands, plus two additional 50 acres surrounding the two
cemetery parcels. Need to clear up the question of ownership resulting
from the multiple jurisdiction and joint responsibilities that now
exists. It will clear up the U.S. Forest Service, BIA, or Sauk-Suiattle
ownership. (Mitigating settlement has not yet been achieved from
damages caused by the U.S. Navy's use of the Suiattle Cemetery for
training maneuvers in 1997).
REGIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PRIORITIES
Support the following regional requests listed: Northwest
Intertribal Court System, Skagit System Cooperative, Northwest Portland
Area Indian Health Board, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission,
Western Washington Indian Employment and Training Programs, Affiliated
Tribes of Northwest Indians, and the Small Tribes of Western Washington
organization.
NATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PRIORITIES
Support the national issues and requests advanced: National Indian
Health Board, National Indian Education Association, and the National
Congress of American Indians.
PRIORITY REQUESTS--NARRATIVE
Increase in Core Tribal Government Staff.--The Tribe requests a
$250,000 appropriation increase above the $160,000 minimum appropriated
to the BIA Tribal Priority Allocations, Tribal Government, Other Aid to
Tribal Government Budget Base to strengthen its position to maintain
key staff and to update its office equipment. The Tribe seeks to employ
a planner/grants writer, a business development planner, and management
assistant to advance and strengthen its government. To include 100
percent contract support costs, not just 75 percent as fiscal year
1999.
Channel Migration of the Sauk River.--The Sauk River threatens to
change channel directly impacting the protection of reservation housing
and infrastructures. Army Corp of Engineers is currently working with
the Tribe and willing to guarantee protection for the short term.
Current reservation lands now have severely limited development
potential due to the rivers migration. Funding is necessary to find
lands that can reasonably support Tribal needs. Funding is requested
for new land purchase and infrastructure development.
Community water and sewer system improvements.--This includes a
number of projects described in the IHS Engineers Report. Improvements
will correct sanitary and environmental deficiencies, and extend the
useful life of these systems and provide for more efficient operations.
Projects range from repairing failing septic drain fields to replacing
the current leaking tribal water tank and making it capable of
delivering sufficient head pressure to fight fires.
Mountain Goat Herd Restoration.--For the restoration of the
mountain goat herds which has depleted in the North Cascades. The
mountain goat is integral to the cultural heritage of the Tribe. It is
a Tribal resource providing for the unique mountain heritage of the
Tribe's culture. It is a source for food, cultural objects, and a basis
for a cultural belief system. The last hunt by Tribal members was 6
years ago due to lack of sufficient number of goats. The $1.626 Mil.
requested would provide funds to restore the goats in the North
Cascades range, and conduct a five-year study to develop preservation
and protection plans of this tribal resource.
Increase in Educational Program.--The Tribe's current 638 contract
with BIA only provides funds for 20 percent of the Tribal members
seeking further education. The Tribe requests that BIA Education
funding be increased by $100,000 to provide educational opportunities
to Sauk-Suiattle Tribal members to attain their education. Our base
budget includes less than $4,000 for college costs, even with almost
half of the population of college age.
Needs Assessment.--For a Comprehensive Needs Assessment of the
Tribal community population to determine social, economic, education,
housing, environmental and cultural preservation needs. The Assessment
will provide information for short and long term Tribal planning to
enhance the delivery of coordinated services to Tribal community
members. This request of $100,000 is for a one-time, non-recurring
cost.
Cultural Research Funding & Special Appropriation for Land
Acquisition Study.--The Sauk-Suiattle Tribe has 240 members, 20 houses,
one community building and no vacant suitable land for the creation of
a Tribal economy. The Tribe's unemployment rate is more than 65
percent. Over 80 percent of employed tribal members make less than
$7,000 a year. The Tribe could provide employment, generate Tribal
revenue, decrease dependence on federal funds, and enable Tribal
members to return to their ancestral homelands with the increased land
base. The Tribe requests a special appropriation of $750,000 to the BIA
for the Tribe to purchase land and conduct formal archaeological
studies on identified sites, including the recording of tribal history
and culture through an anthropological study, a recording of our unique
language, and restoration of the language. The Tribe's intellectual
cultural properties are protected in the design of this research
project concept. No formal studies exist on the Sauk-Suiattle Indian
Tribe to form a constructive base to advance its issues, although the
Tribe is identifying potential sites, identifying and recording
cultural resources, and responding to ``tribal cultural property''
concerns.
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 business plans, (3) Developing business codes, and (4) Initiate
a viable financial enterprises. The tribe has calculated a three-year
cost of $575,000 for this project.
Also, with the Tribal Economic Enterprises, members of the outside
community may benefit with employment, due to the economic downturn in
forest product work. The local community is designated a depressed
timber area.
Increase in BIA Indian Child Welfare.--Requests that $95,000 in
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 for ICW program development or enhancements. The
increased funds will go towards: (1) A proposed ``Emergency-Crisis
Placement Home,'' (2) To develop a training program for the non-Native
foster families serving the Tribe to better understand the Tribe's
culture; and (3) A ``Family Reunification program that will provide
resources and training for families 19at risk' or ready to reassume
their roles as parents. There are 80 member children under the age of
eighteen.
Increase in BIA Law Enforcement.--The Tribe has only two police
officers, one with the COPS grant. 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. The Tribe can then raise the salary to a comparable
level to the surrounding area, provide jail contracts for detention,
training academy of both officers, uniform and equipment for the
officers, equip a mobile mounted camera on the police vehicle, install
a computer in the car, purchase the software used by the state police,
and improve operation costs.
Housing.--Addition to the Housing Improvement Program (HIP) to
repair and improve current houses of the Tribal members. Plus, provide
for administrative costs to manage the housing program. The $50,000
requested would provide the funds to cover these costs.
Fee to Trust.--The Tribe request that the Fee-To-Trust process be
streamlined and made less complicated. There are two parcels of land
that the Tribe wishes to be put in trust status. First, the 9.98 acres
located adjacent to the current reservation. Second, the 50.8 acre
Caskey Lake, located approximately 3 miles from the reservation. The
Tribe has No intention, nor is it feasible, due to location of these
properties, to use these parcels for Gaming. It may be utilized for
other enterprise development 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, to transfer the lands from fee to
trust status.
Allotments.--There are also several thousand acres of unresolved
Tribal allotments that should be factored into study. These lands
(5,000 +acres) were allotted to Tribal members and then taken without
compensation in 1897 when the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest was
created. Tribal cemeteries are located within the area of the allotted
lands. The cemetery sites are sacred sites and need protection. We need
documents of the U.S. Forest Service that show they're ``holding in
trust'' these sites. This proposal is to initiate the 19638 management
of these sites by the Tribe under the BIA trust status. This will clear
up the ownership issue. (Mitigating settlement has not yet been
achieved from damages caused by the U.S. Navy's use of the Suiattle
Cemetery for training maneuvers in 1997).
We urge the Congress to 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 United Tribes Technical College
For thirty two 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. The request of the United Tribes Technical College Board
for the fiscal year 2002 Bureau of Indian Affairs budget is:
--$4 million in BIA funds for UTTC, which is $1.6 million over the
fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
--Contract support costs to be funded at 100 percent of the
negotiated rate. We annually absorb approximately $100,000 in
contract support costs and have unrecovered costs over the past
10 years of $1.4 million.
--Requirement that the BIA place more emphasis on job training and
vocational/technical education. The Adult Vocational Training
program, funded at $8.8 million in fiscal year 2001 is but a
shadow of its former self. There is no BIA Leadership or
advocacy for job training or vocational/technical education at
the central or area levels. UTTC, 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 371 students from 32 tribes
and 14 states. In addition, we serve 155 children in our pre-school
programs and 175 children in our elementary school, bringing the
population for whom we provide direct services to 701. 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/Partnerships with Other Educational
Institutions.--UTTC offers 9 Certificate and 14 Associate of Applied
Science degree programs. 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
--Distance Learning
--Food & Nutrition
--Computer Support Technician
--Tribal management, including gaming management
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.--We are bridging the ``digital divide'' by
providing web-based education and Interactive Video Network courses
from our North Dakota campus to American Indians residing at other
remote sites, including the Denver Indian community. Training is
currently provided in the areas of Early Childhood Education and
Computer Literacy. By the year 2005, students will be able to access
full degree programs in Computer Technology, Injury Prevention, Health
Information Technology, Early Childhood Education, and Office
Technology, and others from these remote sites.
Food and Nutrition/Diabetes.--UTTC will meet the challenge of
fighting diabetes through education. As this Subcommittee knows, the
rate of diabetes is very high in Indian country, with some tribal areas
experiencing the highest incidence of diabetes in the world. About half
of Indian adults have diabetes (Diabetes in American Indians and Alaska
Natives, NIH Publication 99-4567, October, 1999)
The College currently offers a Food and Nutrition Associate of
Applied Science degree to increase the number of American Indians with
expertise in human nutrition and dietetics. Currently, there are only a
handful of Indian professionals in the country with training in these
areas. Future improvement plans include offering a Nutrition and
Dietary Management degree with a strong emphasis on diabetes education
and traditional food preparation.
We have also established the United Tribes Diabetes Education
Center to assist local Tribal communities and UTTC students and staff
in decreasing the prevalence of diabetes by providing diabetes
educational programs, materials, and training.
Computer Support Technician.--High demand exists for computer
technicians. In the first year of implementation, the program is at
maximum student capacity. In order to keep up with student demand, UTTC
will need more classroom space, computers and associated equipment, and
instructors. Our program includes all of the Microsoft Systems
certifications which translates into high income potential.
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 and Tribal JOBS programs
on addressing the effects of welfare reform. The campus Child
Development Center provides early childhood services for 91 families.
This includes an Extended Care program so that students are able to
complete TANF work requirements, complete Cooperative Education
internships with private employers, and complete other work activities.
In North Dakota, only 33 percent of state TANF recipients are
allowed schooling as a work activity. The 12-month statutory limit on
length of time a TANF recipient can be enrolled in a vocational
education course of study presents additional barriers for single
parent families. This limits TANF recipients to taking one-year
certificate courses at UTTC. Our experience shows that the students who
graduate from a two-year, rather than a one-year, course of study have
significantly higher earning power. Many of our students come to UTTC
planning to take a one-year course, and then, finding themselves in a
supportive environment and seeing the economic benefit of the longer
course, decide to work for the two-year degree.
New Study Documents our Facility/Housing Needs.--The 1998 Perkins
Act required the Department of Education to study the facilities,
housing and training needs of our institution. That report, conducted
for the Department of Education by the American Institutes for
Research, was published in November 2000 (``Assessment of Training and
Housing needs within Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational
Institutions, November 2000, American Institute of Research'') The
report identified the need for $16,575,300 for the renovation of
existing housing and instructional buildings ($8 million if some
existing facilities are converted to student housing) and $30,475,000
for the construction of housing and instructional facilities.
UTTC continues to identify housing as its greatest need. UTTC has a
huge waiting list of students some wait from one to three years for
arrival. New housing must be built to accommodate those on the waiting
list as well as to increase enrollment. Existing housing must be
renovated to meet local, state, and federal safety codes. In the very
near future, some homes will have to be condemned which will mean lower
enrollments and fewer opportunities for those seeking a quality
education. Single student housing must also be built and expanded to
meet the College's needs.
Classrooms & Offices.--This type of space is at a premium. The
College has literally run out of space. This means that the UTTC cannot
expand its course offerings to keep up with job market demands. Most
offices and classrooms that are being used are quite old and are not
adequate for student learning and success.
OTHER AREAS OF NEED
Devastating Utility Increases.--Utility costs have skyrocketed due
to increases in natural gas. UTTC's utility costs have increased by 65
percent. This has put a major added burden on the school and is causing
a funding dilemma, since we do not have the option of relying on state
appropriated resources or other fixed cost revenues.
Inadequate Salaries.--We were able to provide a cost-of-living
increase for our employees last year. However, our faculty and staff
still receive salaries that are lower than any state college system in
the 50 states. (Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems
Report of the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the Department of Education
Office of Education Statistics.)
Course Offerings/Student Services.--We hope to change some of our
courses to better meet new market demands, e.g. training to increase
the number of students in the allied health professions, updating of
technology. We also need to expand our diagnostic capabilities in
tribal-specific areas and in the areas of literacy and math-science
background. And, we want to make improvements in our student follow up,
career development, and job market research efforts.
UTTC Seeks Non-Department of Interior Funds.--UTTC is aggressive in
seeking non Interior funding for special needs, e.g., the College
recently received funding from the American Indian College Fund to
purchase 132 acres of land. The additional acreage has given the
College the ability to strengthen its infrastructure and increase its
capacity. UTTC has midterm plans to serve 1,000 Indian students from
throughout the nation.
Our elementary school received a 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 last year we received a major
two year grant from Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration to develop curriculum for the Associates of Applied
Science degree in Tribal Tourism, which will be the first in the
nation. Additionally, our Injury Prevention Program has been assisted
through a grant from the Indian Health Service.
The above mentioned grants are highly competitive, restrictive,
one-time grants, and they cannot provide for day-to-day operations. We
cannot survive without the basic operating funds which come through the
BIA.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Jicarilla Apache Nation
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I would
like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to submit testimony on
behalf of the Jicarilla Apache Nation. The Jicarilla Apache Nation
believes that obtaining funding through the congressional
appropriations process is a core part of the United States Government
fulfilling its trust responsibility and obligations to the Indian
Nations. Therefore, we call upon the you and the Committee to uphold
the trust responsibility which forms the basis of the government to
government relationship between the Jicarilla Apache Nation and the
United States Government. The Jicarilla Apache Nation requests $5
million in earmark funding in fiscal year 2002 for the rehabilitation
of the federally owned water delivery and wastewater systems in the
community of Dulce on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation. Furthermore,
the Jicarilla Apache Nation believes that the President's fiscal year
2002 budget request for Indian programs does not meet the current needs
of the tribes. The following testimony discusses the specific needs of
the Jicarilla Apache Nation and some of the broad areas of the proposed
fiscal year 2002 budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (``BIA'') and
the Indian Health Service (``IHS'').
BACKGROUND OF THE JICARILLA APACHE NATION
The Jicarilla Apache Nation (``Nation'') is a federally recognized
Indian Nation organized under the Indian Reorganization Act and
governed by the Jicarilla Apache Legislative Council (``Council''), an
8-member elected body. A President, Vice President, and four Council
Members are elected every four years, with the four remaining council
seats elected two years in between the general election. The tribal
constitution also provides for a separate judicial body. The Jicarilla
Apache Reservation (``Reservation'') is located in northwest New
Mexico, along U.S. Highway 64, approximately 5 miles south of the
Colorado-New Mexico state line, and consists of approximately 1 million
acres, virtually all held in Federal trust status. The town of Dulce
serves as the center of the community and the headquarters for the
tribal government. The current population in Dulce is about 3,100
people and the current tribal membership is about 3,400 people. The
tribal government is the largest employer in the region employing about
750 people in the areas of government administration, education,
health, fire and police protection, tribal courts, and natural
resources management such as oil and gas development, hunting and
fishing and timber resources development and protection. The Nation
exercises sovereign governance over our territory and members, in
conjunction with the U.S. Government.
MUNICIPAL WATER DELIVERY AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM IN DULCE, NEW MEXICO
The water delivery and wastewater systems that serve the
Reservation are currently owned and operated by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and are outdated, inadequate and not in compliance with
federal safe drinking water and water disposal standards. The
wastewater disposal lagoons are 100 percent over capacity at peak flows
and discharges untreated wastewater directly into a nearby stream. The
BIA has been operating the lagoons under an expired National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit since 1995 in violation of federal
standards, which subjects the BIA to fines of up to $25,000 a day.
There is standing sewage in the certain yards of housing areas where
children have come into contact. Health problems associated with the
water supply have been documented and homes have been lost to fire as a
result of failures of the water supply system. These systems pose a
significant health and safety risk to the residents of Dulce and the
surrounding area, and have caused economic development barriers on the
Reservation.
There has been no meaningful funding in BIA's budget to address
this urgent health problem. Evidently, the Dulce water system is one of
two systems that is comprehensively owned and operated by the BIA. The
Jicarilla Apache Agency Superintendent has been carving out portions of
her budget for basic operational needs. There have been no capital
improvements for decades and thus, the system has fallen into total
disrepair. In 1998, the system completely failed leaving the community
of Dulce with no water for six days. To date, the Nation has expended
and dedicated over $8 million to rehabilitate this system. On July 10,
2000, Public Law 106-243 was enacted into law directing the Bureau of
Reclamation to work with the Nation in completing a feasibility study
to determine the best method to repair and rehabilitate the municipal
water system. The study will be completed this summer and is expected
to report a project amount of $25 million over a three year period. In
fiscal year 2002, the Nation is seeking first phase funding in fiscal
year 2002.
DULCE HEALTH CARE CLINIC
The current IHS Health Care Clinic in Dulce is not only inadequate
to serve the existing needs of the community, but is also located in a
condemned building! There has been an alarmingly high rate of cancer
and internal diseases on the Reservation, leading to a number of
deaths, including many among our youth. In March of 2001, the IHS
informed the Nation that the Dulce Clinic was selected for replacement
under the Joint Venture provisions of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, which provide authorization for the IHS to staff and
equip a health care facility for the benefit of a tribe, if the tribe
finances the construction of the facility and demonstrates
administrative capability to operate the facility. The Nation and the
IHS are in the process of negotiating the planning, design, and
construction approval documents. We anticipate the cost of the facility
to cost approximately $10 million. To complete the project, it will be
imperative for the Committee and Congress to appropriate funding for
the Joint Venture provisions in the IHS budget.
TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATIONS (TPA)
The TPA is the principal means for tribal governments to fund
essential governmental services to our people, including law
enforcement, justice, fire protection, education, social services, and
resource management. We have struggled hard to maintain these services,
especially since the crippling, nearly $100 million cut in the TPA in
fiscal year 1996. The undeniable fact is the funding for TPA has not
kept pace with inflation, and today is less than it was 10 years ago.
The President's fiscal year 2002 request for the TPA is $750.5
million, an increase of $17.5 million (2.38 percent) over fiscal year
2001. The net increase for tribes after removing Indian Self-
Determination funds for new contracts, uncontrollable costs, and
internal transfers is only a targeted $7 million--less than 1 percent.
This is unacceptable. The TPA is the most important component of the
BIA's budget, both in terms of size (42 percent) and what it does. The
President has stated that a 4 percent budget increase is
``compassionate.'' This makes his request for the most important BIA
program ``heartless.'' At the very least, we recommend a flat increase
of the 10 percent to address unmet needs and inflation. We also urge
you to increase the President's request for contract support to 100
percent of total need as authorized under the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act, rather than the 88 percent requested.
HEALTH SERVICES
The President's fiscal year 2002 IHS request of $3.3 billion is an
increase of $107 million over fiscal year 2001. Of this amount, $50
million is for the Navajo Health Services transition to tribal
operation and control. The net increase for all other tribes is an
unacceptable 1 percent. As you know, there is a crisis in Indian health
care, resulting in part from a lack of funding for mandatory increases
like inflation, pay costs, staff for new facilities, and population
growth. IHS funded programs must absorb these costs, resulting in a net
decrease in health care to Indian people of $2 billion in the last 8
years. Health care expenditures for Indian people are well below 50
percent of the per capita health care expenditure for mainstream
America, and, as you know, our gloomy health statistics reflect this.
The problem with the President's budget is that it includes an
estimated $499 million in health insurance reimbursements, and with the
Navajo transition of $50 million, results in an adjusted request of
only $2.75 billion. In fact, the National Indian Health Board, the
Tribal Self-Governance Advisory Committee, and the National Council on
Urban Indian Health concluded that the fiscal year 2002 IHS budget
should be $18 billion, but no less than $3.2 billion in appropriations
to begin to address the health care needs of Indian people on a basis
comparable to the rest of America. The President's fiscal year 2002
budget also includes a $40 million increase in contract support, all
for the Navajo transition. This leaves an estimated need of $175
million, which tribes must absorb, further reducing health care
services. We ask the Committee to fully fund contract support costs in
fiscal year 2002. Because Indian health care funding is a life or death
issue for our people, the Jicarilla Apache Nation supports the
``Daschle Amendment'' accepted by the Budget Committee to increase
funding for Indian Health Care to $4.2 billion in fiscal year 2002.
Finally, the President's fiscal year 2002 budget provides $100
million for diabetes funding, the same as level of funding as last
year. These funds are a good investment in the welfare of our people,
and will result in future program savings by improving the health and
livelihood of our people. We request that Congress extend diabetes
funding for the full 10 year authority allowed by the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997.
OTHER ISSUES
We are pleased to see that the President included in his fiscal
year 2002 budget a new $10 million initiative for tribes in his
Flexible Land and Water Conservation Fund Program. The Jicarilla Apache
Nation and other Indian Nations across the country support equitable
access to the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). As you know,
CARA was not enacted last year, but was diluted into a ``CARA-Lite''
that funded fewer activities with fewer dollars over less time. No
stakeholder was more adversely affected by this dilution than Indian
Nations, who lost every single provision that had benefited them in the
original legislation. Therefore, it is critical that the $10 million
tribal portion be retained, along with the flexibility specified by the
President for this program. We support the inclusion of language
directing that a federal/tribal team be composed to develop the tribal
competitive grant program to distribute these funds, which should
include tribes, the BIA, and the National Park Service.
In closing, I want to thank you for allowing the Jicarilla Apache
Nation to present, for the record, our views and priorities on the
Interior fiscal year 2002 budget. If you need any additional
information, please contact me in Dulce at (505) 759-3242.
______
Prepared Statement of the Save San Francisco Bay Association
On behalf of the thousands of members of Save The Bay, I urge you
to include significant funding for acquisition of salt ponds owned by
Cargill, Inc. in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill. The willing
seller has entered into negotiations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, which has been pursuing restoration of natural tidal wetlands
and related habitats to improve the health of San Francisco Bay and the
wildlife that depend upon it.
Our staff and scientists have compiled an extensive picture of the
opportunities and challenges to restoration of the South Bay salt ponds
currently operated by Cargill. All 26,000 acres of the South Bay salt
pond complex is potentially restorable to a mix of tidal marsh and open
water habitats that would provide tremendous ecological benefits to Bay
fish, wildlife and water quality, including for endangered and
threatened species.
This acquisition and restoration is of the highest priority for the
Bay, as validated by a wide-ranging study of scientists in 1999 in the
Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Report. The project has received
strong backing from a wide range of community organizations, public
agencies, business groups and agricultural interests.
Because the State of California would provide half of the funding
for this acquisition, it provides a unique attempt to leverage federal
funds for estuary protection. Last year the U.S. Congress committed $8
million and the California State Legislature committed $25 million
toward the expected final purchase price of approximately $300 million.
Please include the additional funds necessary to provide the
federal share for this acquisition, and seize this special opportunity
to restore the San Francisco Bay's health.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture
REQUESTED ACTION
The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture strongly urges you to support
Senator Feinstein's request of $75 million in appropriations fiscal
year 2002 for the public acquisition of at least 18,900 acres of
Cargill's Bay Area salt ponds, including 4,451 acres of operating
rights and the remainder in fee title. This project represents a unique
public-private partnership and one between the federal and state
government; it must be consummated this year if we do not wish to lose
this historic opportunity.
The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture (SFBJV) is a part of the North
American (NA) Waterfowl Management Plan and NA Bird Conservation
Initiative. We are an active partnership of twenty-seven public
agencies, environmental organizations, business groups and agricultural
interests that are working cooperatively to protect, restore, increase
and enhance wetlands, riparian habitat, and associated uplands
throughout the San Francisco Bay region. This urgent request is made by
unanimous consent of the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) on the
SFBJV Management Board, with the exception of those public agency
members that are unable to take positions on legislative issues. The 14
NGOs of the SFBJV's Board are shown on the left hand side of the table
below.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE MANAGEMENT BOARD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non profit and private organizations Public agencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopt a Watershed Bay Conservation and
Bay Area Audubon Council Development Commission
Bay Area Open Space Council California Coastal Conservancy
Bay Planning Coalition California Department of Fish
Citizens Committee to Complete the and Game
Refuge Coastal Region, Mosquito and
Ducks Unlimited Vector Control Districts
National Audubon Society National Fish and Wildlife
PG&E Corporation Foundation
Point Reyes Bird Observatory National Marine Fisheries
Save San Francisco Bay Association Service
Sierra Club Natural Resources Conservation
The Bay Institute Service
The Conservation Fund SF Bay Regional Water Quality
Urban Creeks Council Control Board
San Francisco Estuary Project
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Wildlife Conservation Board
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Estuary is the nation's second largest estuary on
the Pacific Coast. It is a globally unique, yet threatened resource.
The wetlands and streams that rim the Bay Estuary are essential to the
health of the region's resident fish, wildlife, and human populations.
A century ago, the Bay Area contained almost 200,000 acres of tidal
marshes and close to 100,000 acres of seasonal wetlands, vernal pools,
and creeks and streams. Today, over 80 percent of the Bay's original
wetlands have been either degraded or lost due to diking and filling
for farming, grazing, salt extracting, building and other development.
The salt pond acquisition project represents a unique opportunity
to fulfill a key portion of the SFBJV's habitat goals to preserve,
enhance and restore the San Francisco Bay Estuary, as set forth in the
Joint Venture's recently-approved Board-approved Implementation
Strategy. That Implementation Strategy calls for the acquisition and
restoration of Cargill's salt ponds.
Member organizations of the SFBJV have been working in partnership
to literally turn the tide to restore saltwater wetlands for the past
decade. Since 1993, our partner organizations and agencies have
acquired and enhanced or restored over 27,000 acres of wetlands
throughout the SF Bay Area. This set of accomplishments is indicative
of the commitment that our region has made to the renewal of the Bay's
wetlands and streams from many levels: business, government, and grass-
roots. The SFBJV affirms the great importance of investing in our
region's wetland resources, as they help to ensure the long-term
sustainability of the SF Bay Estuary's ecosystem and its many dependent
species. Because of its scale and the rationale for it presented below,
this project is of statewide and national importance. In addition,
among the 166 partnership-based wetlands and creeks habitat projects
around the San Francisco Bay Estuary, this is the SFBJV's current
priority.
The fact that Cargill is a willing and cooperative seller is one of
the hallmarks of this project; several non-profit, as well as the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife have been working with Cargill to identify the
elements of an interim restoration strategy, consistent with current
science and the ``San Francisco Baylands Ecosystem Goals Report
(1999).'' We believe that implementation will occur in a timely manner
following acquisition.
We urge you to exert your leadership to realize this once-in-a-
lifetime opportunity to protect and restore our wetland ecosystem
through a public-private partnership. Federal and state agencies and
legislators have demonstrated extraordinary collaboration in completing
the appraisal process and foresight in identifying early funding. We
ask that you give favorable consideration to Senator Feinstein's
requested $75 million appropriation, as a priority in this year's
Interior Department budget. We regard this project as a national model
for the kind of public-private partnerships in conservation that makes
the best use of available resources for the greatest benefit of all
interests involved.
RATIONAL FOR SUPPORT
Presence of a willing and cooperative seller, Cargill Inc.
Unanimous support of the environmental community and business
community (Bay Planning Coalition) around San Francisco Bay for this
acquisition.
Acquisition of the salt ponds is critical to restoration of
wetlands in South San Francisco Bay, as determined in the ``Baylands s
Ecosystem Habitat Goals,'' a regional blueprint for restoration of the
San Francisco Bay prepared by over 100 scientists.
The South Bay is the key wintering habitat for Shorebirds along the
Pacific Flyway.
Federal and state resources agencies are working cooperatively with
the owner and one another in pursuing a joint purchase of the property.
Cargill Salt will continue to produce salt on about 12,000 acres
centered around its plant site in Newark on the East Bay, and no
existing jobs will be lost as a result of this acquisition.
Large portions of the property could be restored to tidal action
almost immediately. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cargill, and
Save The Bay have been cooperatively examining restoration strategies.
Restoration of this property would increase the Bay's tidal marsh
habitat by nearly 50 percent. Re-creating thousands of acres of native
marsh could help restore populations of birds and other species that
currently are considered threatened or endangered and provide
additional sheltered nurseries for a vast array of marine life.
Increasing bayside wetlands could help improve the water quality of
the bay by trapping pollutants and sediments from urban runoff. It also
promises to reduce the impact of freshwater discharges into the Bay
from adjacent cities and provide additional flexibility for flood
control.
This acquisition would nearly complete the Don Edwards San
Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, the largest urban refuge in the
country, and create additional opportunities for public access and
environmental research and education.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lukachukai Community School, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The Lukachukai
Community School Board of Education, Inc. (LCBE, Inc.) oversees a BIA-
funded school serving 400 students from grades K through 8 in a remote
area of the Navajo Reservation. On behalf of the Lukachukai Community
Board of Education, I thank you for this opportunity to offer comments
regarding the fiscal year 2002 budget. We wish to highlight several
aspects of the budget which we hope will see funding increases in
fiscal year 2002: Administrative Cost Grants ($55 million), Student
Transportation ($44 million), ISEP Formula Funds ($362 million), and
Replacement School Construction (funding to construct the 13 schools on
the current priority list).
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION NEEDS AT LUKACHUKAI
We commend Congress for funding construction of the first six
schools included on the BIA's new school construction priority list in
the fiscal year 2001 budget. In fiscal year 2002, we hope that Congress
and the Administration will work together to fund the remainder of the
top priority list for this year, an additional 13 schools. Such
aggressive action is crucial at this time, as beyond this top tier list
wait dozens of additional schools in desperate need of construction-our
school, for example, is currently ranked 59th in line among the schools
yet to be funded.
If our facility constitutes the 59th-greatest need for replacement
school construction in the BIA system, Congress has a severe crisis on
its hands. The structures and utility systems of the existing school
facilities are failing. While most educational facilities are built to
last for only thirty years, the newest of our facilities are nearly
forty years old, and are not in compliance with accessibility codes.
Additionally, the electrical systems need to be upgraded to accommodate
technology and automation, a 21st century educational requirement. We
also face severe overcrowding in our classrooms. Recently, we had to
move sixteen students from overcrowded kindergarten classrooms into a
dormitory, and the gifted education class was moved into a three-
bedroom staff housing structure.
Our 86 employees must compete for the 18-space parking lot that
also lacks lighting of any kind, as well as limited housing units (47).
The housing units all contain asbestos in the floor tile and mastic and
are in dire need of renovation in order to meet the minimum safety
requirements. Our limited space forces us to load and unload 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 have never been changed and are about to rust out. At times
when the water becomes red and murky, the safety of the water for
consumption becomes an issue. Two years ago severe winds blew off the
kitchen, residential hall, and gymnasium roofs, resulting 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 and unwise to undertake.
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 projected expansion
needs, we have proposed and obtained land for a new school facility to
serve 450 youths from kindergarten through eighth grade from the
Lukachukai, Round Rock and Tsaile/Wheatfields communities. The proposed
new grant school at Lukachukai is project ready. But given our current
ranking and the rate at which new schools are being funded, it could
easily be decades before our desperate construction needs are
addressed.
We cannot wait until the current generation of students are parents
themselves before addressing the terrible condition of Indian Country's
schools. We believe there is no room for years of delay when the health
and safety of young people is at stake. Please fund the full current
priority list of 13 schools in fiscal year 2002.
ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS
Tribally-operated BIA schools are facing a crisis in their
administrative budgets, operating at less than 80 percent of the
funding necessary for prudent management of a school. These schools
receive their administrative funding through Administrative Cost
Grants, a formula-based method created by Congress to calculate the
amount of funds that should be provided for the administrative and
indirect cost expenses incurred in the operation of BIA school
programs-similar to ``contract support'' costs provided to non-school
contractors. The Administrative Cost Grant formula was designed as a
compromise, a minimum calculation of the administrative costs necessary
for prudent management of tribally operated schools. When 100 percent
of these costs are not funded, our schools are set up for failure.
We were pleased that Congress increased Administrative Cost Grant
funding by $1 million in fiscal year 2001 after funding had been frozen
at the same level ($42.1 million) for three consecutive years. Yet
after so many years of underfunding, the shortfall has become quite
significant, and additional schools have converted to tribal operation,
causing the available appropriation to be divided between a larger
number of schools. The percentage of the formula met declined from 89.5
percent (SY 1998-99) to 79.68 percent (SY 2000-01) in the three budget
years where funding remained level.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BIA education program funding is ``forward funded'', as are
most federal aid to education programs. Thus, for example, the fiscal
year 2000 budget funded the current school year, SY 2000-2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The impacts of these shortfalls are far from abstract. Tribally-
operated schools have been forced to make reductions-in-force that cost
them vital, well-trained administrative staff. Remaining staff struggle
under the stress of being overloaded with the work of multiple people.
Some schools have had to convert their administrative staff to a 10-
month employment year, leaving them ill-prepared to close out the
administrative work of the previous school year and to prepare for the
coming school year and annual audit. Reduced funding jeopardizes our
ability to comply with the internal controls needed for prudent fiscal
management. Due to the shortage of funding we did not hire an
Administrative Service Director or Procurement Officer. Although we had
saved funds by not hiring the direly needed administrative positions,
we on the other hand overburdened our technicians to carry out the
workload, which at times they did not have the expertise to carry out.
In the end, we had to bring in consultants to monitor and reconcile our
books to ensure that compliance and internal controls were not
compromised.
The National Congress of American Indians and the National Indian
Education Association both passed resolutions this year calling for
full funding of Administrative Cost Grants. We implore Congress to join
these bodies in recognizing that tribal schools' needs for
administrative costs are just as great as those of other tribally-
operated BIA and IHS programs. Please provide funding for the full need
generated by the Administrative Cost Grant formula, which we estimate
will require approximately $55 million in fiscal year 2002.
We also ask that the rider included in recent Interior
Appropriations measures capping Administrative Cost Grant funding be
excluded from future Interior Appropriations measures. 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 ask that you
delete any proposal to extend the current cap for another year and
fully fund AC grants at 100 percent of need, as required under the
authorizing statute.
STUDENT TRANSPORTATION
Lukachukai is located in the foothills of the Chuska Mountains, at
an elevation of 7,000 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 current school year, the Bureau-funded transportation rate
is $2.30 per mile, far short of the nationwide average of $2.92 that
was reported for public schools over six years ago. Yet the fiscal year
2001 budget included less than a $200,000 increase in funding for
Student Transportation. Sharp increases in fuel costs over the past
year have made increased funding for Student Transportation absolutely
necessary. 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, our student transportation costs have gone 33 percent beyond what
our Student Transportation Program generates. Our Student
Transportation Program generated $154,000 this current school year but
our actual expenditure for the program was $221,000. If BIA
transportation reimbursement rates continue to lag behind actual costs
for student transportation in fiscal year 2002, we will be forced to
continue to use a distressing percentage of our academic funds to
supplement our inflexible transportation costs. 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
reimbursement rate of $3 per mile, which we estimate would require at
least $44 million.
INDIAN SCHOOL EQUALIZATION PROGRAM (ISEP)
The ISEP program, which provides basic instructional funding for
students in BIA-funded schools, has been consistently underfunded. In
fiscal year 2001, Congress took a step in the right direction, agreeing
to a desperately needed $14 million increase in funding for ISEP
formula funds that resulted in a final funding level of $330.8 million.
But even with this increase, we estimate based on BIA projections, that
the resulting Weighted Student Unit (WSU) will be approximately $3,650
for School Year 2001-02. This level of basic educational funding is
still 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.
This sadly has been the real story, a ``Catch 22'' situation that
impacts our Native American children everyday of their lives. They
continue to get the least attention from their government. They
continue to receive education in school buildings that the majority of
states would not even allow their prisoners to live in! And yes, they
seldom get good teachers because good salaries in other counties and
states attract good teachers and we cannot compete with them. Limited
resources and unsafe facilities that are not conducive to a good
learning environment are the two main reasons as to why Native American
children continue to score well below the national norm on standardized
achievement tests across this nation. We recommend that Congress
appropriate at least $362 million for the ISEP Formula program in
fiscal year 2002, which we estimate would yield a WSU of approximately
$4,000 per weighted student unit. By funding ISEP at this level,
Congress could come closer to offering 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 the
Lukachukai Community Board of Education. 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, 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 Black Mesa Community School
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for this
opportunity to submit testimony regarding the fiscal year 2002 budget
for Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) programs relating to school
operations. Black Mesa Community School is a remotely located grant
school, serving students from kindergarten through eighth grade in
Kitsillie, a mountainous area of the Navajo Nation in Northern Arizona.
We are pleased with the focus on education in general and Indian
education in particular which Congress and the new Administration have
demonstrated in recent months. We hope that you will consider taking
advantage of this unique opportunity to address several areas of
longstanding need within the BIA education budget:
--$55 million for Administrative Cost Grants,
--$44 million for student transportation, and
--$802 million to support the Administration's promise to eliminate
the backlog of Facilities Improvement and Repair needs in BIA-
funded schools, including needed funding to construct a
maintenance facility at Black Mesa.
ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS
Tribally-operated BIA schools are facing a crisis in their
administrative budgets, operating at less than 80 percent of the
funding necessary for prudent management of a school. These schools
receive their administrative funding through Administrative Cost
Grants, a formula-based method created by Congress to calculate the
amount of funds that should be provided for the administrative and
indirect cost expenses incurred in the operation of BIA school
programs--similar to ``contract support'' costs provided to non-school
contractors. The Administrative Cost Grant formula was designed as a
compromise, a minimum calculation of the administrative costs necessary
for prudent management of tribally operated schools. When 100 percent
of these costs are not funded, our schools are set up for failure.
We were pleased that Congress increased Administrative Cost Grant
funding by $1 million in fiscal year 2001 after funding had been frozen
at the same level ($42.1 million) for three consecutive years. Yet
after so many years of underfunding, the shortfall has become quite
significant, and additional schools have converted to tribal operation,
causing the available appropriation to be divided between a larger
number of schools. The percentage of the formula met declined from 89.5
percent (SY 1998-99) to 79.68 percent (SY 2000-01) in the three budget
years where funding remained level.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BIA education program funding is ``forward funded'', as are
most federal aid to education programs. Thus, for example, the fiscal
year 2000 budget funded the current school year, SY 2000-2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The impacts of these shortfalls are devastating to tribes' ability
to successfully operate BIA-funded schools. Tribally-operated schools
have been forced to make reductions-in-force that cost them vital,
well-trained administrative staff. Remaining staff struggle under the
stress of being overloaded with the work of multiple people. Some
schools have had to convert their administrative staff to a 10-month
employment year, leaving them ill-prepared to close out the
administrative work of the previous school year and to prepare for the
coming school year and annual audit. Reduced funding jeopardizes our
ability to comply with the internal controls needed for prudent fiscal
management.
The National Congress of American Indians and the National Indian
Education Association both passed resolutions this year calling for
full funding of Administrative Cost Grants. We implore Congress to join
these bodies in recognizing that tribal schools' needs for
administrative costs are just as great as those of other tribally-
operated BIA and IHS programs.
Please provide funding for the full need generated by the
Administrative Cost Grant formula, which we estimate will require
approximately $55 million in fiscal year 2002.
We also ask that the rider included in recent Interior
Appropriations measures capping Administrative Cost Grant funding be
excluded from future Interior Appropriations measures. 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 ask that you
delete any proposal to extend the current cap for another year and
fully fund AC grants at 100 percent of need, as required under the
authorizing statute.
STUDENT TRANSPORTATION
The daily bus service we provide for our students comes at an
increasingly high premium. Fuel costs have increased at an alarming
rate. GSA continues to raise their annual rates for leased buses and
mileage. Many of the roads traveled by our buses are dirt roads,
resulting in a much higher than average rate of wear and tear on our
buses. But regardless of the costs we incur in transporting students,
we have to get them to class--so when transportation costs are
underfunded, we have no choice but to dip into funds that should be
used--and are desperately needed for--classroom instruction. This is
not a viable choice.
Despite this crisis, in the current school year the Bureau-funded
transportation rate is $2.31 per mile, far short of the nationwide
average of $2.92 that was reported for public schools over six years
ago. The fiscal year 2001 budget included less than a $200,000 increase
in funding for Student Transportation. Sharp increases in fuel costs
over the past year have compounded the already significant gap that
existed between the funding we receive and the actual costs of
providing student transportation.
Please provide at least $44 million for Student Transportation in
order to support a per-mile rate of $3.00, at a minimum.
facilities improvement and repair needs at black mesa school
Black Mesa is in immediate need of a small, safe facility for
schoolbus and building maintenance. 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 surplus savings to construct
employee housing. 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. This facility contains asbestos, has no plumbing or heat, is
electricity deficient, and is generally ill-equipped and unsafe. 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
securing the needed funds through FI& R or direct appropriations 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 $250,000 to construct today.
Please work with the Administration to ensure that they fulfill
their campaign promise of providing full funding of at least $802
million for the maintenance backlog in BIA-funded schools, including
our pressing needs at Black Mesa.
FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND 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 with shortfalls in funding for facilities
maintenance, which, while significantly improved this year, remain more
than 20 percent short of the calculated need under the Congressionally
mandated ``FACCOM'' formula used to distribute facilities O&M funds to
the 185 schools in the system.
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.
We ask that the fiscal year 2002 BIA budget provide sufficient
funding to eliminate the current 21 percent shortfall so that BIA-
funded schools can properly maintain the federal facilities we operate.
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 Rock Point School Board
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: On behalf of the Rock
Point Community School Board, we wish to express our appreciation for
the work of this committee and for this opportunity to share our
concerns regarding the education of Native American children. Our
testimony highlights several areas in which the federal government has
asked us to provide 100 percent of services on its behalf, while
consistently providing far less than the funding that all agree is
necessary to implement these services. In order to begin to reverse
this catch-22, we request the following funding in the fiscal year 2002
BIA budget: (1) ISEP Formula Funds--$362 million; (2) Administrative
Cost Grants--$55 million; (3) Student Transportation--$44 million; and
(4) Facilities Operations/Maintenance--funding to end the current 21
percent shortfall as well as the backlog of over $800 million in
Facilities Improvement and Repair.
Congress and the new Administration have committed to working
together to improve the federal aspects of education programs and
funding nationwide. We hope that this commitment will start with the
school systems that are entirely federally funded, of which the BIA-
funded school system is one of two. We at Rock Point know first hand
that there is a great deal to be done to turn around this long-
neglected school system. We lack adequate funds to train and retain
qualified teachers and staff. Our administrative budgets have shrunk to
the point where it is nearly impossible to maintain prudent fiscal
controls and oversight. Our elementary facilities suffer from neglect
as routine major maintenance cannot be performed due to funding
shortage. Student transportation costs have ballooned to a point where
we have no choice but to dip into our scant educational dollars just to
get our students to school. This is no way to run a school, and no way
to demonstrate to Native American children that they matter to this
nation.
INDIAN SCHOOL EQUALIZATION PROGRAM (ISEP)
Recently, representatives from the Office of Indian Education
Programs (OIEP), Bureau of Indian Affairs, in discussion with school
representatives and others, forged the following goals for all BIA-
funded schools:
--All children read independently by the third grade
--70 percent of students are proficient/advanced in reading, language
arts and math
--Reduce student drop-out rate
--Students demonstrate knowledge of their language and culture
--Increased enrollment, retention, placement and graduation rates for
post-secondary students.
These are reasonable, important goals--but given the severe
underfunding we face under the current budget, we have no means by
which to get there from here.
Rock Point Community School is far removed from the nearest major
town-we must travel 2 hours to procure basic supplies. Quality teachers
willing to work in our remote location can be hard to come by--
especially when we cannot afford to match salaries for less remote
areas and are unable to provide adequate annual salary increases. We
are hard-pressed to provide even the most basic classroom instructional
materials, let alone the updated classroom supplies, textbooks, library
books, computers, and relevant educational software that our students
deserve.
President Bush has assigned education as his top priority. His
theme for education is ``No Child will be left behind''. We ask that
our Indian children not be left behind by appropriating enough funding
to meet their academic needs.
RECOMMENDATION
In order to address these shortfalls so that BIA-funded schools can
move forward toward the goals of student achievement laid out by the
OIEP, we ask that the fiscal year 2002 BIA budget include $362 million
for ISEP Formula funding in order to raise the Weighted Student Unit to
$4,000.
ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS
Like many other tribally-operated schools, we have begun to suffer
the impacts of years of shortfalls in the funding provided for
Administrative Cost Grants. These funds, which are based on a formula
created by Congress to determine the minimum funding necessary for
prudent management to operate our school, are critical to smooth
operation of our school programs. Yet this year, tribally-operated
schools are receiving less than 80 percent of the funding that Congress
determined to be necessary to cover basic administrative costs and
ensure prudent management.
As a result, we have had no choice but to curtail important
services, let go of administrative staff that oversee fiscal, and
policy-making management at the school, and cut back on other aspects
of our administration that are critical to sound management. We are not
alone in these struggles--we understand that many other schools have
been forced to make staff cut-backs and cut corners in administration,
and have been hard-pressed to meet the oversight standards required by
law. At this rate, the impacts of Administrative Cost Grant shortfalls
stand to completely undermine tribal operation of BIA schools if they
continue uncorrected.
RECOMMENDATION
We ask that Congress meet its commitment to fund the full need
generated by the Administrative Cost Grant formula, which we estimate
at approximately $55 million for fiscal year 2002. In addition, we
request elimination of the language included in recent Interior
Appropriations measures that caps Administrative Cost Grants.
SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION
The daily bus service we provide for our students comes at an
increasingly high premium. Fuel costs have increased to an average of
$1.65 a gallon locally. GSA continues to raise their annual rates for
leased buses and mileage. Many of the roads traveled by our buses are
dirt roads, resulting in a much higher than average rate of wear and
tear on our buses. The nearest maintenance facility is two hours from
our school, adding a considerable expense every time repairs must be
done--which is quite often. While buses are generally supposed to be
replaced after 80,000 miles, many of our buses have logged over 100,000
miles, and we have more than half elderly buses in desperate need of
replacement. Nonetheless, we join many, many schools who wait in line
for GSA buses.
But regardless of the costs we incur in transporting students, we
have to get them to class--so when transportation costs are
underfunded, we have no choice but to dip into funds that should be
used--and are desperately needed for--classroom instruction. This is a
terrible situation that cannot continue.
RECOMMENDATION
Please provide at least $44 million for Student Transportation in
order to support a per-mile rate of $3.00, at a minimum.
facilities operations and maintenance and facilities improvement and
repair
As the majority of the school facilities at Rock Point have aged
well past the 30-year life expectancy of most school buildings, we
require constant maintenance to assure the health, safety, and comfort
of our students. But given the significant budget constraints we face
year after year in our Facilities Operations and Maintenance funding,
we cannot afford to undertake all of the needed maintenance in any
given year. At times we struggle with leaking roofs, settlement
problems, and an array of other recurring concerns that become larger
year after year when we are unable to afford preventive maintenance.
Often such problems become larger scale Facilities Improvement and
Repair problems when left unaddressed.
Facilities Operations and Maintenance funds were recently divided
into two accounts, and Facilities Maintenance funding has been blended
into the overall line item for Facilities Improvement and Repair under
the Education Construction budget. As a result, it has become difficult
to discern what funding will be available for Facilities Operations and
Maintenance under the FACCOM formula until we receive distributions
from the BIA. In the current school year, we face a constraint or
shortfall of 25-30 percent. While this is an improvement over the 33
percent constraint we faced in previous years, we still do not get the
funds necessary for adequate upkeep of the buildings we maintain on the
federal government's behalf.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the combined funding for Facilities Operations
and Facilities Maintenance be increased by at least 30 percent to
eliminate the current constraint. We also ask that Congress work with
the Administration to ensure that President Bush can fulfill his
campaign promise to eliminate the repair backlog of over $800 million
in Facilities Improvement and Repair projects.
We thank you for your ongoing efforts on behalf of BIA-funded
schools.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alamo-Navajo School Board, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The Alamo-Navajo School
Board is a multi-faceted organization which is responsible for
operation of nearly all federal programs that serve the 2,000 Navajo
people who live on the Alamo Reservation. 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 residents. On an annual basis, we operate over $9 million of
federal and state supported programs.
The President's Commitment.--President Bush has assigned his
highest priority to assure that ``No Child Is Left Behind''. He is
committed to working with Congress to make this goal a reality. We
heartily concur--and hope that he and this Subcommittee will assure
that our children are included in this effort so that No Indian Child
is Left Behind either!
The BIA school system is the sole responsibility of the Federal
Government; it is not part of any State public school system. Thus,
Congress and the President have a special responsibility to assure that
sufficient resources are available to provide quality teachers, a
challenging educational program and a safe environment conducive to the
educational progress of the 50,000 Indian children in this Federal
school system.
Requests:
--Full funding for Administrative Cost Grants--$55 million
--Increase Indian School Equalization Formula to provide at least
$4,000 per Weighted Student Unit
--Provide at least $3.00 per mile for Student Transportation to
combat skyrocketing fuel costs
--Supply at least 20 percent additional funding for education
facilities operation and maintenance
--Earmark $150,000 for a replacement fire truck for the Alamo
Reservation
BIA SCHOOL OPERATIONS
Administrative Cost Grants
The shortfall in this account is reaching crisis proportions.
Tribes and tribal school boards have taken on the responsibility for
direct operation of two-thirds of the 185 BIA-funded schools, but we
are not supplied with the funding required to run our fiscal and
management affairs in a prudent manner. We learned in late February
that for this school year (which began in August, 2000), BIA will
supply less than 80 percent of the amount needed for our administrative
costs. Under the law, we are supposed to receive an Administrative Cost
Grant to cover the added expenses incurred in direct tribal operation
of schools. Yet only once in the past 12 years has Congress fully
funded the formula for AC Grants established by Federal law.
The chronic shortfalls in AC Grants severely compromise our ability
to maintain proper internal management controls, to prepare for and pay
for annual audits, and to discharge the numerous policy-making,
supervision, program planning and management activities for which
tribal school boards are responsible. No educational institution can
stay afloat--let alone succeed--if it is required to do more with less
year after year.
We are grateful that Congress provided an additional $1 million for
AC Grants in the fiscal year 2001 budget, but we will not see these
additional dollars until next school year. And, frankly, this small
increase will not rectify the shortages suffered in eleven of the last
twelve years, nor will it bring us even close to 100 percent AC Grant
funding in SY 2001-02.
In recent years, this Subcommittee has recognized and taken steps
to rectify the troublesome shortfalls in ``contract support cost''
funding for tribes who operate non-education programs of BIA and IHS.
Perhaps because the Administrative Cost Grant account is a far smaller
and less visible part of the BIA budget, schools' needs have not
received the same level of attention. We hope you will cure this
oversight in the fiscal year 2002 budget.
We implore Congress to keep its promise to support tribal operation
of schools for Indian children, and to recognize that tribal schools'
needs for administrative cost funding are just as great as those of
other tribally-operated BIA and IHS programs. Please provide full
funding for AC Grants at the level required by the statutory formula.
We conservatively estimate the need to be at least $55 million for
fiscal year 2002.
We also ask you to discontinue the appropriations rider that has
``capped'' the amount of BIA funds that can be used for AC Grants. This
rider is intended to overturn a 1997 decision by the Interior Board of
Contract Appeals that said the BIA violated the law by failing to pay
100 percent of the Administrative Costs of the Alamo Navajo School
Board and the Miccosukee Tribal School. We initiated this suit because
the BIA underpaid our AC grant by more than $386,000 over a four-year
period.
Congress breaks faith with us when on the one hand it encourages
tribes to take over school operations and establishes a formula for
calculating the added resources we need to do so, but on the other hand
reneges on the commitment to provide us with resources at the level
Congress itself enacted into law.
Indian School Equalization Formula
Indian Country has always experienced difficulty in attracting
experienced teachers to work in isolated reservation schools, and our
problems are multiplied by the nationwide teacher shortage. At Alamo,
we expect to lose up to ten of our current teachers, many of whom are
leaving for better-paying jobs. This presents us with a daunting
challenge. How can we recruit and retain qualified teachers to work at
comparatively low wages in a remote Indian community that is 150 miles
from the closest city (Albuquerque)?
If we are to have any chance of competing for the teachers we need,
we must be able to offer more than the excitement and challenge of
working at a small but vibrant school in a traditional Indian
community--we must also offer competitive wages. The ISEF is our only
source of funding for teacher salaries, but the amount we receive is
insufficient to enable us to attract and retain the staff we require.
Alamo's situation is repeated at all BIA-funded schools.
We, therefore, ask the Subcommittee to generously increase funding
for the ISEF, at least to the level where schools will receive $4,000
per weighted student unit (WSU), to help us combat teacher attrition
and fill vacant positions that are vital to the success of our
educational mission.
Student Transportation
Fuel costs have skyrocketed in the past year. Please consider the
impact this has on our school bus operations that were woefully
underfunded to begin with. Last school year, we received $2.26/mile for
our student transportation needs. This school year--with fuel costs
increasing by leaps and bounds--we are receiving merely 5 cents per
mile more. By contrast, the average rate per-mile spent on student
transportation by public school systems throughout the country was
nearly $3.00/mile--six years ago.
How can Indian schools continue to pay certified bus drivers,
maintain safe buses, negotiate poor, unimproved bus routes, and pay top
dollar for fuel when our funding is 25 percent less than the 6-year-old
public school average?
We ask the Subcommittee to provide emergency funding to help us
with shortfalls this school year, and to fund student transportation at
least at $3.00 per mile in the fiscal year 2002 budget. Without
rational student transportation funding, many Indian children will be
left behind--at the bus stop.
Facilities Operations and Maintenance Funding
Facilities maintenance is another area where the Federal Government
expects us to do a 100 percent job but provides us with far less than
100 percent of the resources we need to do it. Our school buildings are
all owned by the Federal Government, yet last year the owner supplied
about 33 percent less than the amount required to maintain its multi-
million dollar investments.
The situation has slightly improved for School Year 2000-01, as our
facilities operation and maintenance funding is now only about 21
percent below the level of need. But even at this rate, many
maintenance activities will be sacrificed and even our newest buildings
will deteriorate at an accelerated rate. We find this unacceptable
because of the adverse impact this has on our ability to conduct a
quality educational program. The Federal Government--the owner of those
buildings--should also find this unacceptable, if only because your
investment is not being properly protected.
Please assure that funding for facilities operation and facilities
maintenance (which were split into two accounts at the BIA's request)
is increased by an aggregate of at least 20 percent so we can undertake
delayed maintenance work, pay our utility costs, and provide a decent
educational environment for our Indian children.
School Facilities Improvement & Repair
We heartily thank the Congress for the generous increase in
education Facilities Improvement & Repair funding supplied in fiscal
year 2001. Even with the approximately $30 million transferred to this
account from ``facilities maintenance'', the net increase of some $100
million is indeed laudable. This funding is helping to reduce the
backlog that BIA estimated at $802 million in January, 2000.
During the campaign, candidate Bush pledged to ``immediately
eliminate the entire $802 million backlog of school repairs'' for the
BIA school system. We are hopeful that President Bush will follow
through on this pledge in his fiscal year 2002 budget request, and that
you will endorse such a request.
At Alamo alone, our backlog of identified FI&R projects exceeds
$1.5 million, and our school is less than 20 years old. Some of the
work we need done includes replacement of the school HVAC system,
replacement of water heating units and roof repairs. If BIA provides us
with the needed funds, we can accomplish these projects more quickly
and efficiently with our own staff and through contracts with suppliers
than if the BIA undertook the work itself. We urge you to continue
generous funding for this account.
FIRE SAFETY
For the past several years, we have asked the Subcommittee to help
us cure an alarming fire safety deficiency. We have ONE fire truck to
serve the entire Alamo Reservation which geographically is the size of
the District of Columbia. This vehicle is nearly 30 years 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 1,000 family homes.
So far, the Subcommittee has not granted our request. Nonetheless,
we repeat here our appeal for decent fire safety equipment and hope it
will be granted in fiscal year 2002.
In past years, BIA has estimated the cost of new fire trucks at
between $160,000-$170,000. If the Subcommittee would provide Alamo with
just $150,000, we are confident we could obtain the necessary equipment
to fill our critical need for a decent, higher capacity fire truck to
protect lives and property on our reservation.
Thank you for your continuing support for Indian self-determination
and for Indian education.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
Dear Chairman Burns: Support for fiscal year 2002 Federal Funding
of $5.2 Million for the Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land
Management to assist in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program, with $800,000 to be designated specifically to salinity
control efforts.
Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
year 2002 funding for the Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land
Management 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. Due to geological
conditions, 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 BLM's portion of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program.
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, requests that Congress
appropriate $5,200,000 of these funds in fiscal year 2002, 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 Renewal Resources be adequately funded. The
Colorado River Board urges the Subcommittee to specifically mark,
$800,000 from this line-item for the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program as has been the direction to BLM from the Subcommittee
in past years.
Soon your Subcommittee will receive testimony from the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) on behalf of the seven
Colorado River Basin states. The Colorado River Board concurs in the
fiscal year 2002 funding request and justification statements for BLM
as set forth in the Forum's testimony.
California's Colorado River water users are presently suffering
economic damages in the hundreds of million of dollars per year due to
the river's salinity. In addition, the federal government has made
significant commitments to the Republic of Mexico and to the seven
Colorado River Basin states with regard to the delivery of quality
water to Mexico. In order for those commitments to be honored, it is
essential that in fiscal year 2002 and in future fiscal years, that
Congress provide funds to the Bureau of Land Management for its
activities.
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 California Industry and Government Coalition
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 2002.
First, the Coalition supports the fiscal year 2001 level of funding
for 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 year 2002. 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 $3 million
total necessary for full implementation of the plan, we will require $1
million for fiscal year 2002 and $500,000 for fiscal year 2003.
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 oil and gas production
activities and the urbanization that is occurring. Since Kern County is
the top oil producing county in the nation and experiencing rapid urban
growth, 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, water conveyance and other industry
activities to continue.
Preparation of the KCVFHCP began in 1989 and involved a number of
federal, State and local government agencies, as well as the oil and
gas industry, agricultural, utilities and environmental groups.
Kern County's Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan 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 industry
have contributed funding, time and other resources toward developing
the KCVFHCP. The KCVFHCP program will be completed in late 2001,
provided there is the necessary federal funding for the acquisition of
habitat to mitigate for 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 $1.5 million (augments the $1.5 million in
state and federal funding received in 1997) that could be funded in
increments over the first two years of the program. The purpose of this
funding is described as follows:
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.
Urban Development/County Infrastructure Issue
The conservation program includes an Urban Development/County
Infrastructure mitigation strategy that mitigates for species habitat
loss through the use of an incentive-based system of selling or trading
habitat credits in an open market. This innovative program will add
market value to land that is needed by project proponents to comply
with endangered species laws. Protected species of plants and animals
will benefit from a program that promotes private property owners to
conserve permanent habitat preserves consistent with the objectives of
the ESA.
Federal Funding Support will Augment Local Government and Private
Industry Efforts to Comply with the Endangered Species Act
The $1.5 million required for the oil field strategy would help
contribute to satisfying the program's endangered species conservation
goals, while also providing for continued economic growth of Kern
County's oil and urban development activities. Protected species would
benefit from a comprehensive long-term program that promotes the
creation of permanent habitat preserves.
Numerous private businesses, 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 Knik Tribal Council
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am Paul B. Theodore, Chief of the Knik
Tribe and Knik Tribal Council. I am pleased to appear before you today
to discuss the plight of my People.
INTRODUCTION
The Knik Tribal Council represents descendants of the aboriginal
people of the Knik and Upper Cook Inlet areas, with a common bond of
residence and/or association with the Native community of Knik. Knik
Tribal Council promotes the Tribe's social economic, and cultural
progress for all its members. The Knik Tribe is the oldest in the area
and its people occupied the land before the Russian immigration.
The Knik Tribal Council, the recognized tribal entity, in this
area, has emerged as one of the Tribal leaders in organizing to provide
needed services and advocacy for the Alaska Native/American Indian
population in the Mat-Su Valley. The Alaska Native/American Indian
population in the Mat-Su Valley is approximately 3,300 of the total
population of 60,000.
The Alaska Native/American Indian population in the Mat-Su Valley
increased from 688 in 1980 to 3,300 in 1998, making the Mat-Su Valley
the fastest growing Alaska Native/American Indian population in the
entire state. The rapid growth within the Mat-Su Valley is felt in lack
of employment opportunities, inadequate access to a limited amount of
services, tight housing market and limited transportation access.
CLEANUP OF THE FUDS LOCATION NIKE/GOOSE BAY MISSILE SITE
The Knik Tribal Council is currently in the beginnings of a
relationship with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to cleanup
and restore the location formerly known as the Nike/Goose Bay Missile
Site in Knik, Alaska. This site is known to contain harmful
contaminants and poses a definite threat to human life. Area teenagers
and hunters are known to frequent this land and thereby take the
contamination home on their shoes and clothing.
We wish to receive help to allow us to operate at our full
capacity. The DOD is only providing funding for this one project, but
the Tribe wishes to fully restore our Native lands to their former
uses.
RESTORATION OF SUBSISTENCE LANDS AND FOODS
Mr. Chairman, my people no longer have a viable source of
subsistence foods and are quickly losing their lifestyle. The Beluga
whales and other marine mammals have dwindled to a point where all the
Tribes in the area have to compete with illegal hunters and sports
fisherman. We need funding to restore this population with fisheries
and protected breeding grounds. The contaminants from the afore
mentioned site are seeping into the Cook Inlet and the ground water,
poisoning my people. Our subsistence foods are the mainstay of our
culture.
I wish to perform studies to determine the wide impact the
contaminants have had on my People and surveys of what my people need
in order to survive. Mr. Chairman, these studies are long range and
costly. My resources are few and we have to use them to operate our
current programs, which include a food bank, dental, and optometry
services and a library. We also have a Tribal youth program which
serves to prevent juvenile delinquency and substance abuse. This brings
me to another subject which is impacting my people.
MEDICAL CLINIC
We are located an hour from the nearest major city and this is
problematic for my people when they need serious care. Our pregnant
women have to travel a great distance, which, if you are a woman who
has ever been in labor, you know to be traumatic. We no longer have
medicine people in our Tribe capable of the healing arts. We are
looking for funding for a medical complex, which we will build in the
town of Wasilla and will serve low--income families. This will also
require staffing and equipment. We are unable to keep our people from
becoming ill by the contaminants at this time, but we wish to help them
alleviate their pain.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I wish to once again express my concern for the
welfare of my People and I hope I have been able to expand your
knowledge today of their plight. Mr. Chairman, this completes my
statement. I am prepared to answer your questions as well as those of
other members of the Committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coquille Indian Tribe
Mr. Chairman, I am Ed Metcalf, Chairman of the Coquille Indian
Tribe, on the behalf of which I hereby submit this testimony with the
following requests for the fiscal year 2002 Bureau of Indian Affairs
appropriation:
(1) Increase the Coquille Tribe's base funding in Tribal Priority
Allocations by $300,000 to provide basic trust management of the
Coquille Forest,
(2) Designate $80,000 in BIA Law Enforcement for the Coquille
Tribe, and
(3) Increase the Coquille Tribe's base funding in Tribal Priority
Allocations by $50,000 to help establish our Tribal Court.
Details and justification of our above requests are discussed
below.
(1) Increase the Coquille Tribe's base funding in Tribal Priority
Allocations by $300,000 to provide basic trust management of the
Coquille Forest.--We request that $300,000 be added to the Coquille
Tribe's on-going base funding in the B.I.A.'s Tribal Priority
Allocations appropriations item to establish a permanent funding base
for management of the Coquille Forest.
Nearly five years after Congress restored homelands to the Coquille
Tribe with the establishment of the Coquille Forest (Public Law 104-
208), no on-going base funding has been provided for the management and
operation of these trust lands. Since the establishment of the Coquille
Forest, the BIA has repeatedly declined to include any funding in its
annual budget request to Congress for these productive trust
timberlands. We have calculated that a minimal annual budget to manage
these lands, which are required to comply with environmental standards
for surrounding B.L.M. lands, to be $300,000.
In recent years, at our urging, B.I.A. has patched together some
funds for intermittent management projects on our 5,400 acre Forest.
But our first timber sale is now out to bid, and we plan another sale
this summer that will have harvest scheduled across the next four
years. Our need for stable, on-going management funding from our
trustee is now critical. We urge that the $300,000 be added to our
Tribe's budget in the B.I.A. Tribal Priority Allocation appropriation,
which provides on-going base funds for tribes.
In the event a $300,000 addition is not feasible, we ask that
$200,000 for our Forest be directed into our T.P.A. account from the
B.I.A.'s $1.5 million Northwest tribal timber harvest initiative
appropriation. The Northwest tribal timber harvest initiative is
appropriated as part of the B.I.A. Forestry program in the Non-
Recurring Programs activity. In the past few years, B.I.A. has used
funds from this program as part of its temporary funding for the
Coquille Forest. The purpose of the harvest initiative has been to
accelerate harvest from tribal timber backlogs to help offset the
reduction in timber from federal lands in the Northwest. Dedicating a
small portion of those funds for management of the new Coquille Forest
is consistent with those objectives, and a $200,000 transfer to the
Coquille T.P.A. program will not significantly disrupt other
participants in the program. Moving forward with the timber sale
program and other management activities on Coquille Forest land is
crucial for meeting the Tribe's revenue needs and will provide timber
industry jobs and economic benefits to communities in this economically
depressed area of the Oregon coast.
(2) and (3) Designate $80,000 in BIA Law Enforcement for the
Coquille Tribe and add $50,000 for tribal courts to Coquille base
funding.--We request that $80,000 be designated within the B.I.A. Law
Enforcement budget for the Coquille Tribe, and that $50,000 for our
Tribal Court be added to the Coquille Tribe's on-going base funding in
the B.I.A.'s Tribal Priority Allocation budget.
The Coquille Tribal Police and Public Safety Department was
established in 1994 to address the specific needs of law enforcement
and public safety within our Homelands community. Our Homelands include
tribal housing, our Health Center/Clinic, our Cranberry Farm, the
Equipment Maintenance Shop, and our Community Center Head Start
building. Our Homelands are the very center of our Tribal community,
and is on reservation land. Our Homelands are in an area where the
crime rate is the highest in Coos County, and the provision of
sufficient law enforcement is essential. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
has responsibility for provision of public safety on Indian reservation
lands, but despite several years of funding increases for a law
enforcement improvement initiative, has repeatedly rejected our
requests for law enforcement assistance. To provide a desperately
needed supplement for our own law enforcement spending, we ask that
$80,000 be designated for our Tribe in the B.I.A. Law Enforcement
Initiative budget.
We also request that $50,000 for our Tribal Court be added to the
Coquille Tribe's budget in the B.I.A. Tribal Priority Allocation
activity. The Coquille Tribal Constitution, Congressionally approved in
1991, mandates that the Tribe establish a Tribal Court system.
Following the development of our Tribal Police and Public Safety
Department, we established our Coquille Tribal Court in 1999. The
B.I.A. has not provided any funding assistance, and the Tribe's having
to bear this requirement is causing considerable hardship.
Although the Tribe took the initiative and assumed responsibility
for developing and implementing these ``new'' programs, this action has
placed the Tribe in the difficult position of having to carve funding
from other programs and services.
For budget reasons in recent years, the B.I.A. has taken the
position of not providing specific funding for ``new'' programs. For
our Tribe, which was restored to federal recognition in June of 1989,
this is directly affecting our legitimate participation in the full
range of Bureau programs for tribes. Since restoration, all of our
programs could be classified as ``new,'' even though our development of
various programs is a function of our evolving restoration process. The
development of our Homelands, then the development of a needed Public
Safety Department, and then the development of our Tribal Court are all
examples of this process. Although B.I.A. appropriated $11 million for
tribal courts in fiscal year 2001 and $141 million for law enforcement,
our Tribe has not participated in either. The B.I.A.'s present policy
of excluding new programs from funding for necessary public services
puts a disproportionate burden upon new tribes. The rationale of not
providing funding because it has not been provided in the past seems
arbitrary at best. The Coquille Tribe's program needs are legitimate,
regardless of their history.
We hope that the Subcommittee will be able to favorably consider
these requests. If there are any questions regarding the Forestry
request, please contact George Smith in our office. For public safety
and courts questions, please contact Kathy Henry.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wide Ruins Community School Board, Inc.
The Wide Ruins Community School is a tribally controlled grant
school located within the Navajo Reservation near Chambers, Arizona.
Since 1998, the School has been tribally operated under the direction
of the Wide Ruins Community School Board, Inc. We currently serve
approximately 216 students from kindergarten through sixth grade.
Because there are no paved roads in our area and many of our students'
homes are in extremely remote locations, Wide Ruins Community School
offers both day and residential programs. To address our school's
urgent need for school construction and administrative funding, we ask
that the fiscal year 2002 BIA budget include construction funding for
the next ten schools on the new school construction priority list, as
well as full funding for Administrative Cost Grants at $54 million.
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION NEEDS
The extremely poor condition of our school facility poses an
immediate and serious threat to the health and safety of our students.
The BIA recognized this pressing need by placing Wide Ruins Community
School on the top tier of the priority list for school construction.
With six schools from the list funded for construction under the fiscal
year 2001 budget, we are now eighth in line for appropriations to fund
construction.
We commend Congress for funding construction of six new school
facilities in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, given the length
of the list of schools in need and the pressing safety concerns that
Wide Ruins and so many other schools face, we strongly urge you to fund
construction of at least ten additional schools on the BIA Education
Facilities Replacement List.
The deficiencies in our facilities distract significantly from the
educational program of our school and pose health, safety, and
educational risks to children for whom we are charged with providing a
safe and healthily leaning environment. There were 100 serious health
and safety hazards (S-1 deficiencies) reported on our school's BIA
FACCOM report as of June 2, 1999, an increase of 89 percent from the
previous year and 355 percent over the previous two years. Our
kindergarten and first grade classes are held in an antiquated
dormitory that a BIA safety officer has declared unsafe. Our shortage
of classroom space has also forced us to add seven portable buildings.
We cannot accommodate the student demand for dormitory space, and our
dormitory facilities are not set up to serve more than 80 students.
Currently we have 25 students on a waiting list for dormitory space.
These conditions are entirely unacceptable. There is no room for
years of delay in facilities construction when the health and safety of
young people is at stake. We are encouraged by the new Administration's
comments with regard to the importance of funding the backlog of school
construction needs in the BIA school system. We hope that the
increasing awareness of the extreme neglect that these facilities have
suffered will empower Congress and the Administration to work together
to fund the replacement of at least ten schools in fiscal year 2002.
Administrative Cost Grants
As you may know, the Administrative Cost Grant is a formula-based
method created by Congress to calculate the amount of funds that should
be provided to a tribe or tribal school board for the administrative
and indirect cost expenses incurred in the operation of BIA school
programs. Administrative Cost Grants serve the same purpose as
``contract support costs'' provided to Indian tribes who operate non-
school programs under Indian Self-Determination Act contracts with BIA
and the Indian health Service.
We were pleased to note that Congress increased Administrative Cost
Grant funding by $1 million in fiscal year 2001 after funding had been
frozen at the same level ($42.1 million) for three consecutive years
(fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000). Yet during
those years, additional schools converted to tribal operation, which
means that the available appropriation must be divided between a larger
number of schools. The percentage of the formula met has declined from
89.5 percent (fiscal year 1998) to 81 percent (estimate for fiscal year
2000) in those budget years.\1\ During those years, schools' costs have
continued to increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BIA education program funding is ``forward funded'', as are
most federal aid to education programs. Thus, for example, the fiscal
year 1999 budget funded the current school year, SY 1999-2000, and the
fiscal year 2000 budget will fund SY 2000-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrative Cost Grant formula was designed as a compromise,
a minimum calculation of the administrative costs necessary for prudent
management of tribally operated schools. When 100 percent of these
costs are not funded, our schools are set up for failure. Many tribally
operated schools have been forced to make reductions-in-force that cost
them vital, well-trained administrative staff. Remaining staff struggle
under the stress of being overloaded with the work of multiple people.
Some schools have had to convert their administrative staff to a 10-
month employment year, leaving them ill-prepared to close out the
administrative work of the previous school year and to prepare for the
coming school year and annual audit. Reduced funding also forces
curtailed staff training in new education developments, curriculum
ideas, and technology information.
The situation has become so pressing that the National Congress of
American Indians and the National Indian Education Association both
passed resolutions this year calling for full funding of Administrative
Cost Grants. We implore Congress to join these bodies in recognizing
that tribal schools' needs for administrative costs are just as great
as those of other tribally operated BIA and I.H.S. programs. Please
provide funding for the full need generated by the Administrative Cost
Grant formula, which we estimate will require approximately $54 million
in fiscal year 2002.
We also ask that the appropriations rider included in recent
Interior Appropriations measures capping Administrative cost Grant
funding be removed from future budgets. 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 ask that you delete any
proposal to extend the current cap for another year and fully fund AC
grants at 100 percent of need, as required under the authorizing
statute.
Thank for your considering our concerns as you move forward in
preparing the fiscal year 2002 Budget. We look forward to working with
you to ensure that the BIA-funded school system, one of only two
federally funded school systems, becomes a hallmark of what is possible
when everyone works together for the benefit of children.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created 20 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 management of federal
refuge lands and coordination with other federal, state, and local
agencies on river-related ecological issues. Yet Region 3 continues to
struggle to meet the 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 over 250,000 acres of land and water scattered along the
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers from the most northerly unit near
Wabasha, Minnesota to the most southerly unit near Grafton, Illinois.
This includes the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish
Refuge (NWFR), Mark Twain NWR, and Illinois River NWFR. 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.''
The UMRBA strongly supports the proposed increase of nearly $15
million for Refuge Operations and Maintenance in the President's fiscal
year 2002 budget. In fiscal year 2001, funding for the three refuges
along the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers totaled approximately
$5.5 million, yet there continues to be a significant maintenance
backlog. Of particular concern to the UMRBA is the fact that the
refuges on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers 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 recently reauthorized, will be in jeopardy. 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.
Ecological Services.--Funding from the Ecological Services account
supports the field offices in Rock Island (IL), the Twin Cities (MN),
and Marion (IL) 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. In fiscal year 2001, work being done by these
Ecological Services field offices related to the Upper Mississippi
River is estimated to be $375,000.
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 efforts, including nutrient studies,
biocriteria for water quality standards, superfund investigations, and
consultation on state water quality standards; $700,000 for habitat
restoration in UMR watersheds; $400,000 to support mitigation
activities associated with federal navigation and flood control
projects; $600,000 for needs related to the Endangered Species Act,
including work on freshwater mussels and large river fishes; 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 in the President's budget for the
Fisheries account in fiscal year 2002. Approximately $600,000 is being
provided for fisheries work on the Upper Mississippi River in fiscal
year 2001. However, needs are continuing to increase. Fish passage at
Mississippi River locks and dams for interjurisdictional species such
as paddlefish and sturgeon is a growing concern. In addition, the
Fisheries Operational Needs System (FONS) has a backlog of 35 projects
totaling $3.1 million. Unfunded projects include habitat restoration,
assessment of main channel fishes, fish use of floodplain connected
habitats on refuge lands, and production of fish for recreational use
on refuge lands.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
The USGS budget for fiscal year 2002 is proposed to be cut by over
$69 million, a reduction of nearly 8 percent. Particularly alarming is
the 22 percent cut for the USGS Water Resources Division. Such a
substantial cutback would have debilitating effects on this country's
water data and science programs. This cut is based on the premise that
the USGS must focus on meeting the science needs of the Department of
the Interior's land and resource management bureaus, while seeking
reimbursement for the services that it claims primarily benefit other
federal agencies, states, and local governments. This view of the USGS
role is inconsistent with its history, current role, and the vision for
its future put forth in the recent report of the National Research
Council. As this nation's premier natural science agency, USGS must
certainly continue to serve as the science arm of the Department of the
Interior. But as the NRC recognizes, ``USGS also has significant
responsibilities in support of other government agencies, states and
local governments, tribes, industry, academic institutions, and the
public.''
The states of the Upper Mississippi River basin are deeply troubled
that the fiscal year 2002 budget cuts proposed for USGS will compromise
its ability to provide timely and unbiased scientific information about
complex natural systems. 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 USGS Water Resources Assessments and Research
budget is proposed to be cut by 31 percent, entirely eliminating the
Toxic Substances Hydrology program in fiscal year 2002. The Toxics
Program, which conducts research on the behavior of toxic substances in
the nation's hydrologic environments, is particularly important to the
states of the Upper Midwest. Under this program, USGS has been studying
the occurrence, transport, and fate of agricultural chemicals in a 12-
state area in the Upper Midwest. This research effort, called the
``Midcontinent Herbicide Project,'' is helping to identify factors that
affect dispersal of agricultural chemicals in surface and ground waters
from point of application and evaluating the resulting effects in small
streams and large rivers. The goal is to provide the general scientific
basis needed to develop agricultural management practices that protect
the quality of this region's water resources. Through its Toxics
Program, USGS is also studying questions associated with hypoxia in the
Gulf of Mexico, including the loads and sources of nutrients from the
Mississippi River basin. Given the important work underway in the USGS
Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, UMRBA urges Congress to restore the
$10 million proposed cut.
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. By assessing 59 study units across the nation on a
rotating basis, NAWQA is providing the data needed for broad scale
assessments and comparative analyses. Local, state, and federal water
managers are also using the data to address more local concerns. Under
the President's fiscal year 2002 budget, NAWQA funding would be reduced
by $20 million, suspending the work on 14 Cycle II study units for one
year to ``aggressively pursue cost-sharing from the program's
stakeholders.'' While none of the 14 units to be suspended are within
the five UMRBA states, the states of this basin are concerned about the
long-term viability of the NAWQA program. The Upper Mississippi River
Basin includes four NAWQA study units (Upper Mississippi, Eastern Iowa,
Lower Illinois, and Upper Illinois), three of which are scheduled for
reactivation in fiscal year 2004.
The UMRBA is also deeply concerned about the proposed 26 percent
reduction in funding for Water Data Collection. Of particular concern
is the $5 million funding cut for stream gages. This would be a
devastating setback to recent efforts by USGS and its many federal,
state, and local partners to bolster our nation's network of gages. The
stream gaging network is essential to protecting public health and
safety by forecasting floods and droughts, managing the nation's
navigation system, and monitoring water quality. There are currently
319 stream gages operated by USGS in the five UMRBA states. Over recent
years, 80 gages have become inactive in the five states, many as a
result of funding cutbacks. The loss of gages means the loss of the
historical record that is needed for managing our nation's water
resources. Rather than cutting the gaging program further, we should be
moving toward implementing the network enhancements proposed in the
USGS plan for the National Streamflow Information Program. Congress
began this process by providing increases for stream gaging funding of
$2 million in fiscal year 2000 and $3.1 million in fiscal year 2001.
UMRBA recommends that this enhanced funding strategy continue in fiscal
year 2002.
Finally, the UMRBA supports the modest, but important, $1.577
million increase proposed for the Federal/State Cooperative Water
Program. The Coop Program is an essential tool in meeting state and
local science needs. Cooperators generally match every $1.00 in federal
funds with $1.50, demonstrating the value they place on the program.
Biological Resources.--The President's fiscal year 2002 budget
proposes a 7 percent reduction for USGS' Biological Resources Division.
Among the cuts of particular concern to the UMRBA are those for fire
ecology research, the GAP program, and the National Biological
Information Infrastructure program. Given that the Upper Midwest
Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC) would be affected either directly
or indirectly by all of these reductions, the UMRBA urges that these
funds be restored.
The USGS fire ecology research, which is proposed to be funded in
fiscal year 2002 under the Department's Wildland Fire Management
account, would be cut by $2.8 million. As part of this reduction, UMESC
funding would be cut by $159,000, terminating its studies of critical
water meadow habitats for declining grassland birds in the Upper
Midwest. Fire is one of the techniques that are presently employed and
is included in the study as an approach for eradicating exotic plants.
The study also is designed to provide land managers with new approaches
to reestablish native vegetation in support of this declining bird
group.
Funding for the Gap Analysis Program (GAP) is slated for a decrease
of $499,000 in addition to eliminating the $2.993 million provided for
GAP in fiscal year 2001 under the Land Conservation, Preservation and
Infrastructure Program. These cuts will mean a reduction of $360,000 at
UMESC. GAP analysis is a scientific method for identifying the degree
to which native species and natural communities are represented in
currently protected and undisturbed habitat areas. This allows land
managers, planners, and biologists to identify species for which there
are conservation ``gaps.'' UMESC directs the Upper Midwest GAP
partnership with the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana,
and Michigan. In addition, UMESC is developing an Aquatic GAP program
prototype for large river systems, with the Upper Mississippi River as
a pilot system. If the proposed fiscal year 2002 funding cuts are not
restored, UMESC will terminate the Aquatic Gap pilot on the Upper
Mississippi River, an effort designed to identify critical habitats on
the river system. Such information is expected to greatly enhance
science-based decision about habitat projects undertaken as part of the
Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program (EMP) and
management of the National Wildlife Refuges on the river.
The discontinuation of funding for the National Biological
Information Infrastructure (NBII) program, which helps maintain
biological information web sites, will also have an impact on UMESC, as
well as other federal, state, local, and private partners who share
biological information via this program. NBII helps provide access to
biological databases and information that are important to natural
resource managers and scientists throughout the country. UMRBA thus
urges that funding for NBII be restored.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Fairfield, CA
Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify
before you. My name is George Pettygrove and I am the mayor of the City
of Fairfield, California. On behalf of the citizens of Fairfield, I
request your support for one of the City's highest priorities for the
fiscal year 2002.
The City of Fairfield, California requests a $5 million earmark in
the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations for land acquisition
associated with the Fairfield-Vacaville Greenbelt Project.
In 1989, the City of Fairfield and the City of Vacaville initiated
a planning process to create an open space greenbelt buffer between the
two cities. In addition to ensuring separation between the two cities,
the Fairfield-Vacaville Greenbelt Project will ensure the preservation
of rapidly disappearing open space and viable agricultural lands in the
region.
A joint powers agreement between the two cities in 1994 outlined
project goals, including: preserve and conserve viable agricultural and
open space land; provide permanent separation between the two urban
areas; provide for a range of land uses compatible with open space
values; provide trail linkages; and provide for an urban limit line
buffer.
In 1996, the cities identified the location of the proposed
greenbelt and analyzed land acquisition and other associated costs.
Federal participation is essential to the success of this project, and
federal funding will be used to leverage non-federal funding
opportunities for this project.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before this
committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Folsom, CA
Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify
before you. My name is Steve Miklos and I am the mayor of the City of
Folsom, California. On behalf of the citizens of Folsom, I request your
support for one of the City's highest priorities for the fiscal year
2002.
The City of Folsom requests your support of a $2 million earmark in
the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations Bill for planning and land
acquisition to assist the City in preserving open space and
historically significant areas within the City of Folsom.
Less than two decades ago, the City of Folsom was a small foothill
community with significant open space pastureland acreage within the
city limits. Since then, Folsom has become one of California's fastest
growing communities, with residential and commercial land uses quickly
eliminating open space.
The City has a strong interest in protecting open space within the
City limits. An example of open space projects is the Broder Ranch
Project. Broder Ranch provides one of the last opportunities to acquire
and preserve open space representative of Folsom's history. The ranch
is under significant and immediate development pressure and is likely
to be converted to urbanized uses unless it is acquired and set aside
as open space. The City is interested in making Broder Ranch an
interpretive working ranch, which would be very educational regarding
ranch life, water supply, cattle industry, the railroads, and Folsom's
heritage of the most western terminus of the railroad. All of these
past influences could be studied, practiced, and lived on this piece of
land.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before this
committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the County of Marion, OR
Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify
before you. My name is Randy Franke and I am the Chairman of the Board
of Commissioners for the County of Marion, Oregon. On behalf of the
citizens of Marion County, I request your support for one of the
County's highest priorities for the fiscal year 2002.
The Marion County Parks Department requests your support of a $1
million earmark in the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations bill,
under the Land & Water Conservation Fund, to assist the County in
acquiring critical wetlands in the Historic Lake Labish Basin.
The Lake Labish Wetland is identified in the Marion County Natural
Heritage Parks Master Plan. Environmental scientists and biologists
with the Army Corp of Engineers, Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other conservation and
environmental organizations identify Lake Labish as a key ecological
restoration site.
The project involves approximately 200 acres of exceptional
wetlands and uplands in the Labish Basin. Its rare peat bog soils and
plant communities represent a tremendous ecological restoration
opportunity for Marion County and the State of Oregon. This project
will be part of a 300-acre wetland complex near the Keizer UGB. Both
during and after restoration, the property offers high-value
educational opportunities to area schools and will also serve as a
high-value recreation resource. These wetlands at Lake Labish will also
provide important flood abatement potential in an area with historic
flooding problems. Restoration of the site will also improve area water
quality, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, and aesthetics.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before this
committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Roseville, CA
Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify
before you. My name is Claudia Gamar and I am the mayor of the City of
Roseville, California. On behalf of the citizens of Roseville, I
request your support for one of the City's highest priorities for the
fiscal year 2002.
The City of Roseville requests your support of a $1.5 million
earmark in the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations bill to
construct a permanent 7,200 square foot Maidu Interpretive Center
building located within the 152 acre Maidu Regional Park.
The Maidu Interpretive Center building will be located on an
archeologically significant historic site in the northeast corner of
Maidu Regional Park in Roseville. The site was occupied by ancient
cultures, and later by the Nisenan (southern Maidu) Indian culture.
There are over 300 bedrock mortar holes and many petroglyphs on the
site dating from 21,000-5,000 years ago, indicating a significant
village site.
The City of Roseville acquired the site in 1973. Through the City's
efforts, the site was officially designated as a historical site by the
State of California and placed on the National Register of Historic
Sites. The City has taken steps to preserve the site through fencing,
and public access is provided through docent tours.
The Maidu Interpretive Center is a top priority for the City of
Roseville. The Center will provide a focal point for visitors to view
Maidu artifacts, learn about the Maidu culture, local plants and
animals, and experience the Maidu way of life. The site currently hosts
over 6,500 school children annually from the greater Sacramento region,
and the new Maidu Interpretive Center will significantly enhance the
educational experience for students and other visitors.
The City of Roseville, the Auburn Maidu Rancheria, the Cultural
Arts Commission, and numerous volunteers, have been working for over 10
years to construct the Maidu Interpretive Center. Through these efforts
the volunteer lead docent tours were established; an interpretive trail
through the historical site was constructed; $1.2 million in grants and
City funds have been assembled to pay for the first phase of
development of the Maidu Interpretive Center, including temporary
building and site improvements; and all formal approvals and
environmental documents have been completed.
The estimated cost for completing the permanent Maidu Interpretive
Center is $1.5 million. The City of Roseville is constantly pursuing
various grants and fundraising opportunities to finance the permanent
building, but federal assistance is needed for project success.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before this
committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers
REQUEST
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
asks Congress to withdraw $150,000,000 from the Historic Preservation
Fund (16 U.S.C. 470h) in fiscal year 2002 for State Historic
Preservation Offices and Indian tribes. Preservation of America's
heritage of historic buildings and sites made possible by the Historic
Preservation Fund is an ongoing promise made by the Congress to the
people of the United States.
WHY $150,000,000?
$150,000,000 is the amount Congress has repeatedly determined to be
the appropriate funding level for historic preservation. In 2000, after
two years of full consideration, Congress reauthorized the Historic
Preservation Fund (Public Law 106-208) at $150,000,000. With this
authorized amount, States can carry on the mandated nationwide historic
preservation program and can rescue the most significant threatened
historic places--if Congress keeps the promise of $150,000,000.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND SHOULD ADVANCE, NOT RETREAT
The Administration budget, while raising the Interior budget 4
percent, cut the Historic Preservation Fund by $57 million from the $94
million level of 2001 to $37 million. The grants to the States were cut
35 percent. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation represents the first
time that Congress had provided an increase after two decades of bare
bones funding. Congress must build on the foundation laid in 2001 for
Historic Preservation Fund in creases to States and tribes to preserve
our heritage, our legacy to our children.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND FINANCES STATES TO CARRY OUT A FEDERAL
MANDATE
When State Historic Preservation Offices and their National
Conference come to Congress for Historic Preservation Fund
appropriations, they are asking Congress to support a federal mandate.
The National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470) created a
partnership between the Department of the Interior and all of the
states. Instead of creating a large federal bureaucracy in historic
preservation, the Historic Preservation Fund enables each state to
carry out historic preservation activities on behalf of the federal
government.
The historic preservation program is an excellent example of
federalism. Our national heritage rests in the historic buildings,
sites, and neighborhoods of cities, towns, and rural areas located in
each of the States. States volunteer to work with the federal
government to maintain and enhance these assets. The Historic
Preservation Fund pays only half the cost of the federally created
national historic preservation program. States match the federal
dollars, and State Historic Preservation Offices do the actual work of
the program. The Secretary of the Interior and the National Park
Service establish standards and guidelines, while governors oversee the
effective operation of the program in their state.
USING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND STATES DO FEDERAL WORK
Some examples of State Historic Preservation Office work, made
possible by the HPF, include the following.
--State Historic Preservation Offices assist private developers to
invest in historic buildings. The expenses of historic
rehabilitation are partially offset by a federal income tax
credit. Last year State Historic Preservation Offices
facilitated the completion of 1,065 projects representing an
investment of $2.6 billion. These investments created more than
41,000 jobs and renovated more than 17,000 housing units, often
in distressed urban areas. If State Historic Preservation
Offices lack adequate resources from the Historic Preservation
Fund to provide assistance and technical reviews, it will be
difficult for these development projects to be completed.
The New York Times often chronicles the successes of the Historic
Preservation Fund investment in the Real Estate Section. The
April 29, 2001, article by Maureen Milford talked about
reviving an abandoned, National Register warehouse on the
Schuylkill River in Philadelphia for housing. A representative
from the local development organization said: ``This has really
given a kick, kind of like a high-energy drink, to the whole
redevelopment of the waterfront.''
Without the Historic Preservation Fund investment in the
Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office for the
National Register nomination and the review of the plans for
the redevelopment, this $58 million investment and success
story would not have happened.
--State Historic Preservation Offices assist federal agencies and
applicants for federal assistance to avoid damaging historic
buildings and sites. When federal actions harm historic places,
State Historic Preservation Offices provide a resource to take
the consequences of those actions into account. State Historic
Preservation Offices maintain information about the location
and historical significance of properties that is vital for
federal project planning. The more complete the historic
property information, the easier project review becomes. The
Historic Preservation Fund investment in the information and
the professional expertise to guide federal agencies expedites
project review which usually results in final approval.
Further, consultation at the State level keeps decision-making
close to home. If State Historic Preservation Offices are not
given adequate funding to participate fully in the planning and
review of federally assisted programs, delivery of needed
services to agencies and citizens will be delayed and historic
resources will be subjected to harm that could have been
avoided.
--State Historic Preservation Offices administer grants to restore
important historic buildings and sites when funds are
available. States and individual communities know the most
important and most threatened historic places; they provide
funds to match federal grant dollars. Unfortunately the low
level of federal appropriations from the Historic Preservation
Fund to States has meant that most were not able to offer
restoration grants. The $12 million increase from the Historic
Preservation Fund for 2001 has reversed that trend. If Congress
provides State Historic Preservation Offices with full funding,
restoration grants will save the historic buildings and sites
that are most important to local communities and embody the
nation's heritage.
--State Historic Preservation Offices conduct studies to locate and
research historic resources. When research shows a property to
be significant, State Historic Preservation Offices, working
closely with property owners, nominate buildings,
archaeological sites, and historic districts for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. National Register of
Historic Places listing is a threshold requirement for tax
incentives, protection, or grants. About one million properties
have been listed on the National Register, but in many
communities surveys to identify and document historic resources
still have not been conducted. If State Historic Preservation
Offices are not given adequate funding from the Historic
Preservation Fund to conduct these studies, the benefits of the
national historic preservation program will not be available
and significant parts of the nation's heritage will be
unrepresented.
CONCLUSION
Historic preservation in America has an enormous ``ripple effect''
in every section of the country. In older downtowns and on traditional
Main Streets, rehabilitation of historic business buildings is an
important economic development stimulus. In residential neighbor hoods
of urban areas or rural towns, renovation of older houses offers good
affordable homes for families and preserves the special character of
hometowns. In industrial mill villages of New England and in rural
areas nationwide, adaptive reuse of old mills or old barns
reinvigorates the local economy while retaining vestiges of the
community's heritage. In every state, tourism has become a major sector
of the economy, and historic sites are universally recognized as a
critical part of the travel industry.
Everywhere in the United States historic buildings and sites are
valued for various reasons: economic development, housing, rebuilding
urban areas, preserving the character of a special neighborhood or
small town, helping to teach rising generations about their nation's
past. In every state citizens recognize that the historic places close
to home are also part of the heritage of the nation as a whole. That is
the promise Congress originally offered in the National Historic
Preservation Act. State Historic Preservation Offices in each state are
fulfilling their part of the promise by carrying out the national
historic preservation program and by raising the money to match federal
funding. We ask that the Congress fulfill its part of the promise by
appropriating for States and tribes the full authorized funding of the
Historic Preservation Fund: $150,000,000.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribe
The Nez Perce Tribe requests the following funding amounts for
fiscal year 2002, which are specific to the Nez Perce Tribe:
--$933,500 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.
--$150,000 through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for
Wildlife and Rare Species Evaluation/Coordination to gather
data to aid in species recovery efforts to prevent Federal
oversight.
--$400,000 through the BIA, Fish and Wildlife Program for fisheries
conservation and restoration efforts in response to the 2000
Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion
--$5,000,000 through the BIA for the Nez Perce Tribe Interpretative
Center.
--$2,402,000 through the Indian Health Service for an upgrade of the
City of Lapwai Water and Sewer System.
--$3,000,000 through the Indian Health Service for the Lapwai
Ambulatory Health Center.
The Tribe urges support for the full and adequate funding of Tribal
programs through the Department of the Interior fiscal year 2002
budget, with the specific requests discussed below.
SNAKE RIVER BASIN ADJUDICATION NEGOTIATIONS FUNDING: BIA $933,500
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 185,00
claims) will be determined. The 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 1998, the SRBA Court ordered the parties to the Nez
Perce claims into mediation. The mediator jointly selected by the
parties was Francis McGovern, a law professor whose mediation skills
are internationally recognized.
For fiscal year 2002, the Nez Perce Tribe requests that Congress
earmark $933,500 in the BIA's Indian Rights Protection Account for
Water Rights Negotiation and Litigation for the Tribe, enabling us to
continue our participation in the SRBA. These funds are vital to ensure
the important, on-going work by fisheries, economic, historical, and
engineering experts, as well as necessary attorney costs.
wildlife rare species evaluations/coordination funding: bia, $150,000
The Nez Perce Tribe has been actively engaged in Wildlife
Management since 1984. The program has grown in direct intervals in
response to actions by Congress and has not seen a funding increase on
more than five years.
In the last few years, numerous species of wildlife and plants have
been added to the Idaho Species of Special Concern list and the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service list of Candidate, Threatened, or
Endangered species. In the area within and adjacent to the Nez Perce
Reservation, several of these recently added species are known to
exist, but little or no information has been gathered regarding these
and other species which face extinction.
For fiscal year 2002, the Nez Perce Tribe requests that Congress
designate $150,000 from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to fund a project
that will enable the Tribe to know more about the species of wildlife
and plants in our region to be more effective in preventing the need
for adding species to the Federal or State lists by identifying species
at special risk and managing their recovery without listing. By
gathering the requisite data, the Tribe will document the existence of
these species and their habitat use patterns to assist in developing
recovery plans before populations reach a level where Federal oversight
is necessary to recover the species.
NEZ PERCE TRIBE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FUNDING: BIA, $400,000
The Nez Perce Tribe's Fisheries Program entails production,
research, resident fisheries, habitat, and conservation enforcement.
Currently under construction is the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery which
uses innovative ``nature's'' techniques to implement a salmon
supplementation program in the Clearwater River Basin.
The recently released Federal Columbia River Power System
Biological Opinion requires intense coordination and monitoring to
reach the recovery goals delineated in the Opinion. The Tribe must
elevate its fisheries capacity to complete the necessary work. In
particular, the Tribe requires increased funding to ensure recovery
through: coordinating and planning in-season management of hydro-system
flow; harvest monitoring and conservation enforcement; extensive
coordination and consultation with Federal agencies; and creating a
partnership with local landowners to develop habitat plans to aid in
fish recovery by providing technical assistance and replenishing
populations on private land.
The Nez Perce Tribe requests that Congress designate $400,000 in
fiscal year 2002 BIA Funding to ensure continued Tribal involvement and
activities relating to the recovery of endangered and threatened salmon
and steelhead in the Northwest.
NEZ PERCE TRIBE INTERPRETATIVE CENTER FUNDING: BIA, $5,000,000
The Nez Perce Tribe Department of Natural Resources will work
cooperatively with state, Federal, and private organizations to provide
and increase resource, recreation, and tourism opportunities for
northern Idaho. The Tribe will work cooperatively with the Lewis Clark
Bicentennial Committee and other local bicentennial organizations to
provide tourists with detailed accounts of Nez Perce history and the
story of the Tribe's involvement with Lewis and Clark. This multi-
functional facility would exhibit and showcase Nez Perce living
history, customs, values, arts and regalia. The expected 14-28 million
visitors to the region would greatly benefit from this facility.
The Nez Perce Tribe has much to offer in history, but with no
interpretative center it is literally impossible to inform and educate
the general public about Nez Perce history and the role of the Tribe in
the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The Tribe has been identified as an
integral part of the Bicentennial celebration by the State of Idaho,
U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and the National Lewis and
Cark Council.
The Nez Perce Tribe requests that Congress designate $5,000,000 in
the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill through the BIA to
ensure that the Tribe is able to play an active role in the economic
growth of northern Idaho and provide tourists with a fascinating and
informative look into the history of the Nez Perce people.
CITY OF LAPWAI WATER AND SEWER PROJECT FUNDING: IHS, $2,402,000
The City of Lapwai Water and Sewer system is in dire need of an
upgrade to protect the health and safety of the Reservation community.
Under the current system, no new homes or businesses, including a
proposed Boy's and Girl's Club, can be constructed. The current system
is in poor condition with debris, cracked pipes, and outdated
equipment. The well system is outdated and the lagoon system for
wastewater is at or very near capacity.
To date, the Indian Health Service has recognized the need for
improvements in the system and has provided engineering services to
upgrade the water and sewer system to help meet the needs of the
community. A block grant has already been obtained though the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to facilitate the project.
A Utility Code has been developed which clearly outlines the operating
responsibilities between the Nez Perce Tribe, BIA, and the City of
Lapwai in preparation of the transfer of ownership of the system to the
Nez Perce Tribe from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Nez Perce Tribe requests that Congress designate $2,402,000 in
fiscal year 2002 Indian Health Service appropriations to complete the
chosen alternative to upgrade the water and sewer system. An adequate
system would relieve the dire health threat created by the antiquated
system of pipes and wells.
LAPWAI AMBULATORY HEALTH CENTER FUNDING: IHS, $3,000,000
The Nez Perce Tribe has an eligible health care population of over
3,800 which must be cared for in a facility constructed in 1971 by the
Indian Health Service as a health station and for office space. The
current care facility is grossly undersized to meet the health cares
needs of the community. This problem is exacerbated by a 67 percent
increase in patient visits over the past three years.
The current undersized health care facility has one quarter of the
requisite space that is needed to ensure adequate access to health care
services. Health care delivery systems are impeded by the limited space
for staff, patients, equipment, and supplies and the existing design is
does not allow for expansion for outpatient health care services. The
current facility cannot comply with the Americans for Disabilities Act,
contains traces of radon in the basement, and does not meet
accreditation standards. As a result, health care programs operated by
the Tribe are housed in various remote facilities throughout the
Reservation further limiting access to health care. Considering that
Native Americans suffer from significantly poorer health than other
citizens, this disparity is only heightened by the Tribe's current
inability to fully meet the health care needs of the community.
The Nez Perce Tribe requests that Congress earmark $3,000,000 in
fiscal year 2002 Indian Health Service appropriations for the
construction of a the Lapwai Ambulatory Health Center which will
provide the desperately needed in-patient and out-patient care in one
location to provide access to quality health care for members of the
community.
support for full funding of the interior budget for fiscal year 2002
The Nez Perce Tribe is deeply concerned that the fiscal year 2002
Department of the Interior Budget request proposes a four percent
decrease in funding from fiscal year 2001, especially since the
Department is seeing five percent annual growth.
While the Tribe is encouraged by statements from the Secretary of
the Interior and the Bush Administration that Native American programs
under the Bureau of Indian Affairs will continue to receive full and
adequate funding, the primary goals of the Department must remain
fulfilling the Federal government's trust responsibility to the Tribes.
In addition, we strongly support the Bush Administration's
designation of $292 million for Indian school improvements, but more
must be done to financially ensure the education of our children.
Thank you for your consideration of the Nez Perce Tribe's
appropriation requests for fiscal year 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy's Indian
Reservation
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Burns and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for your review and consideration of this testimony regarding the
President's Budget Request for the fiscal year 2002 for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service. I am quite concerned how this
proposed budget addresses the needs of the Chippewa Cree Tribe. My name
is Alvin Windy Boy, and I am Chairman of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of
Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation of Montana and Chairman of the Chippewa
Cree Health Board. We are one of the seven federally recognized tribes
from the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, formerly the Billings Area
Office, which includes the states of Montana and Wyoming.
HEALTH CARE
The burden of disparity between health care needs and funding
available is significant especially for remote and rural tribes such as
ours. I respectfully request that the Subcommittee and the Congress
recognize the federal court decision in White v. Califano, 437 F.Supp.
543 (DPF 1977), aff'd 581 F2d 697 (1978) stating that ``health care for
Indian people is not a racial issue, nor is it a financial issue; it is
a legal and historical obligation based on treaty, law, and the trust
responsibility which the federal government forcibly assumed over
Indian nations . . .'' Moreover, this disparity between health status
and funding for health care is well documented. The Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA), DHHS, and the Indian Health Service
have substantiated a huge inequity in per capita expenditures in health
care for Indian people, particularly when compared with other groups
for whom the United States has commitments. This incongruity is
graphically demonstrated over the past eight years, with the Indian
Health Service receiving less than $1,500 per capita, while Medicaid
and the Bureau of Prisons received over $3,000 per capita, and the
Veteran's Administration (VA) received over $5,000 per capita. It is no
wonder that Indian people are at the bottom of every health scale.
During a historical meeting of Tribal Leaders and President
Clinton, tribes were encouraged to submit demonstration projects
addressing the disparities that exist in Indian Country. The Chippewa
Cree Tribe responded to this challenge and requests your support to
fund a demonstration project that would allow the Tribe to achieve
parity in funding and close the gap of disparity in heath care status.
Offered by Senator Conard Burns, as part of the fiscal year 2000 Senate
Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Bill, the Rocky Boy's Disparity
Project did not receive appropriations, but did receive strong support
from numerous members of the House, Senate, and the Administration.
This project will demonstrate the goal for all Indian nations to
achieve and validate that there is a strong linkage in heath status and
parity in funding. Your support for inclusion of this demonstration
project as a valuable demonstrative effort will most certainly effect a
decrease in years of productive lives lost for tribal members and
provide for healthier communities. As we struggle to provide adequate
health care, the appropriation for contract health services remains
flat. We struggle to improve and enhance community health nursing
knowing that the funding and services we provide only meet 50 percent
of the need, much of the increase in funds is ``earmarked'' elsewhere
and tribes must compete against each other to address the monumental
needs that arise throughout the year. As we struggle to address the
unmet dental needs, the increases appropriated from Congress again
become ``earmarked'' and tribes must compete rather than receiving a
formula funded increase. This list goes on to include pharmacy, public
health nursing, and injury prevention.
The alarming incidence and prevalence of diabetes in Indian Country
prompted the Administration and the Congress to allow for direct
service for diabetes prevention for all tribes nationwide, a first for
our tribe. However, more and more funding is seemingly directed toward
research, technical assistance, and training and no funds are available
for direct services. Such is the case for diabetes, but this
Presidential Initiative is limited to 5 years and will end in September
of 2004. Your continued support is needed to assure that a continuum of
care for diabetes and diabetes prevention continues.
TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATIONS
As the Nation is enjoying prosperity and an unemployment rate of 5
percent, the Chippewa Cree Tribe's unemployment rate remains at an
alarming rate of 75 percent. It is evident that Indian Country is being
bypassed by this economic boom. In fact, many of our families
(approximately 400) must depend on General Assistance, Low Income
Energy programs, and food distribution programs to survive. The basic
needs of the Chippewa Cree people cannot be addressed without a
substantial increase to the Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) within the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and the levels in the President's proposed
budget are wholly inadequate from that perspective. As the only Self-
Governance tribe in the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, our experience
has been that TPA is the only dependable recurring federal resource
within the BIA budget available to my tribe for program re-design and
for which funds can be allocated to try to address local tribal needs.
These dollars are the core of the Tribal Self Determination policy,
because they allow our tribal government to set our own priorities for
spending on programs and services.
An analysis of our programs has shown that there remains a
tremendous level of unmet need for essential tribal governmental and
programmatic services for the Chippewa Cree. For an example, the BIA
Budget for law enforcement last year, the compacting and contracting
tribes only received \1/2\ FTE for patrolmen with the remaining
allocated to BIA programs. The BIA's response was that the tribes were
eligible for Department of Justice programs without factoring in that
tribes must retain any new officer funded under the Community Oriented
Policing Services Officers (COPS) for one funding cycle with our own
funds. This has challenged tribes to fulfill our obligations to the
Department of Justice and not let other programs suffer the
consequences of funding shortfalls. We support any increase in funding
for law enforcement, however the Presidents fiscal year 2002 Budget
increases law enforcement funding by only $12,000 from fiscal year
2001. The tribe would like to see the restoration of law enforcement
within the TPA base. Removing programs from the TPA is inconsistent
with the federal policy of self-determination and self-government and
tribal government authority in determining funding priorities. We would
also like to request TPA funds be exempt from internal transfers, that
the BIA refers to as ``uncontrollable changes,'' and which they take
away from us, instead of requesting of the Congress. These requests
further dilute the funding that is badly needed at the tribal level.
The total unmet needs for the Chippewa Cree Tribe for TPA programs is
$15 million dollars.
WATER SETTLEMENT
On December 9, 1990, the Rocky Boy's water rights settlement bill
was signed into law by the President on December 9, 1999, and become
Public Law No. 106-163. The Act is the culmination of 17 years of work
by the Chippewa Cree Tribe seeking a fair settlement of the Tribe's
water rights claims in Montana.
The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) has represented the Tribe in
the settlement of its water rights claims since 1987. NARF will
continue to represent the Tribe in obtaining a state water court decree
approving the settlement and dismissing the Tribe's claims. This
process is expected to take about two years from February 15, 2000,
when the motion requesting a final decree was filed with the state
water court. This process will include such activities as preparation
of responses to any objections that may be filed to the settlement, and
the drafting of the various documents required to obtain a final
decree. Under the act ratifying the settlement, until the state water
court issues a final decree, the tribe can invest settlement
appropriations but not expend them. The tribe will require some
technical and legal assistance in the effort to obtain a final decree
from the water court. The United States and the Tribe must also file a
motion dismissing the Tribe's water claims which are now stayed in
federal court.
The Tribe anticipates the need for the following amounts to assist
the Tribes in these efforts: $51,750 for the Native American Rights
Fund for legal oversight; $100,000 for the Tribe for the engineering
consultants; and $110,000 for the Tribe for administration of efforts
to finalize the water rights settlement pursuant to Public Law 106-163.
In addition, Public Law 106-163 authorizes an fiscal year 2002
appropriation of $8 million to the BIA for the Tribe for future water
supply facilities. This is contained in the Administration's request.
In summary, the Chippewa Cree Tribe requests Congress to
appropriate the total amount of $8,261,750 to enable the Tribe to
continue the work necessary to finalize its water rights settlement,
and to fulfill the commitments of the United States embodied in Public
Law 106-163--the Act ratifying the Tribe's water rights settlement.
CONTRACT SUPPORT
Of the overall TPA request, $130.2 million goes to contract
support, which falls 12 percent short of the total identified need.
Because the Chippewa Cree tribe is a self-governance tribe, we have
compacted through our self-governance compact all of the federal
functions which were previously administered by the BIA on our
reservation. This means we have administrative costs associated
carrying out these compacted functions which the United States would
otherwise be required to provide directly. Typically in a given year
the tribe is funded around 60-80 percent of the total need for contract
support funds, meaning that the tribe is paying from 20-40 percent of
the contract support costs from other program funds or from our tribal
general fund. The tribe cannot afford to keep paying for the contract
support costs associated with our self-governance compact federal
functions and other grants and contracts administered by the tribe. No
other contractor with the United States is treated this way. The tribe
is requesting 100 percent funding for contract support and/or indirect
costs, the same as all other contractors. This is only right since we
are providing the administrative services associated with carrying out
the federal functions on the reservation.
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR
The Chippewa Cree tribally chartered Stone Child College is in a
state of disrepair. There are leaks in the roof, natural springs under
the main office and general maintenance problems arising daily. There
is a shortage of classrooms and offices. Our students are presently
staying in homes with at least three families living together,
resulting in overcrowded homes and sickness due to overcrowding.. We
need to have housing on campus. This would eliminate the absenteeism
that our college is currently experiencing. We have secured $1 million
but we have an additional need of $5,250,000.
Our elders have asked for an archive for the storage and display of
important cultural papers, objects, etc. At the present there is no
archival facility on the reservation. If we don't take care of these
materials, they will be lost forever, as has already happened to many
important medicinal and sacred items. We estimate startup costs for
these efforts at $250,000.
EMPOWERING COMMUNITIES, EXPANDING NEW MARKETS AND DIGITAL DIVIDE
INITIATIVE
Our Housing Improvement Program (HIP) received approximately 115
requests for funding from applicants for fiscal year 2001, and will be
getting an influx this year of over 255 older homes made during the
1970s. All of these homes have health hazards such as substandard
plumbing which is lead based, substandard wiring, and furnaces that
have run their cycle and need new parts or replacement. These older
homes will put an extreme burden on the HIP programs annual funding
base, which is why the program is requesting an additional $260,000 to
meet this demand.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present my views on
the budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service
and the needs of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's
Reservation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the other distinguished members of
the Committee for this opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of
the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians. On behalf of the people of Red
Lake, who reside on our reservation in northern Minnesota, we
respectfully submit that the budget appropriation process represents
for us the major avenue through which the United States government
fulfills its trust responsibility and honors its obligations to Indian
tribes. We must depend on you to uphold the trust responsibility which
forms the basis of the government to government relationship between
our tribe and the federal government. The Red Lake Band of Chippewa
Indians requests $10.4 million in additional fiscal year 2002 funding
for Red Lake's programs.
Red Lake is a relatively large tribe with 9,300 members. Our
840,000 acre reservation is held in trust for the tribe by the United
States. While it has been diminished in size, our reservation has never
been broken apart or allotted to individuals. Nor has our reservation
been subjected to the criminal or civil jurisdiction of the State of
Minnesota. Consequently, we have a large land area over which we
exercise full governmental authority and control, in conjunction with
the United States.
At the same time, due in part to our location far from centers of
population and commerce, we have few jobs available on our reservation.
While the unemployment rate in Minnesota is only 3 percent, ours
remains at an outrageously high level of 60 percent. The lack of good
roads, communications, and other necessary infrastructure continues to
hold back economic development and job opportunities.
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request for Indian programs
falls far short of what tribes need. The following testimony highlights
the most critical needs of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians in
fiscal year 2002.
TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATIONS (TPA)
The TPA is the principal means for us to provide vital governmental
services to our people, including law enforcement, justice, fire
protection, education, social services, and resource management. We
have struggled hard to maintain these services, especially since the
crippling, nearly $100 million cut in the TPA in fiscal year 1996. The
sad fact is the TPA has not kept pace with inflation, and today is less
than it was 10 years ago.
The President's fiscal year 2002 request for the TPA is $750.5
million, an increase of $17.5 million (2.38 percent) over fiscal year
2001. The net increase for tribes after removing Indian Self-
Determination funds for new contracts, uncontrollable costs, and
internal transfers is only a targeted $7 million--less than 1 percent.
This is unacceptable. The TPA is the most important component of the
BIA's budget, both in terms of size (42 percent) and what it does. The
President has opined that a 4 percent budget increase is
``compassionate''. This makes his request for the most important BIA
program ``heartless''.
Red Lake's present unmet TPA need is $8.8 million, larger than the
entire net increase requested by the President for all tribes. Of that
amount, $3.9 million is needed to provide just the most critical core
functions, such as law enforcement, fire protection, courts, social
services, education, housing improvement, and roads maintenance. This
need will be documented in our 2000 annual report to the Office of
Self-Governance (OSG), which will be made available to the Congress.
Because the need to provide these basic services is so critical, I ask
the Committee for a specific earmark of $3.9 million for Red Lake in
fiscal year 2002. I also urge you to increase the President's request
for contract support to 100 percent of total need as authorized under
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, rather than
the 88 percent requested. Tribes like Red Lake, with an indirect cost
rate of 14.3 percent (far below the national average), need these funds
to operate their programs.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUSTICE
As stated in my testimony to you last year, Red Lake's top priority
is to acquire funding to complete the new Red Lake Criminal Justice
Complex. When completed, this complex will be home to our law
enforcement, courts, adult and juvenile detention, and juvenile
residential components.
Last year we received an $8.8 million grant from the Department of
Justice (DOJ) to construct the detention facilities portion of the
project. Construction is about to begin and is targeted for completion
during fiscal year 2002. Rules governing our DOJ grant do not allow
these funds to be used for construction of the law enforcement and
courts portion. As a result, the detention portions of our criminal
justice system stand to be located 1.5 miles away from the law
enforcement and court components. This will create operational problems
from the start, and will result in significantly higher costs to staff
and maintain two separate facilities. To solve this dilemma, our
congressional representatives have requested $3 million under the
Economic Development Initiative (EDI) account of the 2002 VA-HUD
appropriations bill. Although the President has slated this program for
elimination in fiscal year 2002, we will continue to pursue this avenue
of funding as the budget process unfolds. Because of the urgent need to
complete this facility and the apparent jeopardy of the VA-HUD EDI
account, I ask the Committee to consider a specific earmark to Red Lake
in the amount of $3 million. This will allow us to complete all
components of the criminal justice complex and avoid the significantly
higher costs required to adequately staff and maintain two separate
facilities.
I am very pleased to see the President's fiscal year 2002 BIA
budget includes $5 million for detention operations associated with new
facilities recently funded by DOJ. Red Lake has determined its need for
new detention facility operations to be $3.19 million in fiscal year
2002, which will be documented in our 2000 annual report to the OSG.
Because our new facility is expected to begin operation during fiscal
year 2002, I ask the Committee to target $1.6 million of the
President's requested $5 million to Red Lake. This is necessary to
ensure uninterrupted operation of the tribe's law enforcement services.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE REFORM
The lack of economic development at Red Lake has set the stage for
a head-on collision with welfare reform. We are working feverishly with
federal, state, and local agencies in the welfare to work initiative.
Promoting economic growth at Red Lake has been difficult. We, like
other tribes across the country, have been hindered by factors such as:
remote location; high poverty rates and low health status;
discrimination in non-tribal education and workplace settings; and,
lack of support for infrastructure development. States have had
federal-supported welfare administrative systems and programs for
decades, and have been able to develop the infrastructure necessary to
cope with the effects of welfare reform. We cannot be expected to
succeed without similar assistance.
Cuts to BIA's GA program in fiscal year 1996 hindered our ability
to provide critical child welfare services and general and elderly
assistance. These services are essential to our ability to implement
welfare reform. As I speak, there are about 400 single, employable
adults at Red Lake who cannot find work and receive no assistance due
to reduced BIA funding. The number of cases is increasing, as our
members who live in places like Minneapolis return to the reservation
as a safety net.
The President's fiscal year 2002 request of $89.9 million
represents yet another major decrease in this critical program. I ask
the Committee to increase this amount by at least $25 million, so that
we will not have to sharply increase the number of denials for
assistance.
HEALTH SERVICES
The President's fiscal year 2002 IHS request of $3.3 billion is an
increase of $107 million over fiscal year 2001. Of this amount, $50
million is for the Navajo Health Services transition to tribal control.
The net increase for all other tribes is an unacceptable 1 percent. As
you know, there is a crisis in Indian health care, resulting in part
from a lack of funding for mandatory increases like inflation, pay
costs, staff for new facilities, and population growth. IHS funded
programs must absorb these costs, resulting in a net decrease in health
care to Indian people of $2 billion in the last 8 years. Health care
expenditures for Indian people are well below 50 percent of the per
capita health care expenditure for mainstream America, and, as you
know, our gloomy health statistics reflect this.
Throughout 2000 the IHS worked with tribes in developing its fiscal
year 2002 budget. As a result, it was determined by the National Indian
Health Board, the Tribal Self-Governance Advisory Committee, and the
National Council on Urban Indian Health that the fiscal year 2002 IHS
budget should be $18 billion, but no less than $3.2 billion in
appropriations to begin to address the health care needs of Indian
people on a basis comparable to the rest of America. The problem with
the President's budget is that it includes an estimated $499 million in
health insurance reimbursements, and with the Navajo transition of $50
million, results in an adjusted request of only $2.75 billion. With the
very lives of our people at stake, a real increase of $3.2 billion is
the minimum amount needed to begin addressing the shortage in Indian
health care, and I ask the Committee to provide an additional $550
million above the President's request in order to accomplish this.
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget includes a $40 million
increase in contract support, all for the Navajo transition. This
leaves an estimated need of $175 million, which tribes must absorb,
further reducing health care services. I ask the Committee to fully
fund contract support costs in fiscal year 2002.
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget provides $100 million for
diabetes funding, the same as last year. These funds are a good
investment, and will result in future program savings by increasing the
health of our people. I also ask Congress to extend diabetes funding
for the full 10 year authority allowed by the Balanced Budget Act of
1997.
OTHER ISSUES
The Red Lake Band asks that you eliminate or substantially amend 25
U.S.C. 450e-2, a permanent provision enacted as Section 310 of the
Fiscal Year 1998 Interior Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-83, Nov.
14, 1997). Section 310 has been used against tribes like Red Lake to
undermine our efforts to cut costs and finish BIA-funded construction
projects under budget. The BIA has used the broad language of Section
310 to threaten to take away from our reservation and apply elsewhere
all savings that we accrue from our careful and efficient management of
our construction projects. We want our tribal construction staff to
seek ways to get the most bang from each buck, and if savings result
from our internal efficiencies, then we want those savings applied to
unmet construction needs on our reservation without any obstacles posed
by paternalistic BIA bureaucrats. The BIA's use of Section 310
discourages us from seeking out cost savings procedures, because we
will lose the money saved and with it the jobs that are so critical to
the people on our reservation with its unemployment rate of 60 percent.
For example, if Red Lake receives $100,000 for a 10 mile road extension
project, and due to our efficient tribal construction staff, are able
to do the 10 miles for $90,000, we want to be able to construct an
extra mile with the remaining $10,000 in savings. Our communities get a
good road a little closer to their homes. Our tribal construction
workers earn a couple more paychecks. And our tribe takes an extra chip
out of our huge unmet need. We believe Section 310 was mostly borne out
of congressional frustration with the huge backlog of need reflected in
the school facility construction priority list in the mid-1990s.
Perhaps its application to school construction remains appropriate,
because once a tribe has constructed its school, it can be argued that
all remaining funds should go to the next school site on the priority
wait list. But with respect to all other construction activity funded
through the BIA, and particularly with respect to roads construction
projects, each reservation typically has multiple (smaller) projects
awaiting funding, or their projects, like the length of the road in our
example, are constrained by limited funds and would benefit greatly
from our ability to apply cost savings to enlarge or extend the project
within the overall original purpose. For years, Red Lake has assumed
all program operations associated with our reservation road
construction activity, from initial design to building of the road. We
try hard to get the most out of each scarce federal dollar, striving to
find efficiencies that will bring our projects in under budget so that
we can devote those ``savings'' to grading or paving more roads,
building more sidewalks, and implementing more safety measures. BIA's
interpretation of Section 310 is punishing our tribe for being
efficient. We ask that you either remove it or add language to 25
U.S.C. 450e-2, which would limit its application to funds associated
with the school facility construction priority list maintained by BIA.
Although sufficient detail is not yet available on the President's
fiscal year 2002 budget for the Housing Improvement Program (HIP), it
appears there will actually be a decrease over fiscal year 2001.
Housing is one of the most basic needs of every American. Past funding
for HIP has been terribly inadequate. For example, Red Lake recently
submitted its 2000 Work Plan Report to the BIA documenting 10
substandard housing units, for which the BIA is responsible to fund at
a level of 90 percent. This report also documented a need for 226 new
housing units, for which the BIA is responsible to fund at a level of
10 percent. The total need documented for just BIA's share of housing
repair and new housing at Red Lake is $1.9 million. I ask the Committee
for a specific earmark for this amount in fiscal year 2002.
I was pleased to see the President include the new $10 million
initiative for tribes in his Flexible Land and Water Conservation Fund
Program for fiscal year 2002. Red Lake and tribes across the country
expended immense effort last year to obtain equitable access to the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). As you know, CARA was not
enacted last year, but was diluted into a ``CARA-Lite'' that funded
fewer activities with fewer dollars over less time. No stakeholder was
more adversely affected by this dilution than Indian tribes, who lost
every single provision that had benefited them in the original
legislation. It is critical therefore, that the $10 million tribal
portion be retained, along with the flexibility specified by the
President for this program. I also ask that you include language
directing a federal/tribal team be composed to develop the tribal
competitive grant program to distribute these funds, which should
include tribes, the BIA, and the National Park Service.
Thank you for allowing me to present, for the record, some of the
most immediate needs of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians in fiscal
year 2002, and for your consideration of these needs. At your request,
I would be pleased to provide additional information regarding these
needs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe
On behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribe, I submit this written
statement of appropriations requests on the fiscal year 2002 Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets. 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.
TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUEST
Support for $97,500 for the Squaxin Island Shellfish Management.
REGIONAL REQUESTS
Support for the $6.8 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 million 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 2001 levels;
Provision of Contract Support Funding at 100 percent levels
necessary for existing and emerging programs $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 REQUESTS
Restore $256,000 and request for a $100,000 increase to the DOI
Office of Self-Governance for the Self-Governance Communication and
Education Project and the Tribal Self-Governance Advisory Committee;
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 $325,000,000 increase for IHS unfunded mandatory, medical
inflation, pay costs and population growth needed to maintain existing
health care services;
+$5 million in the IHS Division of Clinical and Preventive Services
to support Oral Health Initiative; and
Support all requests and recommendations of the National Congress
of American Indians.
NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF REQUESTS
Tribal specific
Support $97,500 for the Squaxin Island Shellfish Management. The
Squaxin Island Tribe was a plaintiff in the court case which reaffirmed
the Treaty rights of the Tribes in Washington State to harvest 50
percent of the shellfish product, and to act as co-managers of the
shellfish resources. This involves management of both inter-tidal and
sub-tidal species of shellfish.
Over the past few 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
$6.8 million 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
cover only the basic level of management and enforcement needs.
$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 million for the 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.
$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
Restore $256,000 and Provide $100,000 Increase to Self-Governance
Office in order to fund the on-going Self-Governance Communication and
Education Project (SGCEP) and for the continuance of the Tribal Leaders
Self-Governance Advisory Committee. There are now over 200 Tribes
implementing Self-Governance and the request for information regarding
this initiative continues to increase. The SGCEP is vital to ensure
that Self-Governance and its purposes are clearly understood and
consistently developed by participating Tribal governments, federal
agency officials and non-participating Tribes. The funding for this
Project has never been increased and is now inadequate to keep up with
information request. We respectfully request that this funding not only
be restored, but increased to meet the real cost of providing these
communication services. In addition, funding must also be restored for
the Tribal Leaders Self-Governance Advisory Committee. This Committee
provides advice and guidance to the Assistant Secretary Indian Affairs
on key policy issues that impact Self-Governance Tribes and has proven
to be a effective forum for Tribal leaders to debate and discuss these
issues.
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 2002 includes a modest increase for CSC--(1) an
additional $65 million is needed in IHS (excluding the $40 million that
has been estimated, but negotiated for the new Navajo Nation contract
proposal); and (2) an additional $25 million is needed in BIA to fully
fund CSC (excluding direct contract support costs). This shortfall
continues to penalize Tribes which elect to operate BIA and IHS
programs under the self-determination policy. Additional CSC
appropriations are needed to implement the self-determination and self-
governance policy as supported by Congress. We urge the Subcommittee to
fully fund CSC for Tribes equal 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 2002 includes a $17.5
million increase over fiscal year 2001, this is the third 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 resource management and Tribal government services. A recent
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report on Indian-related federal
spending trends for fiscal years 1975-2000 states increases in the
combined BIA/Office of Special Trustee ``current'' dollars averaged $46
million per year. But as ``constant'' dollars (adjusted for inflation),
there has actually been a decline of approximately $6 million per year.
Over this 25-year period, the total is $150 million! At a minimum, the
requested amount will provide for a modest 3.5 percent inflation
adjustment for existing Tribal programs and services. We further
recommend that TPA be revised and possibly re-named ``Tribal Family &
Community Services'' to better reflect the true nature and intent of
these programs. We believe that this title will help the Congress
better understand the use of these resources.
Provide $325 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services. 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 costs
are unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay costs
and staff for recently constructed facilities. 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.
+$5 million in the IHS Division of Clinical and Preventive Services
to support the Tribal Leaders Oral Health Initiative. This initiative
seeks to improve oral health status and increase access to oral health
services for Indian people. Indian people experience dental disease at
rates 2 to 10 times the national average and Tribes currently have
great difficulty recruiting dental staff with 25 percent of dentist
positions currently vacant. $5 million will permit the tribes to
increase their recruitment activities, improve availability of
community water fluoridation, and collaborate more effectively with the
IHS and other partners to curb the epidemic of oral disease that
confronts Indian people.
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 Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
This testimony is submitted by the Jamestown S'Klallam regarding
our concerns and requests on the fiscal year 2002 Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets. The following
document presents the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe's funding priorities,
as well as other regional and national concerns and recommendations for
your consideration.
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION
The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe strongly recommends that the
Subcommittee not consider any provisions or legislative riders which
undermine Tribal sovereignty and our ability to advance our
governmental capacity based on long-standing Federal/Tribal relations
and Federal Indian law and policy. 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 Bush
Administration and Congress' devolution philosophies providing more
authority to local units of government.
TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION PRIORITIES
1. $534,000 one-time funding for construction of a dental clinic to
serve our Tribal community;
2. $750,000 one-time funding for the purchase of two parcels of
land, one adjacent to our existing reservation and one near our
reservation; and
3. $35,000 increase in BIA Tribal base funding for unfunded
Operations & Maintenance programs.
LOCAL/REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. $300,000 for the Point No Point Treaty Council Wildlife Program;
and
2. Support all requests and recommendations of the Affiliated
Tribes of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
Board, and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
SELF-GOVERNANCE AND OTHER NATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Restore $256,000 and request for a $100,000 increase to the DOI
Office of Self-Governance for the Self-Governance Communication and
Education Project and the Tribal Self-Governance Advisory Committee;
2. Provide increase for BIA and IHS to fully fund Contract Support
Cost (CSC) to address documented Tribal needs;
3. Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority
Allocation (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment;
4. Provide $325,000,000 increase for IHS unfunded mandatory,
medical inflation, pay costs and population growth needed to maintain
existing health care services;
5. +$5 million in the IHS Division of Clinical and Preventive
Services to support Oral Health Initiative; and
6. 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
complex. Costs include specialized equipment and furnishings, parking
and all construction costs and fees.
Establishment of Tribal Land Base--+$750,000
For the past 10 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 15-acre site, near the
reservation which is available to the Tribe at approximately $300,000.
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 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.
Operations and Maintenance 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 CONSIDERATION
Restore $256,000 and Provide $100,000 Increase to Self-Governance
Office in order to fund the on- going Self-Governance Communication and
Education Project (SGCEP) and for the continuance of the Tribal Leaders
Self-Governance Advisory Committee. We are greatly alarmed over the
Administration's proposal to eliminate critical funding for these Self-
Governance activities. Over the past 10 years, the SGCEP has provided
technical assistance and factual information about Self- Governance.
There are now over 200 Tribes implementing Self-Governance and the
request for information regarding this initiative continues to
increase. The SGCEP is vital to ensure that Self-Governance and its
purposes are clearly understood and consistently developed by
participating Tribal governments, federal agency officials and non-
participating Tribes. The funding for this Project has never been
increased and is now inadequate to keep up with information request. We
respectfully request that this funding not only be restored, but
increased to meet the real cost of providing these communication
services. Further, funding must also be restored for the Tribal Leaders
Self-Governance Advisory Committee. This Committee provides advice and
guidance to the Assistant Secretary Indian Affairs on key policy issues
that impact Self-Governance Tribes and has proven to be a effective
forum for Tribal leaders to debate and discuss these issues.
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 2002 includes a modest increase for CSC--(1) an
additional $65 million is needed in IHS (excluding the $40 million that
has been estimated, but negotiated for the new Navajo Nation contract
proposal); and (2) an additional $25 million is needed in BIA to fully
fund CSC (excluding direct contract support costs). This shortfall
continues to penalize Tribes which elect to operate BIA and IHS
programs under the self-determination policy. Additional CSC
appropriations are needed to implement the self-determination and self-
governance policy as supported by Congress. We urge the Subcommittee to
fully fund CSC for Tribes equal 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 2002 includes a $17.5
million increase over fiscal year 2001, this is the third 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 resource management and Tribal government services. A recent
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report on Indian-related federal
spending trends for fiscal years 1975-2000 states increases in the
combined BIA/Office of Special Trustee ``current'' dollars averaged $46
million per year. But as ``constant'' dollars (adjusted for inflation),
there has actually been a decline of approximately $6 million per year.
Over this 25-year period, the total is $150 million! At a minimum, the
requested amount will provide for a modest 3.5 percent inflation
adjustment for existing Tribal programs and services. We further
recommend that TPA be revised and possibly re-named ``Tribal Family &
Community Services'' to better reflect the true nature and intent of
these programs. We believe that this title will help the Congress
better understand the use of these resources.
Provide $325 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services. 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 costs
are unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay costs
and staff for recently constructed facilities. 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.
+$5 million in the IHS Division of Clinical and Preventive Services
to support the Tribal Leaders Oral Health Initiative. This initiative
seeks to improve oral health status and increase access to oral health
services for Indian people. Indian people experience dental disease at
rates 2 to 10 times the national average and Tribes currently have
great difficulty recruiting dental staff with 25 percent of dentist
positions currently vacant. $5 million will permit the tribes to
increase their recruitment activities, improve availability of
community water fluoridation, and collaborate more effectively with the
IHS and other partners to curb the epidemic of oral disease that
confronts Indian people.
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.
Thank You.
______
Prepared Statement of American Rivers
Many individual programs funded by the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee have substantial impacts on America's rivers. We urge that
you bear these impacts in mind in determining levels of funding for
these important government programs. We would like to highlight several
funding needs that are of greatest interest in fiscal year 2002.
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
Wild and scenic rivers have been designated by Congress in
recognition of the value of free-flowing rivers with scenic,
recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other
similar values. Proper stewardship of the 163 designated wild and
scenic rivers requires funding for the four federal agencies
responsible for administering the Wild and Scenic River System: the
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service,
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In fiscal year 2002, we urge the
Subcommittee to provide $27 million for wild and scenic river
management and to ensure that where appropriate, additional rivers can
be added to the System.
Within the overall System, the National Park Service manages 34
wild and scenic rivers and is responsible for studying rivers in
national parks and on non-public lands. We urge the subcommittee to
support $9.1 million for the National Park Service Wild and Scenic
Rivers Program. Of this total, $7.6 million is needed for wild and
scenic rivers managed as units of the National Park System, and $1
million is needed for wild and scenic river studies authorized by
Congress.
In addition, we would like to especially highlight the need for
$1.5 million for management of seven partnership wild and scenic
rivers. Partnership wild and scenic rivers are national resources that
benefit from incredibly committed local conservation partners working
to protect, manage, and enhance river resources. The number of
partnership rivers that share a small amount of federal funding has
grown from five to seven since last fiscal year, and the mileage has
more than doubled. Federal funding not only ensures management plans
are carried out with care and foresight, it also helps to leverage
funding from state, local, and private sources. For example, on the
Maurice River in New Jersey, federal funding of just $25,000 has been
met by state and municipal sources of $1,626,500.
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for managing 34 wild
and scenic rivers and by law must complete studies on roughly 400 river
segments for potential designation. The Bureau has shown commitment to
protecting wild and scenic rivers and other conservation areas by
creating a new program to protect these areas, which together make up
the BLM's Landscape Conservation System. In fiscal year 2002, the BLM
needs $3.5 million for wild and scenic river management, and $2.0
million for wild and scenic river studies on BLM lands.
The Forest Service manages the largest number of wild and scenic
rivers--96 in all. Currently, the Forest Service budget does not
include a line item for wild and scenic river management. In December
of 2000, however, the Forest Service created a new staff unit dedicated
to stewardship of wild and scenic rivers and other congressionally
designated areas. To better protect these special areas, we urge the
Subcommittee to support an appropriation of $8,640,000 for wild and
scenic river management and $3.0 million to complete missing management
plans for wild and scenic rivers, and to undertake wild and scenic
river studies.
The Fish and Wildlife Service manages nine wild and scenic rivers
and must study rivers on refuges for potential designation. We ask for
$500,000 in appropriations for wild and scenic river studies that must
be conducted on National Wildlife Refuges in fiscal year 2002.
RIVERS AND TRAILS CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The National Park Service's Rivers and Trails Conservation
Assistance Program yields enormous conservation benefits nationwide by
building partnerships between federal and local interests to revitalize
communities and improve quality of life. Assistance from RTCA
professionals is only given at the express request of a local
community. RTCA not only builds local-federal partnerships, it also
attracts substantial local funding. In one typical region, RTCA
assistance in some 50 projects in the year 2000 attracted a total of
$9.1 million dollars from other public and private sources. That means
for every dollar spent on RTCA, $7 dollars were invested in projects
from other sources, making this program a great value for the American
taxpayer. We urge the Subcommittee to support an appropriation of $12
million for RTCA to fill the growing number of community requests for
assistance.
In 2000, RTCA's field based program participated in over 200
projects around the country, helping to develop more than 2,200 miles
of trails, protect over 1,000 river miles and to preserve more than
270,000 acres of open space. However, America's cities and towns face
difficult conservation challenges daily and more and more local
communities are requesting technical assistance from the Park Service.
As the Federal government seeks to enable communities to take their
future into their own hands, it must enlarge those Federal programs
that coach communities in much needed technical and institutional
skills. By continuing to increase the base funding for Rivers and
Trails to $12 million, the Subcommittee will ensure that RTCA serves
every community that wishes to manage their recreational and natural
resources.
IRRIGATION MITIGATION AND RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP
We urge you to appropriate $25 million for the Irrigation
Mitigation and Restoration Partnership Program through the Department
of Interior. Under this program, farmers and irrigation districts can
obtain federal financial assistance to install fish screens and fish
passage devices at irrigation diversions. This program is an important
aspect of federal plans to recover salmon, steelhead, and other
endangered fish throughout the Pacific Northwest. As you know, such
recovery measures are necessary to ensure continued operations of the
Federal Columbia River Power System without more stringent Endangered
Species Act constraints.
HYDROPOWER LICENSING UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT
We further urge the Subcommittee to appropriate adequate resources
for the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to
address the increasing number of hydropower dams seeking renewal of
their operating licenses from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
These agencies have core responsibilities under the Federal Power Act
to make recommendations and set license conditions that will ensure
conservation of natural resources upon issuance of hydropower licenses.
With a large number of projects moving into beginning the relicensing
cycle over the next few years and new commitments by the agencies to
streamline their participation, but also provide new public review of
agency conditions, these agencies have been stretched past the breaking
point. Doubling their limited appropriations would help ensure a more
efficient licensing process, benefiting the hydropower industry and
furthering efforts to protect and restore environmental, recreational,
and cultural resources.
SALT RIVER LAND ACQUISITION--MARK TWAIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
We strongly urge the Subcommittee to provide $4.5 million from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire a major parcel, totaling
1,848 acres, for addition to the Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge.
The Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge spans 343 river miles of
Mississippi River bottoms between Muscatine, Iowa, and Gorham,
Illinois. The refuge was established in 1958 to provide food, water,
and protection for migrating and wintering waterfowl and other
migratory birds.
The proposed acquisition--the Pike Grain tract--is located along
the Salt River, approximately 1.5 miles above its confluence with the
Mississippi River in Pike County, Missouri near the town of Louisiana.
Located within the historic floodplain of the Mississippi River, it is
the largest of several parcels identified as a proposed Salt River
Division of the Annada District of the Mark Twain NWR.
In response to the record flood of 1993, conservation agencies
(including the USFWS) have emphasized acquisition and restoration of
floodplain habitat. The willingness of the Pike Grain tract landowner
to sell these 1,848 acres to the USFWS provides a critical opportunity
to restore a large tract of floodplain land that would significantly
increase habitat diversity, improve water quality and restore
floodplain hydrologic function. The acquisition area lies in the heart
of the Mississippi Flyway along the Mississippi River, one of the most
important migration corridors on the continent. Additionally, the reach
of Mississippi River between Rock Island, Illinois and the confluence
of the Ohio River is the most impacted and degraded portion of the
Upper Mississippi River. Acquisition of the Salt River parcels has been
identified as a top priority for acquisition by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in Region 3 for fiscal year 2002. The Mark Twain
Refuge ranked third in the nation on this year's Land Acquisition
Priorities System (LAPS) list.
The Salt River (Pike Grain) tract would provide resource managers
with a unique opportunity to reconnect the Mississippi to its
floodplain With a restored connection between the Mississippi River and
its historic floodplain, resource managers will restore floodplain land
currently used for agriculture to healthy and functional fish and
wildlife habitats, including 350-450 acres of moist-soil and emergent
managed wetlands, 2100 acres of bottomland forest, including pin oak,
swamp white oak, sycamore, maple and cottonwood trees, and 400-500
acres of grassland/wet prairie. These areas will offer habitat for
several bird species of concern, including the American Bittern, Least
Bittern, Bald Eagle, American Woodcock, Black tern, Sedge Wren, and
several waterfowl species, potentially assisting the 40 percent of
North American migratory birds that utilize the Mississippi River
Flyway.
Taking floodplain lands out of agricultural production will have
significant benefits to water quality in the Salt River as well as
downstream to the Mississippi. Restored wetland vegetation would be a
more effective filter of sediments from floodwaters, contributing to a
reduction of sediment buildup in the Mississippi River main channel,
side channels and backwaters downstream. Wetland vegetation more
effectively and naturally recycles nutrients, reducing nutrient inputs
to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Wetland complexes also
provide natural storage of floodwaters, reducing the impacts of
flooding downstream.
Protection of the Pike Grain tract would be a first major step in
the development of a new division of the Mark Twain NWR. If successful,
it would set the stage for further protection of critical floodplain
lands in the proposed Salt River division. This project lies
immediately adjacent to the Missouri Department of Conservation's 6600-
acre Ted Shanks Conservation Area. Protection of this tract would
enhance public access to natural areas and raise the profile of
important restoration activities in the Mississippi River floodplain.
Its location adjacent to State Highway 79, which is the Missouri
portion of the Great River Road, indicates that pull-off of kiosks and
interpretive panels would receive heavy use.
Funding must be obtained in fiscal year 2002 to purchase the Pike
Grain tract. This parcel represents 56 percent of the proposed Salt
River division, for which approval by the Land Protection Review
Committee is anticipated prior to fiscal year 2002. The Pike Grain
landowner has been patiently waiting for acquisition funding to be
approved so that USFWS may purchase the land, but continues to receive
pressure from other interests to sell the property. Unnecessary delay
in making USFWS acquisition funds available may turn a potential
windfall into an opportunity lost. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to
provide $4.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to
acquire a major parcel, totaling 1,848 acres, for addition to the Mark
Twain National Wildlife Refuge.
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian
Tribes of Alaska
On behalf of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes
of Alaska (Central Council) I am pleased to submit this testimony on
the fiscal year 2002 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 Central Council is a federally recognized tribal government
representing over 23,000 Tlingit and Haida members worldwide. The
Central Council is a sovereign entity and has a government-to-
government relationship with the United States. Its headquarters is
located in Juneau, Alaska, but the Central Council's commitment to
serving the Tlingit and Haida people extends throughout the United
States.
Traditional Tlingit and Haida law has existed since time
immemorial. The people of each of these distinct nations have always
governed themselves in a sophisticated matriarchal cast system that
contributed greatly to the preservation of the Tlingit and Haida
culture. Although contact with other societies and the adoption of
contemporary, ``non-Indian'' governing instruments have changed the way
Tlingit and Haida people interact with one another, traditional
aboriginal law has seen little change.
The Tlingit and Haida people follow the ancient laws of our people
that are the foundation of our tribal sovereignty. Since time
immemorial, our inherent sovereignty pervades our traditional villages
and communities enhanced by our spiritual relationship to all the land
and waters of Southeast Alaska. Our traditional ceremonies validate our
identify and culture. We have specific protocols, including potlatches,
in celebrating a birth, a marriage, giving a name, sharing of wealth,
raising totems, commemorating special events and honoring a leader or
the departed.
In addition, the Central Council has enacted an Administrative Code
[Title 06, Chapter 01] that provides authority for its tribal court and
its Council of Elders. The Code sets out a model legal system
reflecting traditional authority and laws of the Tlingit and Haida
communities. While the Central Council Tribal Court currently has three
appointed tribal court judges, the Court has remained inactive because
of the lack of funding.
Tribal courts are essential because they protect the health and
welfare of our children and heal our families. A tribe's ability to
care for its members in this way is a way for it to reclaim its
traditional laws, values, and customs. It is also a means for the Tribe
to maintain its unique identity and culture.
In order to provide a basis for tribal actions on behalf of tribal
children in the Central Council Tribal Court, the Central Council
enacted separate statutes under its Administrative Code regarding the
federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. sec. 1901 et seq.)
and its use in proceedings in the Tribal Court.
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT FUNDING, INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE ACT AND TRIBAL
COURTS
Full Funding for Indian Tribal Justice Act.--The Central Council
strongly supports full funding for the Indian Tribal Justice Act
(Public Law 103-176). This would amount to $58 million as determined as
the amount needed by tribes in 1993 to be minimally operational.
Tribal Courts under the Tribal Priority Allocations.--The Central
Council 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.
The vast majority of tribal justice systems function in isolated
rural communities. For example, in Southeast Alaska villages served by
the Central Council are faced with the lack of or inadequate State law
enforcement, the lack of an active tribal court system, great distance
from existing resources, lack of detention staff and facilities, lack
of access to advanced technology and lack of substance abuse testing
and treatment facilities.
Tribal justice systems are the primary and most appropriate
institution for the preservation of tribal families and communities. A
tribe's own tribal court is often the best tool that can be used to
protect tribal children and families and to preserve the integrity of
the Indian tribe.
The most precious resource of a tribe is its children. Tribes are
better equipped to handle child protection cases involving their tribal
children because they know and understand the family or families
involved, their strengths and weaknesses, and the family dynamics
involved. As a result, tribes are better able to create culturally
appropriate and creative case plans for families. Tribes also
understand the situations that Native families face in villages and in
urban areas and are more apt to work hard with a tribal family to come
up with solutions and resources in order to keep the tribal family
together.
Unfortunately, because the Central Council has been unable to
secure funding for its tribal court, it has never been able to accept
jurisdiction of ICWA cases from other states regarding its tribal
children. Instead, the Central Council is forced on an ongoing basis to
tell other states it is unable to take jurisdiction of these important
cases involving its children. In addition, the Central Council is
unable to initiate jurisdiction of an ICWA case because its tribal
court is not active. As a result, the Central Council is currently
intervened in approximately 400 state court ICWA proceedings in Alaska
and out-of-state regarding its tribal children. Many of these cases are
headed speedily toward parental termination proceedings, and could have
been more appropriately resolved in the Central Council's own tribal
court.
Tribal courts and tribal justice systems are the key to tribal
self-sufficiency and to the preservation of tribal customary practices,
families, and communities. The United States adopted the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) that provide a
great opportunity for tribes to repatriate tribal (and clan) art and
artifacts back from national museums to the original owners. Unclear or
missing records on the art or artifacts create conflict among
individuals and the clans as to who the legal owner of the item is. A
Tribal Court Of Elders will hear from conflicting parties and decide on
the owner based on their understanding of traditional tribal property
laws.
We welcome the opportunity to provide these written comments for
the fiscal year 2002 budget for the Interior Department's funding for
the Indian Tribal Justice Act and Tribal Courts. Thank you very much.
______
Prepared Statement of Georgia Forestwatch
Georgia Forestwatch is an environmental advocacy organization
focused on protection of public lands in north and central Georgia.
Among our highest priorities is the conservation of the remaining
pristine watersheds in these two areas. Toward this end, we work
closely with a diverse set of ally organizations, including the
Chattowah Open Land Trust, Mountain Conservation Trust, Soque River
Watershed Association, and the Upper Chattahoochee River Keeper. On
behalf of Georgia Forestwatch, I offer the following testimony in
support of funding the Forest Legacy Program of the U.S. Forest Service
at a minimum level of $100M, as well as full funding of the state and
federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As outlined
below, these programs are essential to the conservation of forestland
and other special areas in our state.
The forests of north Georgia are some of the most magnificent
forests in the entire state. They also contain some of the highest
biodiversity watersheds in the United States, and indeed the world. The
Conasauga river, for example, contains ninety two species of fish, over
forty species of mussels, and supplies water to Dalton, GA, the carpet
capitol of the world. It has been estimated that over half the world's
carpet is produced with water from the Conasauga. The Chattahoochee
River, which like the Conasauga originates on National Forest land,
provides drinking water for over four million people. These rivers and
forests not only supply drinking water but also supply recreation for a
rapidly expanding Atlanta population. Last year, the Chattahoochee
National Forest received over ten million recreational visits, a number
which rivals the twelve million received by the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, the most visited National Park in the United States.
THE NEED FOR INCREASED CONSERVATION FUNDING
While ample conservation opportunities still exist here, north
Georgia is under unprecedented development pressure due to rapid
population growth. Georgia is now the 10th most populated state in the
country with nearly 6.5 million people. The south (broadly defined from
Maryland around to Texas) grew by an impressive 17 percent during the
1990's,\1\ adding some 15M people to reach a total population of 100M.
This gain in population was greater than any other region of the
country over the past decade. At the heart of this Southern growth are
several of our southeastern states, some of which grew at phenomenal
rates: Georgia by 26 percent and North Carolina by 21 percent, for
example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Perry, Marc J. and Paul J. Mackun. ``Population Change and
Distribution: 1990 to 2000''. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census
Bureau. April 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This population growth, coupled with our sprawling land use
patterns, means that the Southeast is now experiencing a rapid
conversion of undeveloped land to urban and suburban uses. In a recent
study of land conversion nationwide, Georgia, North Carolina,
Tennessee, and South Carolina all ranked in the top ten states with
respect to the most land converted to developed uses in recent
years.\2\ Between 1989 and 1997, north Georgia lost over 90,000 acres
of forest and agricultural land to development. These figures on
population growth and rural land loss indicate that Georgia has an
urgent need for conservation dollars. If we cannot seize the current
opportunities to conserve undeveloped lands in our region in the
immediate future, that opportunity may well be lost forever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. ``Summary Report:
1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000)''. Table 2. p
21. 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conservation of these undeveloped areas has great significance
for the quality of life, economic health, and natural heritage of our
region. In north Georgia, the tourism and recreation industry ranks
with the very top tier of industrial sectors in economic importance.
The viability of this part of our economy is largely dependent on the
maintenance of scenic beauty and open space, as well as wildlife and
aquatic habitat for hunting and fishing. For example, in 1995 the
Chattahoochee National Forest in north Georgia indirectly provided
employment for 5,500 people and income of $119 million for local
communities, and federal income taxes of $18 million. Hunting alone
generated over $41 million dollars in revenue from our national forest
land.
Investing in land conservation in this region is also extremely
important to the ecological diversity of our nation. The Southeast is
one of the two regions with the highest ecological community diversity
in the United States. Within the Southeast, the Atlantic and Gulf
coastal plains and the Appalachian highlands are the hotspots of
ecological diversity. These are also two of the areas most threatened
by current trends. For example, the recently completed North Carolina
Chip Mill Study \3\ found that 80 percent of bird species of
conservation concern, 95 percent of reptile species of conservation
concern and all amphibians of conservation concern on the North
Carolina coastal plain are projected to be negatively impacted by
forest trends over the next 20 years. Protection of our region's
natural forest ecosystems such as longleaf pine, forested wetlands and
mature hardwoods is crucial to maintaining the outstanding ecological
diversity in the Southeast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Cubbage, F., D. Richter, R. Schaberg and P.B. Aruna. Economic
and Ecologica Impacts Associated with Wood Chip Production in North
Carolina. Southern Center for Sustainable Forests. 31 July 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
protect special places through the land and water conservation fund
Critical to conservation efforts in north Georgia is the full
funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. After an unfortunate
hiatus in needed support, last year's federal appropriation began to
revitalize this popular program. It should be fully funded in this and
coming years in order to take full advantage of important land
conservation opportunities in the Southeast and across the country. A
variety of projects have been identified in our north Georgia region
and these projects enjoy support from diverse constituencies, ranging
from urban recreation users to backcountry hunters and fishers.
While LWCF enables the states and multiple federal agencies to
complete many different kinds of projects, several proposed additions
to our public lands in Georgia are especially noteworthy. While Georgia
is home to two of our National Forests in the East, these lands tend to
be highly fragmented and are under intense pressure from urban sprawl.
For example, the Chattahoochee National Forest in north Georgia is one
of only two national forests in the east officially designated by the
Forest Service as an ``Urban'' National Forest. This designation was
derived from the fact that the Chattahoochee NF is within an hours
drive for over four million people. Accordingly, their recreational,
scenic and ecological values can be significantly enhanced by
acquisition of nearby parcels from willing sellers. A few of the
projects in need of immediate LWCF funding in our state, all of which
have been rated as priorities by the Forest Service, are provided here:
--Chattahoochee River (GA)--$2.7M.--This 160 mile long buffer along
the river would protect forests and provide open space to
communities.
--Chattooga Wild & Scenic River/Watershed (GA/NC/TN)--$4.3M.--This
river corridor traversing three states has been a long-term
national priority for watershed-based conservation efforts.
Plus, an additional $1.3 M for the following tracts:
--The Jacks River (GA).--These tracts are on the main tributary of
the Conasauga River, the most biologically diverse river in the
U.S., and home to 92 species of fish--species which rely on
unfragmented ownership to decrease ever-threatening non-point
source pollution.
--Mt. Yonah (GA).--One of Atlanta's favorite mountain playgrounds,
the purchase of this tract will expand the areas recreational
capacity and reduce impact to rare and fragile botanical areas.
--Etowah River (GA).--This tract will increase the buffer on one of
Georgia's most imperiled rivers and will enhance safety for
it's many beautiful fishes including the endangered Etowah
darter. It is currently threatened by urban sprawl and second
home development.
Finally, we are also asking for $500,000 so that the Forest Service
might begin acquisitions on the Ocmulgee River in the Oconee National
Forest. The Forest Service has informed me that they did request
through their agency funding for acquisitions on the Oconee. It did not
make the President's budget, but we feel it is imperative to begin an
acquisitions process for the Oconee that is in the Piedmont portion of
Georgia. These are some of the most heavily impacted rivers and
bottomlands in Georgia and public ownership is critical if we are to
protect them.
protect forest land through the forest legacy program
Georgia Forestwatch supports full funding of the Forest Legacy
program in Georgia. The majority of Georgia's forest lands are in
private ownership, but these landowners are under intense pressure to
convert their forest land to other uses. Private landowners currently
own approximately 70 percent of Georgia's forest land and trends
indicate that by the year 2010 over 95 percent of Georgia's forest land
could be in parcels smaller than 100 acres. The main reason for this is
that estate settlements are creating smaller parcels for heirs. It is
also becoming harder for minority and poor landowners to hold on to
their land, and many landowners over the age of 50 are selling their
land to support retirement and/or pay taxes. Large industrial
landowners are also selling off land as it becomes more valuable for
development.
Georgia's draft Assessment of Need (AON) for Forest Legacy funding
resulted in the identification of six areas in Georgia that could
possibly benefit. These areas contain Georgia's most significant
watersheds and unbroken forested lands. The full funding of Forest
Legacy could result in as much as $500,000 this first year to purchase
Conservation Easements from willing sellers.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, Georgia Forestwatch strongly supports
both full funding for LWCF and greatly increased appropriations for the
Forest Legacy Program. We appreciate this opportunity to acquaint you
with the significant conservation opportunities that exist in our state
at present, as well as the urgent need for federal support to move
forward with protection of forestland and other special areas in the
Southeast.
______
Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Mr. Chairman, my name is Herman Dillon, Sr., Puyallup Tribal
Chairman. We thank the Committee for past support of many tribal issues
and in your interest today. We share our concerns and request
assistance in reaching objectives of significance to the Congress, the
Tribe, and to 32,000+ Indians (constituents) in our Urban Service Area.
tribal administration building & nurses quarters--asbestos abatement &
removal appropriations
Context.--The Puyallup Tribe's five story brick ``administrative
building'', is a former U.S. Public Health Service Indian Hospital,
commonly known as Cushman Hospital. It is also known as the Tacoma
Indian Hospital and Cascadia Diagnostic Center. The building
temporarily houses our government services, many social services and
Tribal Court that host clients, including children. However, since the
Nisqually Earthquake (6.8 magnitude) of February 28, 2001 all
governmental services and staff have been vacated from the building and
located in temporary makeshift offices. This same building was
``condemned'' in 1988 by the U.S. Department of Interior--Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) as functionally and structurally dangerous and
subject to collapse from earthquake tremors and high winds that can
topple the parapet and perimeter walls. The nearby three story Nurses
Quarters has been unoccupied for many years due to asbestos, and lead
contamination and disrepair. Both buildings are surrounded by cyclone
fencing to protect the public from falling debris. These buildings are
connected by an underground system of steam heat and utility corridors
(utilidoors) that are contaminated and deteriorated to the point of
collapse.
Bureau stewardship.--The Bureau of Indian Affairs accepted
``custody and accountability'' of these facilities and accepted title
in Trust for the Tribe on April 22, 1980 from GSA Region X. The
Department of Interior, Office of Construction Management (OCM)
retained Chen-Northern, Inc., and Cooper Consultants, Inc., to identify
the cost of asbestos removal and replacement and structural repairs to
upgrade the Administrative Building for life safety. Based on the
consultant reports, BIA concluded that the buildings were hazardous and
that it would be more costly to renovate the buildings to an acceptable
level of safety standards, than to demolish the structures. The same
situation holds today for the Administration Building.
Proposed congressional funding.--The Puyallup Tribe and the Bureau
of Indian Affairs jointly funded a $51,300 study by AustinCina
Architects entitled ``Feasibility Study for Remodel or Demolition of
Administration Building, Nurses Quarters and Tunnels'' which was
completed in 1999. The study demonstrates that demolition of the
Cushman Complex confirms a Cost: Benefit Ratio (CBR) of 1:7 over
remodeling ($2.8M:$16.6M). It is important to note that the remodeling
costs will exceed $16.6M if interior reconfiguring costs are needed.
Another study is currently underway to refine and confirm the cost of
demolition. This study is being undertaken by a firm contracted with
the Tribe and will determine demolition costs based on 2002 dollars.
The Puyallup Tribe and BIA are undertaking compliance activities to
determine what to do about this issue. Although preliminary evaluation
by the Tribe and BIA would lead one to conclude that demolition is the
most cost effective option, Federal compliance activities are
necessary. The BIA and Tribe have put together a funding resource of
over $250,000 to conduct National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 compliance
efforts. The Puyallup Tribe will be co-Lead Agency for the NEPA
compliance and the BIA will be Lead Agency for NHPA Section 106
compliance. The Puyallup tribe has created a Tribal Historic
Preservation Office and initiated coordination with the Washington
State Historic Preservation Office and the Tacoma Historical Society. A
public meeting will be held in the near future with the entire Tribal
community to receive questions and comments. A contractor will then be
selected to perform the Section 106 compliance. NEPA compliance will
also be commencing this quarter with a public meeting of the Tribal
community and scoping meetings with affected Federal, state and local
agencies. A contractor will be hired to prepare the environmental
assessment. It is anticipated that the NHPA Section 106 compliance will
be a longer process than the NEPA compliance effort but that both
should be concluded by the end of fiscal year 2001.
--The Puyallup Tribe requests a congressional appropriation of
$2,800,000 for the removal of the asbestos contamination and
demolition of the facilities through line item funding to the
U.S. Department of Interior--Bureau of Indian Affairs budget
for fiscal year 2002.
community health, and safety
While Indians continue to lag behind in a number of health status
measurements, real progress is being achieved. As Congress implements
measures to control spending in this era of historic federal surplus,
it should not cut programs which are models the federal government can
accomplish. Since 1976, the Puyallup Tribe has been exercising its
control over their health care programs through Public Law 93-638,
Indian Self Determination Act, to ensure that federal funds get to the
community level by providing the necessary health care in the face of
increasing medical costs. The Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA)
is a model of what the federal government should fund and support for a
successful program.
The fiscal year 2002 IHS budget increase of $107,700,000 over the
fiscal year 2001 level for a total of $3.3 billion for overall IHS
services and construction is an indication of the continued need for
increased IHS funding. Unfortunately, despite the recommended increase,
the fiscal year 2002 budget still falls short of preserving the
existing IHS programs. The Puyallup Tribe is focused on preserving the
basic health care program funded by the IHS budget. Preserving the
purchasing power of the base program should be IHS' first priority. How
can the tremendous unmet needs ever be addressed if the existing
program is not maintained. Therefore, we urge Congress to:
--Continue to fund medical and general inflation costs.--These are
legitimate increases that, if not funded, result in the loss of
purchasing power at the expense of patient care.
--Fund the increased expenses due to population growth.--The more
patients that are enrolled at the Takopid Health Center, the
more diluted the services become for all eligible recipients.
--President's request of $446,000,000 in contract care.--Contract
care is most vulnerable to inflation and population growth. The
average number of new registered patients at PTHA is
approximately 75 per month. CHS increases should be based on
population growth alone. At a minimum, CHS should receive
medical inflation adjustments equal to the Medicaid program
estimated at 7.4 percent.
law enforcement
Our 18,061+ acre Reservation is located in the urbanized Seattle-
Tacoma area of Washington State and contains 83,000+ residents. This
urban area contains 10,000+ Native Americans from over 200 Tribes and
Alaskan Villages. The Reservation overlies a portion of the City of
Tacoma which has experienced increases in criminal acts since 1990: 45
percent increase in Violent Crime, 64 percent in Thefts, 19 percent in
Burglary, 29 percent in Rape, 46 percent in Assaults & 126 percent in
Drug Related Crimes (PSCOG). Gangs are a threat to law enforcement
integrity. Current staffing levels do not provide the minimum level of
community Law Enforcement services. The Tribe has formalized Mutual Aid
Intergovernmental Agreements including cross-deputization. Local
governments stress a need for Tribal Enforcement emphasis on community
patrols. We seek support and endorsement in:
--We currently receive contract funding from BIA to conduct law
enforcement services. The amount has not increased to assist in
our need for expanded gang related services. A Base Budget Add-
On of $200,000 for additional Officers & related equipment and
patrol vehicles are needed to insure the public safety of the
Puyallup Tribe and its community.
--The Law Enforcement Headquarters, which houses the Police
Department, also serves as a minimum-security jail facility.
The Puyallup Tribe has the only ``Tribal Jail'' facility in
Western-Washington and currently contracts with more than Eight
(8) other Western-Washington tribes to house tribal offenders
in our facility. The facility sustained substantial structural
damage in the February 28th earthquake and is in need of
replacement or major repairs/expansion in order to meet the
increased demand for retention services. We request Committee
support of the proposed $5,000,000.00 increase for basic
detention services.
fisheries & natural resources management
The Puyallup Tribe, as steward for land and marine waters in the
Usual and Accustomed fish and shellfish areas, has treaty and
Governmental obligations and responsibilities to manage natural
resources for uses beneficial to the regional community. Despite our
diligent program efforts, the fisheries resource is degrading and
economic losses are incurred by Indian and Non-Indian fisherman, and
surrounding communities. Our Resource Management responsibilities cover
thousands of square miles in the Puget Sound region of the State of
Washington with an obligation to manage production of anadromous, non-
anadromous fish and shellfish resources. Existing levels of support are
inadequate to reverse the trend of resource/habitat degradation.
Resource management is constrained due to funding shortfalls. We seek
support and endorsement in the following areas:
--Bureau of Indian Affairs Public Law 93-638 Contract.--Tribal
Fisheries Resource Management, Hatchery Operation and
Maintenance funding via Public Law 93-638 contracts have not
increased substantially since establishment of base budgets in
1984. The demand on Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Program has grown
exponential since the eighties and is currently faced by
Endangered Species Act listings on Bull Trout and Chinook
Salmon which is in a highly urbanized setting more so than any
other Pacific Northwest Tribe. We request Committee support to
increase base contract funding in the amount of $150,000.00 for
additional fisheries staff.
--Endangered Species Act.--Full ESA recovery is a goal for the
Puyallup Tribe. However, lack of contract funds makes it
impossible to efficiently operate ESA programs. Funds need to
be continued in order to implement fisheries restoration,
monitoring and evaluation of programs in Commencement Bay,
Puyallup River System and numerous streams in the Puyallup U &
A. We request Committee support for base funding level of
$1,029,000 to the Endangered Species Act fiscal year 2002
budget.
--Western Washington Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program.--The TFW Program
has allowed for the expansion of tribal participation in the
state forest practice rules and regulations that have an effect
on listed salmon populations. In fiscal year 2000 Congress
added to the TFW base funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
However, this base funding increase is being proposed to be
discontinued in the fiscal year 2002 budget. Continued funding
in this area is essential to facilitate tribal participation in
monitoring, research, data analysis and adaptive management
processes, which the cornerstone to the TFW process. We request
Committee support for base funding level of $3,041,000 to the
TFW fiscal year 2002 budget.
tribal priority allocation & contract support costs
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget calls for $2.2 billion to
be allocated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is an increase of
$65,900,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This request
includes $750,500,000 for Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), a
$17,500,000 increase over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. Although
the increases are a positive commitment by the Administration, they
still fall short of providing adequate funding for critically needed
tribal programs supported by TPA funding. TPA budget activity includes
the majority of funding used to support ongoing services at the local
tribal level, including; law enforcement, natural resource management
(fisheries), child welfare, housing, tribal courts and other tribal
governmental services. TPA has not received adequate funding to allow
tribes the resources to fully exercise self-determination and self-
governance. Further, the small increases TPA has received over the past
few years has not been adequate to keep pace with inflation. At a
minimum, we request your support and endorsement in the following;
--Support by Congress of the President's fiscal year 2002 request for
TPA increase of $17,500,000, for a total request of
$750,500,000 for fiscal year 2002 TPA funding.
Another concern the Puyallup Tribe has with the fiscal year 2002
budget request is the ongoing issue of contract support costs. The
President's fiscal year 2002 budget request includes an increase of
$11,000,000 to address the Bureau of Indian Affairs continuing contract
support costs shortfall and $3,000,000 for the Indian Self-
Determination Fund to address the needs of tribes taking on new Bureau
of Indian Affairs programs. At a minimum, we request your support and
endorsement in the following;
--Support by Congress of the President's fiscal year 2002 request for
an increase in contract support cost funding of $130,200,000,
including $3,000,000 requested for the Indian Self-
Determination Fund for new Bureau of Indian Affairs programs
contracted by tribes. Full funding of Contract Support is a
mandate toward the full realization of Self-determination and
Self-governance.
______
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 recently signed U.S./Canada Yukon
River Salmon Agreement and the operations of the Yukon River Panel.
YRDFA seeks a reauthorization of $100,000 in base level 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)].
introduction
Since 1985 the United States 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. No agreement was in place from 1998
until early 2001 due to disagreements over harvest shares and other
issues.
However, on March 29, 2001 after two rounds of negotiations in the
past year United States and Canadian negotiators reached consensus on a
framework Agreement for the Management of Yukon River chinook and fall
chum stocks originating in Canada. Key elements of the agreement are as
follows:
--United States border passage obligations: the United States agrees
to deliver over the border the required number of salmon to
meet the annual spawning escapement objective plus allow for a
Canadian harvest at the midpoint of their guideline range.
--Canadian management obligations: Canada agrees to manage its
fisheries to meet the annual spawning escapement objective.
--Both countries also agree to undertake efforts to reduce marine
bycatches of Yukon River salmon and maintain the productivity
of salmon spawning and rearing habitat in both countries.
--Establishes a joint Yukon River Panel to recommend annual spawning
escapement objectives, meet inseason to develop recommendations
in light of an extremely poor or strong return of salmon and
manage the Restoration & Enhancement (R&E) Fund.
--The R & E Fund will be supported by a US contribution of $1,200,000
annually and be used for: (a) programs, projects and associated
research and management activities on either side of the
Alaska-Yukon border directed at the restoration, conservation
and enhancement of Canadian origin salmon stocks; (b) programs
and projects that are directed at developing stewardship of
salmon habitat and resources and maintaining viable salmon
fisheries in the Yukon River in Canada.
In light of this Agreement there is a serious need to continue to
disseminate public information and education 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 are the most affected by the
Agreement 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 Agreement but must be able to communicate with and provide
feedback to the Panel as well as personnel of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
Unless the residents and fishermen of the Yukon River understand
the costs and benefits of the Agreement and the importance of the
Canadian-origin stocks it will be very difficult for the Agreement to
be successfully implemented. Without adequate public information and
communication management and research measures will lose their
effectiveness.
u.s./canada yukon river salmon information & education program
In the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 budgets Congress
authorized annual appropriations of $100,000 to YRDFA to assist the
agencies in educating the public about the negotiations with Canada.
Funds have been utilized for village fishermen's meetings and for
informational newsletters distributed to nearly 3,000 recipients. We
have worked closely with the USFWS in planning these newsletters and
meetings.
We again request a $100,000 appropriation for fiscal year 2002 to
make certain that the different rural salmon users are fully aware of
the elements of the Agreement and of the activities of the Panel.
Newsletters and other materials would be 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
YRDFA would also host and organize at least three village meetings.
Through maintaining this program 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 helping to implement the Yukon River
Salmon Agreement.
Budget request cost breakdown
YRDFA staff support........................................... $40,000
Fishermen's Meetings (travel & per diem)...................... 40,000
Newsletters (production & distribution)....................... 20,000
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 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 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama
Nation
I am Lonnie Selam, Sr., Chairman of the Yakama Nation. I am
submitting written testimony seeking appropriations for fiscal year
2002 to address the following natural resource needs:
(1) $2,314,359 for forest management activities associated with the
epidemic level outbreak of the Western Spruce Budworm;
(2) $675,000 for monitoring of forest practices on state and
private lands within our ceded area for their ability to maintain,
protect and restore the cultural resources of the Yakama Nation; and
(3) $200,000 for fish and wildlife activities associated with our
timber program, and fisheries management related to salmon recovery in
the Columbia River basin.
spruce budworm timber management
The Spruce Budworm is systematically killing more than 650,000
acres of Tribal, Federal, State and private lands along the Eastern
slopes of the Cascade Mountains in Washington State. More than 200,000
acres of those infected lands are within the Yakama Indian Reservation.
This request is broken down into four budworm-driven programs--Forest
Development, Small Wood Utilization, Stand Level Data Collection, and
Sale Development and Monitoring. The needs for fiscal year 2002 for
these four programs total $2,314,359.
The Yakama Reservation is located in south central Washington on
the east slope of the Cascade Mountain range. The reservation is
approximately 1.3 million acres, of which 613,200 acres are forested.
Prior to 1900, the forested landscape was dominated by open, park-like
ponderosa pine savannahs. These tribal forestry lands are managed by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Past management practices such as
fire exclusion, grazing, and early logging activity have converted the
forest into a dense, contiguous landscape dominated by Douglas-fir and
Grand fir. These two species are ideal hosts of the western spruce
budworm. Due to the forest conversion, an epidemic outbreak of the
budworm has been occurring for the past 16 years and has been largely
ignored by the BIA. More recently, the land managers have begun to
address the problem through several Bt biological control agent spray
projects jointly funded and implemented by the Yakama Nation and Bureau
of Indian Affairs. They have been conducted to lessen the impacts
caused by budworm defoliation. In addition to spraying, there has been
an increase in harvest activity, precommercial thinning, replanting of
budworm non-host species, mechanical site preparation, and prescribed
burns to assist in the suppression of the budworm epidemic.
The severity of the budworm outbreak has unleashed the potential
for both economic and natural habitat disasters. Economic loss can
range from product value loss to ecosystem loss due to catastrophic
fire, both of which directly impact the vital habitat of endangered
species. The budworm has been negatively impacting the Yakama Nation
forest since 1985. Acres defoliated have significantly increased from
1985 with 5,624 acres defoliated to 214,772 acres in 2000.
The budworm has substantially increased over many not previously
defoliated areas. It has moved north and west into many reserved
management areas. Currently, these areas are highly sensitive, and
provide many values to the Yakama people. Because of the severity of
the outbreak, many of these areas are at risk to other insect outbreaks
(bark beetles), large-scale mortality, and catastrophic fire events. As
a result of the scale, it is impossible to treat these acres in a
timely manner at the current capacity. At risk is a value of $128
million dollars to timber resources. Not only is timber resource at
risk, but other resources and values are threatened.
Activities to be Funded by Appropriations
1. Forest Development $1,500,000.--Forest development can be
defined as activities performed within the forest designed to improve
forest health while enhancing the productivity of the forest. Forest
development projects consist of silvicultural treatments designed to
establish, promote, enhance and maintain timber stand growth and health
in order to produce perpetual yields of desired forest products. Forest
development projects include precommercial thinning, planting, and site
preparation projects including mechanical site preparation and
prescribed burning. Forest development projects are critical elements
in maintaining a sustainable forest resource. The expense of these
projects can be viewed as a financial investment to ensure for a viable
commercial timber base.
Forest development activities will bring the spruce budworm
impacted lands back into the desired state. The forest development
needs on the Yakama Reservation in response to the budworm have been
identified as 134,675 acres. Treatment of these areas will occur over a
10-year time frame resulting in the treatment of 13,470 acres annually.
Current funding levels are annually approximately $1.5 million short of
the need.
Forest development projects are currently accomplished by a
combination of direct hiring of personnel and contractors, all of which
are enrolled Yakama Tribal members or descendants. The continued
funding of forest development projects would result in the direct
employment of approximately 100 tribal members.
2. Small Wood Utilization $67,979.--Thinning overstocked stands can
greatly aid in reducing susceptibility to spruce budworm as well as
reducing the risk for catastrophic fires. Small wood utilization will
address the problem common to most of the budworm areas, that of
overstocking of small diameter trees. This will require assessment of
market opportunities for this resource and the development of projects
to utilize the small diameter trees.
3. Stand Level Data Collection $474,380.--Data collection is
critical to the development of short and long term plans for the
management of the timber resource. The objective of the data collection
will be to create a stand level database to drive middle and long-term
decisions and delineate timber stands on the Yakama reservation. We
wish to collect data on 8 plots per stand on 30 percent of the area of
the managed forest (380,000 acres) over the course of 5 years.
4. Sale Development and Monitoring $272,000.--The current timber
sale staff and resource specialists are inadequate to address the
extent of the budworm infestation. In order to increase management of
the timber resource, professional staff will be needed to include
additional silviculturalists and resource specialists.
TIMBER, FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM
The Yakama Indian Nation's TFW area of responsibility includes the
forested land base along the entire east slopes of the Cascade Mountain
Range and much of the Columbia River Gorge. This area extends from the
Canadian border down to the Oregon border and includes 12 major
watersheds to the Columbia River. Within this large landscape, the
Yakama Nation's TFW Program is responsible for review, monitoring and
compliance of forest practices on State and private lands as its base
function. Forest practices are evaluated for their ability to maintain,
protect and restore the cultural resources of the Yakama Nation
including fish, water quality, wildlife, food and medicine plants, and
other cultural and archaeological areas. This base programmatic
function requires a minimum of $375,000 to continue at the current
level of involvement. Along with the continuing year-to-year function,
special projects have been undertaken by the Program to provide the
Yakama Nation with improved management tools for assessment of forest
practices. During the upcoming fiscal year, these projects will require
additional funding of $300,000. These projects include:
--Fisheries baseline data collection for habitat and water quality
conditions will be continued and expanded for spawning gravel
conditions, habitat assessment, forest stand conditions, stream
temperatures and factors affecting them, and fish distribution
(began in 1985 to present). Development, evaluation and
improvement of models to predict these conditions.
--Watershed Analysis participation and involvement (1992 to present,
and consistent with Washington State Forest Practices Act).
Improvement of Watershed Analysis for aquatic resources and
development of new modules for other cultural resources
(wildlife, archaeology, others).
--Evaluation of the Forests and Fish Report (2000 to present) to
protect and maintain water quality, fish, wildlife and other
cultural resources important to the Yakama Nation.
Participation on TFW Committees involved with this process.
--Cultural and Archaeological site data recording and modeling (1992
to present, and consistent with implementation of the
Washington State Forest Practices Act). Further development and
evaluation of predictive models to improve early identification
of archaeological and other cultural sites.
--Wildlife Habitat Assessment continued development (1993 to present,
and consistent with improving the Landscape Approach designated
by the State Legislature).
In summary, the base program for the Yakama Nation will require a
minimum of $375,000 to continue at its current level of involvement.
Special projects will require an additional $300,000 for this coming
fiscal year. Total funding needs for the TFW Program are $675,000 for
fiscal year 2002.
FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM
The Yakama Nation is requesting an additional $200,000 for fiscal
year 2002 for: (1) implementation of actions to outplant salmon into
rivers in the mid-Columbia, and; (2) the collection of fisheries and
wildlife data essential for ongoing logging activities on the Yakama
Reservation. We request that the $200,000 be added to our base of
$575,000 and be placed in the ``other recurring programs wildlife and
parks'' portion of the BIA fiscal year 2002 budget.
Fish and Wildlife resources continue to be a vital necessity in the
maintenance of the cultural and traditional values of the Yakama
People. However, these resources are diminishing at an alarming rate.
The salmon runs, which once numbered 12-15 million per year now total
less than 1 million fish. This critical juncture in the protection of
these fishery resources has forced the Yakama Nation into a very pro-
active role with our other co-managers: the State of Washington, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service. The Yakama Nation's involvement with these entities
includes the management of over 1,500 miles of river habitat throughout
eastern Washington and the Yakama Reservation. (1.3 million acres).
The Yakama Nation's role as a co-manager has increased
substantially as federal and state agencies have focused on ESA listed
salmon and steelhead stocks. The recent Biological Opinion (BO) on
hydro operations has reaffirmed the need for clean productive habitat
in our rivers. In addition, the BO supports the use of hatcheries for
outplanting salmon and steelhead stocks into the natural habitat.
Both of these actions, protecting fisheries habitat and developing
strategies to outplant hatchery stocks, require the development of
subbasin plans in the ten tributaries to the Columbia which we have co-
management responsibilities. The Yakama Nation will play a major role
in the writing of subbasin plans as well as their implementation. We
have collected salmonid life history information in each of the ten
subbasins and have worked closely with local land managers to protect
key fish habitat. Subbasin planning will build on the knowledge we
currently possess of these watersheds and will take several years to
complete under guidance and funding of the Northwest Power Planning
Council. Plans will include development of goals and objectives that
direct future fisheries restoration programs including habitat
protecting actions and hatchery outplanting projects.
However, several actions will be needed concurrently with planning
efforts to utilize spring chinook and coho that return prior to
completion of the plans. For instance, in the year 2002, acclimation
sites need to be developed to utilize spring chinook that are in excess
of hatchery needs in the Methow River Basin. Without new funding, state
and federal hatchery managers will kill (``club'') adult spring chinook
and waste a valuable resource that could be used to rebuild adult
returns to the habitat. We are requesting an additional $100,000 of
Bureau of Indian Affairs 638 funds for this task in fiscal year 2002.
Tribal fish and wildlife personnel also conduct essential resource
activities on the Yakama Reservation. By ensuring compliance with NEPA
and ESA, tribal fish and wildlife programs play a key role in keeping
the BIA's timber sale program running. In 1999, the annual Spotted Owl
Inventory and Monitoring Grant combined with Forest Management
Deduction funds allotted to the Wildlife Program helped enable the
harvest of 225 million board feet of timber. Additional funds allowed
us to conduct some monitoring of impacts of timber harvesting on big
game populations.
However, the Forest Management Deduction funds are derived from
timber sale profits, and extremely low market prices have slashed the
Wildlife Program share to $67,000 in fiscal year 2001 (with further
cuts possible by the end of fiscal year 2001). The timber sale schedule
has accelerated to deal with ongoing spruce budworm outbreak, and at
least two biologists are needed to get these sales through the NEPA
process. The current funds are not sufficient to support one biologist,
when office and fieldwork costs are factored. Also, the purchasing
power of the big game funds has decreased substantially since
originally allocated in 1988. In order to continue reviewing and
approving timber sales and monitoring their impacts on the Yakama
Nation's treaty-protected resources, we are requesting an additional
$100,000 of BIA 638 funds for this task in fiscal year 2002.
I appreciate the opportunity to present our needs to you, Mr.
Chairman, and the Yakama Nation hopefully awaits the work of your
Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sierra Club
The Sierra Club greatly appreciates the opportunity to submit this
testimony as part of the official record regarding the Interior
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. The Sierra Club is the
country's oldest and largest grassroots environmental organization,
representing more than 600,000 members in more than 65 chapters and 450
groups across the nation. Protecting our nation's public lands and
wildlife has long been one of Sierra Club's top priorities.
We strongly urge you to reject the cuts to Interior Department
funding recommended in President Bush's budget proposal, and provide
increased funding for Interior Department programs aimed at protecting
America's valuable and threatened lands and wildlife. In addition, we
urge you to keep the bill clean of any anti-environmental riders.
FULLY FUND THE LWCF AND THE NEW LAND CONSERVATION FUND
The Land and Water Conservation Fund.--Last year, support for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund reached unprecedented levels, as
evidenced by the overwhelming support in Congress for CARA, a bill to
provide full and permanent funding for LWCF and other crucial
conservation programs. Obtaining full funding for the LWCF is a top
priority for the Sierra Club, and we urge the Committee to provide $900
million for the LWCF in fiscal year 2002.
Moreover, it is crucial that an appropriation for the LWCF maintain
the $450 million made available in fiscal year 2001 for the federal
portion of that program. Despite severe shortfalls in LWCF funding over
the years, federal land management agencies have made great strides in
protecting our natural treasures through the use of LWCF money. But
significantly more funding is needed to meet increasing federal land
acquisition needs.
Despite a campaign pledge by President Bush to fully fund the LWCF,
the Administration's budget request calls for only $390 million for
traditional federal LWCF activities--$60 million below last year's
enacted level, and significantly less than is needed to meet the
federal land acquisition backlog. Under the President's request, the
rest of the $900 million would go to the states for an array of uses,
with little federal oversight as to how the money will be spent. In
addition, to make up the total for an ``increase'' in state-side LWCF,
the Administration would divert funding from a number of other popular
programs included in the new conservation funding budget category
created in last year's Interior Appropriations bill.
We urge you to provide $900 million for the LWCF, including $450
million for traditional federal agency activities. In addition, please
see the attached list of specific federal LWCF projects for which the
Sierra Club supports funding.
The Conservation Budget Category.--Last year, a bipartisan
agreement to provide $12 billion in dedicated funding over six years
for a host of land and wildlife protection programs was represented in
the Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. The
Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget request would fail to deliver
on this historic agreement, shortchanging the new ``Land Conservation,
Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement Program'' (LCPIIP) for this
year by $250 million. In addition, the President's proposal would steal
funding from popular--but historically underfunded--programs that
provide money to states for wildlife habitat protection, endangered
species protection, and wetlands restoration, and instead gives states
``flexibility'' to use state LWCF money for these uses only if they so
choose.
We urge the Committee to fully fund the Land Conservation,
Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement Fund, and to maintain at
least the baseline funding for each of the programs within the Fund as
established in last year's budget deal.
PROTECTING OUR PUBLIC LANDS
Overall, the Interior Department budget request would dramatically
increase funding for energy and mineral development on our public lands
and in the federal outer continental shelf, as well as for other
resource extraction activities, while slashing funding for important
conservation programs.
Bureau of Land Management.--While the Interior Department budget
request for the BLM includes a $7 million increase over the fiscal year
2001 level for land use planning, we are concerned about the
Administration's emphasis on land use plans related to energy and
mineral development. Moreover, the Administration's request would
increase the budget for energy and minerals exploration by $15 million,
while making a corresponding cut to programs needed to protect
threatened and sensitive public lands.
In addition, the Administration's budget request would provide $5
million for ``planning and associated environmental studies'' in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in order to meet a lease sale goal of
2004. This despite the fact that both the House and Senate rejected
Administration recommendations for assuming revenues from drilling in
the Arctic Refuge. Approval from Congress is needed before any oil or
gas development can go forward. Given the opposition in Congress to
drilling in the Refuge, dedicating money to this purpose, when it could
otherwise be used to protect America's valuable wildlands, is
impractical and irresponsible.
We urge the Committee to reduce funding for energy and minerals
development, including rejecting the $5 million requested by the
Administration for energy exploration in the Arctic Refuge, and provide
adequate funding to programs within the Bureau of Land Management to
protect land and wildlife.
Forest Service.--Forest Service managed lands 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. Funding for the management of the National Forests
in the Administration's budget proposal requests $261 million for the
commodity and salvage timber programs. These programs consistently
result in money losing timber sales that damage valuable forest
resources such as clean water, recreation and fish and wildlife
habitat. Sierra Club urges the Committee to instead invest this funding
into a comprehensive forest restoration program intended to
decommission eroding and unneeded logging roads, restore fisheries and
wildlife habitat and provide restoration jobs and economic benefits for
communities.
Forest roads can have serious adverse impacts on watersheds,
especially if poorly maintained. Few marks on the land are more lasting
than roads. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was developed after the
completion of a three-year process which included substantial
scientific study and the largest public comment process in the history
of the federal government. The Forest Service conducted 600 public
hearings around the nation and collected over 1.6 million comments. Of
these comments, approximately 95 percent were in favor of complete and
permanent protection for the last remaining roadless areas on the
National Forests. Sierra Club urges the Committee to recognize the
overwhelming public interest and support for protection of roadless
areas and to avoid funding any new permanent or temporary road
construction in roadless areas. Further, the Committee should ensure
implementation of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the Road
Management Rule by providing all necessary funds required for these
programs.
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program.--We urge you to oppose the
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, which allows land management
agencies to charge new fees for access to our public lands. It does not
make economic or environmental sense to charge fees for low-impact
recreational activities while subsidizing extractive industries like
mining and logging. The American people already own these lands, and
should have free and open access to them. We ask for your assistance in
ending this socially and environmentally unsound program.
ENDANGERED SPECIES FUNDING
The Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species program has been
chronically and significantly underfunded. As a result, the FWS
currently has no funding to list threatened and endangered species
except for those under court order. Now, the more than 300 species that
are candidates or proposed for protection under the ESA face the
continued threat of extinction.
Despite the fact that Interior Secretary Gale Norton pledged in
nomination hearings to enforce the ESA, the Administration's budget
request for the FWS would severely cut ESA programs, in the FWS, and
other federal land management agencies. The overall level for
endangered species work in the Interior Department would represent a 25
percent reduction from fiscal year 2001. The nearly $6 million cut in
the FWS recovery program means that even species that are listed could
face increasing threats, if not extinction. While the $2 million
increase in the FWS listing program is welcome, it is not nearly enough
to address the substantial backlog.
We strongly urge the committee to significantly increase funding
for the FWS endangered species program, and to reject cuts recommended
in the Administration's budget proposal.
In addition, we strongly oppose the recommendation in the Interior
Department's budget request to essentially eliminate the effectiveness
of citizen suits under the ESA, and to give the Secretary of Interior
absolute discretion over whether and when a species is listed. Citizen
petitions to list endangered species have been a critical tool in
adding species to the endangered species list and placing them on the
road to recovery. Courts have ordered the Interior Department to
protect a number of endangered animals and their habitat, including the
jaguar, the coho salmon in the Pacific Northwest, and the California
red-legged frog, which gained fame in Mark Twain's ``The Celebrated
Jumping Frog of Calaveras County.'' The recommended rider to the
Interior Appropriations bill could gut the ESA, and is completely
inconsistent with Secretary Norton's promise to enforce the ESA.
SIERRA CLUB FISCAL YEAR 2002 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PRIORITY
PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need for 2002 Admin. request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Park Service:
Big Thicket National Preserve (TX).. $20,000,000 ..............
Kahuku Ranch--Hawaii Volcanoes 40,000,000 $4,000,000
National Park (HI).................
Bureau of Land Management:
Lewis and Clark National Historic 2,100,000 1,000,000
Trail (ID).........................
Lower Salmon River Area of Critical 3,000,000 2,000,000
Environmental Concern (ID).........
South Fork Eel River (CA)........... 1,500,000 ..............
Fish and Wildlife Service:
Grand Kankakee Marsh National 30,000,000 ..............
Wildlife Refuge (IN/IL)............
James Campbell National Wildife 40,000,000 ..............
Refuge (HI)........................
Little Darby River--National 5,000,000 ..............
Wildlife Refuge proposed (OH)......
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. 75,000,000 ..............
Ozark Plateau National Wildlife 520,000 ..............
Refuge (OK)........................
San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge 2,000,000 1,000,000
(Columbia Bottomlands) (TX)........
Trinity River National Wildlife 2,000,000 ..............
Refuge (TX)........................
Forest Service:
Admiralty Island/Favorite Bay-- 925,000 925,000
Tongass National Forest (AK).......
Sequoia National Monument (CA)...... 5,000,000 ..............
Carbon River--Mt Baker-Snoqualmie 5,000,000 ..............
and Wenatchee National Forests (WA)
Coleman Rim--Fremont National Forest 750,000 ..............
(OR)...............................
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic 6,120,000 6,000,000
Area (OR/WA).......................
Condrey Mountain--Rogue River 3,000,000 ..............
National Forest (OR/CA)............
I-90 Option Lands (WA).............. 16,760,000 2,000,000
Klamath National Forest (CA)........ 6,000,000 ..............
North Fork American Wild River (CA). 1,700,000 1,700,000
Pinhook Swamp--Osceola National 4,500,000 4,500,000
Forest (FL)........................
Sam Houston National Forest (TX).... 2,300,000 ..............
Sawmill Creek--Mt Baker-Snoqualmie 4,000,000 ..............
and Wenatchee National Forests (WA)
Sawtooth National Recreation Area 5,000,000 5,000,000
(ID)...............................
Squirrel Meadows--Targhee National 3,600,000 ..............
Forest.............................
Tieton River--Mt Baker-Snoqualmie 7,000,000 ..............
and Wenatchee National Forests (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
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 2002 BIA, IHS, and Natural Resources appropriations.
Tribal Specific 2002 Appropriation Priorities:
1. +$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 by
contractors for the City of Blaine at a known traditional tribal
cemetery site,--entitled--Si'ke;
2. +$750,000 Water & Sewer Infrastructure Planning.--Provide the
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program with funds to support
planning for a tribal water and sewage system infrastructure
development project;
3. +$1,300,000 Water Negotiations.--Provide the Tribal Government
Services and Water Resources Account with funds to support ongoing
water rights negotiations $300,000 for attorney fees, $400,000 for on-
Reservation technical studies, and $600,000 for Nooksack River Basin
technical studies;
4. +$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;
5. +$740,000 Support Realty.--Provide the Lummi Nation with funding
to ensure that the major elements such as land consolidation, land
records management, tribal probate, and training are available to
effectively operate and manage tribal realty resources and services;
6. +$500 Lummi Youth Safe House.--Provide allocation through the
IHS Facilities Construction Program to design and construct a youth
``safe house'' for the provision of emergency ``holistic'' care,
shelter and/or wrap-around social and health services for local youth
living in the Lummi community;
Regional priorities:
7. Support all requests and recommendations of the Affiliated
Tribes of Northwest Indians, Northwest Area Indian Health Board, and
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
National & self-governance priorities:
8. Restore $256,000 and $100,000 increase to the DOI Office of
Self-Governance for the Self-Governance Communication and Education
Project and the Tribal Self-Governance Advisory Committee;
9. Fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC) at 100 percent within the
IHS and BIA to address documented Tribal needs;
10. +$5 million in the IHS Division of Clinical and Preventive
Services to support a Tribal Leaders Oral Health Initiative for Native
Americans and Alaskan Natives
11. +$325 million to IHS mandatory, inflation and population growth
increase needed to maintain existing health care to American Indians
and Alaskan Natives
12. +$25 million in BIA TPA General Increase for Inflationary
Adjustments
13. Support all requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians
TRIBAL SPECIFIC PRIORITIES
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 sewage
plant in Blaine, Washington. Under an MOA between the Departments of
Interior and Agriculture and the city of Blaine, ancestral remains 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 Sewage waste 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. The Semiahmoo
Reinterment and Recovery Plan is a multi-year project which will entail
archeological excavation and sensitive techniques to map, gather,
identify, transport, catalog and the Reinterment of ancestral remains
and cultural artifacts.
Water & Sewer Infrastructure Planning--+$750,000
The Lummi Reservation supports a population of nearly 5,200
persons, which has strained water and sewer system capacities to their
limits. Additional capacity must be obtained now to support the
existing population. The Nation is quickly approaching a critical level
of need under what was once determined to be the short-term band-aid
approach. 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 account
receive funds to support tribal planning of a 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 has been and still is
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 2002 to support: $300,000 for legal consultation costs,
$400,000 for on-reservation technical studies, and $600,000 for
technical studies in the Nooksack River Basin. The Lummi Nation
recommends that the BIA receive funds to support the increase for 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 the Northwest Washington Indian tribes and growers. The
recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the shellfish ruling supports
the need to provide both the treaty and non-treaty growers for oyster
seed, clam seed, and enhancement projects with seedlings to aid in the
production of this resource. These dollars benefit both the tribal
government and Washington State. The Lummi Nation recommends that
$350,000 be provided to support this effort through the BIA Hatchery
Operational program.
Support Realty--+$740,000
The Lummi Nation has a multi-year plan to address the realty
tribulations. Its major elements include land consolidation, land
records management, tribal probate process, and 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 the development of a tribal land
database with an electronic connection to the BIA databases. The tribal
probates process is both time consuming and a contributing factor why
land in Indian Country is so fractionated. Development of an on-site
process using the Lummi Tribal Court would reduce the time requirements
and make for a more effective process.
Lummi Youth Safe House--+$500,000
Provide the Lummi Nation with a Family-Centered Youth Facility to
provide a continuum of care to ``At-Risk'', Homeless and/or Runaway
Adolescents. The primary components of this continuum are screening,
intervention, substance prevention, respite, and after-care services
consistent to youth needs. Participating youth are supported through
center-based continuum and ``wrap around social/health services'' to
overcome barriers to achieve their goals. Lummi youth entering and/or
completing treatment successfully make the transition to return to
daily life through a traditional ``holistic'' approach towards recovery
involving family members and dependency counselors.
REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Lummi Indian Nation is a member of the regional organizations,
which advocate on behalf of Tribes in Washington State. These consortia
efforts include the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, the
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission. We support the collective requests of these
organizations in the fiscal year 2002 budgets for the BIA and IHS.
SELF-GOVERNANCE AND OTHER NATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Restore $256,000 for the Self-Governance Communication and
Education Project.--As one of the original first tier Tribes
participating in Self-Governance, we are concerned that the
Administration has recommended that funding for the DOI Office of Self-
Governance be decreased by $256,000. This funding cut will eliminate
the Self-Governance Communication and Education Project, which over the
past ten years has provided timely and invaluable information, not only
to the more than 200 Tribes participating in self-governance, but also
to the Administration, Congress and other entities expressing interest
in self-governance. The Nation not only ask that you restore these
funds, but increase the funding to cover the actual Self-Governance
Communication and Education Project cost, for providing communication
outreach services.
Restore +$1 million. To support the Tribal Leaders Self-Governance
Advisory Committee in its role to provide advice and guidance to the
Assistant secretary for Indian Affairs on policy issues that impact the
Self-Governance principles. This Advisory Committee provides a critical
role in policy negotiations on a government-to-government level when
tribes and the United States seek to enter into compacts of agreement.
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 2002 includes a modest increase for CSC--(1) an
additional $65 million is needed in IHS, and (2) an additional $25
million is needed in BIA to fully fund CSC (excluding direct contract
support costs). This shortfall continues to penalize Tribes which elect
to operate BIA and IHS programs under the self-determination policy.
+$5 million.--To support the Tribal Leaders Oral Health Initiative
in the IHS Division of Clinical and Preventive Services. This
initiative seeks to improve oral health status and increase access to
oral health services for Indian people. Indian people experience dental
disease at rates 2 to 10 times the national average and Tribes
currently have great difficulty recruiting dental staff with 25 percent
of dentist positions currently vacant. $5 million will permit the
tribes to increase their recruitment activities, improve availability
of community water fluoridation, and collaborate more effectively with
the IHS and other partners to curb the epidemic of oral disease that
confronts Indian people.
+$325 million to IHS mandatory, inflation and population growth
increase needed to maintain existing health care to American Indians
and Alaskan Natives.--These costs are unavoidable and include medical
and general inflation, as well as costs associated with newly
constructed facilities. If unfunded, these costs increases will result
in further health service reductions in tribal communities.
+$25 million.--In the BIA TPA for general increases for inflation
adjustments. This activity represents the majority of the funds used to
support on-going services at the local Tribal level including such
programs as housing, education, natural resource management and Tribal
government services. This request will provide for a modest 3.5 percent
inflation adjustment for existing Tribal programs and services.
Support all requests and recommendations of the National Congress of
American Indians
This written testimony identifies 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
will undermine tribal sovereignty. The Lummi Nation desires to have
direct consultation and formal hearings with respect to our long-
standing government-to-government relationship.
I appreciate your consideration of the fiscal year 2002 requests
and recommendations of appropriations for the BIA, IHS, and Natural
Resources on behalf of the Lummi Nation. Thank you.
______
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 2002
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 five particular program areas which the
Tribe urges that Congress fund in fiscal year 2002:
-- Point No Point Treaty Council Wildlife Program.--Provide $300,000
in recurring funding to enable long-term wildlife management on
the Olympic Peninsula, guaranteed by the Point No Point Treaty
of 1855.
-- Protection of Reservation Land and Water from Landfill
Contamination.--Provide $100,000 in additional resources to
assist the Tribe to assess the hazards to tribal members'
health and to evaluate the impacts on reservation groundwater
and soils resulting from Kitsap County's Hansville Landfill.
-- Higher Education Assistance.--Provide an additional $125,000 in
basic college tuition support to partner with the Tribe to
assist the 24 tribal members currently enrolled in higher
education and the 50 who are prepared to enroll.
-- Tribal Court Funding.--Support funding through BIA for Tribal
Courts, as authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act of
1993.
-- Tribal Detention Personnel.--Support the $5 million requested
within BIA Law Enforcement for tribal detention personnel.
POINT NO POINT TREATY COUNCIL WILDLIFE PROGRAM
The work of the Point No Point Treaty Council Wildlife Program and
its coordination with Washington State has saved the elk population of
the eastern Olympic Mountains from the brink of extinction. The Tribes
have put their wildlife efforts into co-management rather than costly
litigation. This work cannot continue to be effective without a minimum
level of base funding.
The Wildlife Program has been funded since 1993 by a combination of
grants. However, this source of funding has dwindled precipitously, and
it is impossible to effectively co-manage with our partner, the State
of Washington, without a permanent source of program funding. We
support funding for this crucial program in the amount of $300,000.
Subsistence hunting of wild game provides an essential food source
for our tribal people. The Tribes are committed to responsible wildlife
management based on biology. Our program has conducted extensive
surveys and shared all our data with Washington 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.
The Wildlife Program, serving the four Point No Point Treaty Tribes
(Skokomish, Lower Elwha S'Klallam, Jamestown S'Klallam and Port Gamble
S'Klallam), has become the premiere tribal wildlife program in western
Washington, and has been critical in achieving 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.
PROTECTION OF RESERVATION LAND AND WATER FROM LANDFILL CONTAMINATION
Kitsap County sited the 60-acre Hansville Landfill uphill from the
Port Gamble S'Klallam Reservation in 1962. Three separate disposal
areas were formerly operated within the Landfill property: a municipal
solid waste disposal area, a demolition disposal which accepted
construction, demolition, and land clearing wastes; and a septage
lagoon which accepted residential septic tank human waste. The
Hansville Landfill was closed in 1990.
For nearly 40 years, virtually all of the leachate from the
Landfill, which contains hazardous chemicals, has flowed directly into
the Reservation groundwater and soils, potentially impacting the
Tribe's drinking water, as well as our shellfish and the salmon reared
in the reservation hatchery, both of which are crucial to the tribal
diet and economy.
In fiscal year 2001, we were fortunate to receive $94,000 from the
BIA's Office of Trust Responsibilities to assist with our initial
efforts to monitor the groundwater.
In fiscal year 2002, $100,000 funding is needed to continue
activities related to assessment and cleanup of the landfill site,
including the following:
--Coordination of the project between tribal staff, technical
consultants, analytical laboratories, and the various agencies
involved with the Landfill.
--Technical review of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) to strengthen the Tribe's ability to protect the
reservation land and drinking water supply. Washington State
Department of Ecology is directing this work which will be
conducted by Kitsap County.
--Investigation of impacts to ground water, surface water, sediments,
wetlands, shellfish, and other tribal natural resources that
were not incorporated or insufficiently addressed in the RI/FS
for the Landfill. A report will be developed with the results
of sample collection, laboratory analysis of contaminants, and
comparison to cleanup standards.
--Development of alternatives for remediation based on the results of
the above investigations.
--Assessment of potential risks to tribal members from contaminant
releases associated with the landfill, in coordination with the
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA will assist in conducting
a risk assessment for the Tribe, including an evaluation of the
risks from arsenic exposure.
--Preparation of an issue paper for tribal discussion to evaluate and
make recommendations for future monitoring and maintenance.
HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE
Prior to self-governance, we are aware of only 3 Port Gamble
S'Klallam members who graduated from college. BIA funding for higher
education is so meager that the Tribe must rely on its own limited
resources to fund the 24 students enrolled in college each year. The
Tribe receives only $28,733 per year in TPA funding to provide college
tuition assistance to its membership (less than $1,200 for each
student). Since 1993, the Tribe has assisted 11 members to receive
their Bachelor of Arts degrees, including two who received their
teaching certificates and are teaching in our local school district. We
are currently unable to fund requests by tribal members to attend
graduate school.
The Tribe requests an additional $125,000 in basic college tuition
support to partner with the Tribe to assist the 24 tribal members
currently enrolled in higher education and the 50 who are prepared to
enroll.
TRIBAL COURT FUNDING.
The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe operates a tribal court, which
hears and decides cases in a full range of criminal and civil subject
matters. Our judicial system works in concert with federal, state and
tribal law enforcement to address the inter-jurisdictional problems
associated with enforcement of child abuse, drug crimes, and child
support on the Reservation. Congress funds these activities for $37,000
per year. This level of funding for a full service court is
unacceptable.
We urge this Subcommittee to provide fiscal year 2002 funding
pursuant to the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-176)
to provide a reasonable level of basic funding for tribal judicial
systems. The Act was reauthorized by the 106th Congress through fiscal
year 2007. No funding has ever been appropriated to provide financial
and technical assistance for the development and enhancement of tribal
judicial systems.
We are pleased that the fiscal year 2002 budget request includes
$1.5 million within the Tribal Priority Allocations account for tribal
courts, as initial funding pursuant to the Indian Tribal Justice Act.
We urge this Subcommittee's favorable consideration of funding to BIA
for Tribal Courts under the Act, even if at this modest proposed level.
TRIBAL DETENTION PERSONNEL
Within the BIA's Special Programs and Pooled Overhead account, the
fiscal year 2002 budget request includes $5 million within Law
Enforcement for the hiring of additional personnel to staff new tribal
detention programs. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe strongly supports
this requested increase, and urges this Subcommittee's support for
these needed dollars. We are also aware that in fiscal year 2001,
Congress directed to Bureau of Indian Affairs to prepare an assessment
of the need to construct a juvenile detention facility for Indian youth
in the Pacific Northwest. We have been exploring the idea of an adult
detention facility which would serve six area tribes, and support the
consideration of a regional, Northwest juvenile facility.
Our Law Enforcement personnel must make a nine-hour drive to book
offenders into the nearest tribal juvenile detention facility, and it
is three hours roundtrip to the nearest tribal adult detention
facility. This severely taxes our law enforcement resources, which are
already stretched in order to provide adequate patrol coverage to the
reservation.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit this testimony on fiscal
year 2002 funding for tribal programs in the BIA and IHS. We appreciate
this Subcommittee's consideration of these requests of the Port Gamble
S'Klallam Tribe.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hoopa Valley Tribe of California
On behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe of California, I appreciate the
opportunity to present testimony regarding the fiscal year 2002 budgets
for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. A summary of my testimony is as follows:
Tribal specific priorities:
1. Provide an additional $1,328,000 in the BIA Forestry budget for
the Tribe.
2. Provide an additional $487,000 in the Tribe's BIA Road
Maintenance budget.
3. Provide an additional $120,000 in the BIA Real Estate Services
for Tribal activities.
4. Provide an additional $150,000 in the BIA Environmental Services
budget for the Tribe.
5. Provide $35,000 in the BIA Aid To Tribal Government budget for
Tribal Radio Station.
6. Provide $400,000 in the BIA Endangered Species budget for
implementation purposes.
7. Provide $4.5 million in the USFWS budget for Klamath and Trinity
River activities.
Self-governance and national priorities:
1. Restore $256,000 and request for a $100,000 increase to the DOI
Office of Self-Governance for the Self-Governance Communication and
Education Project and the Tribal Self-Governance Advisory Committee;
2. Provide increase for BIA and IHS to fully fund Contract Support
Cost (CSC) to address documented Tribal needs;
3. Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority
Allocation (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment;
4. Provide $325,000,000 increase for IHS unfunded mandatory,
medical inflation, pay costs and population growth needed to maintain
existing health care services;
5. +$5 million in the IHS Division of Clinical and Preventive
Services to support Oral Health Initiative; and,
6. Support all requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians.
Tribal specific priorities: BIA Forestry budget request--$1,328,000
As a demonstration of the Tribe's belief that prudent sustainable
forest management goes hand and hand with timber production, beginning
in 1994, we developed a forest management plan that has since been
certified by SmartWood, a third party certification organization that
is dedicated to managing the forest for sustainability. Today, we are
the only landowner in the nation that manages a large tract of old-
growth forest that is certified by SmartWood. Additionally, we are the
only Tribe in the United States to have an approved programmatic
consultation in place with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
endangered species act (ESA) compliance with Section 7 consultations. A
major part of our effort has been to rehabilitate the damaged portions
of our forests that were previously managed by the BIA, such as fixing
poorly constructed and failing roads, properly stocking large clearcut
plantations, and repairing degraded fisheries habitat.
A BIA report completed a few years ago identified the Hoopa BIA
forestry budget as the lowest funded in the nation. Since assuming this
program in 1990, we have identified a need for funding increases in the
following BIA programs at Hoopa:
--$319,000 annually for forest development work--a 36 percent
increase over the present to improve degraded conifer
plantations.
--$228,000 annually for forest program management--a 41 percent
increase over the present.
--$194,000 annually for forest inventories and plans--not currently
funded to pay for federal mandates such as NEPA compliance.
--$125,000 annually for research analysis of the forest management
plan on the effectiveness implementation monitoring.
--$556,000 for ESA compliance, and Recovery and Prevention for
Terrestrial Species--a 37 percent increase over the present.
--$125,000 annually for vegetation treatment for fire prevention and
habitat maintenance on lower elevation forests.
--$65,000 appropriation for control of Bears that are destroying
conifer plantations, which the Tribe has invested large amounts
of money into improving forest health and wildlife habitat.
The Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT) report,
developed in 1994 by a third party assessment team of professionals,
also substantiates many of the above requests for the BIA's programs.
We request that $1,328,000 be provided in the BIA Forestry Budget.
Tribal Roads Maintenance program--$487,000
The Hoopa Valley Tribe contracted for the Bureau of Indian Affairs'
Road Maintenance program in 1990. Under the Self-Governance program the
Hoopa Valley Tribal Roads Department is responsible for BIA road
maintenance on approximately 108 miles of former Bureau system roads.
Additionally, the Tribe maintains approximately 356 miles of Tribal
roads within the Hoopa Reservation.
The Roads Program currently receives approximately 30 percent of
the identified need. Based on the past expenditures, it is estimated
that approximately $600,000.00 is currently needed annually to meet the
BIA requirements for maintenance needs on BIA roads within the Hoopa
Reservation. Since assuming the maintenance program in 1990, the Hoopa
Tribe has supplemented the BIA's Roads program by adding approximately
$1.5 million dollars of our own Tribal funds to carry our these
responsibilities.
Since 1994, the Tribe has been successful in receiving road
construction and/or reconstruction dollars through the Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Department (ISTEA). Although the road
construction/reconstruction dollars provide much needed improvement to
the Hoopa Reservation, it also acts as a double-bladed sword since, due
to the lack of both maintenance dollars and pavement maintenance
equipment, these newly constructed roads are destined to deteriorate as
well.
Since the Tribe assumed the road maintenance program, there are two
major concerns affecting this program; namely, lack of adequate funding
to support even minimal maintenance requirements and the total lack of
funding to acquire and provide upkeep on road maintenance equipment.
The current BIA funding level allows maintenance on only 25 miles,
which we have dedicate to maintaining school bus routes. It has become
quite evident that many miles of Bureau system roads will need to be
reconstructed at a higher cost in the future due to the fact that they
are not presently being properly maintained.
The need for road maintenance equipment cannot be overemphasized.
To consistently and safely maintain Bureau system roads, road
maintenance type equipment is critically needed. The Tribe is using
their equipment where appropriate, but still fails to meet today's
demands. The Hoopa Tribe has supported this program both with funding
and equipment which severely limits the Tribe's ability to utilize
their own equipment for other Tribal needs or opportunities. Also,
major capitalization of equipment needs to be addressed as older BIA
equipment becomes unserviceable and needs to be replaced. The last
equipment acquisition by the BIA was in 1977, and this was limited to
three pieces. Therefore, we are requesting that $487,000 be added to
the BIA Road Maintenance Program budget for the Tribe to help fulfill
this federal obligation.
Real estate services--$120,000
The BIA's budget for handling trust land transactions in the
Sacramento Area Office is woefully under the needed funding levels. The
processing of land leases, fee-to-trust conveyances and other key
realty functions is handled statewide by two realty officers in the
Area Office. As a consequence, the Area Office has a backlog in nearly
every realty category for which the BIA is responsible. For example,
there are presently backlogs of over 500 probates, approximately 200
fee-to-trust transactions, and virtually no lease compliance activities
being carried out at all. We requests that the Subcommittee provide
$120,000 in the BIA Real Estate Services budget for the Tribe's program
and that a general increase be provided to the BIA Real Estate Services
budget.
Environmental services--$150,000
The BIA's national budget in fiscal year 1998 was $11 million
dollars for Environmental Services. This level of funding is extremely
inadequate given the number of BIA contaminated sites nation-wide. For
example, in Navajo alone over 400 landfills require closure under the
Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act. The Bureau is responsible for over
sixty-six Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities in
California. These facilities range from underground storage tanks to
storage facilities that contained pesticides and other RCRA regulated
facilities. Nation-wide, the BIA has environmental cleanup liability
that would cost over $100,000,000 ranging from lead abatement in
buildings to sites listed under Superfund. We request that the
Subcommittee provide an additional $150,000 for the Tribe's
Environmental Services program to help address these problems on our
Reservation.
Aid to tribal government--$35,000
Hoopa Tribal Radio, KIDE-FM is the only FCC licensed community
radio station in California. We operate at 195 watts of effective
radiate power. Our signal strength is limited because of the
surrounding mountains. Our broadcast tower, located on the valley floor
is 1,550 below the height of the average terrain. If we relocated the
tower to a nearby mountain we could boost our power output, expand our
broadcast coverage range and provide the Eastern Humboldt County a
broadcast tower location suitable for cellular telephone and other
emergency broadcast relay services. The cost of relocating the tower
and purchasing the additional broadcast equipment is $35,000.
BIA Endangered Species Act activities--$400,000
The Hoopa Valley Tribe is requesting an increase of its base for
the Fisheries and Water Management Program to meet two contemporary
challenges to the protection of Tribal Trust resources. First, On the
Trinity River, the Tribe concurred and was signatory to the Secretary's
Record of Decision (Public Law 102-575, Section 3406(b)(23)). The ROD
has been challenged in federal court; Westlands v. U.S. Department of
the Interior et al. The Tribe has intervened in the case and is
supporting the government's case in the matter. It is expected that the
case will result in a substantial cost to the Tribe. Additionally,
regulatory burdens with regard to Endangered Species Act have increased
in recent years due to listing of coho salmon in Klamath Basin (May
1997 listing of SONCC ESU), which has resulted in increased activity by
the Fishery Program to meet legal requirements. Therefore, the Tribe is
requesting $400,000 for fiscal year 2002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--Klamath and Trinity Rivers--$4.5
MILLION
The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the Agency's request for full
funding for completion of the Klamath River Flow Evaluation. This five-
year evaluation is fundamental to balancing competing demands for water
within the Klamath River of southern Oregon and northern California.
This study is expected to cost $22M over five years.
The 2001 water year has been declared the driest year on record in
the Klamath Basin. For this year, the interim water operations plan
being implemented by DOI has prioritized protection for two federal ESA
listed species in the Basin; coho salmon and endemic sucker fish. In
nearly every year, these listed species have been compromised,
primarily because there has not been consistent operating plan for
Klamath Project. Completion of this flow evaluation will provide the
necessary scientific guidance for the development of a long-range water
operations plan.
On the Trinity River, the Tribe concurred and was signatory to the
Secretary's Record of Decision (Public Law 102-575, Section
3406(b)(23)). The ROD incorporates flow and active main-stem channel
restoration administered by an Adaptive Management Program. These
requested funds are necessary to supplement additional appropriation
requests within the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. Several
activities must be completed in 2002, the second year of ROD
implementation. These activities include fisheries and habitat
monitoring and mainstream restoration targeting completion of 50
percent of the site work identified in the ROD.
We request that $6.5 million be provided in the USFWS budget for
the Klamath and Trinity Rivers.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to provide this written
statement on behalf of my Tribe. Please contact me at 530-625-4211, if
you have questions. Thank You.
______
Prepared Statement of Partnership for the National Trails System
Chairman Burns and members of the subcommittee: 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 are very thankful for the $975,000
increase in funding you provided for nine of these trails in fiscal
year 2001. We also appreciate your increased 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 22 national
scenic and historic trails for fiscal year 2002 through these
appropriations:
--National Park Service.--$8.373 million for the administration of 17
trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails program
by the Washington Park Service office.
--USDA Forest Service.--$2.875 million to administer four trails and
$650,000 for portions of 13 trails managed through agreements
with the Park Service and Bureau of Land Management; $1.5
million for Continental Divide Trail construction and $500,000
for Florida Trail construction.
--Bureau of Land Management.--$270,000 to administer the Iditarod
National Historic Trail, $600,000 to administer the new Camino
Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail, and $4.79
million for the portions of 9 trails managed through agreements
with the Park Service and Forest Service; $385,000 for the
Iditarod Trail interpretive center feasibility study.
--We ask that you appropriate $5 million for the National Park
Service Challenge Cost Share Program and continue to earmark $3
million for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects and one-third
of the remaining $2 million (approximately $650,000) for the
other 16 national scenic and historic trails it administers.
--We ask that you appropriate $2 million 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 United States
Forest Service to protect the scenic quality and continuity of
the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, $4 million for
acquisition of land for the Florida National Scenic Trail, $4
million for acquisition of land for the Appalachian National
Scenic Trail in Tennessee, $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 to the National
Park Service, $2.5 million to acquire land for the authorized
interpretive site for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail and
$1.5 million to acquire land in Utah for the California and
Pony Express Trails.
--We ask that you appropriate from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund $4.5 million to the State of Wisconsin to match state
funds for acquisition of land for the Ice Age National Scenic
Trail.
The $2 million we request will fund the first year of a 5 year
interagency effort to develop a consistent GIS for all 22 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 information and procedures 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 the country.
Of the $8.373 million we request for the National Park Service,
$2.097 million will continue the progress and new initiatives made
possible by the $975,000 funding increase provided for nine of the
trails in fiscal year 2001. $125,000 of our requested increase will
finally provide significant operational support for the Natchez Trace
Trail, which currently receives only $26,000 in annual operations
funding. Another $250,000 will enable the Park Service to begin
managing the two new national historic trails--Ala Kahakai and El
Camino Real de Tierra Adentro--authorized by the 106th Congress, the
latter administered jointly with the Bureau of Land Management. These
funds will provide full-time management and support projects for each
of these trails.
The additional funds provided in fiscal year 2001 will enable the
Park Service to provide a full-time administrator for the Overmountain
Victory Trail and the Overmountain Victory Trail Association to begin
the first comprehensive survey of historically significant sites along
the trail and plan for their preservation. The new funds have
strengthened Park Service efforts to protect cultural landscapes and
provide additional interpretive exhibits along the Santa Fe Trail and
have helped support 17 local initiatives along the Potomac Heritage
Trail, including an interpretive prospectus and a study of the trail
corridor in Washington, D.C. We request an increase of $288,000 for
fiscal year 2002 to continue and expand upon the new initiatives for
these three trails. We also request an increase of $113,000 to expand
cooperative interpretation with schools and Latino communities along
the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail and an increase of $101,000 for the
Trail of Tears to enable the Park Service to better support cooperative
work with the Trail of Tears Association to protect critical historical
and cultural heritage sites along the Trail.
The $660,000 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 continue to mark the auto tour
routes for all four trails across 11 states.
All of these trails are 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 $718,000
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 $761,000 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 and manage its
resources.
It is equally important that the national scenic and historic
trails administered or managed by the United States Forest Service and
the Bureau of Land Management receive 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 they
receive appropriate priority in annual work plans. The six trails
administered by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management should
be treated as distinct units within those agencies' land management
systems and receive appropriate supervision. We ask that you provide
the funding and direction to do so.
As you have done for several years, we ask that you provide
additional operations funding to the Forest Service for administering
three national scenic trails and one national historic trail, and
managing parts of 13 other trails. We ask you to appropriate $2.875
million as a separate budgetary item specifically for the Continental
Divide, Florida and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez
Perce National Historic Trail. 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, Anza, Lewis & Clark, California, Iditarod, Mormon Pioneer,
Oregon, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express, Trail of Tears and Santa Fe
Trails, we ask you to appropriate $650,000 specifically for these
trails.
Work is underway, supported by funds you provided for the past
three years, to close several major gaps in the Florida National Scenic
Trail. The Florida Trail Association is now building 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 the Forest Service with an
additional $500,000 for fiscal year 2002 for trail construction on
these and other segments of the Florida Trail and an additional
$500,000 to support a land acquisition team to begin purchasing land to
close gaps in the Trail.
The Continental Divide Trail Alliance, with Forest Service
assistance and funding from the outdoor recreation industry, surveyed
the entire 3,200 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 $750,000 to plan 211 miles of new trail and
$1.5 million to build or reconstruct 200 miles of the Continental
Divide Trail in fiscal year 2002.
Funds that you provided for fiscal year 2001 are supporting the
first full-time cross-regional Forest Service Trail Administrator to
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. With
funding provided the past two years, a Forest Service lands team is
working with the Pacific Crest Trail Association and the Park Service
National Trail Land Resources Program Center to map and acquire better
routes for the 300 miles of the PCT located on 227 narrow easements
across private land or on the edge of dangerous highways. We request
$920,000 for fiscal year 2002 for the Forest Service to continue these
improvements in the Pacific Crest Trail in collaboration with the
Pacific Crest Trail Association.
While the Bureau of Land Management has administrative authority
only for the Iditarod and El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National
Historic Trails, it has on-the-ground management responsibility for 641
miles of two scenic trails and 3,115 miles of seven historic trails
administered by the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service. With
recognition of the significance of these trails as part of the National
Landscape Conservation System, the Bureau of Land Management budget now
includes funding specifically for these trails. We ask that you
appropriate for fiscal year 2002 earmarked as a separate budgetary item
$270,000 for the Iditarod National Historic Trail, $600,000 for El
Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail and $4,792,000
for management of the portions of the nine other trails under the care
of the Bureau of Land Management.
The essential funding requests to support the trails are detailed
in Attachment 2.
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, $4 million to
connect sections of the Florida National Scenic Trail on the national
forests in Florida and St. Marks Wildlife Refuge, and $4 million to
acquire part of the Rocky Point Tract in Tennessee for the Appalachian
National Scenic Trail. 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 for the National
Park Service $2.5 million to acquire land for the authorized
interpretive site for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail, and $1.5
million to preserve the Dixie Hollow Pony Express Station site and
California National Historic Trail emigrant camp site in Utah.
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. The Partnership asks that you
provide a grant of $4.5 Million from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund to assist and encourage Wisconsin in acquiring land for the Ice
Age Trail.
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 by combining
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 2000 the
trail organizations channeled 593,392 hours of documented volunteer
labor valued at $8,799,993 to help sustain the national scenic and
historic trails. This is a 9 percent increase over the volunteer labor
reported for 1999. The organizations also directly applied private
sector contributions of $6,638,313 to benefit the trails, an increase
of $857,973 over the money contributed in 1999. 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.
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 requests that you appropriate $5 million in Challenge Cost
Share funding for fiscal year 2002 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.
Prepared Statement of NFFE Local 1957
NFFE Local 1957 represents 121 employees in the Minerals
Information Team (MIT) Bargaining Unit of the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). We are concerned that according to the proposed Administration
budget for 2002, the $2 million reduction in the MIT budget will
eliminate the core International Information function and harm members
of the Minerals Information Team Bargaining Unit, as well as the Nation
as a whole. The proposed cut, which represents 12.5 percent of the
entire MIT budget, would compromise the mission of the MIT and would
eliminate positions, most filled by experienced employees with unique
expertise. We request that this letter be entered into the written
record of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations.
MIT was transferred to the USGS under a Joint House-Senate
Conference Amendment that provided for the minerals information
activities formerly conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) to be
continued within the USGS at a prescribed $16 million level of funding.
We have received no increases in funding in five years under this
prescription and cannot understand how there can be decreases when
Congress stated that this function should continue at this designated
level of funding.
The Minerals Information Team's core mission is to collect,
analyze, and disseminate information on the domestic and international
supply and domestic consumption of minerals and materials that are
essential to the U.S. economy and national security. MIT provides the
information and analyses that are required to ensure that our Nation
can have an adequate and dependable supply of minerals and materials to
meet its defense and economic needs at acceptable environmental,
energy, and economic costs. The USGS mineral commodity information is
needed by the public and private sector to (1) better understand
materials resource use and ultimate disposition to the economy; and (2)
to develop public and private sector policies and practices that better
utilize our material resources, including losses and disposals.
Under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, the Secretary
of the Interior has significant authority relating to the assurance of
an adequate supply of mineral materials necessary for the national
defense. The Act, as amended in 1980 (Oct. 21, 1980, Public Law 96-479)
and 1992 (May 18, 1992, Public Law 102-285), specifically charges the
Bureau of Mines with responsibility for economic and statistical
analyses of international mineral supplies. The international
information activities of the Minerals Information team transferred
from the Bureau of Mines are essential to meeting this obligation. In a
global economy, where the U.S. import dependence for most of our
strategic and critical materials exceeds 50 percent, knowledge of
international production capabilities and world demand patterns are
essential to analyzing the adequacy of the domestic supply of materials
for both strategic and commercial applications. Any national defense
related increased mineral supply needs or disruptions necessitating
supply expansions would require utilizing deposits in foreign countries
for a significant number of strategic mineral commodities. In
accordance with these responsibilities, MIT periodically provides the
Institute for Defense Analysis, which is charged with determining
defense stockpile needs, a country by country assessment of the global
mineral supply and demand outlook for a number of strategic materials.
Such knowledge is also essential to analyses of environmental
regulation and domestic, economic, foreign, and trade policies relating
to the minerals industries.
The ability to gather the requisite information to meet these needs
would be severely compromised without the support of the International
Minerals Section. Without the International Information section, there
would be a critical gap in information regarding the supply of 75
percent of the non fuel mineral commodities consumed in the United
States. For example, the United States is 100 percent import dependant
for metallurgical-grade Bauxite, the raw material used to make
aluminum, the backbone of our aerospace industry; and for primary
tungsten, the material used to make cemented carbide cutting tools,
electric filaments, and armor piercing munitions. China and Russia
account for two-thirds of the U.S. supply of primary tungsten.
The International Information section of the USGS MIT provides
information that is essential to understanding the minerals and fuel
status of the United States in reference to other countries or regions.
The objectives for the international information function are to
collect, analyze, and disseminate data on more than 100 mineral
commodities, including mineral fuels, in more than 180 different
countries. To complement coverage of mineral production, information is
also collected, analyzed, and disseminated on individual country
mining, environmental, investment, trade and other laws that affect
their minerals industry and trade with the United States. As a major
economic world power, it is essential for the United States to have a
comprehensive understanding of world wide mineral commodity markets.
The Department of Defense, the CIA, and the Department of State have
relied increasingly on the USGS country specialists for global mineral-
related policy analysis. Domestic agencies including the Bureau of Land
Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the Department of Commerce, and
the Federal Reserve Board, have relied on our supply analyses in making
policy decisions.
While the $2 million budget line item has been specifically used to
fund our international specialists and their activities, international
activities is not a stand alone program, but one that is fully
integrated into meeting MIT mission objectives. The international
specialists serve a strong supportive role in the work performed by our
Commodity Specialists who are responsible for analysis of the domestic
supply and demand patterns. The International Specialists provide
liaison to companies, organizations, international bodies, and U.S.
Missions that supply data used for commodity analyses. The
international specialists generate tabulations of world production and
trade, as well as industry reconnaissance, that are directly
incorporated into the work products of the commodity specialists. Their
foreign language skills and insight into international economic and
geopolitcal events are crucial in completing commodity specific supply
demand analyes.
The ability of the MIT to meet its mission objectives has already
been severely constrained by a limited budget. At the time of MIT's
transfer to the USGS (fiscal year 1996), Congress designated that $16
million be transferred from the USBM's budget for MIT. In an
interpretation of Congressional intent, the USGS has maintained that
level of funding, except for a directed $400,000 increase in 1997, in
each of 5 subsequent years. Increases proportional to USGS
appropriations over the same period would have resulted in a MIT budget
of more than $18 million. Although salary loads, rent, and other
assessments have increased, corresponding increases have not been
allocated to MIT. The impact has been a significant effective reduction
of budget resources available for program development, contracting,
and/or capital investment. These constraints have led to lower staffing
levels and strained MIT's capabilities to complete even its core
publication mission, let alone initiate new projects. Without the
International Information function there would be a critical gap in the
information concerning the supply of 75 percent of the mineral
commodities consumed within the United States.
In conclusion, I offer that any attempt to further constrain the
MIT budget, or to eliminate any portion of its core program, would have
severe consequences and significantly reduce the ability of the
Minerals Information Team in its prescribed mission to provide for the
collection, dissemination, and analysis of mineral commodity related
data, as it impacts the U.S. strategic and economic needs. We urge
Congress, at a minimum, to restore the $2 million for International
Information activities and to appropriate adequate funds to sustain the
mission of the Minerals Information Team.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepred Statement of the Timbisha Shosone Tribe
My name is Pauline Esteves and I am the Chairwoman of the Timbisha
Shoshone Tribe. The Timbisha Shoshone Tribe is a small Tribe
principally located at Furnace Creek, Death Valley, California. The
Tribe was federally recognized in 1983 but was not given a land base.
Most of the Tribe's ancestral lands include the Death Valley National
Park and land surrounding the Park. In 1994 the Secretary of the
Department of the Interior was mandated under the California Desert
Protection Act to conduct a study, in consultation with the Tribe, to
determine what lands, both within and outside of the Park boundaries,
would be suitable as a reservation for the Tribe. The study process was
lengthy but finally concluded in 1999 with a joint study issued by the
Department and the Tribe setting forth a recommendation that over 7,000
acres of federal land be transferred to the Tribe in trust. The
recommendations submitted in the joint study were ultimately embodied
in the Timbisha Soshone Homeland Act which was enacted by Congress and
signed into law in the last Congress. (Act of November 1, 2000; Public
Law 106-423).
This legislation was supported by the Tribe, the U.S. Park Service,
the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the
Department of the Interior. One critical piece of the Homeland Act was
the Congressional authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to
purchase a private ranch in western Nevada commonly known as the Lida
Ranch. The land that comprises the Ranch is part of the Tribe's
ancestral lands and holds significant cultural, spiritual and
historical importance to the Tribe. The owners of the Ranch are ready
and willing sellers and have expressed a desire to sell to the Tribe.
The Ranch has been out of cattle production for the last few years
due to the Ranch owners loss of the Ranch's Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) grazing permit(s). The Ranch has been seriously over grazed and
the Tribe has no interest in operating a cattle ranch. Because of the
Tribe's desire to see the Ranch returned to its natural environment and
restore depleted resources, the Trust for Public Lands (TPL) has
partnered with the Tribe in its effort to secure the Ranch. TPL is
working with the Tribe to obtain an option on the Ranch while an
appropriation from Congress can be obtained.
On September 13, 2000, the Tribe and TPL met with officials from
the Bureau of Indian Affairs to discuss a strategy on how to request
and secure an appropriation for purchasing the Ranch. Current BIA staff
who were present at the meeting are Terry Virden, Chief of the Trust
Responsibilities Office, and Mike Smith, Director of Tribal Services.
BIA made a commitment at the September meeting that a request to
purchase the Ranch would be made in the BIA's fiscal year 2002 needs-
base submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This
request would then be available to OMB in developing the President's
fiscal year 2002 Interior budget request. The appropriation BIA was
requesting for the purchase of the Ranch was $14 million. This amount
is based on an appraisal conducted by the Ranch owners several years
ago. While the BIA, TPL and the Tribe agree that the appraisal presents
an inflated fair market value for the Ranch, it was understood that the
$14 million would be the amount requested until such time as the Tribe
and TPL could engage an appraiser that would provide an appraisal in
accordance with federal appraisal standards.
We understand that the President's budget request for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs for fiscal year 2002 does not include any funding for
acquisition of the Lida Ranch. We do not believe it appears anywhere
else in the Interior Department's budget request. The Timbisha Shoshone
Tribe is requesting that Congress appropriate $15 million to secure the
purchase of the Lida Ranch to fulfill the commitment of Public Law 106-
423 enacted just six months ago.
______
Letter From R. Dean Tice, Executive Director, National Recreation and
Park Association
May 4, 2001.
Hon. Conrad Burns, Chairman,
Hon. Robert Byrd, Ranking Minority,
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
Dear Senators Burns and Byrd: This letter is to share with the
Subcommittee our views on fiscal year 2002 appropriations for selected
programs administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior,
principally the National Park Service. We appreciate the opportunity to
comment.
We recommend the following:
--$900,000,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, divided
equally between the state assistance program and eligible
federal recreation resource agencies. Funds should be allocated
to the states as authorized by current law.
--Sufficient funds to address the most distressed recreation resource
conditions and deficiencies identified through the Urban Park
and Recreation Recovery Program.
--Sufficient funds to enable the National Park Service to effectively
collaborate with other federal agencies and state and local
agencies on such matters as excess and surplus federal real
property, conservation of the nation's cultural heritage and
rivers and trails, and U.S. Geological Survey activities that
support local and state planning.
We commend the President's early commitment and budget initiative
to ``fully fund'' the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This proposal
recognizes the national imperative to address the recreation needs of
the American people, and through recreation, a broader national agenda
that embraces public health and wellness and other issues. We are
disappointed, however, that no funds are requested for the Urban Park
and Recreation Recovery program.
We especially commend the President for emphasizing the importance
and potential of LWCF state assistance. It is time, we believe, to
recognize the significant contributions of the program to national
recreation, conservation and other goals. The program should not be
viewed as simply a fiscal distraction to appropriations for federal
land systems.
The value of state and local recreation and park resources are
fundamentally essential to quality recreation experiences for all
people. Until all people have appropriate access to recreation services
and resources our collective public mission will remain unfinished.
State and local recreation resources address several national
concerns.--Consider the following:
Public Health.--The relationship between recreation and wellness
receives widespread attention. Annual national health care expenditures
now exceed $1 trillion. Chronic diseases, including heart disease,
stroke, cancer and diabetes, account for some 70 percent of all deaths
and 70 percent of health care expenditures. More than 90 million
Americans live with the most preventable of chronic illnesses. Physical
activity, a critical building block of health promotion and disease
prevention, is central to many forms of recreation. Active recreation
can lower the risk of obesity, hypertension, heart disease, stroke and
diabetes, and breast, colon and other cancers. Appropriately sited
recreation centers, trails and parks influence the amount and type of
personal physical activity.
Nutrition.--Local recreation and park systems are a central part of
national efforts to deliver food to children, youth and families. Last
July, an average of 2,080,005 children and youth received federally-
aided food services each day, hundreds of thousands of them at local
park sites. Tacoma, Washington's Metropolitan Park District, for
example, feeds a daily average of 150 people at each of 17 sites--
neighborhood-based playgrounds and centers, two of which also serve as
``safe havens.'' The Baltimore, Maryland Department of Parks and
Recreation feeds 20,000 kids daily. Recreation agencies in Sacramento,
California, Longview, Texas, and Kansas City, Missouri and Pittsburgh,
Philadelphia are all service providers.
Learning Environments.--The Congress in fiscal year 2001 provided
$846 million to local school systems through the Department of
Education's 21st Century Community Learning Centers program to create
after-school environments conducive to fun, extended learning, and
security. Local recreation agencies collaborated in over 80 percent of
the local school settings. The President has proposed to continue this
program, linked to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
Public Partnerships.--Future actions to provide recreation access
and to conserve resources will further embrace the concept of shared
responsibility to meet mutual goals. One outcome will be immediate and
long-term federal savings. Scores of existing non-federal public
parks--Mt. Katahdin (Baxter State Park) and the Allagash Wilderness
Waterway in Maine are nationally significant. So, too, are the Anza
Borrego Desert State Park, California, the Adirondack Park, New York,
Long Beach Island State Park, New Jersey--all administered with state
funds.
Two other parks--Assateague State Park, Maryland and Indian Dunes
State Park, Indiana--illustrate the principle of shared conservation
and recreation goals and savings. Assateague state park and the
northern unit of Assateague National Seashore host about one-half
million visits annually, with 350 state developed campsites (compared
to about 200 in the national seashore). It annually pays the salaries
of some 10 year-round state employees--and some 40 more seasonal
workers. Recent capital investments by the state exceeded $2 million.
Indiana Dunes disperses user impacts and costs that would otherwise be
borne by the federal government. Visitation is about 800,000, the
highest of all Indiana state parks, and over 40 percent are out-of-
state visitors. Many of the activities available at the state park are
also available at the neighboring national lakeshore.
Livable Communities.--Over 100 senators and representatives are
members of congressional ``livability'' groups. Public recreation and
parks contribute importantly to their group objectives.
Recreation Access, Resource Conservation Needs.--The proposed
funding for LWCF state assistance and our urban parks recommendation
are, in context, modest. Our 1999-2000 nationwide survey of local
public recreation and park systems revealed an estimated $55 billion in
capital investments for fiscal years 2000-2004. The majority of funds
that do become available--typically less than one half of projected
needs--will come principally from local and state sources, but national
resources will have a direct impact and will leverage other funds.
Increasing user capacity through new recreation facilities and parks,
restoring existing infrastructure, conserving specific natural
landscape features and containing sprawl are top local priorities.
Future investments from the Land and Water Conservation Fund will
likely reflect previous state and local decisions. Bozeman, Montana,
for example, is completing acquisition and development of Sundance
Springs Park, a project ``borne of community involvement,'' according
to a state grant official. A $50,000 LWCF grant contributed importantly
to the $295,000 project, enabling acquisition of 10.25 acres and
enhanced access to Bozeman's urban ``Main Street to the Mountains''
trail. Champion, Franklin, and Silversteen parks in Transylvania
County, N.C. enhanced the livability of this western North Carolina
area through land conservation and additional recreational sports
fields and courts, picnic sites and aquatic facilities.
In Wheeling, West Virginia, LWCF matching grants helped develop the
Good Zoo, which interprets the habitat needs of indigenous wildlife,
and to acquire 300 acres for the Burton Wildlife Preserve. In
Huntington, LWCF aided the nationally recognized Ritter Park
playground, the most heavily used in the West Virginia, and the Park's
Rose Garden, also of state significance.
The City of Blue Springs, Missouri, a suburb of Kansas City, has
grown from 7,000 people in 1970 to about 50,000 today. The city has
benefited from several LWCF grants, but is ``still far behind where it
should be,'' said its director of Parks, Recreation, Buildings and
Grounds Roscoe Righter, ``But without the LWCF we would not be even
close to meeting our needs.'' The conservation and use of Heritage Park
in Westerville, Ohio was aided by a timely LWCF grant. This 10.5-acre
property includes the historic Everal homesite and barn (c.1870), both
on the National Register of Historic Places since 1975. Restoration and
land conservation along the Cincinnati Riverfront, Maumee State Park in
the Toledo metro area, and reclamation and development of a former
dumpsite in the rural community of Fort Jennings are other Ohio/LWCF
projects.
``In fifteen years there will be 210,000 people in Pierce County,
adding more people than currently living in the City of Tacoma. Where
will we all play?'' That question is a critical element of a Tacoma,
Washington region-wide strategy of Forever Green, a project of the
public-private Forward Together coalition. A predictable, well financed
Land and Water Conservation Fund will be a part of the solution.
Implementation of the Sitka Trail Plan, a project of Sitka Trail Works,
Inc. collaborative of Sitka city/borough, Alaska State Parks, USDA
Forest Service and National Park Service Rivers and Trails consultants
could depend on LWCF assistance. The draft plan presents 26 potential
projects that will provide high quality recreation experiences and aid
development of a recreation-based economy.
Distribution of LWCF Appropriations.--Appropriations from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund should be made available as authorized by
current law, with governors retaining flexibility to meet public
recreation demand as determined by public processes. The legislative
history of the act underscores the concern for providing necessary
recreation resources ``to strengthen the health and vitality of the
citizens of the United States.'' In addressing the distribution of
funds, the then Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee report on
the initial legislation stated that, ``in providing outdoor recreation
resources and facilities for the American people, the greatest emphasis
should be given to those areas with the largest concentration of
people.'' The National Park Service's on-line quick history of LWCF
notes that 75 percent of the (37,500) projects funded by LWCF for state
and local governments ``have gone to locally sponsored projects to
provide close-to-home recreation opportunities readily accessible to
America's youth, adults, senior citizens and the physically or mentally
challenged.''
The President's budget could dramatically shift the focus of LWCF
state grants away from the provision of recreation opportunities for
the American people to actions more consistent with the stated purposes
of the Endangered Species Act, the North American Wetlands Conservation
Act and the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program--all
critically important statutes--where recreation is secondary and
necessarily subservient to the stated objectives of wildlife and
wetland conservation.
Rather than investing in ``high risk'' environments where children
are in need of increased recreation the budget speaks to ``at-risk
species.'' While the proposal contends that ``[t]he paramount purpose
of the [LWCF] program would remain outdoor recreation, the primary
focus would no longer be on acquiring and developing land to
``strengthen the health and vitality of the citizens of the United
States.'' On the contrary, the proposed budget would redefine ``public
outdoor recreation purposes'' to include ``development and
implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife and their
associated habitat, including species that are not hunted or fished;
for the conservation of endangered or threatened species; and for the
protection, enhancement, restoration and management of wetland
ecosystems and other habitats for migratory birds and other fish and
wildlife.'' Each of these activities (with the exception of
``management'' functions) are currently authorized LWCF purposes and
objectives.
Further, proposed revisions to the authorized state-by-state
allocation formula could result in serious distortion of LWCF purposes
and investments. The President's ``full funding'' proposal and formula
change (incorporating relative land area) would impact many states with
large, often urbanized, populations that drive impart on resources and
thus land use. California's LWCF share, for example, would drop from
$40.6 million to $29.2 million; New Jersey from $12.6 million to $8.8
million, Pennsylvania from $16 million to $12.2 million; Massachusetts
from $10.1 million to $7.5 million; and Florida from $20 million to $15
million. Conversely, many low population--large land area states would
increase, many significantly. Future resource conservation and
recreation demand will likely be met by an allocation formula that is
weighted more, not less, toward population factors. Legislation to
address state allocation and federal programmatic relationships should
be considered by authorizing committees.
We share the subcommittee's concern for the health and welfare of
the American people.
Sincerely,
R. Dean Tice,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Newark, NJ
Chairman Skeen and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
giving me the opportunity to submit testimony about a project under
your jurisdiction which is very important to the people of Newark, New
Jersey and the surrounding region. The implementation of our proposal
for a Regional Hydroelectric Power Generation demonstration project
will help the City of Newark to become more energy efficient and self-
reliant, through the generation of power at an existing water treatment
facility. This investment of $12 million from the Department of Energy
to Newark's future will help us to improve the economic status of our
city, while also providing environmental benefits for northern New
Jersey.
As the nation's third oldest major city, Newark possesses the
unique duty of maintaining an aging infrastructure while attempting to
meet the demands of the 21st century. We are charged with the
responsibility of continuing to manage a very precious water resource
while faced with the challenge of providing an adequate and reliable
water supply of uncompromising quality. The City of Newark owns and
operates the largest publicly operated water and sewer system in the
State, and is dedicated to upgrading its aging facilities. The system
delivers, on average, more than 90 million gallons per day for purposes
of domestic consumption, commercial and industrial use, and fire
protection. Currently, with a 1995 USEPA grant of $44.5 million, we are
rehabilitating our century-old brick sewer system, combined sewer
overflow system, and stormwater drainage channels. In addition, we have
recently utilized low interest loans to complete the rehabilitation of
a high hazard dam and the cleaning and cement mortar lining of 13,000
feet of a 42-inch diameter aqueduct. These projects will help to extend
the useful life of the overall system well into this new century, but
we see untapped potential in our water distribution infrastructure.
The project presented for your consideration concerns the
generation of power through the City of Newark's own water system.
Although not yet faced with the severe challenges faced in other parts
of the country, Newark is seeking to proactively address the need for
alternative energy sources. The City of Newark is also confronted with
a series of challenges to its water and power supply resources.
Accordingly, the City is seeking to develop the ability for the
generation of hydroelectric power through the addition of in-line
turbines at existing water transmission facilities. Newark has an
extensive water collection and treatment system, spread over a large
area in northern New Jersey. It feeds approximately 100 MGD to the City
and it's out of town customers. The City maintains and operates five
storage reservoirs, nine dams, six outlet structures and 64 square
miles of woodland. It operates 80 miles of transmission aqueducts,
structures, right-of-way and pump stations, interconnected with other
major water purveyors. Distribution reservoirs are operated, along with
their inlet and outlet gates, a rechlorination plant, and a water
testing laboratory. Newark's extensive local water system includes 500
miles of distribution mains and pipelines, 5,000 hydrants, and 10,000
control valves. Although viewed primarily as a water supply system, the
potential for power generation is present, and the time is right to
begin its utilization.
The City's Pequannock Water Treatment facilities and aqueduct
downstream of the Charlotteburg Dam and Reservoir present a unique
opportunity to recover energy that is currently dissipated in the
diversion of water through various dam gatehouse and intake structures,
pipeline, and downstream screen chambers. Further, the potential
hydroelectric power and energy represented in the conveyance could,
most of the time, offset the existing power and energy requirements of
the water treatment facilities themselves, including the loads present
at dams and treatment facilities.
With this potential in mind, the City performed an evaluation of
the power production and energy generation potential of its system. An
extensive technical study of the power generation potential of Newark's
entire collection, treatment and transmission facilities has been
prepared, showing the possibilities of surplus energy generation, and
is available for review. It explores the potential generation and
disposition of power from several of Newark's operations. As a pilot
project, the least complex element of the system can stand alone, and
is submitted and described herein.
This project proposes to construct a Water Turbine Hydroelectric
Facility at the City's Cedar Grove balancing reservoir. This facility
includes inlet and outlet gates, dam structures, and grounds. Utilizing
the existing infrastructure, this proposed facility would take
advantage of the hydrostatic head on the transmission aqueduct between
the West Milford Treatment plant (elev. 700') and the Cedar Grove
Reservoir (elev. 380'). The proposed site lies alongside a power
company easement, which would make connection to the grid quite simple.
The fairly static flow provided by the interceptor makes this a logical
location for a turbine regulator set up. This method of energy recovery
would be the least invasive as it could be implemented without
significant disruption of our present system. It represents the clean
and renewable production and use of energy ``on-site'', which is
currently wasted. The project may also alleviate the relatively
frequent interruptions and curtailments of power delivery that are
currently experienced at the Pequannock Water Treatment facilities.
This proposed facility would be capable of offsetting the City's
electrical operating expenses in addition to the needs of its Water &
Sewer Utility. It could also potentially offset the cost to construct
concrete storage tanks at the Cedar Grove site in order to meet Federal
compliance for the elimination of open potable drinking water
reservoirs. It provides Newark with a unique energy recovery and use
opportunity.
An appropriation of a total of $12 million is sought, with $2
million for planning and design, and $10 million for construction of
the project. It is anticipated that the energy generated through the
facility would offset this initial investment within the current
decade. Your support for innovative hydroelectric energy generation
will enable the City of Newark to impact on its own environmental and
economic concerns.
In closing, I would like to extend my thanks to the entire New
Jersey delegation for its ongoing support. The time and attention of
this subcommittee are deeply appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of the Quinault Indian Nation
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: As President of the
Quinault Indian Nation, it is my pleasure to submit testimony to this
with respect to the fiscal year 2002 Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies appropriations requests. Our testimony embraces more
than the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service,
although these agencies continue to be the primary agencies that
provide funds to our government.
Over the past several months all of the people of the Pacific
Northwest have been forced to face the question of conservation.
Everyone from the corner market to the Governor's Office speaks of
conservation of water because of the drought, and conservation of
electricity to avoid California-like power disruptions this summer. We,
the leadership of the Quinault Nation are also concerned with
conservation; but our thoughts are of conservation in a wider sense.
Our concern is the conservation of our most important resources: our
people and our land. To that end, my focus today is on the need for
programs and facilities that protect the people of the Quinault Nation
and protect and preserve our lands.
Quinault Indian Nation requests:
Implementation of North Boundary Settlement Agreement--U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Forest Service
Members of the Washington State delegation have been fully briefed
on the status of the negotiations and the general principals of the
settlement over the use of the North Boundary Area of the Quinault
Indian Reservation as embodied in a Memorandum of Agreement signed by
the Department of the Interior, the Quinault Indian Nation and the
Trust for Public Lands. The Agreement calls for implementation through
Phase One funding in fiscal year 2002 of approximately $13 million in
federal and private funds. The federal appropriated line items that
have been identified as potential sources of funding during fiscal year
2002 include: (a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Landowner's Incentives
Fund, the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund and Habitat Conservation
Plan land acquisition; (b) the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Land and Water
Claim Settlement account; and (c) the U.S. Forest Service Forest Legacy
Program. We request funding from all or a combination of the accounts
during fiscal year 2002.
Meaningful funding of the federal portion of the settlement is
critical to stay a lawsuit against the United States. More importantly
from the Quinault Nation's perspective, funding of the settlement
agreement is necessary for the Nation to achieve fiscal solvency over
the next several years. The Nation's Land Consolidation program has
been placed on hold because of the dispute with the United States as
has the entire economic development program of the Quinault Indian
Nation.
Quinault Indian Nation requests:
Tribal Priorities--Bureau of Indian Affairs/Indian Health Service
As I have testified for the past several years, our priorities
continue to be centered around the need for facilities construction and
infrastructure development. It is vital to our tribe and many others
across the country that attention be paid to how the federal government
can assist tribes in paying for these important developments. There are
very few sources of funding for new facilities in Indian Country. Only
the CDBG programs have been available directly to tribes. Other sources
for funding facilities, such as IHS and BIA are dedicated to the
construction of federal--not tribal--facilities.
Within Indian Country, only a few tribes have unencumbered funds
they can use to leverage private sector funds to build new facilities.
Without a tax base, tribes cannot access funds commonly used by state
and local governments. There are alternative approaches to financing
tribal facilities, however, such as co-financing, joint ventures, loan
guarantees and bonding authorities that could create opportunities for
many tribes. We urge the Committee to help us develop these options to
supplement direct federal appropriations.
IHS--Health Facilities Construction--Increase $5,500,000
The first priority of the Quinault Nation for the fiscal year 2002
is the construction of a new tribal health clinic. For more than ten
(10) years now, the Nation has been working toward the construction of
a new health clinic on the reservation. The Roger Saux Health Clinic is
now the oldest reservation health facility in the Pacific Northwest. As
valuable as the clinic has been to all Indian people in the service
area, it is no longer able to meet the demands of the patient
population. The clinic now serves more than 27,000 patients a year,
from several reservations and surrounding communities. Funding is
needed to construct a clinic that will meet the needs of our people.
Assisted Living Center--Increase $300,000
The General Council of the Quinault Nation has identified an
assisted living facility for tribal elders on the reservation as a
priority. 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, at present, there is no such resource available. Quinault
elders in need of assisted living services must leave their homeland
and move 50 miles away to the nearest facility--if there is an opening.
Therefore, we urge the Committee to continue to support increased
appropriations for IHS Facilities Construction to fund the $1 billion
identified backlog. With respect to the Quinault Nation, we again
request that $300,000 be identified within the IHS budget for the first
phase of an Elders Assisted Living Facility on the Quinault
Reservation. Finally, we continue to support alternative approaches to
financing tribal health facilities such as co-financing, joint
ventures, loan guarantees and bonding; and we urge the Committee to
assist us in developing these options as a substitute for dependence on
Congressional appropriations.
Queets Fish Buying Station--Increase $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 as unsafe. Until this past year, the structure continued
to be used simply because there was no alternative. The flooring
finally gave way last fall and the building cannot be used. 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 2002
appropriations specifically for this purpose.
Tribal Court--$750,000
The Quinault Nation supports the Administration's proposed increase
of $1.5 million for Tribal Courts within the Tribal Priority Allocation
line item. In addition, the Nation supports and urges the Congress to
support the continuation of funding for the Law Enforcement Initiative.
However even these increases will not address the needs that the
Quinault Nation has identified as priorities for the next several
years.
Our request for funds to construct a tribal court was included as
part of my request in last years budget, and continues to be an
important unmet need on our reservation. 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. The Nation stresses the need for a new
courthouse and a need for a second tribal judge and additional hours
for the Tribal Prosecutor to keep pace with increased caseloads.
An ongoing need for additional 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.
The Quinault Nation must provide all forms of law enforcement on
the reservation. 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 more than 200,000 acres); and in ``usual and accustomed places''
off the reservation. In addition, the department has the responsibility
of enforcing tribal jurisdiction on the Pacific Ocean out to the
territorial limits. In fact, the Nation is presently discussing the
possibility of working with the National Marine Fisheries Service to
provide enforcement services in coastal waters under the Lacy Act.
Prosecutions from each of these enforcement activities must be
adjudicated in Tribal Court.
In April the Quinault Nation began operating its own tribal TANF
program. As a consequence of that commitment, the Nation must seriously
examine the possibility of additional burdens on the Tribal Court to
hear cases related to TANF activities. This would include reviews of
TANF decisions brought on administrative appeal and, most likely, child
support enforcement matters. Before the Tribal Court can begin hearing
such cases, it is important that the Court have the proper staff,
training and facilities.
Fractionated Heirship Pilot Project--Increase $2 million
Finally, the Quinault Nation supports the Administration's proposed
increase for the Indian Land Consolidation Pilot Project of $2 million.
The Nation is negotiating with the Department to become one of the
Pilot Projects. As of the date of this testimony, we have identified
over $10 million worth of less than 2 percent fractionated interests
owned by willing sellers on the Quinault Reservation. One of the main
goals of the Quinault Nation for the past 4 decades has been to repair
the damage to our Nation caused by the Allotment Act. Increased funding
for this Pilot Project could help the Nation achieve this goal.
I would like to thank the members of the Committee for considering
the testimony of the Quinault Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of Alachua County, FL
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for allowing the Alachua County Board of
County Commissioners to submit this written testimony before your
Subcommittee concerning the County's Emerald Necklace Land Conservation
Initiative. As described below, this initiative will serve as a model
land conservation program, while demonstrating the benefits of a
successful local, state and federal environmental partnership.
EMERALD NECKLACE LAND CONSERVATION INITIATIVE ($10 MILLION IN FUNDING
REQUESTED)
On November 7, 2000, a large turnout of Alachua County voters
overwhelmingly endorsed passage of a local land acquisition bond
referendum that provides up to $29 million in local funds to acquire
and preserve environmentally significant lands. This local initiative
received broad public support, with endorsements from diverse community
interests including business, environmental and community
organizations.
Alachua County is seeking state and federal matching funds to
leverage this substantial local commitment to land conservation.
Property acquisitions are proposed to link existing conservation lands
to provide for connected areas of protected water quality and wildlife
habitat, as well as resource-based recreational opportunities. Federal
matching funds will be critical to the success of this project. Alachua
County is committed to responsible land use practices and conservation
policies that encourage future growth to occur in areas of lesser
environmental sensitivity with adequate infrastructure.
Alachua County has five large scale land acquisition projects
(5,000+ acres) on Florida's Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL)
acquisition list.
--Paynes Prairie Additions (a large freshwater wetland and watershed,
managed as a state preserve)
--San Felasco Hammock Additions (a mature hammock and sandhill
forest, with ravines and unique sinkhole drainage features)
--Watermelon Pond (an upland sandhill and scrub forest community with
important ephemeral wetlands surrounding a relatively pristine
lake)
--Newnans Lake (a diverse flatwoods forest surrounding a major
community fishing lake with declining water quality)
--Lochloosa Forest (a pine flatwoods forest, largely in commercial
timber production surrounding two large fishing lakes)
These tracts are under substantial land development pressures that,
if left unchecked, will further fragment and diminish their
environmental, water resource, and recreational values.
A major portion of the larger tracts proposed for acquisition are
currently timber lands. Timber production, where conducted in
conformance with best management practices to avoid soil erosion and
water quality degradation, is a land use considered to be generally
compatible with Alachua County's land conservation goals. In these
areas, the purchase of development rights and conservation easements,
as opposed to fee simple acquisition, are proposed as key components of
the Emerald Necklace acquisition strategy. These conservation
alternatives, which stretch the available acquisition dollars, allow
the properties to continue to be used for lower impact, more compatible
land use activities while remaining under private ownership and
management.
In addition to these five larger tracts, acquisitions are proposed
for smaller, but environmentally significant properties that will
preserve vital connections between the larger tracts, creating the
``Emerald Necklace.'' These smaller, linking parcels, often overlooked
by state and federal land acquisition programs, are easier to manage by
a local land conservation program such as that established by Alachua
County.
Although most of the properties proposed to be included in this
project are relatively undisturbed, an important objective of the
Emerald Necklace initiative is to accomplish several critical
restoration projects. Alachua County in consultation with the City of
Gainesville have identified four priority restoration areas.
--Newnans Lake, a large lake in a relatively natural setting with
spectacular recreational, scenic, and wildlife resources that
is being adversely affected by water quality degradation and
sedimentation. Specific projects requiring federal assistance
include: investigations to determine the source of water
quality problems and appropriate remedies, mechanical removal
of muck and sedimentation, land acquisition for surrounding
properties, a multi-use trail system circling the lake and
connecting two existing rail-trails, and the designation and
enhancement of a canoe trail connecting Newnans and Orange Lake
via Prairie Creek and the River Styx. The St. Johns River Water
Management District is another willing partner for this
restoration project, having made substantial commitments in the
past and demonstrating an interest to expand land conservation
and water resources protection in the area while enhancing
public access.
--Sweetwater Branch watershed restoration to improve water quality,
reduce sedimentation, and to prevent adverse impacts on Paynes
Prairie State Preserve (a designated National Natural Landmark)
and the underlying Floridan Aquifer, the region's primary
source of drinking water. Prior to draining into the drinking
water aquifer via Alachua Sink on Paynes Prairie, this urban
creek in eastern Gainesville is severely impacted by untreated
stormwater runoff and further eroded by a major discharge of
treated municipal wastewater.
--Tumblin Creek watershed restoration to improve water quality,
reduce sedimentation and toxicity to fish, and to prevent
adverse impacts to Paynes Prairie State Preserve and the
Floridan Aquifer. This severely degraded urban creek flows
through a minority neighborhood and a public school campus
prior to transporting untreated stormwater and potentially
toxic sediments into Bivens Arm Lake. This lake, a state-
designated wildlife sanctuary, provides an increasingly rare
opportunity for subsistence and recreational bank fishing for
low income and unemployed residents
--The restoration of Hogtown Creek, which drains the largest
watershed in Gainesville. The City of Gainesville has acquired
$3.0 million in properties to establish the Hogtown Creek
Greenway. Federal funding assistance is needed for the
development of recreational trails and for water quality
improvements.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Alachua County proposes an intergovernmental land conservation
initiative to establish the ``Emerald Necklace,'' a publicly
accessible, connected and protected network of trails, greenways, open
spaces and waterfronts surrounding the Gainesville urban area. This
initiative will directly provide for multiple public uses and benefits,
including passive recreation opportunities, protection of drinking
water sources, watershed restoration, and the preservation of
diminishing fish and wildlife habitats. Therefore, we hope that the
Subcommittee will find this critically important project worthy of your
support. Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Florida State University
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to present testimony before this
Committee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you with
Florida State University (FSU).
Located in Tallahassee, Florida's capitol, FSU is a comprehensive
Research I university with a rapidly growing research base. The
University serves as a center for advanced graduate and professional
studies, exemplary research and top quality undergraduate programs.
Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong commitment to quality in
teaching, to performance of research and creative activities and have a
strong commitment to public service. Among the faculty are numerous
recipients of national and international honors, including Nobel
laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners as well as several members of the
National Academy of Sciences. Our scientists and engineers do excellent
research, have strong interdisciplinary interests, and often work
closely with industrial partners in the commercialization of the
results of their research. Having been designated as a Carnegie
Research I University several years ago, Florida State University
currently is approaching $125 million per year in research awards.
FSU will soon initiate a new medical school, the first in the
United States in over two decades. Our emphasis will be on training
students to become primary care physicians, with a particular focus on
geriatric medicine--consistent with the demographics of our state.
Florida State attracts students from every county in Florida, every
state in the nation, and more than 100 foreign countries. The
University is committed to high admission standards that ensure quality
in its student body, which currently includes some 192 National Merit
and National Achievement scholars, as well as students with superior
creative talent. We consistently rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges
and universities in attracting National Merit Scholars to our campus.
At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as
well as our emerging reputation as one of the nation's top public
universities.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about a project we are pursuing this
year involving a new institute to address Florida Coastal Marine
issues. A Memorandum of Agreement has been signed between the Minerals
Management Service (MMS), the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), and Florida State University to create the Florida
Coastal Marine Institute, contingent upon the appropriation of funds.
The goals of this Institute are to support high-quality research and
training activities in coastal areas with particular emphasis on sand
and gravel resources in the coastal and marine waters adjacent to
Florida. The FSU Coastal Marine Institute will augment the pool of
researchers capable of addressing current and future marine science
information needs of the MMS and the State of Florida, by supporting
the training of graduate students and post-doctoral students. Support
will also be utilized to provide a data information repository at FSU
for such data. We are asking for $500,00 in fiscal year 2002 to fund
this activity through the Department of Interior's Minerals Management
Service. Matching funds from state or private sources will match the
MMS funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very worthwhile effort that will yield
great rewards and is just one of the many ways that Florida State
University is making important contributions to solving some key
problems and concerns our nation faces today. Your support for this MMS
activity would be appreciated, and, again, thank you for an opportunity
to present these views for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Indian Reservation
As Chairman of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Reservation, I am pleased to submit this testimony on the BIA and IHS
fiscal year 2002 budget
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Education
We support the Administration's emphasis on education. In
particular, we support the $1 million increase requested for tribal
colleges and university. This is vital to our tribal members, who want
and need a higher education but do not want to leave their home to
receive this education. We also support the President's initiative to
increase funding to meet the construction needs of public schools with
a high number of Indian students. All of the schools on the Fort Peck
Reservation are public schools and are in dire need of facilities
monies.
We are concerned that the President has not requested any increases
for the higher education scholarship program within the BIA. The
current level of funding is inadequate. At Fort Peck alone, we have had
to turn a way more than 200 students, who needed assistance to continue
their higher education. We are also concerned that the Johnson O'Malley
program has not received an increase in more than ten years. In fact,
it has been cut by more than two million dollars in the last two years.
On the Fort Peck Reservation, there is a shortfall of more than
$900,000 in this important program.
Phase I North of Sprole Irrigation Project ($3,778,070)
The Fort Peck Tribes in conjunction with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the Montana Department of Agriculture, and the Roosevelt
County Conservation District, have been working together to develop the
North of Sprole Irrigation Project (NOSI). The Project is part of an
economic development program to stimulate the local economy by
providing jobs and income to the area.
The economic analysis report estimates that up to 150 new jobs
would be created within the Fort Peck Indian Reservation with a
projected increase in annual income to Roosevelt County of $1-3 million
annually. In the end the Project will result in an increase in the
number of irrigable lands by more than 14,000 acres. Thus, there can be
no doubt that the project will greatly improve the quality of life of
the people of the region.
Moreover, in 1997 Roosevelt County economy had a deficit trade
balance $58 million, because the region no longer has any significant
``value added'' industry that results in the export of the region's raw
good. With the development of the NOSI Project the Fort Peck Tribes is
taking the first step in developing value-added business activity in
Roosevelt County and the development of a crop production/food
processing marketing channel. Thus, not only will this project improve
the quality of life for the people of the region, it will improve the
overall economy of the region and the State. Working with the other
Project proponents, the Tribes have already hired an Irrigation
Development Specialist to develop alternative cropping systems and a
nutrient and pest management plan for all irrigable lands throughout
the Reservation.
The Tribes request $3,778,070 for Phase I of this Project, which
has a total cost of $25,360,200. Phase I funding will enable the Tribes
to build the three necessary pumping stations for this important
project.
Road Maintenance ($70 million increase)
Nationally, the BIA and tribes are responsible for more than 24,000
roads and 770 bridges. Within the Rocky Mountain Region of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs there is a total of 2,445 miles of roads, of which
279 miles are on the Fort Peck Reservation. Yet, the entire budget for
BIA road maintenance is only $27 million.
This amounts to approximately $708 per mile for road maintenance.
States and the federal government spend on average $4,000-$5,000 per
mile on road maintenance. The BIA estimates that $100 million is needed
to maintain BIA/tribal roads. Increased funding for IRR road
maintenance is not only the fair thing to do. It is the smart thing to
do. We all recognize that spending millions of dollars to build roads
and bridges only to see them fall into disrepair and lose years of
useful life due to a lack of adequate maintenance is both unwise and
unsafe. We urge the Subcommittee to increase Road Maintenance funding
to meet the needs.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
We are very disappointed that the Administration did not request
any programmatic increases in funding for Indian Health Service
Programs. As we all know, at the current funding levels the Indian
Health Service is funded at only 50 percent of need. We strongly
support the Senate Budget Resolution, which would provide $4.2 billion
to fully fund the Indian Health Service.
The Fort Peck Service unit alone needs an increase of $14,665,000
to update the Unit's present health care system to provide adequate
health care to our people. Access to quality health care for our people
is complicated and compromised by the lack of space, lacks of health
care professionals, harsh weather, remote physical location, and the
increasing cost of pharmaceuticals. The Fort Peck Service Unit has
developed a number of initiatives to address these challenges, which
the Tribes are asking for the Subcommittee's support.
Below we provide a detailed discussion of these initiatives.
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Program ($65,000)
As the Committee knows, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome/Effect is the number
one preventable birth defect in America. The rate of FAS/FAE in Indian
communities is far higher than other communities. The impact of this
preventable defect is forever on a child's life and on our communities.
More must be done to prevent this terrible epidemic. At Fort Peck we
have developed a FAS/FAE program to provide training to the communities
and educational information to the women of our communities. The cost
of this program is $65,000.
Community Health Outreach ($446,000)
The Fort Peck Reservation is over 100 miles long and 50 miles wide.
Many of our people cannot afford to buy gasoline or own a vehicle to
get to our clinics. The Tribes are proposing two new initiatives to
address this critical access to care crisis on the Reservation.
To address the issue of access to care, the Tribes are proposing to
implement a mobile health care clinic. This would enable trained health
care providers to reach those who are likely the most in need. This
clinic would be critical in providing well woman and well-child care,
as well as treatment of simple complaints. The Tribes propose staffing
the mobile clinic unit with a Nurse Practitioner. The cost for a mobile
unit and its staff would be $414,000.
A part of this community outreach program, the Tribes propose an
``Ask a Nurse'' initiative. Under this proposed initiative, a nurse
would be on call from her home on weekends and after hours. The cost of
this initiative for a one year contract with a nurse is $32,000.
Asthma Program ($60,000)
The Fort Peck community has an unusually high number of asthmatics.
The Fort Peck Tribes propose developing an aggressive treatment and
education program to reach those suffering with asthma, in particular
our youth. As part of this program, we are proposing to develop a
``kids'' asthma camp to provide safe environment for our children to
engage in important physical activity and to learn about asthma. The
cost of this initiative is $60,000.
Cardiac Rehabilitation Program ($215,000)
We are very proud of our innovative Cardiac Rehab Program. It is
the first of its kind in the entire IHS system and has proven to be
extremely successful. The program is a holistic recovery program,
focusing on our cardiac patients' diet, exercise, and behavior. This
ensures that our patients enjoy full recovery from their surgery and a
quality of life that is better in most instances than what they had
before surgery. The total cost for this innovative program is $215,000
annually.
Dental Clinic ($84,700)
Our present dental care system is painfully inadequate. We have
more than 1200 children who are in urgent need of the most basic dental
care. Our elderly population also lacks the most basic dental care,
including the need for dentures, crowns and bridgework. Studies have
shown that we could keep 6-8 dentists busy. We request funding for two
new efforts. The first is for $52,000, which would provide orthodontist
care to our children. The second is for $32,700 to develop a new
program to focus on elders' dental health.
Obesity Clinic ($146,000)
Obesity is a major contributor to diabetes, which is at epidemic
levels in our community. We propose a new Obesity Clinic, staffed with
a nurse and a dietician to develop a community wide obesity program to
combat this problem. We request $146,000 for this new program.
In conclusion, the Fort Peck IHS Service Unit is trying to make
access to medical care a very high priority. Through a campaign of
community education and patient outreach, the quality of care and
service to the community is being expanded. Funding these initiatives
is a fiscally responsible method of addressing the health care needs of
our people.
We thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians
As Chairman of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians, located in Wisconsin, I am pleased to submit this written
testimony which reflects the needs, concerns and issues of the Tribal
membership arising from the President's fiscal year 2002 Budget.
INDIAN EDUCATION
As we continue our journey into the 21st Century, the education of
our children and future leaders is very important to the Band. We are
glad to hear that President Bush is also making education one of his
top priorities.
The Band's specific concern is the funding levels associated with
Higher Education and Johnson O'Malley programs. There has not been an
increase in the BIA's higher education funding for five years. In the
last two years, the Band had 115 tribal members, who were not able to
receive funding for college due to funding shortfalls. To fully support
our qualified college students, an additional $225,000.00 of funding is
required.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COURTS
The Band is pleased that the Administration has chosen to maintain
funding for tribal law enforcement programs with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. This is a basic need that is currently unmet in most Indian
communities.
At Lac du Flambeau we are fortunate to have a police department
that is able ensure a safe community for our members. For instance in
2000, the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Police Department logged 28,800 man-
hours answering 4,143 complaints. The 10, member Police Department
consists of 9 full time officers and 1 administrator responding to
calls ranging from domestic violence to juvenile cases including
runaways, burglary, fraud, battery and vandalism. The Lac du Flambeau
Tribal Police not only responds to tribal complaints but also provides
services to the non-Indian community as well.
Currently, we cannot compete with the State of Wisconsin's
retirement plan. The Band approached the State about having our
officers participate in their plan, but the State said we could not.
The problem has escalated to a point where we cannot retain our
officers even though our hourly wage is on the average of $2.00/hour
more than the surrounding police departments. The Band requests an
increase of $263,125.00. Increased funding is needed to ensure that we
can retain our officers.
We are pleased that the budget requests an increase for tribal
courts. Our Lac du Flambeau Tribal Court System includes a Chief Judge,
2 Associated Judges, Tribal Attorney/Prosecutor, Clerk of Courts,
Deputy Clerk and 2 Peace Keepers. In fiscal year 2000, our Court System
had 1,268 cases filed and conducted 1,716 hearings. Cases would range
from Children and Family cases to on and off reservation conservation/
natural resource violations. Throughout Indian country, tribal courts
are severally underfunded and yet continue to fulfill a critical role
in bringing justice to our communities. It is vital that these courts
start to receive the funding that they need. Thus, the Band
respectfully requests Congress to increase funding for the BIA Tribal
Courts Programs.
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 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 86,000 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. An increase will ensure we can 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 dedicated 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-three reservations, the Great Lakes Indian
Fish and Wildlife Commission, 1854 Authority and Fond du Lac Ceded
Territory, with reservation and ceded territory land base of more than
61 million acres, have identified $1,009,000.00 in funding needs for
fiscal year 2002.
Forestry
Within the 86,000-acre reservation, we have 45,000 acres of
forested land that supports hunting and gathering opportunities for
tribal members as well as logging. Proper management of the forest is
essential to sustain our subsistence lifestyle, but also to provide
economic growth for the Band. The Forestry Program, consisting of 2
foresters and 2 technicians, undertakes a broad range of management
activities including tree planting, prescribed burning, timber road
design and maintenance, timber sale administration and wildlife
management. The Forestry Program is funded through Tribal Priority
Allocation (TPA) within the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, which 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. To avoid this conflict, we request this Committee to
earmark $188,000 for the Lac du Flambeau Forestry Program, which has
not received any new funding since fiscal year 1991.
Tribal Historic Preservation
The Band is strongly opposed to the proposed $15 million cut in the
NPS Historical Preservation Fund. A reduction to the fiscal year 2000
level would mean significant cuts in tribal historic preservation
programs nationally. Since 2000, 10 more Tribal Historic Preservation
Offices (THPOS) have been certified. THPOS are already severally
underfunded. A $15 million cut would be devastating. We urge the
Subcommittee to provide the full $52.1 million for this program.
TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATION (TPA)
In Lac du Flambeau, for example, many programs such as child
welfare, courts, education, roads, forestry, land management, HIP and
etc. are key programs included within TPA. TPA allows the Band to move
funds from one TPA program to another, in line with the priorities set
by the Tribe. The TPA program has been insufficiently funded across the
board, and has not met the needs in Indian country. The President
requested $750.4 million for Tribal Priority Allocation. The Band
supports the $17 million increase, but urges the Subcommittee to
consider additional increases for these vital programs. The Band
requests an earmark of $75,000 for the Band's Tribal Land Management
Department. This Department has a vast array of responsibilities
associated with the administration and management of trust properties
under the jurisdiction of the Band. We also urge the Subcommittee to
restore the President's proposed $2 million cut in the BIA's General
Assistance Program.
The President's TPA budget also includes $130.2 million for Contact
Support, which is an increase of $11 million over last year's level. We
feel this a start but it falls well short of the need since the BIA
claims that this will only meet up to 88 percent of the total BIA
contract support needs in Indian Country. We would hope that Congress
would fully support total funding for Indirect Cost.
great lakes indian fish and wildlife commission
The Band supports the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission request of $3.9 million. The Band is a member of the
Commission, which assists the Band in protecting and implementing its
treaty-guaranteed hunting, fishing and gathering rights.
INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION PROJECT
The Band supports the Land Consolidation Project. In order to
improve upon the implementation of this Project, we suggest that
Congress allow tribes to administer the project through a Public Law
93-638 contract or some other cooperative agreement.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
The Band is very disappointed that the Administration has failed to
provide any programmatic increases for the Indian Health Service. In
this regard, the Band strongly supports the Senate version of the
Budget Resolution which would allocate $4.2 billion to the Indian
Health Service. This would ensure that the IHS has the resources to
provide the basic, essential health coverage that is required to meet
the needs of Indian people. In fiscal year 2000, the Indian Health
Service only provided 52 percent of the cost required for health care
for our membership. Again this is unacceptable and we believe this is a
breach in the federal government's trust responsibility to our people.
The Lac du Flambeau Band strongly urges Congress to rectify this
funding shortfall, by adding an increase of $3 million for the Peter
Christiansen Health Center.
We are also very concerned with the level of funding provided for
contract health care. While there continues to be an enormous shortfall
in the contract health care system, the Administration did not request
an increase for this key program. Currently, funding for contract
health care meets less than half of our needs. We are forced to
undertake a terrible rationing of health care--addressing only
emergencies. If a child requires an MRI or CT scan, we cannot provide
these services--unless a life is in imminent danger. At the same time,
according to IHS, the Administration's Budget will result in more than
16,000 fewer contract health care outpatient visits than last year. We
urge the Committee to increase the contract health care budget
significantly.
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission
GLIFWC'S FISCAL YEAR 2002 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
$3,956,000 Base Funding Level (fiscal year 2001 enacted plus an
increase of $285,000).--GLIFWC requests an adequate funding base so
that it can restore and maintain its core biological, enforcement,
tribal court and public education programs.
Rationale.--Since 1995, both the Administration and Congress have
provided a constant funding base. However, the net effect has been a de
facto funding decrease. Based upon the Consumer Price Index, GLIFWC
would need nearly $300,000 more today to equal the buying power it had
in 1995. GLIFWC already has taken a number of steps to cut staff and
expenditures, but further reductions are not possible without
significant cuts into its programs.
Full Funding of Contract Support Costs.--GLIFWC requests that the
BIA be directed to fully fund its contract support costs.
Rationale.--Only once since 1995 has the BIA fully funded GLIFWC's
contract support costs for shortfall of nearly $196,000. For example,
in fiscal year 2000, GLIFWC had an $86,000 shortfall because the BIA
provided only 80 percent of contract support funding. This shortfall
causes enough hardship as it is. Yet, its effect is compounded by the
lack of certainty throughout the year as to what the final funding
level will be. Like any organization or business, GLIFWC needs timely
information to make day-to-day management decisions and to implement
improvements that increase management efficiency and cut operational
costs. GLIFWC has worked hard to maintain a low overhead, and
historically its indirect cost rate has been under 15.25 percent (e.g.
11.99 percent in fiscal year 2000). This is becoming more difficult
because GLIFWC does not know what its actual contract support funding
will be until the fiscal year is nearly, if not already, over.
Ceded Territory Treaty Rights and GLIFWC's Role.--GLIFWC was
established in 1984 to assist its eleven Minnesota, Michigan, and
Wisconsin Chippewa tribal governments in:
--securing treaty guaranteed rights to hunt, fish, and gather in
Chippewa treaty ceded territories; and
--cooperatively managing and protecting ceded territory natural
resources and their habitats.
GLIFWC implements federal court orders and various
interjurisdictional agreements related to these rights. It serves as a
cost efficient mechanism to conserve natural resources, to effectively
regulate harvests of natural resources shared among treaty signatory
Tribes, and to develop cooperative partnerships with other government
agencies, educational institutions, and non-governmental organizations.
Why GLIFWC's Funding Base Needs to be Increased.--A number of
factors have eroded GLIFWC's funding base and threaten its programmatic
capabilities:
``Flatline'' Base Funding Appropriations.--As discussed above,
GLIFWC's BIA base funding has remained constant since 1995, and the
effect has been a de facto funding decrease.
Rapidly Increasing Fringe Benefit Rates.--Fringe benefit costs have
increased nearly $102,000 since 1995. Health insurance costs alone
increased 27 percent last year and are expected to increase at about
the same rate for next year.
Increasing Staff Seniority.--Once the ``new kid on the block,''
GLIFWC is now a mature agency. Much of its staff, including all of its
division heads and lead biologists, have been with GLIFWC for more than
10 years, some for over 15 years. Consequently, GLIFWC faces about
$40,000 each year in salary ``seniority step'' increases and associated
fringe costs. This is in addition to general COLA increases that GLIFWC
provides only if the BIA's appropriation provides COLA funding.
Budget Reduction, Funding Diversification, and Other Cost-Saving
Options Have Been Exhausted.--GLIFWC already has taken a number of
steps to address its de facto funding decrease. It has: (i) cut staff;
(ii) reduced the number of fall fish recruitment surveys; (iii) reduced
funding to tribal courts and registration stations; (iv) postponed
vehicle and equipment replacement; (v) obtained separate contract
support funding from the BIA; and (vi) pursued ``soft'' funding from
non-BIA sources to prevent additional staff cuts and to undertake
special projects. Further reductions or realignments are not possible
without significant cuts into core biological, enforcement, and public
education programs.
How Increased Base Funding Would Be Used.--The fiscal year 2002
funding increase would:
Restore Funds to Programs that Have Been Cut.--$145,000 would be
used to restore:
--Fall juvenile walleye recruitment surveys to previous levels.--
$100,000 to offset the nearly 50 percent reduction in lakes
that were surveyed in 1991 (152 lakes) to those that current
funding will allow to be surveyed in 2001 (about 80 lakes).
--Tribal court and registration station funding.--Nearly $30,000 was
cut from tribal courts and tribal registration stations in
fiscal year 2001.
--Lake Superior lamprey control and whitefish assessment programs.--
$10,500 has been cut from these programs over the last 5 years.
--Predator study and cooperative wild rice enhancement projects.--
$4,500 has been cut for cooperative projects with state and
federal agencies, as well as with non-profit conservation
organizations and other partners.
Establish a Revolving Capital Fund to Replace Ageing Vehicles and
Field Equipment.--$100,000 would be used to establish a capital fund
that would be used each year to replace old vehicles and equipment. For
example, the Biologists' truck fleet consists of one 1979, one 1990,
one 1991, five 1994, and two 1995 models. Also, GLIFWC's wardens patrol
with five 1985 model boats, four 1988 model All Terrain Vehicles, and
eight 1990-91 model snowmobiles. These vehicles and equipment are
becoming increasingly more costly to maintain and simply are wearing
out.
Meet Increased Seniority ``Step'' Salary and Fringe Costs.--$40,000
would be used to meet the average annual non-COLA ``seniority step''
salary increases and associated increased fringe costs.
Benefits From Increased Base Funding.--The increased funding base
will enable GLIFWC to restore and maintain its programs, with the
benefits of:
Remaining a constructive, stabilizing natural resource management
and public safety institution.--Over the years, GLIFWC has become a
recognized and valued partner in natural resource management, in
emergency services networks, and in providing accurate information to
the public. Because of its institutional experience and staff
expertise, GLIFWC provides continuity and stability in interagency
relationships and among its member tribes, and contributes to social
stability in the ceded territory in the context of treaty rights
issues.
Retaining an Experienced Professional Staff.--Since the early days
of the treaty rights issues, GLIFWC has retained a solid core of
biologists, biological services field staff, enforcement officers, and
public information specialists. In many instances, GLIFWC staff
experience matches or exceeds that of their counterparts in other
agencies when it comes to treaty rights issues and to ceded territory
natural resource management and enforcement issues.
Maintaining cooperative, cost-effective partnerships.--GLIFWC has
built partnerships with:
--Other government agencies, such as state Departments of Natural
Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA-Forest Service,
USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service, Great Lakes Fish
Commission, U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry, Canadian
federal and provincial governments, and local county and
municipal governments;
--Schools and Universities, such as the University of Wisconsin-
Madison, University of Wisconsin-Superior, Northland College,
University of Minnesota, and Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe
Community College; and
--Non-Governmental organizations and community groups, such as Ducks
Unlimited, the Sharp-Tail Grouse Society, the Natural Resources
Foundation, the Nature Conservancy, and local lake
associations.
Through these partnerships, the parties have:
--Identified mutual natural resource concerns, and implemented
conservation and enhancement projects (e.g. wild rice
restoration, exotic species control projects, and the
development and implementation of the Strategic Great Lakes
Fishery Management Plan and its related lake trout restoration
and sea lamprey control projects);
--Provided accurate information/data to counter social misconceptions
about tribal treaty harvests and the status of ceded territory
natural resource populations (e.g. joint fishery assessment
activities and jointly prepared reports);
--Maximized each partner's financial resources and avoided
duplication of effort and costs (e.g. coordinating annual
fishery assessment schedules, and sharing personnel and
equipment to conduct fishery assessments);
--Achieved public benefits that no one partner could have achieved
alone (e.g. waterfowl habitat restoration and improvement
projects);
--Contributed scientific research and data regarding natural
resources and public health (e.g. furbearer/predator research,
and fish consumption/human health studies and other fish
contaminant research, such as that regarding mercury in fish);
and
--Engendered cooperation rather than competition (e.g. cooperative
law enforcement and emergency response activities, such as
joint training sessions, mutual aid emergency services
arrangements, and cross-credential agreements).
______
Prepared Statement of the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation
This statement is submitted on behalf of the Paucatuck Eastern
Pequot Tribal Nation, North Stonington, CT, with respect to fiscal year
2002 appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Specifically, we
wish to urge the Subcommittee's favorable consideration of increased
funding in fiscal year 2002 for the Branch of Acknowledgment and
Research (BAR). We ask that funding be increased from $900,000 in
fiscal year 2001 to a level sufficient to provide BAR with at least
three full research teams.
The 150-member Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Tribe has a 254-acre
reservation in North Stonington, CT, which was established in 1683 and
is known as the Lantern Hill Reservation. Historically, however, the
Tribe occupied and controlled a much broader land area in southeastern
Connecticut. The Tribe and our reservation have been continuously
administered by either the Colony or the State of Connecticut. While we
are a state-recognized Tribe, and have been recognized by Connecticut
since it became state, we are not yet federally recognized. We have
been known by a number of names: Stonington Pequots, North Stonington
Pequots, and Paucatuck Pequot, as well as the name we currently use,
Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Tribe. We have had a series of leaders who
have been recognized as our chiefs by the State of Connecticut and
other New England tribes. All of the current members of the Paucatuck
Eastern Pequot Tribe descend from three individuals who were identified
as Indians on the North Stonington Reservation in the 19th century.
As this Subcommittee knows, in 1978, an administrative process for
groups to petition the federal government to be acknowledged as an
Indian tribe was established within the Department of the Interior.
Members of our Tribe have been working to achieve federal recognition
since the 1970s, gathering information and documentation about our
Tribe in order to present our case. As is required under the
regulations, the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Tribe sent a letter of intent
to submit a petition to the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research (BAR)
in 1989. We submitted an extensively documented petition in 1994 and
submitted additional supplemental documentation in 1996. All of the
documentation we submitted presents evidence to prove to the BAR's
satisfaction that our Tribe meets each of seven mandatory criteria
required to be met in order to be recognized. This material includes
historical, anthropological and genealogical data; newspaper and other
articles written over decades which talk about the Paucatuck Eastern
Pequot; oral histories of tribal members; information about the
Paucatuck Eastern Pequot's tribal council meetings and membership
criteria; descriptions of tribal activities and events, and issues in
which Paucatuck tribal leaders have been active both historically and
in this century; and other material.
On April 2, 1998, the petition of the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot
Tribe was placed on ``active consideration.'' On March 24 of last year,
the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs signed a positive Proposed
Finding, recommending that the United States affirm that a government-
to-government relationship exists between the federal government and
our Tribe. We are currently in a comment period, during which we as
well as interested parties may comment on the BAR's analysis of our
case as set forth in the Proposed Finding. While our initial positive
Proposed Finding was a hugely significant event for the Tribe, we know
that the process is not yet over, and may continue for several more
years until we finally achieve federal recognition.
Going through the administrative process for federal recognition is
both extremely expensive and lengthy for petitioning groups. We do
recognize the seriousness of this government-to-government relationship
and its accompanying rights, benefits and responsibilities. However,
from our experience and that of others, it is also clear that the BAR
staff--which must review and analyze literally tens of thousands of
pages of documentation about each petitioner in fulfilling the
acknowledgment functions of that office, not to mention additional
research responsibilities assigned to the office by and for the
Department--is trying to conduct a challenging task with inadequate
staff and resources. BAR and the Department have been criticized for
the fact that over the past several years, the BAR has issued about one
Proposed Finding or Final Determination on a petitioning group per
year. Add to this slow pace the fact that the BAR office is faced with
an overwhelming backlog of pending petitions. As of last November, BAR
had 14 petitions under ``active consideration,'' or on which BAR staff
is actively working. Further along in the process were 10 Proposed
Findings, and several Final Determinations to which the staff were
required to respond. Eleven petitioners have submitted all the required
documentation, and are waiting for BAR staff teams (historian,
anthropologist and genealogist) to become available to review them
under ``active consideration.'' On top of this, there are more than 50
more petitioning groups which have submitted some documentation to the
BAR and are in the process of submitting additional information, and
more than 100 other groups who have expressed interest in submitting
the necessary documentation to prove they meet the criteria for
recognition, but have not yet done so.
One of this Tribe's great frustrations in the acknowledgment
process, even under ``active consideration,'' when we knew the BAR
staff was reviewing our documentation, drafting their technical reports
and conducting peer reviews on their recommendations, was that there
was no or minimal communication from the BAR. There is little or no
opportunity for dialogue between the petitioner and the BAR, even to
get a status report on where BAR is in the process of their review, or
when certain materials which, in our case, we had requested under the
Freedom of Information Act, might be made available to us. When we have
raised this concern with the BAR, staff have told us they are too
shorthanded to respond to petitioner inquiries. We learned that when
the BAR receives requests for documents under FOIA and similar
inquiries, staff must stop the research they are conducting in order to
stand at the Xerox machine or review and redact documents before they
can be copied.
For the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Tribe, this issue has come
dramatically to a head in the last few weeks with recent developments
concerning our petition.
In mid-January of this year, the State of Connecticut and the Towns
of North Stonington, Ledyard and Preston, CT, filed suit in the federal
district court for Connecticut against the Department of the Interior
(Connecticut v. Interior). Among other things, the plaintiffs are
seeking the unprecedented remedy of having the Bureau of Indian Affairs
set aside our Proposed Finding, and of forcing the Paucatuck Eastern
Pequots back to the start of the acknowledgment process.
We sought to intervene in the litigation. On March 27, U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut Chief Judge Covello
issued an order acknowledging the right of the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot
Tribe and the Eastern Pequot Tribe to intervene as a matter of right
based on the implications of the case for the rights of the tribe.
Then on March 30, Judge Covello entered a scheduling order in the
case, which sets out a schedule for the BAR, as well as for us as a
petitioner. The scheduling order calls on the BIA to respond fully to
all remaining document requests of the parties to the litigation no
later than May 4. The State and the Towns must comply with all FOIA
requests filed by the Tribes under State law on that date as well. By
August 4, all interested parties and the petitioners must submit to the
BIA their comments on the March 24, 2000, Proposed Findings. By
September 4, the petitioners must submit their responses to the BIA. By
October 4, the BIA must commence consideration of all of the evidence
before it on the petitions, and by December 4 it must publish its Final
Determinations in the Federal Register. Judge Covello has retained
jurisdiction over the processing of the petitions, and will do so until
the process has been completed.
In addition to Judge Covello's order, it is our understanding that
the federal courts have directed that BAR comply with a schedule for
the processing of one other petition, and that a schedule is being
negotiated for a fourth petitioner. It is unfortunate that when the
process takes such a long time, the courts must get involved to provide
a time frame and, ultimately, a decision about a petitioner's tribal
status. Given that BAR has basically issued one decision per year, we
are not sure how BAR could comply with court directives in several
recognition cases without a significant increase in staff and
resources.
We are aware that last year, several members of Congress urged that
additional resources be made available to the BIA for BAR in order to
facilitate the processing of recognition determinations. While funding
for additional staff will not make the recognition process less
controversial or be a ``magical solution,'' it will surely aid in the
processing of petitions within the timelines set by the regulations.
On behalf of the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation, thank you
for this opportunity to submit this statement on fiscal year 2002
appropriations for the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut
Mr. Chairman, my name is Mark Brown and on behalf of my tribe, the
Mohegan Tribe of Indians, I thank you for this opportunity to provide
written comment on the President's budget request for the Indian Health
Service (``IHS'') and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (``BIA''). In
particular, I wish to comment briefly on one matter that surfaced
several months ago that may have had a negative impact on public
opinion of our Tribe.
BACKGROUND
In the early 1600's, the Mohegan Tribe held a large portion of what
is now eastern Connecticut. The size of our territory plummeted as a
result of wars with some European settlers and some neighboring tribes
and the abject failure of the State of Connecticut and the United
States to enforce the Federal Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790.
Despite the powerful forces arrayed against us over the next several
centuries, the Mohegan Tribe was able to hold on to a small tract of
tribal land around Mohegan Hill in Uncasville, Connecticut. It is on
this site that the Mohegan Church, still standing today, was first
built in 1831. Also in 1831, Mohegans opened a museum which today
continues to operate as the oldest tribally-run Indian museum in
America.
In 1994, after more than 16 years of tireless efforts to persuade
the United States that our Tribe had an historical and continuous
presence as a tribal community in eastern Connecticut, we obtained
Federal recognition and a formal declaration by the United States that
it has a government-to-government relationship with the Mohegan Tribe.
Today, the Mohegan Tribe provides governmental services through
programs or departments in the following areas: comprehensive social
services, fire fighting, emergency medical services, law enforcement,
health and building inspections, civil regulatory authority, housing,
planning and economic development, council of resources, youth
services, education, environmental health, finance, cultural resources,
human resources and community outreach.
In 1996, our Tribe opened the Mohegan Sun Resort, our tribally-
managed casino in rural southeastern Connecticut.
Since the day we opened the Mohegan Sun and began to generate
tribal revenue, we have voluntarily returned substantial grant funds to
Federal agencies. Our Tribe, like other tribes, has a valid claim to
receive these funds due to our relationship with the United States and
agreements involving our loss of land. But we have begun to return
Federal funds because the governmental revenues we are deriving from
gaming promise to soon enable our Tribe to be self-sufficient, meeting
the needs that were addressed in the past only by Federal grants.
The Mohegan Tribe has been concerned that our own action to return
funds would be misunderstood to be an abandonment of our special
relationship with the United States, or that it would be misused to
pressure other tribes to follow our path. Accordingly, we have stated
repeatedly, in our return of funds agreements with BIA and IHS, that
any decision to return funds is one that should be made only by a
tribal government for itself, in its own time and in its own way. It
would violate fundamental principles of sovereignty for such a decision
to be imposed upon a tribal government by another government.
Tribal gaming has opened a new future to us. The Mohegan Tribe now
has, for the first time in generations, the revenue to operate as a
full-fledged government. It is perhaps axiomatic that a government that
does not use its power tends to lose it. It is equally true that
without sufficient revenue, a government has little ability to use its
power.
Our Tribe has in the last five years devoted considerable sums to
creating the social and physical infrastructure that for so long was
denied our people and our land. For example, we have spent $35 million
for road improvements.
RETURN OF FUNDS
The Mohegan Tribe has exercised its right to return funds to both
the BIA and the IHS, as well as to several other Federal agencies.
Thanks to the language inserted by this Subcommittee in the annual
appropriations act for the past two years, it is made expressly clear
that our return of BIA funds in no way may be seen as jeopardizing or
diminishing our government to government relationship with the United
States, nor the trust obligations of the United States towards the
Mohegan Tribe. The Subcommittee may wish to consider broadening the
language to cover funds returned to the IHS or any other Federal
agency.
The Mohegan Tribe has insisted that the funds we return to BIA and
IHS be reallocated directly to other tribes in the eastern United
States for their use. We have specifically placed this as a condition
upon our return of funds, because the lessons of history have taught us
that, without such restrictions, the Federal bureaucracy may divert the
money to matters of questionable, and at best, only indirect benefit to
Native Americans.
Given all this, we were alarmed two months ago to read accounts in
several national newspapers alleging that the Mohegan Tribe had
returned its Federal appropriations to the BIA in order to pay the
costs of moving a BIA office from northern Virginia to Nashville.
Nothing could be further from the truth If the BIA were to use our
returned funds in this manner, it would be a patent violation by the
BIA of our agreement. Our Tribal Council approved the return of these
funds only on the condition that the funds would be sent directly to
other federally-recognized tribes in the eastern United States and
devoted to services for needy Indians.
The Mohegan Tribe would highly value any assistance the
Subcommittee might give us in correcting the misunderstandings caused
by these erroneous news accounts. We also seek your continuing
vigilance in assuring that our return of BIA and IHS funds appropriated
for our benefit in no way jeopardizes or diminishes the trust
responsibility owed to us by the United States nor the special
government-to-government relationship we share.
Finally, we urge you to work with the Administration and your
colleagues on Capitol Hill to dramatically expand the amount of federal
funding devoted to tribal programs.
On behalf of the Mohegan Tribe of Indians, I thank you for this
opportunity to provide testimony relating to the fiscal year 2002
budget request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray
Reservation
INTRODUCTION
My name is O. Roland McCook, Sr. I am Chairman of the Tribal
Business Committee of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray
Reservation in Utah. I am providing this written testimony in support
of the Department of the Interior's proposed appropriation toward
settlement of water right claims held by the Ute Indian Tribe. The
appropriation of $24.728 million is included within the Bureau of
Indian Affairs' proposed budget for ``Indian Land and Water Claim
Settlements.'' It is in partial fulfillment of the obligations and
promises made by the United States to the Ute Tribe in 1965, and
reconfirmed by Congress in 1992. Those obligations and promises are set
forth in the Ute Indian Rights Settlement, Title V, Public Law 102-575,
106 Stat. 4600, 4650 (Oct. 30, 1992). The purpose of the Settlement is,
in part, to settle long-outstanding claims held by the Tribe relating
to the failure to construct features of the Central Utah Project
(``CUP'') contemplated in the September 20, 1965 Agreement between the
Tribe, the United States and the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District (``CUWCD'').
The Ute Indian Tribe is pleased with the opportunity to present its
views to this distinguished Subcommittee. The Tribe looks forward to
working with the members to assure passage of the proposed
appropriation, which will provide a critical step in completing the
funding of the Tribe's Settlement; funding that is vital to the
economic development of the Tribe, its members and the surrounding
community.
THE UTE INDIAN TRIBE
The Ute Indian Tribe is made-up of three bands, the Uintah,
Whiteriver and Uncompahgre. The Reservation is made up of two separate
reservations: the Uintah Valley Reserve established in 1861; and the
Uncompahgre Reserve established in 1882. Together they encompass nearly
4.5 million acres of Indian trust, fee and federal land. Approximately
1.4 million acres of Reservation land are held in trust for the Tribe.
Approximately 3,300 tribal members live on the Reservation. They
suffer from the highest unemployment rate in the entire Uintah Basin.
While the Reservation is blessed with oil and gas resources, employment
opportunities are limited. Other employment opportunities are
proscribed by the lack of additional economic development. The Tribe
and a few tribal members do engage in agricultural enterprises that
provide limited economic returns. Fish and wildlife resources are
extremely important to the Tribe and could, if properly developed and
managed, offer greater economic opportunities.
As I previously noted, in 1965 the Tribe, United States and CUWCD
entered into what is commonly referred to as the Deferral Agreement. In
that Agreement, the Tribe deferred the development of over 15,000 acres
of tribal land, thereby making available up to 60,000 acre-feet of
water annually to assure a sufficient water supply for the Bonneville
Unit of the CUP. That Unit is the principal component of Utah's water
supply future. It is one of the most complex and expensive
transmountain diversion projects ever built by the Bureau of
Reclamation. The project diverts water, including the 60,000 acre-feet
made available by the Tribe, from the streams in the Uinta Basin and
transports the water westward to Salt Lake and Utah counties. In
exchange for its substantial and essential contribution, the Tribe was
to receive a substitute water supply from projects proposed as the
final stages of the CUP. Those projects were never built and the
replacement water never delivered. If the Settlement is fully funded no
later that January 1, 2005, the Bonneville Unit will be able to
continue to divert a full water supply to the greater Salt Lake City
area. If not, the Tribe can proceed with the development of its land
and exercise its water rights.
THE UTE INDIAN RIGHTS SETTLEMENT
The Settlement was enacted in October, 1992. The facts surrounding
this Settlement make it distinct from other Indian water settlements.
In 1965, the United States entered the Deferral Agreement, a
contractual obligation with the Tribe which it failed to fulfill. The
Settlement represents substitute consideration for the substitute water
supply promised in 1965, not enticement to enter a settlement of the
Tribe's water right claims. Below is a brief summary of the status of
the appropriations previously made by Congress as authorized in the
Settlement, and the development the Tribe has undertaken with those
funds.
Section 504--Farm Assistance Programs.--Congress has fully funded
the Tribe's farming programs, found in section 504 of the Settlement.
The Tribe has utilized those funds to: (a) construct a tribal feedlot,
which has been completed and is now in full operation; (b) provide
assistance to over 100 small farm and ranch operations owned and
operated by tribal members; (c) improve the water delivery system in
the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project by piping open ditches and
installing sprinklers; and, (d) establish a tribal farming co-op which
provides equipment and on-farm labor to small tribal farmers. The
Tribe's agricultural operation employs full-time tribal members.
Section 505--Stream Habitat, Environmental and Recreational
Improvements.--Section 505, which provides funds for various stream and
habitat improvement projects, has been partially funded. The Tribe has
used a portion of these funds to establish an Aquatics Department that
has actively undertaken stream and fishery habitat improvements and has
developed extensive in-house data collection and technical review
capabilities. The Tribe also has implemented several big game programs
designed to enhance and properly manage the Tribe's wildlife resources.
The Fish and Wildlife Department, including the Aquatics Department,
employs approximately 35 full or part-time tribal members in activities
directly related to programs funded under section 505. The remaining
amounts approved under Section 505 are not included in the proposed
fiscal year 2002 appropriation.
Section 506--Economic Development Programs.--Appropriations for the
``Tribal Development Fund'', the largest and most important component
of the Settlement, began in fiscal year 1997 and have continued through
fiscal year 2001 in annual amounts of $24-$25 million. The entire
$24.728 million proposed for the Tribe's fiscal year 2002 appropriation
is for the Tribal Development Fund. The purpose of the Fund and
economic projects undertaken by the Tribe are described more fully
below.
THE TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
Section 506 of the Settlement establishes a Tribal Development Fund
``to be appropriated [in] a total amount of $125,000, 000 to be paid in
three annual and equal installments. . . .'' (Due to inflation factors
statutorily applied to the 1992 authorization, the authorized amount
has increased over the past six years to approximately $145 million.)
In fiscal years 1997-2001 appropriations for the Development Fund did
not meet the statutory requirement of equal one-third installments.
Instead, Congress reduced the appropriations and adjusted future
appropriations in accordance with section 506 (b). Subsection (b)
provides that an adjustment will be made by the Secretary to represent
the interest income ``that would have been earned on any unpaid
amounts'' if Congress failed to fully fund the Development Fund in
three annual and equal installments. As a result, the fiscal year 1998-
2001 appropriations included approximately $13.685 million in
penalties. The fiscal year 2002 includes a $2.763 million penalty.
The Settlement limits the Tribe to spending only the interest
derived from the Section 506 Development Fund on its economic projects.
The principal amounts appropriated by Congress are invested by the
Tribe through the Department of the Interior's Office of Trust Fund
Management. Following receipt of the fiscal year 1998 appropriation,
the Tribe retained two independent financial consultants and began a
broad review and analysis of potential on-Reservation economic
development programs. As a result of that process, the Tribe has
completed the construction of a much needed full service grocery store,
centrally located on the Reservation, and two truck stops/mini marts.
All three are now in successful operation and employ approximately
tribal members. The Tribe has completed the environmental review
process and is no constructing a water bottling facility which should
be online by May, 2001. A rural business and re-lending company, Ute
Finance Company, is operating and offering loans and financial
assistance to local entrepreneurs. Just this month, the Tribe opened
Uintah River Technology, a data entry and processing business that
already has six contracts in place. The Tribe invested $2.3 million in
the business in partnership with Oracle Corporation and Affiliated
Computer Services. At present, URT employs more than 30 people and
could train and employ up to 300 people, most tribal members, within a
year.
As these projects demonstrate, the Tribe has been extraordinarily
successful during the first four years of its economic development
program in establishing much needed on-Reservation services on the
Reservation as well as obtaining a much needed position in the
technology industry. There are many other economic opportunities
available on and off the Reservation which will allow the Tribe to
fulfill its comprehensive, long-term economic development plan. The
Sec. 506 Economic Development Fund is the cornerstone of that
development, and the fiscal year 2002 appropriation must be fully
funded to ensure that those opportunities are realized.
THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2002 APPROPRIATION
Congress clearly recognized and understood in 1992, that the
Development Fund is the critical component of the Tribe's efforts to
secure economic self-sufficiency in the future. That process cannot be
fully implemented until funding is complete. The proposed appropriation
of $24.728 million is a reduction from prior years and cannot be
reduced any further. Any further reduction would seriously threaten
Congress' ability to meet the January 1, 2005 deadline (fiscal year
2004) for full funding of this Settlement.
There are fiscally related reasons for supporting the full $24.728
million appropriation recommended in the budget. The United States is
required to pay an annual penalty for its failure to fully fund the
Development Fund in three equal annual installments and the inflation
factor further increases the amounts owed to the Tribe until the
Settlement is fully funded. It makes good long-term (and short term)
sense to make the full recommended appropriation because failing to do
so costs the United States additional money. The fiscal year 1997-2001
funding levels were less than required under the Settlement. As a
result, those appropriations have included $13.685 million in penalty
payments to the Tribe. Any greater reduction than is already proposed
in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation results in a increased penalty in
that and subsequent years. Finally, funding at any amount less than the
proposed fiscal year 2002 appropriation level may well assure that the
January 1, 2005, deadline established in the Tribe's Settlement will
not be met. That failure potentially carries with it severe financial
repercussions as well as the potential loss of substantial quantities
of water to the greater Salt Lake City area.
The proposed $24.728 million appropriation falls well short of what
was clearly anticipated and promised by Congress in 1992. It does not
amount to a full one-third of the overall authorization and it does not
replace the shortfalls from previous years. At the proposed rate, the
Tribe's Settlement will not be fully funded until fiscal year 2004, 12
years after its enactment. Until then, the Tribe can initiate only
limited economic development programs that do not come close to that
envisioned by Congress and that are essential to the future of the
Tribe, its members and the surrounding community. Despite its
shortcomings, the proposed fiscal year 2002 appropriation will provide
the Tribe with another essential piece in completing its economic
development plan and the Tribe fully supports any requests this
Subcommittee's support of the proposed appropriation of $24.728
million.
CONCLUSION
On behalf of the Tribal Business Committee of the Ute Indian Tribe,
I would like to express my gratitude to the Subcommittee for this
opportunity to present the Tribe's statement in support of the proposed
appropriation of $24.728 million for the Tribe's Settlement. The Tribe
and the United States have worked together for many years to realize
the economic benefits promised when the Tribe provided access to water
and assured the completion of one of the West's grandest water
development projects--the Central Utah Project. We are very close to
completing what has been a long and tumultuous process. The proposed
appropriation for fiscal year 2002, is a critical step in bringing this
matter to a close, and fulfilling the obligations undertaken by the
United States in 1965, and reaffirmed by Congress in 1992.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Indian Gaming Commission
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice-Chairman and members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to present testimony on the National Indian
Gaming Commission's (NIGC) fiscal year 2002 appropriations request. I
believe that we are entering a new era in the area of tribal
governmental gaming and the regulation of the industry. As the industry
expands, it is critical that the NIGC have the resources to provide
proper oversight of the $10 billion and growing Indian gaming industry.
The Commission seeks an appropriation of $2 million as authorized
by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, 25 U.S.C. 2718.
The NIGC is an independent federal regulatory agency of the United
States established pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of
1988, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., to provide regulatory oversight of gaming
activities conducted on Indian lands. It is associated with the U.S.
Department of the Interior for administrative purposes. The Commission
is comprised of a chairman and two commissioners, each of whom serve
three-year terms.
The Commission's mission is to regulate gaming activities on Indian
lands for the purpose of shielding Indian tribes from organized crime
and other corrupting influences; ensuring that Indian tribes are the
primary beneficiaries of gaming revenues; and assuring that gaming is
conducted fairly and honestly by both operators and players. To effect
these goals, the Commission is authorized to conduct investigations;
undertake enforcement actions, including the issuance of notices of
violation, assessment of civil fines, and/or issuance of closure
orders; conduct background investigations; conduct audits; review and
approve tribal gaming ordinances and management contracts; and issue
such regulations as are necessary to meet its responsibilities under
the Act.
The Commission became operational in 1993, operating on a $3
million start-up budget until 1998, when Congress increased its
authority to assess fees on gaming operations up to a limit of $8
million. Currently, the Commission is funded entirely through fees
assessed on gross revenues of tribal gaming operations.
The additional resources did not become available for use by the
Commission, however, until 1999, due to litigation. Once available, the
Commission initiated a systematic expansion of its operations. Since
then, the Commission has established five regional offices: Portland,
Oregon; Sacramento, California; Phoenix, Arizona; St. Paul, Minnesota;
and Tulsa, Oklahoma and increased its staff to 72 FTE. It also
established an Audits Division and an Office of Self-Regulation.
RAPID TRANSFORMATION OF THE REGULATED INDUSTRY
Since passage of IGRA, the Indian gaming industry has undergone a
rapid transformation. In 1988, the industry was comprised of a handful
of small operations producing approximately $500 million in annual
revenues. Since that time, it has expanded to more than 300 operations
producing more than $10 billion in 2000. With the passage of
Proposition 1A in California in March 2000, another dramatic surge in
the growth of the industry is underway.
Of the 109 federally recognized tribes in California, 62 have
signed compacts and 74 have approved gaming ordinances. The California
compact allows each compacting tribe to operate up to 2 facilities. The
potential number of operations totals 148. The maximum level would be
218 or more than half of the total number of operations currently
operating nationwide. The following table provides a snapshot of gaming
in California and a conservative estimate of what the Commission
anticipates in the near couple of years:
--2000--39 gaming operations
--2001--40 open; 8 under construction and due to open
--2002--48 open; 14 under construction
--2003--62 open
Industry experts project that by 2005, California Indian gaming
revenues alone will exceed $6 billion, more than half of the $10
billion in revenues produced today nationwide.
increased demands on commission operations due to growth
The Commission has increasingly come to realize that the unexpected
growth of the California Indian gaming industry is of such magnitude
that it is straining the Commission's resources. Moreover, the
California gaming compact has strict timeframes in place, creating an
urgency that the Commission cannot accommodate on its current budget.
Gaming start-ups are the most resource intensive phase of activity
for the Commission because all operational components are affected. The
California expansion involves a substantial number of start-ups as well
as tribal expansion into Class III gaming activities. Accordingly,
numerous tribes must enact or amend their gaming ordinances; execute
management contracts; and comply with the National Environmental Policy
Act; all of which must be reviewed and acted upon by the Commission.
The Commission is also responsible for conducting criminal and
financial background investigations, making suitability determinations,
and processing fingerprints for gaming operation employees. Moreover,
the Commission's Office of General Counsel is responsible for
determining the land status of each proposed gaming operation. We have
also invested significant time and effort in training tribal regulators
who will share regulatory responsibilities over these new operations.
Given this spike in the workload, the Commission requires
additional resources to prevent backlogs and to process actions
requested on tribal ordinances, management contracts, and background
and criminal history checks in fiscal year 2002.
The Commission is also aware that even though the start-up workload
will diminish over the next couple of years, the increased size of
industry is permanent. The Commission must take steps now to strengthen
its organizational capacity in order to ensure the adequacy of its
regulatory oversight. It is particularly important at this stage for
the Commission to strengthen its Audit Division given the explosive
growth of the industry. Audits are very time and resource intensive,
but the use of compliance and investigative audits is the most
important and effective means for ensuring the integrity of the
industry.
PLAN TO ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO INDUSTRY GROWTH
Based on independent studies of cash intensive industries, the
Commission believes that it should be validating the internal control
systems of 20 percent of Tier C (over $10 million) gaming operations on
an annual basis and, in conjunction therewith, validate at least 10
percent of gross gaming revenue conducted by this group. In regards to
Tier A and B (less than $3 million & $3-10 million respectively)
properties, the objective would be to examine 10 percent of those
gaming operations and 5 percent of their gross gaming revenue.
Considering the impending growth over the next few years, satisfaction
of these objectives would involve the conduct of about forty compliance
audits annually or about four times what the Commission is now able to
accomplish.
To shore up this aspect of its operation, the Commission needs the
authorized $2 million appropriation to modestly increase the staffing
of its Audit Division and to otherwise alleviate the strain on the
Commission's resources. The appropriation would NOT allow for any
significant expansion of the Commission, rather, it would keep the
Commission operational at its current level of staffing and would allow
for possibly 3 additional FTE.
With 20 new operations opening within such a short amount of time
and more expected over the next several years, the Commission's
Sacramento office is stretched very thin, and will find it increasingly
difficult to meet its oversight goals as soon as next year. Again,
start-up demands are particularly intense, requiring a high level of
technical assistance and on-site activity. Maintaining the capacity to
provide advice and technical assistance at this stage of gaming is key
to minimizing future non-compliance problems. Higher levels of
voluntary compliance reduce the need for costly enforcement actions,
which in turn reduces the litigation potential.
Another area of critical concern is the environmental compliance.
Until recently, NEPA compliance was a relatively minor aspect of the
process. On the average, the Commission handled about 5 NEPA reviews
per year, and almost always as cooperating rather than lead agency.
Currently, the Commission is handling twenty-one NEPA submissions,
twelve of which are from California. Of the total, the Commission is
the lead agency on twelve. The following chart illustrates the
Commission's NEPA workload for fiscal year 2001 and 2002:
Chart
Management Contracts, with a NEPA Component, Currently under
Review:
NIGC Lead Agency.............................................. 12
=================================================================
________________________________________________
NIGC Cooperating Agency....................................... 9
Projects Located in CA........................................ 12
______
Total Number of Current Projects............................ 21
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Anticipated Submissions of Management Contracts with a NEPA
Component, in 2002:
NIGC Lead Agency.............................................. 7
=================================================================
________________________________________________
NIGC Cooperating Agency....................................... 3
Projects Located in CA........................................ 7
______
Total New Projects.......................................... 10
Carryover work from 2001...................................... 11
______
Total workload 2002......................................... 21
At present, the Commission lacks the internal capacity to
handle all requisite aspects of NEPA compliance or sufficient
resources to secure the needed expertise outside the agency.
Inadequate capacity in this area will increase the Commission's
vulnerability to litigation that will cause additional
depletion of the Commission's limited resources.
Over the past two years, the Commission has worked very
hard to improve its institutional infrastructure. As part of
its planning for the 2000 expansion, the Commission undertook a
management review process in 1999. Several areas needed
immediate attention and several more were to be completed in
phases. A new Y2K compliant central computer network with
sufficient capacity to support the computing needs of the
entire organization has been installed. Antiquated desktop
computers have been replaced with reliable new hardware
equipped with up-to-date software programs and the obsolete
database has been replaced. The next step is to upgrade the
central records and document management systems, and install a
new financial management system to ensure continuing
accountability. These important final phases are in jeopardy
given the present resource limitations.
The Commission's request for a $2 million appropriation
will allow the agency to function for another year at its
current size and capacity. This will also provide the
Commission with the time to assess the industry and accurately
project the Commission's future resource needs.
I urge your support for the National Indian Gaming
Commission's request, and I look forward to working with you to
strengthen the National Indian Gaming Commission's ability to
oversee this growing industry. Thank you.
------
Prepared Statement of Dibe Yazhi Habitiin Olta, Inc.--Borrego Pass
School
The Dibe Yazhi Habitiin Olta, Inc., also known as Borrego Pass
School is a Public Law 100-297 Tribally Controlled Grant School to
provide educational services in grades Kindergarten to eight from
Littlewater, Casamero Lake and neighboring communities. The Governing
Board wish to highlight several critical areas of the nation's budget
which we hope will receive favorable increased funding in fiscal year
2002: Administrative Cost Grants, Student Transportation, Indian
Student Equalization Program Formula Funds, Educational Programs
(Special Education, Gifted Education, Bilingual Education), Replacement
School Construction, and Facility Management.
There is a specific promise and obligation on the part of the
Federal Government to provide education to the Navajo people in the
Treaty of 1868. Though the language of that treaty provision is
considerably out of date, the obligation continues through a series of
laws enacted by the United States Government. During the last half of
the 20th Century, the Navajo attitude toward education underwent
significant changes. Navajo people gradually began seeing education as
the path to the future instead of the method of the dominant culture to
steal the souls of the Navajo children. While the Navajo people do not
wish to lose their culture as a people in the process, the dominate
society's educational process is now viewed as having a value and has
long been a top priority of the Navajo people.
The Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request for BIA Education.--The
Governing Board of Borrego Pass School strongly supports the
President's Budget Request with certain exceptions as noted. The
testimony statement will identify certain programs and line items which
Borrego Pass School views as particularly beneficial as well as some
areas where the amounts requested appear inadequate thereby increase
levels are noted.
ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS
Tribally controlled Grant and Contract schools are facing critical
shortfalls in their administrative budgets, they are operating at less
than 80 percent of the funding necessary for quality management and
maintenance of a school. These schools receive their administration
funds through Administrative Cost Grants (ACG), a formula-based method
created by Congress to calculate the amount of funds that should be
provided for the administrative and indirect cost expenses incurred in
the operation of the Grant and Contract schools programs--similar to
``contract support'' costs provided to non-Grant and Contract school
contractors. The ACG formula was designed as a compromise, a minimum
calculation of the administrative cost necessary for quality management
of tribally controlled schools. When 100 percent of these costs are not
funded, these schools are set-up for failure.
The impacts of these shortfalls are far from abstract. Tribally
controlled schools have been forced to make reduction-in-force that
cost them vital, well-trained administrative staff. The remaining staff
struggles under the stress of being overloaded with the work of
multiple tasks and responsibilities. Some schools have had to convert
their administrative staff to a 10-month employment status for the
school year, leaving them ill-prepared to close out the administrative
work of previous school year and to prepare for the coming school year
and annual audit. Reduced funding jeopardizes the ability of schools to
comply with the internal controls needed for quality fiscal and
personnel management. For example due to the shortage of funding,
Borrego Pass School (BPS) has been unable to hire a Human Resource
Personnel, or Compensatory Program Coordinator.
The BPS, Governing Board supports the increased funding requested
by the President; however since this line item is forward funded and it
will be inadequate to fully fund the Administrative Cost Grant formula
at the 100 percent level. Grant and Contract schools that are receiving
only 80 percent will receive an even lower percentage of what the
formula generates. This, the Board feels undermines the Federal
initiative to encourage self-determination. While this formula is not
technically a needs based formula, the amount calculated becomes an
amount the schools budget for and count on when planning their school
budgets. The Governing Board estimates that 100 percent funding for
this line item would be at least $55 million.
In the recent months the current tribally controlled schools have
being informed that the Bureau has viewed the administrative cost
grant, based on the issue concerning the conversion of additional BIA
schools to Grants and Contract schools. In order to accomplish the
bureau has set aside resource funds for these conversions out of the
ACG funds. This would consequently reduce the ACG allocation
drastically, if the schools were funded at 80 percent.
Therefore, the Borrego Pass School, Governing Board ask that
schools be awarded 100 percent at $55 Million, not pro rated amounts,
set aside funds separately for conversion schools, and exclude the
recent Interior Appropriation measure for capping Administrative Cost
Grant funding.
STUDENT TRANSPORTATION
Borrego Pass School is located at the base of a 7,500 feet mountain
pass near the crest of the Continental Divide in the mid western part
of New Mexico. The school is a small rural K-8 educational institution
with students spread out among five Navajo Chapter Communities. The
students travel an average of 43 miles to school on dirt/unimproved
roads, compounding the problem during inclement weather. These
treacherous conditions place a great deal of wear and tear on our
school buses and other school vehicles. The closest bus maintenance and
service location is a 130 mile round trip for minor services, while it
requires 175 miles for major repair services.
The level of funding requested will ensure that the program will
not be able to operate without subsides from other parts of the school
budget. The level of funding for this program has been very
disappointing over the past several years. A minor increase will not
handle the extra costs associated with maintenance and repair,
including the increase of fuel costs.
The New Mexico State Student Transportation mileage rates are
higher than the BIA generated mileage rates. In the current school
year, the Bureau funded transportation rate is $2.30 per mile, far
short of the nationwide average of $2.92 that was reported to public
schools. The fiscal year 2001 budget included less than a $200,000
increase in funding for student transportation. The sharp increases in
fuel costs over the past year have made increased funding for student
transportation absolutely necessity. With wear and tear, including
repair cost well above average due to our remote isolation and GSA
rental and mileage rates escalating, our student transportation costs
have gone beyond what the program generates.
The BPS Governing Board does not agree with the current mileage
rate used to generate transportations funds to transport students to
and from home to receive their education. If BIA transportation
reimbursement rates continue to lag behind actual costs for student
transportation in fiscal year 2002, the school will be forced to
continue to use a distressing percentage of our academic funds to
supplement our inflexible transportation costs. This shortchanges our
students and forces the school to stretch our extremely limited
education dollars even further.
Therefore, the Borrego Pass School Governing Board ask that
Congress increase the BIA budget for student transportation to a level
that can at least support a reimbursement rate of $3.00 per mile, which
is estimated would require approximately $44 million.
INDIAN STUDENT EQUALIZATION PROGRAM (ISEP)
The President is requesting an increase in this line item, which
pays for the basic school program. This should cover the salary cost
increases and the increase in the number of students, which is expected
by SY 2002; however, it will do little toward enhancing the school
educational programs. While a great deal is being done within the
budget, this amount of increase for the basic school program is still
disappointing to those who must oversee and operate schools at this
level of funding. These funds are sometimes used to supplement under
funded programs such as Student Transportation and Facility Management.
A level of $4,000 per Weighted Student Unit (WSU) would result if an
appropriation of $362 million and would greatly enhance the basic
school programs.
In fiscal year 2002, Congress took a step in the right direction,
agreeing to a desperately needed $14 million increase in funding for
ISEP formula funds, that resulted in a final funding level of $330.8
million. But even with this increase, the Board estimates based on BIA
projections that the resulting WSU would be approximately $3,650 for
school year 2001-02. This level of basic educational funding is still
woefully inadequate when compared with similar expenditures for
students in any other school system in the U.S. Unless additional ISEP
funding is provided, the school will continue to face a large turnover
of qualified and experienced teachers, decreased instruction hours,
teacher layoffs, and teacher salary freezes, including incomplete
staffing.
The Department of Defense (DOD) teachers pay was increased as an
incentive for DOD schools to recruit and retain quality teachers at
isolated, remote locations, and continues to increase approximately
three percent per year. However, the salaries for Grant and Contract
schools are still well below what is generated by DOD schools.
Therefore, the Borrego Pass School Governing Board ask that
Congress appropriate at least $360 million for the ISEP Formula program
in fiscal year 2002, which the Board estimates would yield a WSU of
approximately $4,000 per weighted student unit. By funding ISEP at this
level Congress could come closer to offering educational opportunities
to Native American students that are more comparable to those enjoyed
by other children in this country.
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
The Borrego Pass School Governing Board praises the President for
requesting additional funding for Educational programs needed to
provide for: (1) ISEP, (2) Family and Child Education (FACE) and (3)
Therapeutic Residential Model sites. However, additional resources are
needed to assure the Bureau attains its mission goal of providing
quality educational opportunities from early childhood through life in
accordance with the Tribal needs for cultural and economic well being
in keeping with the wide diversity of Tribes and Alaska Native villages
as distinct cultural and governmental entities. The President's long-
term goal is to improve the succession students to each educational
level from early childhood to job placement by the end of School Year
2004-2005.
Since 1988, Bureau funded schools have made significant progress in
reaching accreditation. When school operation funding does not meet the
enrollment increase, accreditation rates decrease and the quality of
education programs decline. Other performance indicators, such as
retention rates and dropout rates are directly related to the quality
of education being provided. Some additional factors that contribute to
the increased costs of providing quality educational services include
the following:
(1) Bilingual Education: the education needs of Indian youth are
greater given the poverty level on Indian reservations as well as the
tribal cultural and linguistic diversity.
(2) Technology: with schools located in geographically dispersed
and predominantly in remote rural areas. The needs for technology are
far higher than those of their urban counterparts to maximize learning
opportunity and to ensure the general well being of Indian children.
(3) Gifted Education: with the schools geographical disparity the
educational needs for the gifted Indian youth is greater due to the
fact of limited educational resources and opportunities.
(4) Special Education services: funding for special education and
related services needs to be funded and an adequate level to provide
specialized student transportation, occupational/physical therapy,
counseling services, audiology and psychological services.
(5) Grade Level Expansion: the Navajo Nation student population is
young and is growing according to the 2000 census. Bureau funded
schools annually feel the impact of this population trend and increase.
However, Congress has continued to keep costs down in Bureau school
system by imposing a moratorium on all new and expansion of grade
structure in current Bureau funded school.
Therefore, the Borrego Pass School Governing Board ask that
Congress appropriate adequate funding for these Educational Programs in
fiscal year 2002, which would allow schools to provide quality
educational opportunities for students. The funding for these programs
Congress could come closer to offering educational opportunities to
Native American students that are more comparable to those enjoyed by
other children in this country.
FACILITIES/QUARTERS CONSTRUCTION
The BPS Governing Board commend Congress for funding construction
of the first six schools included on the BIA's school construction
priority list in the fiscal year 2001 budget. In fiscal year 2002 the
Board hopes that Congress and the Administration will work together to
fund the remainder of the top priority list for this year, and
additional 13 schools. This budget request finally proposed funding
which is commensurate with the enormous backlog, which exists. For
years the Governing Boards have attempted to bring the extreme problems
related to school facilities to the attention of the Administration and
the Congress, and we are thankful for the funding level given in fiscal
year 2001.
Even with this increase schools such as BPS will still need
additional funding to address the student population increase for grade
level expansion (Early Childhood and 9-12 grades), and additional
professional staff is needed to provide quality instructional services
and adequate housing needs. Because of the isolation factor, housing
accommodations is a priority, therefore, becomes a major issues in
maintaining and retaining full-time staff on a yearly basis.
Inclusively our school is located in a remote area in which many for
our staff have to frequently travel some distances to purchase and care
for their personal needs. The school currently needs an additional 12
units to accommodate our current staffing pattern.
Therefore, the Borrego Pass School Governing Board ask that
Congress continue appropriation at a level adequate to meet the
construction need of all Bureau funded schools. Facilities Operation
and Maintenance funding at 100 percent and to eliminate the current
constraint of 25 percent. The President's request of $802 Million to
fund Facilities Improvement and Repair for the backlog of FI & R
projects is fully supported by the BPS Governing Board.
CONCLUSION
The Dibe Yazhi Habitiin Olta, Inc. Governing Board thanks you for
your support for Indian Education programs. It is hoped that this
testimony will prove useful to your efforts to craft a fair and
reasonable budget for BIA education programs. The Board would be
pleased to provide you with additional information about our school and
our priorities and concerns, and looks forward to working with you over
the coming years to assure the every Native American Indian child
receives the education they deserve.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Marine Conservation
The Center for Marine Conservation (CMC) is pleased to share its
views regarding the programs in the Department of the Interior's budget
that affect marine resources and requests that this statement be
included in the hearing record for the fiscal year 2002 Interior and
Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Through science-based advocacy, research, and public education, CMC
informs, inspires, and empowers people to protect ocean ecosystems and
conserve the global abundance and diversity of marine wildlife. CMC is
the largest and oldest nonprofit conservation organization dedicated
solely to protecting the marine environment. Headquartered in
Washington DC, CMC has regional offices in Alaska, California, Florida,
and Maine.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Endangered species listings
CMC supports the Administration's request of $8.476 million for ESA
listings, an increase of $2.135 million over fiscal year 2001 and
respectfully requests the subcommittee specifically identify funds to
list the Northern sea otter under the Endangered Species Act. Over the
last eight years, the Northern sea otter has declined seventy percent.
As few as 6,000 sea otters remain in the entire Aleutian chain in
Alaska, down from 50,000 to 100,000 in the 1980s. Consequently, on
November 9, 2000, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated the
Northern sea otter as a candidate species for listing under the
Endangered Species Act, prompting candidate conservation measures to
alleviate threats to this species. Despite the significant population
decline, no funding is currently directed to the listing or the
recovery of the Northern sea otter.
Endangered species consultation
CMC respectfully requests that the committee reject the
Administration's proposed $849,000 cut in Section 7 consultations.
Funding for this program, which is already chronically under funded, is
vital for the timely completion of these consultations, as required by
law. Applicants for federal permits, as well as federal agencies, must
have a Section 7 consultation completed before moving forward with
projects that may affect listed species. We respectfully request $50
million, at a minimum, in fiscal year 2002 ($7.25 million above the
fiscal year 2001) to prevent needless delays in consulation caused by
lack of Fish and Wildlife Service funds, which result in higher costs
to private citizens, the federal government, and ultimately the
taxpayer.
Endangered Species Recovery
CMC is extremely concerned about the nearly 10 percent proposed cut
in the ESA recovery line itme by the Administration. Only through
recovery can the purpose of the ESA be achieved, resulting in not only
in environmental, but also economic, benefits through fewer restrictive
regulations. We urge the committee to reject this cut and to restore
funding for ESA recovery activities to at least at the fiscal year 2001
level of $59.835 million. In addition, CMC respectfully requests the
committee provide adequate resources for the recovery of sea turtles
and the southern sea otter.
Sea Turtles
All species of sea turtle species found in U.S. waters, including
the Pacific Leatherback, Hawksbill, Kemp's Ridley, and Pacific Green
are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species
Act. Adequate funding for their survival is critical. In order to help
bring these species back from the brink of extinction, their habitat
must be protected, including coral reefs, fragile beaches, and other
coastal ecosystems. The U.S. is an international leader in efforts to
protect sea turtles which last year took another major step forward
with the Senate ratification of the Inter-American Convention for the
Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles.
While we greatly appreciate this committee's support in past years
for sea turtle conservation, additional funds are critical in fiscal
year 2002, especially for international efforts by Fish and Wildlife
Service. We recommend $486,000 in fiscal year 2002 for domestic sea
turtle conservation, the same amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001,
and respectfully request an additional $486,000 for international sea
turtle conservation, up from $275,000 in fiscal year 2001, so that much
needed international efforts can, at a minimum, match domestic efforts.
Southern Sea Otters
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
experienced a net decline in recent years. The primary known threats to
the southern sea otter include habitat degradation, entanglement in
fishing gear, disease, and shooting. Because of its 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.
To save the southern sea otter, its numbers and range must
increase. Funds are needed to continue population surveys and to
conduct investigations of food web interactions and effects of possible
food limitations. Funds are also needed to assess the health of the
population, particularly the causes and effects of disease, as well as
to research the sources and levels of contaminants in sea otters and
their habitat and how these might be contributing to the decline.
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. CMC respectfully requests that the committee
approve $11 million in fiscal year 2002 to finalize and implement the
recently-revised southern sea otter recovery plan, including $3 million
of dedicated funding for the implementation of the priority activities
in the revised recovery plan.
National Wildlife Refuges
While CMC supports the Administration's proposed increase for
National Wildlife Refuges in fiscal year 2002, we urge the committee to
reject the proposed $2 million cut in Land and Water Conservation Funds
for continued acquisition of vital sea turtle nesting habitat in east
central Florida for the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.
The Carr Refuge is the most significant nesting area for endangered
green turtles in North America and one of the world's most important
nesting sites for threatened loggerheads, with 4,000-6,000 turtles
nesting in the Refuge each year. Sea turtles face an uphill battle, but
the continued survival of these ancient marine animals depends on safe,
undisturbed habitat. These lands also provide habitat for other
imperiled species and those of special concern, such as the Roseate
spoonbill, Florida scrub jay and the butterfly orchid. Finally,
acquisition of undeveloped beaches has economic and social values for
the public.
During the last decade, local and state governments have
contributed over $80 million for land acquisition in the Refuge. In
comparison, the total federal contribution has been $13 million.
Furthermore, less than half the lands targeted for acquisition have
been acquired. If Congress defers acquisition, we are concerned that
critical parcels will soon be forever lost due to coastal development.
We urge you to continuing supporting this important initiative by
appropriating, at a minimum, $2 million in fiscal year 2002, consistent
with fiscal year 2001.
Law Enforcement
CMC also urges the Appropriations Committee to renew funding of $1
million for manatee law enforcement in fiscal year 2002 in the
Department of the Interior budget. Heightened law enforcement efforts
are necessary to protected the endangered Florida manatees and curtail
motor-boat caused mortalities. Watercraft mortalities represent the
single largest identifiable cause of death for Florida manatees each
year.
The last three years have generated the highest numbers of
motorboat-related deaths on record. Early in 2000, manatee deaths were
on a pace to surpass the previous year's record. Thanks in part to
stepped up enforcement of manatee protection speed zones and law
officer presence, manatee boating deaths plateaued and finished 2000
below the 1999 record-setting boat-related mortality.
We greatly appreciate the $1 million provided by this committee in
fiscal year 2001 for Manatee Law Enforcement and respectfully request a
renewed commitment of $1 million for this activity in fiscal year 2002.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SERVICE
National Water Quality Assessment Program
Over the past 50 years, nitrogen and phosphorus inputs into U.S.
waters from human activities on land have increased up to 20 times
their previous levels, and the rate of increase is accelerating. This
has had a number of adverse impacts on our coastal water quality. Algae
blooms are depleting oxygen levels, killing fish and other aquatic
organisms. Dead zones are increasing in size and quantity. The
overgrowth of algae from excess nutrients is also killing coral reefs
and seagrass beds, and is leading to increased outbreaks of red tides
and Pfiesteria piscicida. These harmful blooms produce powerful
neurotoxins that cause severe health effects on humans, kill marine
wildlife, and have a wide range of damaging economic effects on the
fishing and tourist industries, increase health care costs, and lower
property values.
At the present time we cannot effectively assess the extent of our
water quality problems or the effectiveness of our programs to address
these problems because only 32 percent of our estuaries and 5 percent
of our ocean waters are monitored. We need more, not less, water
quality monitoring and assessment, such as the watershed approach
adopted in the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (NWQAP).
The NWQAP assesses conditions, determines trends, and investigates
human and natural influences on water quality and watersheds in more
than 50 major river, stream and ground-water systems. It provides an
integrated system for assessing watersheds by focusing on chemical
concentrations of pollutants, the physical conditions of water bodies,
and the biological status of aquatic ecosystems. Data from the NWQAP is
absolutely essential if we are to make progress in reducing the impacts
of excess nutrients in the marine environment. We urge the committee to
reject this crippling 31 percent cut proposed by the Administration and
at least fund the program at current levels ($94.8 million) in fiscal
year 2002.
Coral Reefs
Coral reefs are rightly known as ``the rainforests of the sea,''
and 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 are important to the tourist
industries of many States and territories. Coral reefs are also
extremely fragile and are facing serious threats from overutilizaiton
and pollution around the world, making the work of the Coral Reef Task
Force and the Department of the Interior extremely important and worthy
of the Administration's funding requests.
We respectfully request the Committee to provide the Department of
the Interior with $10 million for its coral reef activities.
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
(same as fiscal year 2001 levels) 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 (same as fiscal year 2001 levels) to support
territory coral reef initiatives.
In addition, we respectfully request adequate resources for the
National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
implement their additional responsibilities in the new coral reef
monuments in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and refuges in the Pacific,
including the Palmayra and Kingman National Wildlife Refuges.
Everglades Restoration
With the passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000,
Congress authorized the implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP). In addition to authorizing specific
restoration projects, WRDA 2000 approved the CERP as the overall
blueprint for the 30-year restoration process. It is essential that
annual appropriations be sufficient to ensure that the restoration
process moves forward on a schedule that is consistent with the
timeframes set forth in the CERP. In addition, it is critical that
previously authorized restoration efforts that are important to the
success of CERP be adequately funded, and that the Department of
Interior have the resources to participate appropriately in all
restoration efforts. Upon review of the proposed CERP budget for the
Department of Interior, and after comparing the proposed budget to the
original CERP implementation schedule and schedules set out for other
restoration efforts, we respecfully request that the subcommittee
consider the following:
--CERP land acquisition funding should be increased by approximately
$57 million.
--The budget must continue adequate funding for previously authorized
programs whose performance assumptions have been included in
the CERP.
--It is crucial to the successful and timely implementation of CERP
that all components of the Modified Water Deliveries
project be adequately funded and completed on schedule in
2003.
--It is essential that the preferred alternative, as indicated in
the Record of Decision for the 8.5 Square Mile Area, 6D, be
implemented expeditiously.
--The President's proposed budget would cut the overall Park Service
Everglades science budget by more than a third (from $6,194,000
in fiscal year 2001 to $4,000,000 in fiscal year 2002). In
order for the Park Service is to contribute appropriately to
the critical scientific and research aspects of Everglades
restoration, CMC recommends that the science budget be funded
at the fiscal year 2001 level.
Thank you for considering the funding needs of these programs. They
are of the utmost importance to the stewardship of the nation's living
marine resources. We greatly appreciate your support for these programs
in the past and look forward to continued, responsible funding for
these programs in fiscal year 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council
On behalf of the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council (AITC), I am pleased
to submit this written testimony on the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations
for Interior Department funding of the Indian Tribal Justice Act
(Public Law 103-176) and Tribal Courts (under the Tribal Priority
Allocations).
The AITC is a statewide organization comprised of 176 federally
recognized member Tribes dedicated to promoting, supporting and
advocating for the powers and rights of Alaska Tribal governments
including the development and perpetuation of tribal justice systems,
the exercise of judicial authority and the administration of justice.
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT FUNDING
Indian Tribal Justice Act and Tribal Court Funding
(1) +$58.4 million. Full Funding for Indian Tribal Justice Act.--
AITC strongly supports full funding ($58.4 million) for the Indian
Tribal Justice Act (Public Law 103-176). On December 21, 2000, the
106th Congress re-affirmed the Congressional commitment to provide this
increased funding for tribal justice systems when it re-authorized the
Indian Tribal Justice Act for seven more years of funding at a level of
$58.4 million per year (see Public Law 106-559, section 202). AITC
strongly supports FULL FUNDING of the Indian Tribal Justice Act as
promised in 1993. AITC 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 eight years ago.
(2) Tribal Courts--at least $15 million (under the Tribal Priority
Allocations Account).--AITC strongly supports increased funding for
Tribal Courts to a level of at least $15 million under the Tribal
Priority Allocations (TPA). This minimal 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. Moreover, Alaska
Native Tribes have historically never accessed BIA funds for tribal
courts or law enforcement. The needs (as recognized by Congress in the
enactment of Public Law 103-176 and re-affirmed with the enactment of
Public Law 106-559), however, have only been compounded with the
passage of time, the increase in tribal courts, the increase of
caseloads, population growth, and the rise in rates of domestic and
criminal disputes in Alaska Native and Native American communities.
Alaska Native and 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 tribal
communities nationwide. 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--specifically finding 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 $58.4 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. Moreover, Alaska
Native Tribes have historically never had access to BIA funds
for tribal courts or law enforcement.
--The 106th Congress re-affirmed the Congressional commitment to
provide this increased funding for tribal justice systems when
it re-authorized the Indian Tribal Justice Act in December 2000
for seven more years of funding at a level of $58.4 million per
year (see Public Law 106-559, section 202).
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.''
Since time immemorial Alaska Native Tribes have maintained peace,
law and order in their communities through the exercise of indigenous
juridical, social and political authority. Today, Alaska Natives
continue to administer justice through their modern day Tribal
governments, councils and courts. Over 100 of the 229 federally
recognized Tribes located in Alaska are actively establishing or
operating single tribal courts systems, inter-tribal/regional and/or
appellate courts. This constitutes a significant amount of tribal court
activity nationwide since almost half (229) of the Tribes in the U.S.
are located in Alaska. The vast majority of the approximately 100
tribal court systems in Alaska function in isolated rural communities.
Moreover, most Alaska Tribal courts are intervening in domestic
relations and civil/family law matters involving child protection,
adoptions, child custody and juvenile delinquency.
These tribal justice systems face many of the same difficulties
faced by other tribes in the lower 48 states and other isolated rural
communities. These problems are greatly magnified by the many other
complex problems that are unique to Tribes. For instance, tribal
justice systems are faced with 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
cases and 90 percent of these cases involve the difficult problems of
alcohol and/or substance abuse.
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). 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).
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.
Eight 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. In December 2000, Congress re-affirmed its
commitment to funding of the Indian Tribal Justice Act by re-
authorizing the Act for seven more years of funding (see Public Law
106-559, section 202). Now is the time to follow through on this long
promised funding and provide actual funding under the Indian Tribal
Justice Act!
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 American Hiking Society
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I represent American
Hiking Society's more than 10,000 members and the 500,000 members of
our 150 affiliated organizations. American Hiking Society is a non-
profit recreation-based conservation organization dedicated to
establishing, protecting, and maintaining footpaths in America. We urge
you to support funding increases that will protect trails and
recreation resources for the benefit of the nation.
Our testimony focuses 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 to merely appropriate more money to the
National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and USDA
Forest Service, but to couple targeted increased funding with increased
on-the-ground trails coordinators and volunteer coordinators.
Second, American Hiking urges you not to permanently authorize the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo). Last year, AHS'
Board of Directors unanimously approved a policy supporting the fee
demonstration program in concept but vigorously opposed making Fee Demo
permanent unless and until the agencies redress the problems our
members raise with the program. Our concerns with Fee Demo include
inconsistent implementation, agency accountability, and equity issues.
Moreover, the heavy reliance and dependence the agencies place on Fee
Demo indicate that fee program revenues are starting to supplant, not
supplement, appropriations. This counters the original intent of the
program.
TRAILS AND RECREATION FUNDING
According to the 2000 National Survey on Recreation and the
Environment, hiking and backpacking are among the nation's fastest
growing forms of recreation. In 2000, 73 million Americans hiked (196
percent growth since 1982) and 23 million backpacked. Human powered
recreation represents an important and increasing use of our public
lands, yet federal funding for recreation has not kept pace with demand
and continues to fall far short of needs.
For the second year in a row, American Hiking Society is an active
participant in a consortium of non-motorized recreation organizations
working to increase appropriations for recreation and trails programs
in the land management agencies. We make the following recreation and
conservation funding recommendations for fiscal year 2002:
USDA Forest Service
Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness--$330 million
Recreation Management--$265 million
Wilderness Management--$50 million
Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails--$100 million
National Park Service
Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program--$12 million
National Trails System--$8.25 million
Geographic Information System Network for National Trails--$2
million
Challenge Cost Share Program--One-third of total to National Trails
System
Bureau of Land Management
Recreation Management--$59 million increase
National Monument and National Conservation Areas--$27 million
increase
Land and Water Conservation Fund--$900 million
Florida National Scenic Trail, USDA Forest Service--$4 million
Ice Age National Scenic Trail, National Park Service--$3 million
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, Bureau of Land Management--$1
million
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, USDA Forest Service--$5
million
The 16 national scenic and historic trails administered by the
National Park Service require a minimum of $8.25 million for natural
and cultural resource management and protection, improving visitor
services, and strengthening volunteer partnerships. 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 trail offices are understaffed,
hindering the agencies' ability to properly administer and manage these
trails and work effectively with volunteer-based organizations. In
2000, national trail volunteer organizations contributed $6.6 million
in financial resources and over 593,000 volunteer hours with an
estimated labor value of $8.8 million. American Hiking thanks the
subcommittee for its support of the National Trails System and urges
you to increase funding to help complete and protect these national
treasures. American Hiking Society endorses the specific figures
submitted by the Partnership for the National Trails System.
In addition, NPS requires $2 million to continue work on a
Geographic Information System network for the national scenic and
historic trails. This program, costing approximately $8.4 million over
five years, will provide accurate information to assist the public,
trail managers, maintainers, and other stakeholders in trail
protection, development, maintenance, interpretation, and resource
management. The project marks a significant step in the evolution of
these trails and applies state-of-the-art technology and techniques to
better administer, manage, and protect trail resources and landscapes.
The National Park Service's Rivers, Trails and Conservation
Assistance program requires $12 million to help communities manage and
protect their recreational and natural resources. This excellent
federal technical assistance program has experienced a dramatic
increase in requests for assistance, but due to limited resources, it
is only able to assist half of all applicants. With a budget of less
than one-half of one percent of NPS total funding, RTCA is
exceptionally cost effective and gets results. In fiscal year 2000
alone, RTCA helped develop 2,200 trail miles, protected 1000 river
miles, and secured 270,000 acres of open space. Assistance from RTCA
professionals is only given at the expressed request of a local
community. As the Federal government seeks to enable communities to
take their future into their own hands, it must enlarge those Federal
programs that build capacity in much needed technical and institutional
skills.
We strongly support an increased level of funding for two primary
Forest Service programs--Recreation Management and Capital Improvement
and Maintenance for trails. 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.
Last year, the Forest Service released its Recreation Agenda,
setting much-needed new goals and benchmarks for recreation in the
agency. The Forest Service requires increased funding to carry out the
measures outlined in the Recreation Agenda, including resource
protection, reducing the maintenance backlog, and augmenting recreation
staff, particularly on the ground.
Despite the increased emphasis the agency is placing on recreation
through the Natural Resource Agenda, we are concerned that this
conversation at the top is not translating to the ground. Very few
national forests have even one full-time trails coordinator. And
despite the number of hiking and other recreation organizations that
wish to volunteer to build and maintain trails in national forests,
very few forests have a volunteer coordinator. American Hiking Society
and some of our member clubs, such as the Continental Divide Trail
Alliance, have had volunteer trail crews turned away because of the
agency's inability to provide even minimal supervision or support. In
the Recreation Agenda, the Forest Service highlights staffing and
acknowledges the need to place trail coordinators, volunteer
coordinators and/or recreation planners at each national forest and for
each nationally designated area or trail. The agency must follow-
through with this commitment by increasing funding for recreation staff
on the ground.
Trail maintenance is a basic component of a safe, quality
recreation experience. As of fiscal year 1999, the Forest Service trail
maintenance backlog totaled over $148 million. Increasing the trails
budget is crucial to enable the agency to begin to address this
tremendous recreational infrastructure need.
We support funding increases for the Bureau of Land Management.
Last year, BLM implemented the National Landscape Conservation System
(NLCS), a new program to focus management, attention, and resources on
National Monuments, Wilderness, Wild & Scenic Rivers, and National
Historic and Scenic Trails--all important for human-powered recreation
pursuits. The agency requires increased funding to manage the rapidly
expanding recreational use of BLM lands and protect the wealth of
natural and cultural resources under its jurisdiction, including the
special areas now managed under the NLCS. Outdoor recreation is an
important public use of these lands and management of outdoor
recreation resources, facilities, and visitor use are significant
components of the BLM's multiple use mission, yet the agency remains
severely underfunded and understaffed.
American Hiking Society strongly supports Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) appropriations for the Florida, Ice Age, and
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails. Now that the acquisition program
for the Appalachian Trail 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. LWCF monies for land
purchases must also be accompanied by adequate funding for the agencies
to effectively manage the acquisitions process and disburse the
appropriations.
RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
American Hiking Society supports the concept of the Recreational
Fee Demonstration Program as it allows the agencies to fully evaluate
the benefits and pitfalls of recreation fees on federal lands. Because
the agencies have not completed that evaluation and because of
uncertainties and concerns regarding implementation, accountability,
and equity issues, American Hiking Society opposes the establishment of
a permanent recreation fee program on federal lands at this time.
Although entrance and user fees provide much needed revenue to agencies
with severe budget shortages, numerous unanswered questions and
concerns remain that must be addressed before Fee Demo receives
permanent authorization.
The agencies manage and implement Fee Demo inconsistently,
resulting in limited interagency coordination, confusing fee policies
and multiple fees, and minimal innovation by the National Park Service.
Equity concerns persist, as the federal agencies often fail to
correlate fees to the cost or level of service provided or type of
recreation. The agencies also fail to adequately address the effects of
fees on low-income populations and non-commercial/non-consumptive users
versus commercial users of public lands.
Despite the requirement that fee revenues supplement, not supplant,
appropriations there is little to stop revenue considerations from
becoming a driving force in management decisions. The agencies admit to
reliance on the program for an increasingly significant portion of
recreation funding. The Administration's intent to eliminate the
National Park Service's nearly $5 billion deferred maintenance backlog
within five years, in part by directing a greater percentage of
existing user fees to address the backlog, is troubling as it distorts
the intent of the program. Fee Demo revenue expenditures to date unduly
emphasize program administration and infrastructure maintenance over
resource management needs, indicating a trend toward attracting
visitors rather than protecting resources and preserving the natural
elements of the recreation experience.
We urge the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to oppose any
appropriations offsets with fee revenues and continue your vigilance
both within your own ranks and within the federal agencies. However,
until the program runs its course through the current end date of
fiscal year 2002, Congress should not hastily authorize permanent Fee
Demo status.
CONCLUSION
On June 2, 2001, American Hiking Society will coordinate its ninth
``National Trails Day,'' to raise public awareness and appreciation for
trails. Participants gather at more than 2,000 National Trails Day
events nationwide. By increasing the focus and funding of the
recreational programs outlined in this testimony, Congress will help
ensure the viability of America's unique natural heritage and protect
the outstanding recreation opportunities on our public lands.
Thank you for considering our request. 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 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission (CRITFC), thank you for the opportunity to present the
CRITFC's views on the Interior Department budget. First, in order to
ensure the implementation of a comprehensive and integrated approach
for natural resources management, the CRITFC endorses the four tribes'
programs and testimony. Specifically, $400,000 should be provided to
the Nez Perce Tribe to support their fisheries conservation and
restoration efforts in response to the Biological Opinion issued for
the Federal Columbia River Power System. For fiscal year 2002, the
CRITFC has identified funding needs totaling of $4,360,000 for Columbia
River fisheries management programs, an increase of $1,634,000 over the
fiscal year 2001 appropriated level of $2,726,000. We would note that
the President's budget includes an increase of $400,000 for Columbia
River Fisheries Management to address implementation and coordination
under the Biological Opinion issued for the Federal Columbia River
Power System. Of the proposed increase, $900,000 is required for base
programs dealing with salmon listings under the Endangered Species Act.
The tribes are also requesting that a one-time cost reimbursement of
$734,000 be added to Columbia River fisheries management for past
indirect contract support cost shortfalls and past pay-cost adjustment
shortfalls. New base funding of $1,822,500 is required for Conservation
Officers, either as a new program category to be included under
Wildlife and Parks or as a base increase to the Columbia River
fisheries management line item. Finally, the tribes endorse the
recommendations the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission to
provide the 25 Pacific Coastal tribes (Western Washington and Columbia
River treaty tribes, as well as the Metlakatla Indian Community) with
$4,191,000, plus pay cost adjustments, for fiscal year 2002 for the
U.S./Canada Salmon Treaty program.
MISSION STATEMENT
Formed by resolution of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and
Yakama Tribes, the CRITFC provides coordination and technical
assistance to ensure that the resolution of outstanding treaty fishing
rights issues guarantees the continuation and restoration of our tribal
fisheries into perpetuity. Since 1979, CRITFC has contracted with the
BIA under the Indian Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-638) to
provide this technical support. The tribes' technical experts have
identified where federal and state resource managers have fallen short
in protecting and restoring the habitat and production of all salmon
stocks. Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit, the tribes' restoration plan,
acknowledged by Will Stelle, the National Marine Fisheries Service's
Regional Director, as the only salmon restoration plan in the region,
identifies threats to salmon, proposes hypotheses based upon adaptive
management principles to address those threats, and provides specific
recommendations and practices that must be adopted by natural resource
managers to meet treaty obligations. Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit can be
viewed at
In 1855, the United States entered into treaties with the four
tribes \1\ to ensure the mutual peace and security of our peoples. For
the four tribes' cession of millions of acres, the United States
promised to protect and honor the rights and resources the tribes
reserved to themselves under those treaties. Those resources, among
them our most treasured resource, the salmon, are being destroyed by
process and delay under the Endangered Species Act. Our rights and our
religious beliefs that are tied to the salmon are being trampled upon
by more process and delay. We have a plan designed to restore salmon to
healthy sustainable levels. On behalf of the salmon and the future
generations of our peoples, please help us to implement that plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Treaty with the Yakama Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951;
Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963;
Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945; Treaty with
the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTION TO THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
Most of the program needs identified in this testimony could and
should be funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),
utilizing unexpended funds committed to salmon restoration under the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed in 1996. Under that MOA, BPA was
granted a cap of $435 million per year, a combination of both real
expenditures and estimates of lost power generation revenues, on salmon
restoration costs through 2001. Of this commitment, we estimate that a
cumulative total of over $200 million will remain unexpended by BPA at
the end of the MOA period. The Congress should direct the BPA to place
a substantial portion of this money in a trust fund to be used by the
tribes to fund the Watershed Restoration Program.
WY-KAN-USH-MI WA-KISH-WIT
Funding is needed to implement the tribes' watershed-based
restoration plan over the next five years. Under Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-
Wit, the tribes are implementing watershed restoration and protection
projects and programs throughout the Columbia Basin. The tribes can
point to several successes in watershed-based restoration of salmon.
Notably, the tribes have restored coho, spring and fall chinook, and
steelhead to the Umatilla River after an absence of 70 years. They have
reintroduced coho into the Clearwater River in Idaho, have taken the
lead in restoring fall chinook and spring chinook to the Yakama River
and fall chinook to the Snake River. The tribes seek to duplicate this
success in other watersheds, measure and document the effectiveness of
their programs and methods, and publicize the success of their
watershed approach through public outreach, education and technology
transfer.
Watershed assessments
Watershed assessments will identify factors limiting the production
and productivity of salmon stocks within each basin. These
comprehensive and multi-disciplinary reviews are integral to the
effective and efficient implementation of any restoration plan and
provide the baseline for monitoring and evaluation of project
activities.
Water quality
Clean water is essential to the successful implementation any
restoration plan; many subbasins, as well as segments of the mainstem
Columbia River, do not currently meet water quality standards and
criteria as required under the Clean Water Act. This part of the
tribes' efforts is geared to the development of tribal water quality
standards, coordination with regional programs, and monitoring and
evaluation of management activities designed to bring subbasins into
compliance with the Clean Water Act.
Habitat projects
The tribes have identified a list of habitat projects that can be
implemented immediately so as to improve salmon production and
productivity. These projects address specific habitat improvements that
will improve salmon spawning and rearing conditions for salmon. These
projects represent the core of our proposal and will provide tangible
benefits for the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
COLUMBIA RIVER ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM NEEDS
A total of at least $1,200,000 is required by the tribes to deal
with salmon listings under the Endangered Species Act. In 1991, at the
BIA's request, we submitted an assessment of our needs regarding
outstanding hunting and fishing rights. At that time, we requested
$1,000,000 for determining the allocation of the conservation burden
among all sources of salmon mortality and for implementing hatchery
production reform. Since then, with the additional listing of many more
salmon populations, the reform of hatchery production programs has been
recognized as an integral part of salmon restoration and the tribes are
the principal lead in restoration efforts that utilize tools such as
supplementation. This mandate carries responsibilities to monitor and
evaluate the results of management actions taken to reform production.
To meet regional obligations and high standards, the tribes must
develop the capacity to analyze a broad base of genetic data essential
for conservation and restoration of salmon populations, without
impacting remaining wild stocks, at a base funding cost of $200,000.
Only $300,000 has been provided for these ongoing needs, leaving an
unmet need of $900,000.
CONSERVATION OFFICERS
We request new base funding of $1,822,500 for fiscal year 2002 for
a new program category under Wildlife and Parks for Conservation
Officers, or as a base funding increase to the Columbia River fisheries
management line item, to fund increased fisheries enforcement, for
patrols at ``in-lieu'' and fishing access sites, and for cultural
resource protection. Existing fish, wildlife, and habitat regulations
must be enforced to ensure compliance and to protect fish stocks,
wildlife, and their critical habitats. The Northwest Power Planning
Council acknowledged this need in its 1994 ``Strategy for Salmon,''
calling for ``an expanded enforcement program to provide additional
protection to Columbia River salmon and steelhead.'' The program has
been successful in both reducing violations and educating tribal and
non-tribal fishers. The NPPC has eliminated regional funding for this
program, recommending that Congress fund this program.
SHORTFALL IN PAY COST ADJUSTMENTS AND CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS
We request a one time base budget adjustment of an additional
$104,000 be added in fiscal year 2002 to the Columbia River fisheries
management line item to cover past shortfalls in legally mandated pay
cost adjustments. While the BIA provided pay cost adjustments for
fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2000, it only provided a partial
adjustment for fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 in the
fiscal year 2000 budget. BIA had previously calculated the full amount
to cover past shortfalls to be about $103,903.
BIA's inability to fully fund contract support is undermining our
programs. For the last several years, indirect cost reimbursement to
CRITFC has been below legislated levels. Support services funded by
indirect funds must be minimized or cut, due to the effects of the
indirect shortfall. This means that fewer staff and less supplies are
available. To make matters worse, any indirect cost funding shortfall
must be recovered from the direct program. From 1994 through 1999,
CRITFC did not receive $630,500 of legally mandated contract support
funds. This reduced direct program funds by a like amount for salaries
and operating expenses, undermining CRITFC's efforts to fulfill its
mission. We request a one-time payment of $630,500 to cover these past
shortfalls.
IN SUMMARY
Through a governing body of leaders from four tribes working
together to protect their treaty fishing rights, with a staff of
biologists, hydrologists, law enforcement personnel, and other experts
advising tribal policy-makers, the tribes have demonstrated they can
take the lead on natural resource issues, provided that adequate
resources are available. We ask for your continued support of our
efforts and we are prepared to provide any additional information you
may require on the Department of the Interior budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Tribal Court Judges Association
On behalf of the Northwest Tribal Court Judges Association
(NWTCJA), I am pleased to submit this written testimony on the fiscal
year 2002 Appropriations for Justice Department funding of the Indian
Country Law Enforcement Initiative and the Indian Tribal Justice
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559).
The NWTCJA is a voluntary regional representative membership
association (non-profit association organized in 1981), whose active
members include any duly appointed or elected judge for any Indian
tribe located in the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska.
NWTCJA represents more than 37 tribal justice systems in the Northwest,
has a twenty-year track record of providing quality training and
technical assistance services to tribal justice systems. The mission of
the NWTCJA is ``to provide a forum for communication and cooperation
among and between tribal court judges and other entities to enhance the
training and skills of court personnel and to secure resources to
accomplish these ends in the interest of better serving tribal people,
communities, and our sovereign nations.'' We provide training for court
personnel and need money to accomplish these purposes.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FUNDING
Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative and Indian Tribal Justice
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559)
Full Funding for Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative.--NWTCJA
strongly supports full funding for the Indian Country Law Enforcement
Initiative ($173,300,000 in Justice Department funding as requested in
the Justice Department's fiscal year 2001 budget). NWTCJA would like to
specifically emphasize our support for the funding of the Indian Tribal
Court Fund at a level of at least $15,000,000 (Please note that this
fund was formally authorized by the 106th Congress--see Public Law 106-
559, Section 201). Through the increased funding for law enforcement
under the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative, more police
officers have been added throughout Indian Country without the
accompanying funds to support tribal courts that will be impacted by
the increased caseloads generated by this increased law enforcement.
At least $15,000,000 in funding for the Indian Tribal Justice
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559).--When
the 106th Congress enacted Public Law 106-559 in December 2000, it
recognized the vital legal and technical assistance needs of tribal
justice systems--finding in part that ``there are both inadequate
funding and inadequate coordinating mechanisms to meet the technical
and legal assistance needs of tribal justice systems and this lack of
adequate technical and legal assistance funding impairs their
operation'' and promised three grant programs to address these
Congressional recognized needs. It is vital that Congress provide
adequate funding for Public Law 106-559 (see the Act itself for more
specific information). NWTCJA strongly supports funding of Public Law
106-559 at the level of at least $15,000,000. Failure to provide this
funding level will make the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal
Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559) a hollow recognition of
tribal justice systems needs without providing needed resources. Native
American tribal courts must deal with a wide range of difficult
criminal and civil justice problems on a daily basis, including the
following:
--The violent crime rate has been declining nationally but increasing
substantially in Indian Country. Tribal court systems are
grossly under-funded to deal with these criminal justice
problems.
--The case number and complexity of tribal civil caseloads have also
been rapidly expanding.
--Congress recognized this need when it enacted the Indian Tribal
Justice Act -specifically finding 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 $58,400,000 per year
in additional funding for tribal court systems starting in
fiscal year1994, THERE HAS BEEN NO FUNDING provided tribal
courts under this Act.
--Since enactment of the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the needs of
tribal court systems have continued to increase, with no
corresponding increase in funding. 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.
--The 106th Congress re-affirmed the Congressional commitment to
provide this increased funding for tribal justice systems when
it re-authorized the Indian Tribal Justice Act in December 2000
for seven more years of funding at a level of $58,400,000 per
year (see Public Law 106-559, section 202).
As the former Attorney General, Janet Reno, stated in testimony
before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, it is vital to ``better
enable Indian tribal courts, historically under-funded and under-
staffed, to meet the demands of burgeoning caseloads.'' 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 majority of the existing tribal justice systems in the
Northwest and the more than 100 developing tribal court systems in
Alaska, 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, and lack of
resources to hold people accountable, i.e. no monies for probation. It
should also be noted that in most tribal justice systems, 80-90 percent
of the cases filed are criminal cases, and 90 percent of these cases
involve the difficult problems of alcohol and/or substance abuse. While
a few tribal courts are just beginning the planning and implementation
of Drug Courts with monies from the DCPO, these monies are provided for
only a few years, are limited in amounts, and provide a temporary
panacea to the ever increasing problem of drug addiction in our young
people.
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.
Former 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 to the Federal Judicial Center,
the National Judicial College or the National Center for State Courts.
Even though the NWTCJA provides local training, the three or four
meetings each year with one day of training at each meeting, cannot
provide the in-depth extensive judicial training necessary to make
tribal justice systems strong and effective arms of tribal government.
Furthermore, in these difficult economic times, many tribes cannot
afford to send judges to the trainings that are offered.
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.
Eight (8) years after the Act was enacted, how much funding has
been appropriated? Not one 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 in anticipation of Congress making the
appropriations Indian Country believed it would. In December 2000,
Congress re-affirmed its commitment to funding of the Indian Tribal
Justice Act by re-authorizing the Act for seven more years of funding
(see Public Law 106-559, Section 202) but it did so without
appropriating any monies for that purpose. Now is the time to follow
through on this long promised funding and provide actual funding under
the Indian Tribal Justice Act!
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. The Northwest Tribal Court
Judges Association welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Justice
Department's Budget Request for the fiscal year 2002 funding of the
Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative and the Indian Tribal Justice
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000. Thank you very much.
______
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 funding from
programs in the Department of the Interior (DOI). The Tribe requests
that Congress provide:
--$764,500 from the Bureau of Indian Affairs for water quality
studies and other ecosystem restoration studies, as a part of
the Tribe's Everglades restoration efforts; and
--$12 million for the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI)
account in the National Park Service budget. The Tribe also
seeks 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
special consideration in competition for funding from the for
activities related to the Tribe's Everglades Restoration
Initiative on the Big Cypress Reservation.
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. The 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. This Initiative 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.
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.
Department of Interior funding has helped the Tribe develop
restoration programs and projects and ultimately define its role in the
overall South Florida Ecosystem effort. The Seminole Tribe continues to
make significant contributions to the restoration effort and looks
forward to a continued partnership with DOI toward achieving our common
goals.
The Seminole Tribe reviewed many federal programs in search of
funding opportunities for the design, engineering, and construction of
the projects that compose the Everglades Restoration Initiative. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) programs have been identified as
appropriate matches for the Tribe's Everglades Restoration Initiative.
The Tribe and the COE initiated an 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 and the
Small Watersheds Program as suitable for funding the design, planning,
and construction of the project on the eastern portion of the
Reservation.
The funds provided by the DOI have made it possible for the Tribe
to do the research necessary to allow the COE and NRCS to complete
final project designs. 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. 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.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
The DOI, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), has provided
the Tribe with $199,500 in each of the fiscal years 1994 through 2001.
The Tribe has used this BIA funding to complete studies and water
quality and quantity monitoring that has proven critical to the Tribe's
leading role in Everglades restoration. Continued funding at an
increased level is necessary for the Tribe to complete a number of
studies that will support the design, construction, and operation of
the Big Cypress water conservation project. Funding through the BIA
budget is also necessary because the source of supplemental funding in
prior fiscal years (CESI, see below) has become so low as to not
support the studies originally funded with the CESI funds.
Specific studies that would be supported through the increased
level of BIA funding include the following:
--Forested Wetland Nutrient Uptake Research designed to address how
to restore and maintain wetland communities of plants and
animals weakened by the adverse impact of poor water quality
and desiccation by re-establishing natural hydrology and water
quality;
--Assimilative Capacity for Phosphorus of C & SF Canals on the Big
Cypress Reservation designed to determine how to restore damage
to wetlands caused by elevated levels of pollutants in water
conveyed by canals;
--Seminole Tribe Data Collection and Monitoring designed to access
ecosystem damage and explore methods to restore and enhance
natural habitats; and
--Early Detection and Management of the Invasion of the Big Cypress
Reservation by the Exotic Climbing Fern designed to prevent
this invasive species from negating the restoration and
preservation of native wetland communities.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Through the NPS's CESI program, 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 tribes shared the funding equally. In fiscal
year 2001, it appears as if the Tribe will receive an even lower level
of funding. The Seminole Tribe uses 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.
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. In the
last two fiscal years, the Administration cut the CESI account by one-
third to $8 million, despite the important research that it funds; such
research helps support critical Everglades ecosystem restoration. The
recently released budget request for fiscal year 2002 cuts the CESI
funding even further. The Tribe requests that Congress the restore the
cuts to the CESI account and fund the research at the $12 million
level.
At the $12 million funding level, DOI allocated $1 million to the
Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes to share. Prior to fiscal year 2000, 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 cut. 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. 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.
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, including the dedication of over
9,000 acres of land for water management improvements. However, as the
Tribe moves forward with its contribution to the restoration of the
South Florida ecosystem, a substantially higher level of federal
financial assistance is 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 National Institutes for Water Resources
Mr. Chairman: I am Ken Reckhow, President of the National
Institutes for Water Resources and Director of the North Carolina Water
Resources Research Institute at North Carolina State University. My
testimony requests the Subcommittee to provide $7,354,000 to the U.S.
Geological Survey for the state water resources research institutes
program.
I would like to thank you and this Subcommittee for the strong
support you have given to the state water resources research institutes
program in the past. As you know, last year Congress unanimously passed
Public Law 106-374 which reauthorizes appropriations for this program
through fiscal year 2005. This action reflects Congressional
recognition that the state water resources research institutes are
meeting their mission objectives as outlined in the Water Resources
Research Act.
REQUEST
The National Institutes for Water Resources respectfully request
the addition of $7,354,000 in the U.S. Geological Survey's fiscal year
2002 budget for the state water resources research institutes program.
This recommendation is based on the following components:
--$5,600,000 in base grants for the water resources research
institutes as authorized by Section 104(b) of the Water
Resources Research Act,
--$1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g) of
the Act, and
--$254,000 for program administration.
This recommendation would provide a $100,000 base grant to support
the institutions which are located at land-grant universities in each
of the states, plus territories. Currently, this base grant is
approximately $75,000. In addition, it would provide for a modest
increase in the highly popular competitive grants program. On behalf of
the National Institutes for Water Resources and the water resources
research institutes across the nation I wish to strongly support the
need for a reasonable, yet vigorous water resources budget for the USGS
for fiscal year 20002. The reductions recommended by the Administration
are ill advised, particularly the reduction of support for the critical
streamgaging network and water quality investigations.
JUSTIFICATION
Setting total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for polluted streams,
establishing a standard for arsenic in drinking water, cleaning up MTBE
contamination of groundwater, controlling sewer overflows and urban
stormwater, managing animal waste in environmentally sound ways--these
are all highly complex public policy issues elected officials and
administrators in virtually all of the states face. To resolve these
issues, everyone looks to ``sound science'' for guidance or answers.
The President wants sound science, Congress wants sound science, state
and local governments want sound science, business and industry want
sound science, and even environmental groups want sound science.
Where do we look for sound science in the water resources arena?
Poll after poll has shown that when citizens look for impartial
science, they look to university scientists. When Congress is not
satisfied with the science behind regulations, it turns to the National
Academy of Sciences, which then turns to university scientists. When
businesses want sound science with the perception of impartiality, they
turn to university scientists, as the nation's largest swine producer
recently did for evaluation of waste management alternatives in North
Carolina.
For more than 35 years the 54 state water resources research
institutes have served to link university scientists working in the
water quality and water quantity arenas with governments, business and
industry, and citizens in efforts to produce sound science to resolve
water issues at the local and state levels.
State water resources research institutes take the relatively
modest amount of federal funding appropriated by this Subcommittee,
leverage it with state matching funds and funding from other sources,
including local governments, and use it to put university scientists to
work finding solutions to the most pressing local and state water
problems. In fiscal year 2000, the institutes generated about $14.50 in
support for each federal dollar appropriated to them through this
program and put three-quarters of every dollar they received into
research projects. The remainder supports information transfer,
training activities, etc. This program does not provide any indirect
costs to universities, unlike most federal research programs. All of
the funding does to support the goals set forth in the Water Resources
Research Act.
Federal funding for the water resources research institute program
is therefore the catalyst that moves states to invest in university-
based research to address their own water management issues. The added
benefit is that often research to address state and local problems also
helps solve problems at the regional and national level as well.
How do water resources research institutes know they're working on
the most pressing water issues? Each institute brings together a local
advisory panel typically consisting of local, state, and federal agency
officials, representatives of business and industry, and representative
of non-governmental organizations. These panels identify the most
important water problems facing their states and establish priorities
for research.
The work of the water resources research institutes doesn't stop
with identifying needs and arranging for research to address the needs.
Once research is completed, institutes also see that the results are
transferred to the people in federal, state, and local agencies who
will put it to work. In fiscal year 2000, institutes spent about 6
percent of their budgets on technology transfer activities, which
includes publication of reports; presentation of seminars, workshops
and conferences; maintenance of Internet sites, and one-on-one contact
with agency personnel.
Institutes also help educate future water scientists. Quite often a
significant portion of a research grant goes to pay part of the salary
of a master's or PhD student studying in such critical fields as
watershed hydrology, hydrogeology, aquatic ecology, toxicology,
sanitary engineering, and water resources engineering. In fiscal year
2000, institutes provided research support for more than 1,380
students. As you know, our scientific workforce is aging and a mass
exodus through retirements is expected in government, academia and
industry over the next decade. Supporting the education of new
scientists is a critical role of institutes that should be expanded.
In fiscal year 2000, water resources research institutes across the
nation funded 847 research projects from their base grants, but we
could have funded many more important investigations. Typically,
institutes can fund only one of every four or five proposals they
receive in response to solicitations based on their established
priorities. Each year in North Carolina, our Advisory Committee selects
from a long list of research needs, its top ten research priorities. We
are never able to address all priority problems and may only be able to
fund two or three new projects. It is clear to me that there are many
critical research needs going unmet. For instance, last year our
Advisory Committee identified as its number three research priority an
investigation of the watershed-level impacts on water quality of
hydrologic changes caused by urbanization. This information is critical
for designing urban stormwater control programs that actually make a
difference for water quality and aquatic habitat. However, such an
investigation would require substantial funding over several years, and
our funds are insufficient to support such a project.
If base grants, which we refer to as Section 104(b) grants, to
institutes were increased by only $25,000, at the current rate at which
institutes leverage federal funds, an additional $19 million in non-
federal dollars could be invested in sound science to address priority
research areas that are not being investigated.
The same is true for the regional competitive grants (or Section
104(g) grants) program administered by USGS in collaboration with the
National Institutes for Water Resources. Priorities for this research
program are set jointly by USGS and the institutes to address regional
or interstate water problems. In fiscal year 2000 more than one hundred
proposals were submitted for this competition, but with only $1 million
in funding, fewer than one in twelve projects could be funded. Here
again, regional and interstate research needs are not being met. For
instance, in much of the Southeast we are suffering from a 3-year
drought that some are now predicting to stretch out another 7 years.
There are many unanswered questions about the effects of this drought
not only on regional water supplies but also on water quality and
habitat. We should already be planning how to respond to the potential
for long-term drought, but there are many gaps in the information base.
An increase in the competitive grants funding could catalyze additional
research on regional problems such as effects of drought in the same
way that an increase in base grants would catalyze research on local
and state water resources problems.
Mr. Chairman, we are hearing a lot now about the need to assure an
adequate supply of energy to support the nation's economic and social
health. Energy is important, but water is more important to our
economic and social well-being. Before too long, this country is going
to face the unfamiliar problem of water scarcity. The Census Bureau
estimates that we could add another 120 million people to our
population over the next 50 years, but our supply of freshwater is
static. We are not going to discover new sources of water. What we must
do to assure an adequate supply of water for the future is to learn to
stretch the water supply we now have by conserving, protecting, and
restoring what we have been given.
To protect our limited water resources we must know much more than
we do now about the ecology and resiliency of aquatic systems and about
the relationships between land uses and water quality. To gain this
knowledge we need a dedication to long-term monitoring and research.
Much of our surface water and significant areas of groundwater are
impaired by pollution. We must find efficient ways to clean up these
waters so they can be used for irrigation, industry and water supply.
To find efficient methods to restore impaired waters we need research.
Because surface water is a small part of our total freshwater supply
and because the era of dam building is past, we must learn to utilize
our groundwater more fully and more wisely. This means knowing a great
deal more than we do now about groundwater distribution and recharge
rates. It also means discovering how to use treated wastewater to
recharge groundwater for future withdrawal in an environmentally safe
way. We need research to produce knowledge about our groundwater
resources and about sound methods to manage groundwater. Because our
water supply is limited we need to learn to make use of a fuller range
of waters, such as treated wastewater, brackish waters and seawater.
Current water reuse and desalination technologies are promising but
need further research development to be useful.
There are many pressing needs for new knowledge in the water
resources area. For 35 years, the Water Resources Research Institute
program has been linking university scientists to government, business
and citizens to provide new knowledge and help solve problems. This is
a productive, useful, and valuable partnership that should be continued
and expanded.
This brings me to the final points I want to make--these on behalf
of the USGS budget. In times of extreme hydrologic conditions, such as
droughts and hurricanes--which are predicted to increase as a result of
climate change--information from the USGS streamgaging network is our
lifeblood. When storms drive streams out of their banks, it is
information from USGS stream gages that the National Weather Service
uses to issue flood warnings. When drought decreases streamflow, it is
information from USGS stream gages that state and local governments
rely on as indicators of future reservoir supply. Beyond these critical
uses, stage and flow data from USGS stream gages support dozens of
water quality, power generation and navigational programs, as well as a
range of recreational activities. Increased support for the USGS stream
gaging network is crucial for public safety and environmental
management. Moreover, the USGS collects important water quality data
that support state management programs and university research. USGS
also conducts water resources investigations that often provide the
only resource information available to local governments. USGS and the
water resources research institutes are collaborative programs drawing
upon each others capabilities and expertise to help state and local
governments wisely manage their water resources.
Mr. Chairman, basing water quality and water quantity management on
sound science is worthy goal. But, we have to invest to produce sound
science. Congress must invest to catalyze states and states must invest
to address their own issues. You can rest assured that if you do your
part, the water resources research institutes will carry the challenge
to state and local governments, business and industry, foundations and
environmental groups to invest in sound science for water resources
management. The National Institutes for Water Resources respectfully
recommend this Subcommittee provide $7,354,000 to the USGS for the
state water resources research institutes program authorized by the
Water Resources Research Act. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Chairman Burns and Members of the Subcommittee: The American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is pleased to offer this testimony on
the proposed budgets for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and
for certain programs under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) for fiscal year 2002.
ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national civil
engineering organization. It represents more than 125,000 civil
engineers in private practice, government, industry and academia who
are dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil
engineering. ASCE is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational and
professional society.
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)
The USGS is the nation's primary source of sound, credible,
impartial earth-science data that are essential to the planning,
design, construction and operation of numerous public and private
facilities. These earth-science data are necessary to protect human
health, safety and the environment through the development of
facilities that both provide needed resources and prevent or mitigate
the effects of natural hazards. One area of the fiscal year 2002 budget
for the USGS that is of most concern to ASCE is water, as a resource
and a natural hazard.
Water resources
ASCE has long supported the basic water-data-collection activities
of the USGS. Reliable and accurate water data are of paramount
importance to civil engineers who rely on this information every day to
make critical decisions that impact public health and safety. Basic
water data currently collected by the USGS are vitally important to
water resource planning and the design, construction and operation of
many projects.
Water, in the form of floods, is a major natural hazard to our
people, our property and our environment. As our population increases,
there is a growing need to develop programs and, in some cases,
facilities to mitigate the effects of annual floods.
ASCE therefore is deeply distressed by the proposed funding cuts of
$43 million (21 percent) in the water resources investigations budget
for the USGS from the appropriated level of $202 million in fiscal year
2001. The proposed funding level of $159 million in fiscal year 2002
simply is not adequate to maintain the vitally necessary programs under
this budget category.
Among the proposed cuts are $20 million from the National Water
Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program and $10 million from the Toxic
Substances Hydrology program. NAWQA studies have made significant
contributions to the understanding of the sources and effects of
contaminants in water resources. The Toxic Substances Hydrology Program
has generated critical information about the sources, fate, and
persistence of toxic substances in ground and surface water.
According to the Department of the Interior budget justification,
``the Department will actively consult with the programs' stakeholders
in 2001 to develop a more collaborative partnership based on
reimbursable funding for the Toxics program and cost-sharing for the
NAWQA . . . studies.''
In a federal budget notable primarily for dramatic reductions in a
number of vital environmental programs, we are skeptical that other
federal agencies will be able to bring the same technical and financial
commitment to the maintenance of the USGS programs. Similarly, state
and local governments may not be able to put aside more parochial
concerns to enable them to contribute significantly to what have
largely been programs managed and funded through the USGS.
Moreover, another $5 million has been stripped from the
streamgaging program. Streamgaging is one of the most important water
resources programs at USGS. The streamgaging network collects
information about the nation's water resources. It is a multipurpose
network funded by the USGS and many other federal, state and local
agencies. Individual streamgaging stations are supported for specific
purposes such as water allocation, reservoir operations, or regulating
permit requirements, but the data are used by others for many purposes.
Collectively, the USGS streamgaging network produces valuable data that
are used for current forecasting and operational decisions as well as
long-term resource planning, infrastructure design, and flood-hazard
mitigation. More than 6,000 stations are in operation today.
A small budget increase in fiscal year 2000 ($2 million) for
streamgaging, plus the increases in fiscal year 2001 ($8.1 million
total), provided a modest but significant beginning to meeting the
goals of NSIP. The increases were used to add 37 new gages, reactivate
73 previously discontinued gages, upgrade equipment on 127 gages, and
``harden'' 15 gages as protection against flood damage. The delivery of
streamflow information to the many users also was improved.
In conclusion, the USGS faces increasing demands for information as
the infrastructure to supply the information is declining. Under the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2002, the modest progress
made in moving NSIP forward over the past two years will not continue.
--We respectfully urge the Subcommittee to bolster the USGS budget
for water resources in fiscal year 2002. We recommend that the
budget be increased by four percent over the fiscal year 2001
enacted level to a total appropriation of approximately $210
million.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction are Department of Energy
programs on fossil energy research and development, clean-coal
technology, energy conservation, alternative fuels production and other
subjects of great concern in light of the current energy emergency.
In our ``2001 Report Card for America's Infrastructure'' released
in March, ASCE found that, although growth in electricity demand
through 2020 is expected to be slower than in the past, 393 gigawatts
of new generating capacity (excluding cogenerators) is expected to be
needed by 2020 to meet growing demand and to replace retiring units. By
2020, 26 gigawatts (27 percent) of current nuclear capacity and 43
gigawatts (eight percent) of current fossil-fueled capacity are
expected to be retired.
More than 10,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity nationally will have to
be added each year between now and 2008 to keep up with the projected
1.8-percent annual growth rate. Since 1990, however, actual annual
capacity additions have been averaging only about 7,000 MW, an annual
shortfall of 30 percent.
Of the 162 gigawatts of new capacity expected after 2010, 16
percent will replace retired nuclear capacity. About 1,300 new power
plants could be needed by 2020, according to the Energy Information
Administration.
Additionally, the demand for natural gas is growing sharply. Annual
U.S. gas consumption could increase by 60 percent over the next 20
years. The current estimate of the natural gas resource base in the 48
states, based on current technology and economics, is equivalent to at
least 65 to 70 years of supply at the current level of consumption,
according to the American Gas Association (AGA).
Coal-fired power plants are expected to remain the key source of
electricity through 2020. In 1999, coal accounted for 1,880 billion
kilowatt-hours or 51 percent of total generation. Although coal-fired
generation is projected to increase to 2,350 billion kilowatt-hours in
2020, increasing gas-fired generation is expected to reduce coal's
share to 44 percent. Concerns about the environmental impacts of coal
plants, their relatively long construction lead times, and the
availability of economical natural gas make it unlikely that many new
coal plants will be built prior to 2005.
But slow growth in other generating capacity, the huge investment
in existing plants, and increasing utilization of those plants are
expected to keep coal in its dominant position. By 2020, it is
projected that 11 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity will be retrofitted
with scrubbers to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990.
For all of these reasons ASCE believes that it is shortsighted to
propose, as the President has done, to reduce total federal spending on
such energy supply programs as renewable energy resources (36 percent),
fossil energy research (17 percent), nuclear energy (nine percent) and
energy conservation (two percent).
The only energy-supply program of importance to see an increase is
the clean-coal technology program, which is slated to receive a boost
from $9 million to $82 million in fiscal year 2002. We applaud this
sensible step.
We need continued economical, reliable and environmentally
responsible energy development and production in the United States.
This is critical to industrial and commercial expansion, economic
growth and stability, and minimizes dependence on foreign energy
sources. Thus we support prudent management of our national energy
resources and the timely development of new energy technologies.
--We urge the subcommittee to restore funding for those critical
programs facing a reduction to their fiscal year 2001 enacted
levels and to approve the President's proposed increase in
clean-coal technology program funding.
______
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 2002 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 100,000 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.
We are asking that you increase the bands funding by $8.5 million
for fiscal year 2002 to develop the infrastructure necessary to
continue to serve and protect the resources of the band.
We strongly support the Administration's request of additional
funding under the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative. In 1997
the Minnesota Supreme Court held that certain traffic regulations
including speeding, driving without a license, and driving with no
insurance were ``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 its own Tribal police force through the Community
Oriented Policing Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal funds.
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 short-term, limited financial resources available, there is
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. In light of the Stone decision, we ask
this committee to 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 currently employs seven
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
thirty 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 $6 million to the Band for
expansion of the office space for the Resource Management division. We
are also requesting that $1.5 million be added to our base budget to
continue to implement and staff the court and enforcement systems for
the Band.
Under Treaties with the United States made in 1837 and 1854 the
Fond du Lac Band reserved the right to hunt, fish and gather on the
lands ceded, a large portion of central and northeastern Minnesota, 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 conservation law,
the exercise of these off-reservation treaty rights require that the
Band 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. It is very essential that the
Band continues to 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 $1
million be added to the Band's base budget for it's natural resource
programs that will enable us to address the challenge to protect these
resources for the future generations on Fond du Lac.
We ask that the House Appropriations Committee support the Fond du
Lac Band in behalf of the Fond du Lac Ojibwe Schools to support
Cooperative Agreements entered into by the Band and Public Schools.
Such agreements are authorized under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2010 (f)., and
expressly authorize the Secretary to use funds allotted to Bureau
Schools to implement cooperative agreements with local public school
districts, and expressly defers to the Band, its school board, and the
public school district in determining the content of such agreements.
The congressional intent underlying the cooperative agreement
provision, as with Title IX of the Improving America's Schools Act
generally, is to encourage the development of tribal education programs
which are responsive to the particular educational needs of the tribal
community.
Fond du Lac 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. . . .''
Fond du Lac is in full support of Acting Assistant Secretary James
McDivitt's fiscal year 2002 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 $292.5 million, an increase of $162,000 over the fiscal year
2001 enacted level, to replace older, unsafe, and dilapidated schools
on reservations.
In addition, we also support the Bureau's budget request of $122.8
million for replacement facilities for six schools: Polacca Day School,
Polacca, Arizona; Holbrook Dormitory, Holbrook, Arizona; Wingate
Elementary School Dormitory, Fort Wingate, New Mexico; Sante Fe Indian
School, Sante Fe, New Mexico; Ojibwa Indian School, Belcourt, North
Dakota; and Paschal Sherman Indian School, Omak, Washington. The
request also provides $5.0 million for advanced planning and design of
future replacement schools.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request includes $161.6 million to
address critical health and safety concerns existing at many Bureau
schools throughout the country. The requested increase of $13.6 million
over fiscal year 2001, will fund much needed maintenance and repair
projects to reduce the backlog of needed repairs to BIA school
buildings.
Fond du Lac strongly supports the Bureau's fiscal year 2002 budget
request of $543.1 million for Indian Education, an increase of $16.6
million over the fiscal year 2001 amounts. The increase will ensure
that BIA schools maintain accreditation and have access to technology
(computers) and other critical learning tools. In addition, the request
provides a $1.0 million increase for operating grants to 25 tribally
controlled community colleges.
Fond du Lac received fiscal year 2000 construction funds to build a
New School (pre-k through grade 12), and is currently involved in a new
school construction project. Construction is scheduled for completion
for the Fall of 2001. We express a sincere Miigwech for the support,
confidence, and assistance received from the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Senators, Congressman, and all Committee staff who continue to invest
in our Education program.
We would especially thank Senator Paul Wellstone; Congressman
Martin Sabo, and Congressman James Oberstar. Your continued support has
provided the Fond du Lac Reservation with an historic opportunity to
provide its community with an education facility that will dramatically
increase educational opportunities for the entire Fond du Lac
Reservation 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
its 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 its 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 its 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.--$1,500,000
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 45, 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 its
treaty reserved resources, its on reservation resources, and its 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.--$6,000,000
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
increasing population To provide these opportunities the band has
turned to the Ceded Territories. The Band has taken an active role in
the exercise of Treaty reserved rights and management of the natural
resources used by band members by hiring 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. To meet the increase in demand
from a larger population the Band is seeking additional funds be added
to its base budget.
Fiscal year 2001 request.--$600,000
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 its 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.--$400,000
______
Prepared Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony to the
Subcommittee on Interior in support of fiscal year 2002 funding for
historic preservation. For fiscal year 2002, the National Trust urges
the subcommittee to provide full funding from the Historic Preservation
Fund (HPF) at $150 million. Within this level of funding for the HPF,
we ask you to provide significant increases in funding to the State
Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), Tribal and Native Hawaiian
preservation programs and at least $35 million for the Save America's
Treasures program. The National Trust also supports the request of
$3.31 million for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation appreciates the
Subcommittee's past support for historic preservation, and the promise
of increasing support in the future made in last year's Land
Conservation and Infrastructure program. Not only was funding from the
HPF set at an all-time high level of $94.347 million, but a
Congressional commitment was made to protect that level of funding in
the future and to give preservation the opportunity to compete for a
share of an additional $120 million this year. In future years, those
additional competitive funds were to increase to $600 million. It would
not seem unreasonable for champions of historic preservation across the
country, who have seen no increase in funding for decades, to expect
funding in fiscal year 2002 to begin to close in on the authorized
level of $150 million.
Unfortunately, the Administration's budget request for the HPF in
2002 is only $37.055 million, a drastic decrease in funding. No funding
was requested for the Save Americas Treasures program, funding for
Historically Black Colleges and Universities was eliminated and deep
cuts were made in funding for the SHPOs. Cutbacks of this magnitude
would be a serious mistake.
Our nation's historic resources are at risk. In the decades since
World War II, in tragic counterpoint to the growth of the sprawling new
suburbs, we have witnessed the progressive erosion and loss of older
neighborhoods and communities all across the country. The erosion of
these neighborhoods destroys our quality of life, drives middle-income
families out of our cities, promotes sprawl and limits areas where we
can raise our children.
Historic preservation stabilizes and rejuvenates core urban and
small town business districts and neighborhoods. We have seen the
successes of historic preservation across the country--in Virginia
City, Montana millions of dollars have been appropriated on both the
state and federal level to acquire and preserve 200 buildings and
artifacts to turn the city into a museum on the history and development
of the Rocky Mountain Mining Frontier. Members of Congress can see
examples of the impact of historic preservation in neighborhoods like
the Capitol Hill, Logan Circle and U Street NW historic districts in
Washington, D.C. Historic communities by their very appearance and
design create a sense of community and act as engines for
redevelopment.
Funding from the Historic Preservation Fund gives the states and
tribes important resources to help protect and revitalize historic
communities. The state and tribal historic preservation offices are the
link between the federal historic preservation program, for which they
have a principal implementing responsibility, and local communities
seeking to preserve their historic resources. The SHPOs match their
federal funds at a rate of 50 percent, making this one of the most
leveraged and highly economical programs funded by the federal
government. The state historic preservation offices utilize their HPF
allocations to perform myriad services; to help local governments and
citizens revitalize and preserve their communities; provide funding to
meet state and local preservation goals; encourage economic development
through heritage tourism; educate and work with federal agencies to
minimize harm to historic places, and myriad other activities too
numerous to mention. Many American Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian
organizations perform similar functions in their communities across the
country.
Since the early 1980s, when their federal funding was cut
significantly, the states and tribes have seen a steady and significant
rise in their responsibilities while their funding has remained
essentially level and, in real dollars, actually declined. The
increases in SHPO responsibilities are in several areas including:
implementing new policies requiring Federal agencies to first
considering locations in historic structures in down towns;
administering the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit program; and
administering a competitive grant program for local governments. These
funds are necessary for them to fulfill their responsibilities under
the National Historic Preservation Act and to respond to the needs of
the citizens and elected officials of their states. Last year, Congress
finally provided a significant increase in funding for the SHPOs,
bringing them back to the level where they should be just to have kept
up with inflation over the last twenty years.
The Save America's Treasures program preserves historic structures
and sites, intellectual expressions, and cultural artifacts that are
significant to the history and culture of our nation and are at risk.
It is engaging more Americans in the preservation of their heritage
than any event since the 1976 Bicentennial and the funds provided are
matched, dollar for dollar, from private sources. In fiscal year 2000,
$30 million was distributed for the restoration and preservation of 71
projects in more than two dozen states and the District of Columbia.
Preservation projects of immense importance have been funded including
the Manhattan Project Site in Los Alamos, New Mexico; Weston State
Hospital in Charleston, West Virginia; an online historical
investigation project at the Butte-Silver Bow Public Archives in Butte,
Montanta; the Sitka Pioneers Home in Sitka, Alaska; and Babe Ruth's
scrapbooks. However, the demand for Save America's Treasures funds have
greatly exceeded the $95 million appropriated over the last three
years. More than 700 official SAT projects have been designated, but
only a small portion of them have received any federal funding. More
than $3 billion in needed funding has been detailed by these SAT
projects. It does not make sense for the federal government to
eliminate this program now and walk away from this tremendous,
demonstrated need.
At the request of the Administration, the National Trust has served
as the White House's lead private partner in this program, with primary
responsibility for public education and resource development. Beginning
with Polo Ralph Lauren's extraordinary $13 million contribution to
restore and preserve the Star Spangled Banner, the private ``Save
America's Treasures'' initiative has succeeded beyond our most
optimistic expectations. We have raised over $52 million in private
support for preservation projects in communities across the country.
Despite this success, we have only scratched the surface. For example,
a $1 million SAT grant fund created by the Getty Foundation at the
National Trust attracted over 200 applications. With a maximum award of
$50,000, we were able to make a total of 37 grants in 29 states.
To date, almost $150 million in public and private funds has been
raised to save our nation's treasures. Together, the new public and
private commitments and the greater public awareness of the nation's
needs will result in the largest increase in preservation activity in
over 30 years. Whether composed of stone, wood, parchment, or cotton
canvas, these fragile American treasures have survived decades,
centuries, and even millennia to be entrusted to our hands. Save
America's Treasures seeks to ensure that they will continue to
illuminate and inspire countless generations to come. I hope that the
subcommittee will agree to provide another year of funding for the Save
America's Treasures program. No less than the memory of our country is
at stake.
The message that I would like to leave with you today is that our
nation's heritage is deserving of continuing federal government support
at the highest possible levels. Many years ago a commitment was made to
provide $150 million a year for historic preservation, but that level
has never been reached. The 106th Congress finally made significant
strides toward that goal, and the retrenchment proposed by the
Administration to the 107th Congress is not justified. I urge the
Subcommittee to live up to that commitment to preserving our heritage
by fully funding the historic preservation program.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association
The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) is pleased to
share its views regarding the programs in the Department of Interior's
budget that affect national park resources and requests that this
statement be included in the hearing record for the fiscal year 2002
Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. NPCA is requesting
an increase of $120 million over the current spending levels, for a
total of $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2002 for the operation of the
National Park System (ONPS). This represents an increase of $41 million
over the Bush Administration's requested fiscal year 2002 increase for
the ONPS. Further detail on this request follows.
NPCA is the only national nonprofit conservation organization that
advocates exclusively for the National Parks. Through public education,
advocacy, and citizen outreach, NPCA works to protect, preserve, and
enhance America's National Park System for present and future
generations.
NPCA appreciates the opportunity to share with you our priorities
for funding and we respectfully request the Committee consider these
views as you shape the fiscal year 2002 budget for the Department of
Interior and Related Agencies.
The National Park System faces many challenges. For decades, the
National Park Service (NPS) has lacked the funds needed to manage
adequately the wildlife, landscapes, and historic and cultural
artifacts protected within the NPS. The Park Service's own research has
shown that not a single park has completed inventory of its plants,
animals and historic artifacts; the Park Service cannot control
invasive species on 93 percent of its lands that suffer from exotics;
63 percent of the threatened and endangered species in the national
parks are expected to decline in the next five years; and 67 percent of
the cultural artifacts in the Park System are in poor condition.
During the past three years, a series of detailed park budget
studies by NPCA and the NPS have revealed just how deeply decades of
funding shortfalls have eroded the Park Service's capacity to protect
our nation's parks. Called the Business Plan Initiative (BPI), these
studies team graduate students from the nation's top business and
government management schools with park managers to analyze park
administrative and financial needs. Studies and business plans have
been completed for two dozen national parks. BPI has identified two
fundamental problems: (1) park operations suffer an annual funding
shortfall of at least 35 percent, or about $600 million annually; and
(2) the money the Park Service does receive is not used as
strategically as it could be, emphasizing short-term visitor needs over
long-term park protection.
Upon examination of President Bush's submitted budget proposal for
fiscal year 2002, NPCA finds that it fails to balance legitimate needs
for reducing the infrastructure and maintenance related backlog with
longstanding shortfalls in the daily operations needs of the parks,
especially in the areas of resource protection and visitor education.
A strong financial commitment by both Congress and the Bush
Administration is desperately needed to protect and enhance our
national parks, not just for the roads and buildings that serve the
visitor experience, but for the natural and cultural treasures that are
the raison d'etre of the parks' designation. To this end, NPCA
recommends the following budget priorities and associated funding
levels for the National Parks Service in fiscal year 2002:
OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
NPCA is pleased the Administration has increased the budget request
for the operation of the National Park System in it's fiscal year 2002
request. However, the increase of $79 million is far from sufficient to
meet the growing demands and needs of the increasingly stressed
national park units. Furthermore, $46 million of this increase
represents fixed cost increases for employee salaries (covering
approximately 75 percent of the real cost impact of grade changes and
cost of living adjustments) and $20 million is dedicated to the Natural
Resource Challenge. This leaves only $13 million in new spending for
the operation of our national park system.
NPCA requests significant increases to the operation of the
National Park System to be introduced over time, with an additional
$600 million in operations by fiscal year 2006, a figure in line with
the conclusions from the two dozen business plans completed to date.
For fiscal year 2002, NPCA proposes an increase of $120 million over
the enacted fiscal year 2001 budget ($41 million over the
Administration's fiscal year 2002 request), for a total of $1.5 billion
in fiscal year 2002 for operation of the ONPS. Of this amount, at least
55 percent should be used to protect park plants, animals, and historic
and cultural artifacts and to improve park interpretation. Remaining
funds can be allocated to reducing maintenance backlog.
NPCA recommends the following breakdown for the additional $120
million in fiscal year 2002 for system-wide resource protection needs:
[In millions of dollars]
Base budget increase for 24 parks with needs identified in
existing business plans....................................... 50
Natural Resource Challenge........................................ 20
Other high priority natural and cultural resource projects
identified by
NPS........................................................... 50
Natural Resources Challenge
NPCA strongly supports the Administration's continued
commitment to fund the Natural Resources Challenge--a multi-
year program to strengthen natural resources management in the
National Park Service. This program calls for expanded natural
resources inventory programs to give the Park Service
critically needed information for resource management within
the parks. NPCA supports the Administration's request of an
increased $20 million for a total of $49.5 million in fiscal
year 2002 to continue funding this important program.
Construction and Maintenance
The Bush Administration's has proposed $440 million in
fiscal year 2002 for construction and maintenance to address
the National Park Service maintenance backlog. However, on
close inspection of the budget request, it appears that $100
million of this amount is derived from Recreation Fees and is
not new funding. The $61 million in additional funding for
fiscal year 2002 represents a real increase of just over one
percent of the $4.9 billion backlog that the President has
promised to eliminate over the next five years.
Finally, Congress and the Administration should adopt a
framework for increasing NPS budgets that holds the Service
accountable to targets for improved resource protection. This
includes increasing the financial expertise of park staff and
generating business plans for all parks.
Thank you for your consideration of our views. NPCA greatly
appreciates the Committee's past support for our national parks
and we look forward to continuing to work with you to protect
America's parks as the fiscal year 2002 budget process moves
forward.
------
Prepared Statement of the Tohono O'odham Nation
WESTSIDE CLINIC
Villages in the western portion of the Tohono O'odham Nation
(``Nation'') are considered remote in terms of access to health care.
Village residents must travel up to 90 miles over poorly maintained and
often unpaved roads to the nearest health care facility; some villages
are entirely isolated during heavy rains. Furthermore, data provided
through the Level of Need Funding acknowledges that healthcare for the
Tohono O'odham is funded at 49 percent of the medical funding required
when compared to other federally recognized tribes. The Tohono O'odham
Legislative Council has authorized tribal funding for construction of a
28,000 square foot healthcare facility and dental clinic to serve the
Nation's western districts. The Public Health Service/Indian Health
Service (PHS/IHS) has notified the Nation of its selection to
participate in the fiscal year 2001 Joint Venture Construction Program
(JVCP). The notification letter stipulates that this funding is
allocated for medical equipment only and is considered nonrecurring.
Recurring funding for staffing is a critical element that is not
addressed in the fiscal year 2001 appropriation and is essential to
successfully operate the facility the Nation has chosen to fund. Based
on the current unmet need for staffing, the Nation is requesting $2.7
million to hire approximately 57 staff members to work in the various
departments once the facility is completed. Improved access to quality
health care is an essential need of the Tohono O'odham people and
staffing the JVCP facility will accommodate this need.
Contact Person: Silvia Parra, Director of Human Services, P.O. Box
815, Sells, AZ 85634. Telephone: (520) 383-6100.
VETERANS MEMORIAL MONUMENT AND PARK
The Tohono O'odham Nation consists of 25,000 tribal members living
in 11 districts and 85 villages in an area approximately the size of
Connecticut. Despite the fact that Native Americas have served in the
United States Armed Forces at a higher rate than any other group, the
Nation does not yet have a Veterans Memorial Park or Monument to honor
Tohono O'odham men and women who have so served. Such a Monument and
Park are needed to honor all who have made the supreme sacrifice as
well as for veterans and families that are still healing. The Air Force
has agreed to help clean and prepare an existing site donated by the
Nation for the Memorial Park. Funds have not been allocated for the Air
Force or the Tohono O'odham Veterans Affairs Office to make purchases
for the Veterans Memorial Park on the Tohono O'odham Nation. $150,000
is requested to build the Memorial Monument and Park.
Contact Person: Julius Anguiano, Director of Veteran Affairs
Office, Executive Department, P.O. Box 837, Sells, AZ 85634. Telephone:
(520) 383-2028.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (BIA), PAPAGO AGENCY, BRANCH OF ROADS
MAINTENANCE
Introduction.--The Branch of Roads (``Roads'') is responsible for
providing a safe transportation system for the Tohono O'odham Nation
and the traveling public. This is accomplished by involving and
assisting the Nation in transportation system development, maintenance,
and construction, thus ensuring the health, safety, and economical use
of the road system. The Nation's growing population, increased public
transportation, through traffic to the Republic of Mexico, and the
extreme desert conditions found on the Nation create a high demand for
efficient roads.
Functional Statement.--Roads is responsible pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
116; 24 U.S.C. 318(a); and 25 CFR 170.6 for maintaining 440 miles of
earth, 110 miles of gravel, and 333 miles of paved surfaces, for a
total of 883 BIA roadway system miles over a 2.8 million-acre land
area. The program currently maintains only approximately 55 percent or
486 miles of roadways due to lack of funds to hire additional personnel
and purchase much needed equipment. The current staff consists of 1
Supervisory Civil Engineer Technician, 1 Secretary, 1 Mechanic, 3
Engineering Equipment Operators, and 1 Laborer. Older roads, new roads
and bridges need maintenance to prevent deterioration. Without
additional funds it will take five years or more before the newer roads
and bridges can be properly maintained. In fiscal year 2002 Roads
requires a minimal operating budget of $500,000. This money will be
used for equipment maintenance, operating costs, supplies for signing,
crack sealing, training, and salaries.
Maintenance Equipment.--New equipment to be purchased: 1 Front End
Loader @ $125,000, 3 Dump Trucks with Plows @ $150,000, 3 Belly Dump
Trailers @ $150,000, 2 Tractor Mowers @ $80,000, 2 Water Trucks @
$80,000, 1 Steel Wheel Roller @ $150,000, 2 Motor Graders @ $650,000, 2
Rubber Tired Rollers @ $80,000, and 2 Truck Tractors @ $200,000, a
total approximate estimate cost = $1,665,000.
Contact Person: George Martinez, Supervisory Civil Engineer
Technician, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Papago Agency, P.O. Box 578,
Sells, AZ 85634. Telephone: (520) 383-3336
ADULT AND JUVENILE CORRECTIONS CENTER: PROJECT SUMMARY
Since 1995, the Average Daily Population (ADP) at the Tohono
O'odham Adult Jail Facility--which was originally built to house 34
inmates--has increased by 107 percent, from 50.8 in 1995 to 105.1 in
1999. Between 1990 and 1999, the ADP in the Juvenile Facility has
increased 188 percent, from 5.8 in 1990 to 14.9 in 1999.
These populations have risen consistently since 1990, and do not
include the undocumented aliens crossing into the United States from
Republic of Mexico and processed at the Nation's jail facility. During
the year 2000, for example, the Tohono O'odham Police processed 450
undocumented aliens through the jail facility; this includes men, women
and children. These increasing numbers justify the immediate need for
this facility.
The proposed facility will comprise two components: Adult Detention
and Juvenile Detention. The facility will house 220 adults and 72
juveniles with the ability to expand, if necessary. The estimated cost
for the architectural design and engineering of this facility is
$2,000,000. The total cost for both components, including furnishing,
contingency fees and taxes is $41,990,490. A major emphasis in this
project is on programming, which includes remedial classes, GED
classes, vocational education, and counseling (e.g., parenting skills,
life skills, and psychological counseling). The lack of this type of
programming within a correctional facility has been identified as a
possible reason for inmate population increase. We believe that
including a series of comprehensive programs for inmates will reduce
the recidivism.
Contact Persons: Lawrence F. Seligman, Chief of Police, Tohono
O'odham Police Department, P.O. Box 189, Sells, AZ 85634. Telephone:
(520) 383-6436; Max A. Chavez, Court Administrator, Tohono O'odham
Nation Justice Center, P.O. Box 761, Sells, Arizona 85634. Telephone:
(520) 383-6300.
EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SUMMARY
The Employment Assistance Program assists eligible individuals
through Direct Employment Funding and Adult Vocational Training.
Information is provided to individuals with employable skills for
suitable jobs on and off the Tohono O'odham Nation. One-time financial
assistance is also provided until the first payroll check is received.
To ensure this assistance, an applicant must apply immediately upon
acquiring employment as there is limited time within which a request is
approved.
In addition to financial aid, other services include Adult
Vocational Training (AVT), which assists potential clients in acquiring
job skills necessary to obtain employment. Vocational counseling or
guidance assists participants in making career choices. Information
related to training options and employment availability on and off the
Tohono O'odham Nation is also provided.
Uncertainties in the fiscal year 2002 final budget allocation
prevent the program from making long range plans or commitments to
financially assist a greater number of individuals. Balancing daily
duties and scheduled presentations is difficult with a one-person
program. Students are enrolled in an ongoing process. The Education
Assistant Specialist is required to meet with clients on a daily basis
to provide training information and review files with both the client
and institution to assess completeness. $350,810.33 is need to employ
additional staff who will contact and otherwise support clients as well
as follow-up with institutions and employers.
Contact person: Louis Lopez, Educational Assistant Specialist,
Employment Assistance Program, P.O. Box 837, Sells, Arizona 85634. Toll
Free Number: 1-888-966-3426; Fax: (520) 383-2668.
HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES FISCAL YEAR 2002 APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY
The Higher Education Services is a program designed to assist
tribal members in obtaining higher education through a traditional
four-year college, community college, or a technical school. The main
component of Higher Education Services is to provide quality training
and education for tribal members through available funds. The Education
Assistance Specialist (EAS) works closely with high school counselors
in providing information and materials for students interested in post
secondary education. All high schools the program visits have students
who are potential clients.
In the past two years Higher Education has funded 98 students
pursuing various degrees. Six students graduated in 1999 with six more
graduating in 2000. This year the program expects to graduate at least
12 students. The program expects to fund at least 150 clients in the
next two years and anticipates 25 clients graduating.
The uncertainties of the fiscal year 2002 final budget allocation
make providing funding to students requesting assistance difficult and
prevent the program from implementing long-range plans or financially
assisting a greater number of individuals. In addition, the lack of
funding for staff makes it difficult to provide services year-round and
to avoid interrupting services during the new fiscal time period.
$541,343.94 is needed to fully fund this program.
Contact person: Annamarie Stevens, Education Assistant Specialist,
Tohono O'odham Higher Education Services, P.O. Box 837, Sells, Arizona
85634. Telephone: (520) 383-6571 or 1-888-966-3426. Fax: (520) 383-
2668.
NEEDS FOR BIA SCHOOLS SERVING THE TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION
The four Bureau of Indian Affairs schools on the Tohono O'odham
Nation have identified needs which cannot be met at the present level
of funding. These needs include additional staff members, improved
instructional materials, and safe playground equipment for lower
elementary grades. $2,345,200 in additional funding through the Bureau
of Indian Affairs Indian School Equalization Program will be used to
purchase instructional materials to align school curricula with state
standards, improve playground equipment at two elementary schools, and
to fully fund forty-six positions for nurses, school counselors,
librarians, reading teachers, language and culture teachers and aides,
and support positions.
Routine preventive maintenance has been seriously limited by past
funding restrictions. Adequately funding maintenance will allow schools
to properly maintain buildings and equipment. $13,775,000 in additional
funding from BIA Facilities Management and Construction Program will be
used at four schools to correct identified health and safety
deficiencies, upgrade fire systems, to complete overdue facility
improvements and repair projects related to simple aging of the
buildings. Specific projects include replacing roofs and old air
conditioning units at two schools and replacing inadequate evaporative
coolers with air conditioning equipment at three of the schools.
The BIA schools also request assistance in having quarters funding
generated by rental units at three school locations distributed to the
BIA Papago Agency, OIEP, Education Line Officer rather than to the BIA
Agency Office of Indian Programs. This will allow more immediate access
to funds available for quarters maintenance.
Contact Person: Karen Dawson, Acting Superintendent, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Office of Indian Education Programs, HCO1 Box 8600,
Sells, AZ 85634. Telephone: (520) 383-3501.
______
Prepared Statement of Defenders of Wildlife
Defenders of Wildlife's five top priorities for fiscal year 2002
funding are: (1) the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) endangered species
program; (2) the new Land Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure
Improvement Fund, especially FWS State Wildlife Grants; (3) National
Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance; (4) U.S. Geological
Survey, especially the Biological Research Division; and (5) Bureau of
Land Management National Monuments. We have grave concerns about the
President's budget request in these areas, as discussed below.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ENDANGERED SPECIES FUNDING
The Administration has requested a rider that would significantly
restrict, and in many cases eliminate altogether, the ability of
citizens and conservation groups to secure protection for endangered
and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We are
adamantly opposed to this rider and to all other anti-environmental
riders.
The ESA includes three critical checks and balances to ensure that
political and economic influences do not undermine protection of
endangered and threatened species: the authority for citizens or groups
to petition FWS to list a species; mandatory deadlines for FWS once a
petition is filed; and the right for citizens to sue FWS for failure to
meet these deadlines.
The proposed rider would effectively eliminate citizen oversight
and enforcement of the listing process by waiving the ESA's statutory
listing deadlines and prevent court orders directing FWS to expend any
money to comply with a missed listing deadline. Instead, FWS would only
be obligated to list: (1) those species covered by court orders and
settlement agreements in place when the Interior appropriations bill is
enacted later this year--which may have the perverse result of creating
an immediate rush to the courthouse, precisely the result FWS claims it
is trying to avoid; and (2) other species solely at the discretion of
Administration.
This rider could have a devastating impact on many critically-
imperiled species. For example, but for citizen listing petitions and
enforcement, species like the Canada lynx, Atlantic salmon and cactus
ferruginous pygmy-owl would likely not be currently protected under the
ESA. Indeed, it is not an overstatement to say that most species in
recent years have been listed as the result of listing petitions and
citizen enforcement. This is certainly the case for controversial
listings like Canada lynx and Atlantic salmon. For example, an analysis
by the Center for Biological Diversity determined that over the last 9
years, 92 percent of all ESA listings in California--where about 22
percent of all listed species exist--were the result of either a
listing petition or citizen lawsuit, and most often both.
The real solution is more money. The ESA is one of our nation's
most important environmental laws, standing as a bulwark against the
loss of our rich and unparalleled biological heritage. Despite its
critical role, it has never been funded at the level needed to carry
out its purposes. The President's $111.8 M request for the four main
FWS ESA accounts (Candidate Conservation, Listing, Consultation, and
Recovery) and $54.7 M for the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund falls
far short and cuts more than 25 percent from the total fiscal year 2001
funding level.
Our highest priority for ESA funding is listing. The listing
program is in crisis at this point due to lack of funds: more than 300
species await listing and another 249 await critical habitat
designation. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has announced that at
current funding levels it can no longer list any species except those
under court order, settlement agreements or as emergencies, but
emergencies already exist--the situation for many of these species is
so dire that some may go extinct while awaiting ESA protection. These
include species such as the beautiful cerulean warbler, a migratory
songbird whose U.S. population has declined by 70 percent and the
Mississippi gopher frog, once abundant in southern bayous, now found in
only one Mississippi pond threatened by a proposed housing development
200 meters away. The Administration's proposed increase of $1.9 M for
listing is welcome but not nearly enough to meet the need; FWS
estimates that $80-120 M is needed to address the backlog of listing
activities. We urge a yearly appropriation of $16-24 M for listing over
the next five years.
Increases are also needed for the recovery program.--The
Administration proposes a $6.3 M cut for recovery. But this program was
already woefully underfunded at its current level of $59.8 M. Many
species listed are not receiving needed recovery efforts, and could go
extinct while theoretically protected under the Act. The long list of
species includes the Rio Grande silvery minnow, Attwater's greater
prairie chicken, the Little Mariana fruit bat, and Moloka'i thrush.
Miller et al. in the ``Endangered Species Act: Dollars and Sense?''
(Bioscience, in press) found that $650 M per year is needed for
effective recovery activities. We urge the Subcommittee to start
phasing in these needed increments by adding $120 M to the recovery
budget each year for the next five years, beginning in fiscal year
2002.
LAND, CONSERVATION, INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT FUND (LCPII)
The establishment of the landmark LCPII fund in last year's
Interior appropriations conference report was one of the great
bipartisan achievements of the 106th Congress and was strongly
supported by Defenders and numerous other environmental groups. We
applaud the subcommittee for this historic accomplishment. The
President's request reneges on this momentous deal by requesting $94 M
less than the $1.32 B fiscal year 2002 level dedicated for programs
covered under the Interior appropriations bill and by playing a shell
game--siphoning funding from other important state grant programs
included under LCPII, such as FWS State Wildlife grants and the
Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, to make up the total of $450 M for
the state portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
Further, the President proposes statutory language to authorize
``flexibility'' for state LWCF funds to be used for these very same
programs, but with no guarantee of a specific funding level for any of
these critical needs. Moreover, the budget diverts $60 M from federal
LWCF for two new grant programs that provide incentives to private
landowners for habitat conservation, programs we support in concept,
but not at the expense of federal LWCF or other important conservation
programs. Statutory language is proposed to authorize this change as
well. In fact the only amount guaranteed for traditional LWCF under the
request is $390 M for the federal program. We adamantly oppose this
violation of last year's deal and strongly urge the subcommittee to
reject the statutory language, fully endow the fund at the fiscal year
2002 $1.32 B level, and allocate the available funding among covered
programs in the same balanced distribution as last year with no less
than $450 M directed to federal LWCF.
Of particular importance to Defenders is the new FWS State Wildlife
grants program established in last year's deal to provide critically
needed funding to states to protect species of greatest conservation
need. This funding is desperately needed to help states conserve and
restore declining native species before listing under the ESA is
required. Currently, the Nature Conservancy and its partners in the
state-based Natural Heritage programs have identified more than 6,900
U.S. species as either critically imperiled, imperiled, or vulnerable,
representing 1 in 3 of our native vertebrate, flowering plant and
selected invertebrate species. Until now, little funding has been
available to help address this crucial and growing need to stem further
listings under the ESA by conserving habitat now. FWS moved quickly in
developing guidance to get this program off the ground; moreover, as
was directed in the fiscal year 2001 conference report, language in the
FWS guidance (50 Fed. Reg. p. 7657 ``Jan. 24, 2001'') supports use of
funds for the creation of statewide map-based conservation strategies
that can save millions of dollars in litigation and conflicts over the
environment. Unfortunately, FWS has since put the program on hold.
Defenders is working directly with numerous states that are very eager
to apply for the funding, but are concerned that the money may never
materialize. We ask the subcommittee's help in assuring that FWS moves
forward with this important program for fiscal year 2001. Further, as
this is one of the programs the budget request would zero out, we urge
the subcommittee to reject this proposal and instead provide $120 M for
the fiscal year 2002 state wildlife program, $20 M more from the
increase slated to come into LCPII than was provided in fiscal year
2001.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM (NWRS) OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
The 94 million acre NWRS is the only federal public lands system
dedicated primarily to the conservation of fish and wildlife; it is
crucial to protection of migratory birds, endangered species, and other
wildlife. The Refuge System will pass its most significant milestone
yet when it celebrates its 100th anniversary in 2003. Yet despite its
importance to the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat,
chronic and severe funding shortfalls for operations and maintenance
(O&M) have threatened the Refuge System's ability to achieve its
mission for years.
Since 1998, Congress has begun to respond to the problem by
providing important increases; unfortunately, due to the magnitude and
duration of the O&M funding deficit, continued increases will be needed
to address the $1.1 B in documented operations needs--which includes a
need for more than 1,350 new staff positions--and the more than $800 M
maintenance backlog. These funding needs are consistent with provisions
to improve management and stewardship of the Refuge System included in
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the
National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act of 2000. Since 1995,
Defenders has been a leader in the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement (CARE), a unique coalition of 20 environmental, hunting,
fishing and recreation groups that has developed a plan to increase
Refuge funding substantially by its anniversary. While we appreciate
the $14.9 M increase for refuges in the President's budget request, we
are extremely concerned that most would be directed at maintenance
needs. Since 1997, funding for maintenance has seen a five-fold
increase; but operations funding has increased by only one-half of its
1997 level. CARE recommends a total $150 M increase for Refuge O&M for
fiscal year 2002. The most critical part of this increase is $119.8 M
for operations activities such as surveys, inventory and monitoring;
habitat restoration; and development of Comprehensive Conservation
Plans.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)/BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIVISION (BRD)
Scientists at USGS provide critical information about fish,
wildlife and plants and their habitats, and they detect trends in our
environment over time. This research is vital to detecting and
responding to environmental problems, yet the President's budget
request proposes a 7.7 percent cut to the budget of USGS, the inter-
disciplinary science arm of the Department of the Interior. We strongly
oppose these cuts. We are particularly concerned about cuts to the
Water Resources Investigations ($44 M) and Biological Resources
Divisions ($11.3 M). Cuts to Water Resources would eviscerate critical
programs, such as National Water Quality Assessment and Toxic
Substances Hydrology, that provide information on the health of our
water resources and impacts of dangerous contaminants to ground and
surface water. Cuts to BRD will cripple its ability to do badly needed
research for the land management agencies. These cuts also eliminate
the National Biological Information Infrastructure, a program designed
to allow researchers to find existing ecological information easily
through a centralized internet-based system. Additional cuts will
further damage BRD's ability to deliver information to land management
agencies. Finally, the cuts will freeze progress for the Gap Analysis
Program, a collaborative effort involving states and more than 500
business, non-profit, state, local, and Federal agency organizations,
which has mapped the biological resources of 79 percent of the states
in the U.S. The fiscal year 2002 request for BRD is $149.2 M, $11.3 M
below the fiscal year 2001 level and about $60 M below even the fiscal
year 1994 inflation adjusted level of $220 M. We urge at least $170 M
for BRD for fiscal year 2002, a $10 M increase over fiscal year 2001.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM): NATIONAL MONUMENTS AND ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT
Defenders of Wildlife strongly supports the recent national
monument designations. These new monuments encompass unique and fragile
ecosystems, an extraordinary array of archaeological and historical
resources, and wild and scenic landscapes. The monuments also provide
important habitat for numerous threatened and endangered species. A
high priority for Defenders is implementation of the Sonoran Desert
National Monument and the Ironwood Forest National Monument, both of
which are located in Arizona and are to be administered by the BLM.
Critical implementation measures for the new monuments will include,
among other things: a planning process, increased on-the-ground
management, and improved law enforcement. The historical, cultural,
biological, and scientific qualities of these areas warrant their
protection as national monuments, including the specific management
provisions under which new mining, mineral leasing, and certain grazing
activities will be prohibited. The budget must allocate sufficient
resources through the National Landscape Conservation System for BLM to
properly administer these important national treasures. Rather than the
$9 M requested by the President's budget, $50 M is needed for fiscal
year 2002.
While the President's budget decreases funding for important
conservation programs, it would increase funds by about $30 M for
energy and mineral development in the Gulf of Mexico and on our public
lands, including planning for energy development in the pristine Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. We oppose these increases and urge the
subcommittee to direct these funds instead to the NLCS.
SPECIFIC PROJECTS
Defenders wishes to highlight three specific funding needs for
efforts that contribute to endangered species protection.
First, a broad group of interests, including environmental groups,
sea otter researchers, agencies, fisheries group representatives,
legislative staff, aquarium staff, and public stakeholders has
determined that $1.675 million in research is needed each of the next
five years to support recovery of the threatened sea otter whose
population has suffered declines in 4 out of the last 5 years. Funding
should be earmarked either to FWS or USGS BRD.
Second, $850,000 is needed through FWS Section 7 Consultation to
continue with the crucial third year of development of the Sonoran
Desert Conservation Plan, a model land-use plan for communities around
the country. The SDCP is the largest habitat conservation planning
process now underway, and is incorporating an unprecedented number of
elements related to land use planning, including cultural conservation,
ranch conservation and riparian area restoration. The budget request
eliminates this funding.
Third, endangered species protection is becoming more of a priority
on tribal lands. To address this need, we request the following: $1.625
M for FWS Tribal Technical Assistance office in Region 6; $1.035 M for
the newly created InterTribal Prairie Restoration Council, a coalition
of tribes from the Northern Plains states focusing on prairie wildlife
issues through Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); $290,000 for the
Montana/Wyoming Tribal Fish and Wildlife Commission to better
coordinate conservation activities among the tribes; and $493,000 for
BIA for tribal wildlife projects in the northern Rockies.
______
Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation of Oregon
Mr. Chairman, I, Olney Patt, Jr., Chairman of the Confederated
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, hereby submit the
following fiscal year 2002 appropriations requests for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service:
(1) Designate a portion of BIA School Construction funding to
assist reservation-based public schools serving Indian students, and
earmark $10 million of such funds for construction of a new elementary
school at Warm Springs.
(2) Maintain the BIA Law Enforcement initiative, provide half its
funding for tribally-hired personnel, designate $1 million within Law
Enforcement for Warm Springs, and add funds for design and construction
of a new detention facility at Warm Springs.
(3) Add $2 million for Warm Springs Forest Management in BIA TPA
funding.
(4) Add $500,000 for Warm Springs in BIA funding for Water
Management, Planning and Pre-Development.
(5) Add $1 million in BIA FERC Relicensing funding for the costs of
Warm Springs Tribal participation in the Pelton Hydroelectric Project's
relicensing.
(6) Increase BIA and IHS Contract Support funding to provide 100
percent coverage of tribal Self-Determination Act contracting and
compacting.
(7) Increase IHS Hospitals and Clinics funding by $1.75 million to
provide full direct services for Warm Springs pursuant to the Joint
Venture Agreement between the Tribe, the I.H.S. and the Congress.
Please understand that these requests may lack detail, because of
the delayed development and presentation of the detailed fiscal year
2002 Administration budget request.
We also wish to inform the Subcommittee of the revenue shortfalls
and resulting fiscal challenges we are facing in the foreseeable
future. To meet those challenges, we are ``down-sizing'' our Tribal
government, resulting in the loss of programs, local services and jobs.
Further, low lumber markets have caused our Tribally-owned and operated
mill to reduce operations to 1 shift and permanently lay off 60
employees. These reductions have been particularly painful in our
community where employment alternatives are scarce, so we are hopeful
that, in these times of federal budget surplus, you can respond
positively to our requests. Request details follow.
(1) Designate a portion of BIA School Construction funding to assist
reservation-based public schools serving Indian students, and
earmark $10 million of such fund for construction of a new
elementary school at Warm Springs
We note in the fiscal year 2002 budget ``Blue Print'' that
substantial funding--perhaps as much as $1 billion--will be provided in
the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget to improve BIA schools. We ask that
some component of those funds be dedicated to assisting the
construction of public schools serving Native American children. About
one third of the entire BIA budget is dedicated to the education of
only 10 percent of Native American children in the BIA schools. Only a
pittance of the BIA's budget goes to the great majority of Native
American children in public schools, despite the Bureau's trust and
treaty obligations to the children of all Indian tribes. And of that
very modest funding, none is available to assist with construction. We
ask that this be corrected and full BIA funding be provided for the new
K-5 school at Warm Springs.
Since 1961, the Warm Springs Tribe and the local public school
district have contributed the lion's share of the economic support
necessary to educate Warm Springs youth, and the BIA was allowed to
reallocate the funds previously earmarked to educate our youth
elsewhere. The construction of a new elementary school has been a high
priority for our Tribe for many years. Despite that, the Madras Public
School District, which operates the current outdated and undersized
elementary facility at Warm Springs, has declined to seek funding for a
needed new facility on the reservation through their scheduled bond
offering in 2001.
Accordingly, the BIA must now honor its obligations to our Tribe,
and so we now ask the Subcommittee to take the actions necessary to
provide funding from the BIA School Construction budget to build a new
25,000 square foot, 600 student K-5 elementary facility at Warm
Springs. We request that the needed $10 million be earmarked, and if
that is not possible, we request $5 million for partial funding to seek
a collaborative effort with the District.
We recognize that public schools serving Native American children
otherwise receive assistance through federal Impact Aid funding. We
point out those funds go to the public school district, not the tribe,
and that in recent years the program has not provided any realistically
useful funding for construction. While the Education fiscal year 2002
Blue Print shows $61 million for Impact Aid construction, that amount
falls woefully short of even beginning to address the need.
(2) Maintain the BIA Law Enforcement initiative, provide half its
funding for tribally-hired personnel, designate $1 million
within Law Enforcement for Warm Springs, and add funds for
design and construction of a legally compliant detention
facility at Warm Springs
Several years ago, rising crime threatened to completely overwhelm
the capabilities of the Warm Springs Tribal Police, which, relying
principally on Tribal funding, could only afford two personnel on
patrol at any one time to cover our 1,000 sq. mile Reservation. More
recently, however, the tribal COPS program in the Justice Department
has enabled us to hire several more officers, and to strengthen our
patrol and enforcement presence. Unfortunately, COPS funds are only for
a limited time. Accordingly, we ask that BIA law enforcement initiative
funding be at least maintained, and that one-half of those funds be
expressly made available to support tribally operated police
departments. Most of the Bureau's funds go to reservations where the
Bureau itself operates the law enforcement program. On reservations
such as Warm Springs where the BIA has essentially forsaken its law
enforcement role, tribes must have the authority to seek renewed Bureau
participation in law enforcement responsibilities, particularly by
supporting patrol personnel, and especially those whose COPS support is
withdrawn. We request an additional $1,000,000 in BIA law enforcement
funds be designated for Warm Springs, prioritized for patrol services,
investigations, detention, and rehabilitation programs and services.
Further, we request that funds be added and earmarked through BIA
to design, construct, equip and operate a new legally compliant
detention facility at Warm Springs for adults and juveniles. We
currently operate a BIA-owned detention facility for adults and
juveniles that is grossly deficient, most notably in overcrowding and
sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults. In addition,
resources for juveniles--whether at-risk, status offenders, those
requiring supervision, counseling, detention, or incarceration--are
scarce or altogether lacking.
We note that our need for a new juvenile facility at Warm Springs
could be met, in part and in cooperation among other regional tribes,
with a regional juvenile justice facility.
We also support full funding for the Indian Tribal Justice Act and
a $15 million increase for Tribal Courts in TPA. Insufficient tribal
courts hamper not only law enforcement, but the overall economic and
societal development of our communities.
(3) Add $2 million for Warm Springs Forest Management in BIA TPA
funding
We request the addition of $2 million to the BIA Tribal Priority
Allocation budget for the BIA Forestry program at Warm Springs. For
many years, the BIA and the Warm Springs Tribe have worked together to
develop and fund a strong combined Forestry program. Tribal funding,
often at more than $2.5 million a year, has funded positions and
activities relied upon by the Bureau to fulfill its trust asset
management obligations. However, the Tribe's current financial outlook
will not allow us to continue funding Forestry at the same level.
Reduced Tribal revenues require sharp reductions in many Tribal
programs, including our contribution to Forestry. That means the BIA
must now fund the trust activities previously paid for by the Tribe.
And at the same time, the forest management requirements the BIA must
meet have been increasing, including increased environmental
certification and the withdrawal of land for alternative uses. Further,
in recent years, the Tribes have successfully argued a federal claim
against the BIA for its failure to adequately fulfill its trust
responsibility for the management of Tribal timber. To meet these
modern mandates, to replace no longer affordable Tribal subsidies and
to properly fund its trust responsibilities for timber management, we
estimate BIA Forestry at Warm Springs needs $2 million more a year on a
continuing basis. Bill language directing that addition to the Warm
Springs Forestry program in the Bureau's Tribal Priority Allocation
budget would be the surest, most straightforward way of securing this
necessary adjustment.
(4) Add $500,000 for Warm Springs in BIA Water Management, Planning and
Pre-Development
We request that $500,000 be added for the Warm Springs Tribes to
the BIA Non-Recurring Programs budget for Water Management, Planning,
and Pre-Development to enable us to realize the benefits from our 1997
water settlement with the United States and the State of Oregon. Our
water settlement, the first accomplished between the United States and
a tribe in 8 years, left most of the Tribe's water in the Metolius and
Deschutes Rivers. The expensive water project development legislation
that normally accompanies tribal water settlements was not needed in
our case. But the Warm Springs Tribe, now that our water rights are
quantified and settled, needs financial support to plan for and manage
this vital resource. The $500,000 would cover work on a Comprehensive
Water Development Plan, studies relating to Pelton relicensing, water
quality modeling for the Deschutes River Basin, and studies relating to
siting and operating a combined cycle gas electric generator on the
Reservation using Deschutes River water.
(5) Add $1 million in BIA FERC Relicensing funding for Warm Springs
Tribal participation in the Pelton Hydroelectric Project's
relicensing
About one third of the Pelton Hydroelectric Project occupies Warm
Springs trust land, and the Tribe has rights and interests in the water
used by the Project. A new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license
will be necessary for the Project starting January 1, 2002. Warm
Springs is participating in the relicensing both as a government with
affected regulatory powers and, because the Tribe is acquiring a
portion of the Project from Portland General Electric, as a licensee.
These are enormously expensive undertakings, and while the BIA, as
trustee, has secured funding for Bureau participation in Pelton's
relicensing, it has not provided any assistance for the Tribe itself.
To help us fulfill these responsibilities, we ask that $1 million be
provided for Warm Springs in the Bureau's FERC project licensing
budget, half of which would be applied to the Tribe's Natural Resources
Department for its regulatory role, and one half to help defray the
Tribe's costs in seeking the license.
(6) Increase BIA and IHS Contract Support funding to provide 100
percent coverage of tribal Self-Determination Act contracting
and compacting
Public Law 93-638 contract and compact indirect contract support is
negotiated with the Inspector General and represents the full agreed
upon amount for such costs. Unfortunately, the actual funding levels
requested by BIA and IHS for contract support regularly fall short of
the amounts needed to meet the agreed upon indirect costs. Because
indirect costs are generally unavoidable, the shortfall in contract
support must be made up by deductions from the directly contracted or
compacted program dollars. The result is tribes having to pay a
substantial penalty--in the form of reduced funding and diminished
services--for assuming the responsibility of administering BIA and IHS
programs for the tribes' own benefit. To eliminate this penalty and
enable tribes to administer services on a par with those provided by
the BIA and IHS, we ask that you support full funding for the BIA and
IHS's contract support obligations.
(7) Increase IHS Hospitals and Clinics funding by $1.75 million to
provide full direct services for Warm Springs pursuant to our
Joint Venture Agreement with I.H.S.
In 1987, our Tribe developed and proposed to the IHS 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 however, IHS
staff funding for the Warm Springs clinic has not been sufficient to
maintain all the positions initially placed there. I.H.S. estimates now
show Warm Springs is now funded at only 80 percent of need. To
partially make up the difference, the clinic has been drawing ever-
increasing amounts from third party collections. Those funds have
always been intended for new equipment, staff training, and eventual
facility expansion. With those funds diverted to maintain existing
staff, the clinic is unable to address those needs, and the quality of
clinic's health care is eroding. The alternative is to lay off staff.
While we have kept our obligation under the Joint Venture, the I.H.S.
must be directed to keep its side of the agreement, and $1.75 million
for Warm Springs must be added to IHS Hospitals and Clinics to restore
our funding.
Additionally, all I.H.S. mandatory costs, including medical
inflation, mandatory payroll increases and population growth (including
new tribes) must be funded. Warm Springs and other Pacific Northwest
tribal health programs must purchase all inpatient and specialty care
from private, professional medical providers, whose cost increases must
be met within Contract Health Services budget just to maintain the
program's service level.
This concludes the Warm Springs testimony. If you have any
questions, please call our Secretary-Treasurer Charles V. Jackson or me
at 541-553-1161. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Intertribal Timber Council
SUMMARY
Mr. Chairman, I am Fred Matt, President of the Intertribal Timber
Council. I hereby submit this testimony with the following requests for
Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land
Management fiscal year 2002 appropriations:
(1) Add $250,000 to BIA Central Office Natural Resources General to
conclude the second national Indian forest assessment.
(2) Add $1 million to the U.S. Forest Service to initiate the
recommendations of the USFS Tribal Relations Task Force Report.
(3) Add $8.7 million to address BIA Forestry deficiencies:
(A) +$2 million for BIA Forestry staff and management,
(B) +$3 million for a new BIA IRMP line item,
(C) +$1.7 million to TPA Forestry for acreage increases, and
(D) +$2 million to Forest Development in Non-Recurring
Forestry.
(4) Designate $10 million in Office of the Special Trustee for
Cadastral Survey location of trust land boundaries.
(5) Within BLM, maintain wildland fire funding at the increased
levels initiated in fiscal year 2001.
INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL BACKGROUND
The Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) is a twenty five year old
organization of seventy forest owning tribes and Alaska Native
organizations that collectively possess more than 90 percent of the 7.6
million timberland acres and a significant portion of the 9.5 million
woodland acres that are under B.I.A. trust management. These lands are
vitally important to their tribes. They provide habitat, cultural and
spiritual sites, recreation and subsistence uses, and through
commercial forestry, income for the tribes and jobs for their members.
In Alaska, the forests of Native corporations and thousands of
individual allotments are equally important to their owners. To all our
membership, our forests and woodlands are essential to our physical,
cultural, and economic well-being, and assuring their proper management
is our foremost concern.
(1) Add $250,000 to BIA Central Office Natural Resources General to
conclude the second national report of the Indian Forest
Management Assessment Team
The National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (Public Law
101-630, Title III) requires that an independent assessment of Indian
trust forests and forest management be conducted every ten years. The
first assessment (completed by the group of nationally-recognized
experts that comprised the Independent Forest Management Assessment
Team, IFMAT) was delivered to tribes, the Administration, and Congress
in November of 1993. This report, funded with $300,000 from Congress in
each of fiscal years 1992 and 1993 and an ANA grant, found that Indian
forest management was grossly underfunded and that tribes were not
receiving the full benefit from their forests due to serious
deficiencies in management and planning.
Last year, the ITC attempted to secure $1.5 million in funding from
the Administration and Congress over a two year period to complete the
second assessment, but unfortunately our efforts were not successful.
That is disappointing. At a time when Congress is having to spend tens
of millions of dollars to try to address lax management of trust funds,
it seems shortsighted to decline a statutorily required evaluation of
the corpus of the timber trust, which is the underlying renewable
source of much tribal and Indian trust money.
During the past year, the ITC has now secured the assistance of two
foundations interested in management of Indian forests and obtained a
commitment from the BIA to initiate the second assessment. Now, we
believe that the assessment can be completed if Congress appropriates
$250,000 for this purpose to BIA Forestry.
We strongly urge Congress to add the $250,000. As we explained in
our testimony last year, this is a vitally necessary, statutorily
mandated responsibility of the federal government. Congress
substantially assisted with the first IFMAT, and with that report's
benchmark established, the second report is particularly important. The
ITC has done all that it can to advance the second report through
unique partnerships, and now we ask Congress to provide the funding
required to complete the assessment of the BIA's trust management of
Indian forests as required by Public Law 101-630.
(2) Add $1 million to the U.S. Forest Service to initiate the
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE USFS TRIBAL RELATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT
Mr. Chairman, Indian tribes have been longtime neighbors with the
U.S. Forest Service. But despite that long history, despite our very
extensive common boarders, our similar and shared landscapes and
resources, and our trust and treaty rights on Forest Service lands, we
have remained too often distant. There is a need to improve cross-
boundary cooperation, consultation, and equitable tribal participation
in the Service's public programs.
We were very pleased when the Chief of the Forest Service
established a national Tribal Relations Task Force in October, 1999 to
begin to address these concerns. The Task Force, with tribal
participation, has completed its report, which is available on line and
now being printed. Today, a Forest Service Implementation Team is
moving forward to effectuate the recommendations of the Task Force.
The true test of how these efforts are eventually realized in the
field still remains an open question. We are off to a good, encouraging
start, but there are many institutionalized barriers on both sides
which must be breached. As a first step, we ask that the Subcommittee
add $1 million at an appropriate location in the Service's budget to
foster the Implementation Team's efforts so as to improve tribal
consultation and coordination with the Service. By enabling the tribes
to work cooperatively with the Service, the Task Force's broader
recommendations have an improved chance of taking root, along with the
prospects of better overall relations and improved resource management
across the forest landscape.
(3) Add $8.7 million to address BIA Forestry deficiencies
Over the past two years, the ITC has repeatedly urged necessary
funding increases to correct growing deficiencies in the BIA Forestry
program. Below are summaries of our four principal recommendations.
Please refer to ITC fiscal year 2000 and 2001 testimony to the
Subcommittee for details.
(A) +$2 million for BIA Forestry management staffing
The BIA's forest management planning capability is weak and not
improving. Only about one quarter of the BIA's 17.1 million forest
acres (both forestland and woodland) have current management plans.
Only 59 percent of commercial forestland has current plans. Reasons for
this include insufficient Forestry staff in Regional Offices, where
much management planning is done for tribes with smaller forests, the
understaffed Branch of Forest Resources Planning responsible for the
forest inventory analyses, and insufficient Forest Management Inventory
and Planning funds for the special projects involved in plan renewals.
Finally, more planning is needed for Woodlands, where intensive but
unplanned use is degrading the resource. Because of the failure of the
BIA to fulfill its trust responsibility to provide approved forest
management plans, current BIA policy would prevent tribes from managing
their forests to benefit their communities. Accordingly, the I.T.C.
requests that--
--$350,000 be added to Regional Office Forestry for four additional
professional foresters,
--$150,000 be added to Central Office Natural Resources General for
two additional professional personnel for the Branch of Forest
Resources Planning,
--$1 million be added to Forest Management Inventory and Planning,
and
--$500,000 be added to Non-Recurring Forestry for Woodlands
Management.
(B) +$3 million for an integrated resources management
planning line item
In fiscal year 1999, the BIA added Integrated Resources Management
Planning to the programs operated under Non-Recurring Forestry. But no
funding has been added for this new ``program,'' and BIA has only one
professional staff member charged with the development of IRMPs. Faced
with hundreds of resource dependent tribes, that person is doing all he
can offering a few small grants and guidance and advice. Otherwise, the
BIA has no IRMP program. There is no longer any question that IRMP is
essential in this era of complex natural resources management. So, once
again, the ITC requests that Congress appropriate a minimum of $3
million to establish a separate IRMP budget item under Non-Recurring
Forestry.
(C) +$1.7 million to Tribal Priority Allocation Forestry
for acreage increases
Since fiscal year 1992, Indian forestland under trust management
has increased from 15.9 million acres to 17.1 million acres today, a
7.5 percent increase. T.P.A Forestry funding, including Self-
Governance, has only increased from $26.8 million in fiscal year 1992
to $27.1 million for fiscal year 2001. To reflect the management costs
of these increased acres at the Agency level, the ITC requests that
fiscal year 2002 Forestry in TPA be increased to $28.8 million, a 7.5
percent increase from fiscal year 1992. This added funding should be
distributed according to acreage increases.
(D) +2 million to Forest Development in Non-Recurring
Forestry
This program received $10.3 million in fiscal year 1991. Today,
although combined with other forestry programs in Non-Recurring
Forestry, it is probably receiving slightly less than that amount. A $2
million increase is necessary to meet current forest development costs.
(4) Designate $10 million in the Office of the Special Trustee for
Cadastral Survey to locate trust land boundaries
Property boundaries on most reservations and allotments must be
established in accordance with modern standards. Since their
establishment 80 to 150 years ago according to crude standards, many
property corners have been lost or obliterated. Nation-wide, the
failure to accurately establish ownership boundaries presents large
potential for trespass and associated liability, and further hampers
Bureau efforts to straighten out realty records and ensure that
proceeds from trust resources are credited to their proper accounts. To
begin addressing this problem, the ITC requests earmarking $10 million
in the Office of the Special Trustee to begin systematically
establishing or re-establishing corners and property lines for Indian
trust properties, in accordance with recognized needs.
(5) Within BLM, maintain wildland fire funding at the increased levels
initiated in fiscal year 2001
Mr. Chairman, the ITC strongly supports continuation of the
National Wildland Fire initiative commenced in fiscal year 2001 and
funded for all Interior agencies, including the BIA, through the Bureau
of Land Management. The BIA Wildland Fire program has responsibility
for more than 50 million trust acres, about one third of which is
forest or woodland.
Managing fire within our reservation landscapes is especially
important to tribes. Our reservations are our permanent homelands. Our
reservations' renewable natural resources provide employment for
thousands of our people, vitally needed revenues for tribal
governmental operations, habitat, subsistence, recreation, and cultural
and religious sites. If our reservations burn, moving away is not much
of an option. Three hundred thirty tribal communities have an urban/
wildland interface and face risk from wildland fire. Many of these
communities are so small they do not have fire protection readily at
hand, and so must particularly rely on treatment of the urban/wildland
interface for their safety.
Indian Country has all of the issues and concerns that, on a
national scale, drove fiscal year 2001's initiation of the strengthened
wildland fire program. As noted above, there are 36,600 acres of urban/
wildland interface, and the need to train and strengthen rural fire
departments in Indian Country. There are 140,000 other acres in need of
treatment, particularly for fuels. And there is a great need for
preparedness. Close to one quarter of all fire fighting personnel in
the United States are Native American, and the great majority of these
crews are funded through the BIA fire program. Sufficient preparedness
funding will enable these critical personnel to be appropriately
trained and equipped, and will address the low pay, intermittent
employment, and lack of benefits that actively drive skilled personnel
away from fire jobs.
Accordingly, we urge the Congress to support continuation of the
long overdue national wildland fire initiative.
Please refer any requests for further information regarding this
testimony to the I.T.C. office in Portland or our Washington, D.C.
representative, Mark Phillips, at (202)546-1516.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee: Thank
you for providing this opportunity to the people of Enewetak to
describe issues that relate to our ability to live on Enewetak Atoll.
These issues are: Funding of the just compensation award issued by the
Nuclear Claims Tribunal; continued and increased funding of the
Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program; resettlement of the Enjebi
people on their home island of Enjebi; monitoring of the Enewetak
people for radiation exposure; continued monitoring of the environment
to determine current radiation levels; monitoring of the Runit dome;
and, improvement of the health care program.
We would first like to address the continuing challenges that life
on Enewetak presents. These challenges are the result of the severe
damage inflicted on our atoll by the U.S. Nuclear Testing Program. This
committee has helped us meet some of these challenges by funding the
Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program.
FUNDING OF THE ENEWETAK FOOD AND AGRICULTURE PROGRAM
This program is necessary because over one-half of our land remains
contaminated by radiation. The remaining fifty percent of our land was
turned into a desert-like wasteland in the course of the nuclear
testing program. As a result of such activities, there is insufficient
food and other resources on our atoll to support our people.
The United States Congress recognized our predicament and in
Section 103(h) of the Compact of Free Association Act of 1985, Public
Law 99-239, authorized funding for the Enewetak Food and Agriculture
Program. Pursuant to such authorization, this committee has funded the
program. Such funding provides imported food for our population and an
agriculture rehabilitation program. Much progress has occurred over the
past several years with regard to the agriculture rehabilitation
effort. In addition, our people have become more and more involved with
soil rehabilitation and the planting and maintenance of food bearing
plants. In fact, the additional $410,000 for equipment and manpower
provided by the Congress for fiscal year 1999 has created a momentum
that we would like to maintain. Unfortunately, the funding level of
$1.191 million in the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget would
not have permitted the continuance of such momentum. The Enewetak
people described this situation to the Congress and an additional sum
of $200,000 for a total of $1.391 million was provided for fiscal year
2001. The Administration, in its fiscal year 2002 budget, has
maintained the funding for the program at the $1.391 million level.
That amount helps but the increasing population, much improved
agriculture rehabilitation techniques, and transportation expenses have
increased the costs to the program. These costs are the costs of the
necessary food imports; transportation costs for food imports;
transportation costs of equipment, material, supplies, and fuel for the
agriculture rehabilitation program; and labor costs for the accelerated
agriculture effort. To meet these increased costs, the program needs to
be increased to the sum of $1.7 million in fiscal year 2002. The $1.7
million is broken down as follows: Food and cooking fuel costs,
$550,000; agriculture costs (labor, equipment, material, supplies,
fuel, operations and maintenance), $850,000; transportation costs
(labor, fuel, operations and maintenance), $300,000. Included in the
three foregoing categories is the cost of administration of the
program. Due to the foregoing, we respectfully request that this
committee increase the amount requested by the Administration for this
program for fiscal year 2001 by the amount of $309,00, for a total of
$1.7 million.
We would now like to describe the historic award of $386 million
made to us by the Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal for damages
we suffered as a result of the U.S. Nuclear Testing Program. We will
briefly describe this development and then describe the necessity of
resettling the Enjebi island members of our community on their home
island, radiation monitoring of our people and the environment, and the
background of the food and agriculture program and its components.
the just compensation award issued by the nuclear claims tribunal
We suffered greatly as a result of use of our atoll for 43 nuclear
explosions. We suffered spiritually, physically and emotionally due to
our forced removal from Enewetak and relocation to the much smaller,
resource poor and isolated atoll of Ujelang. We suffered famine, lack
of health care, lack of education, and isolation during our 33 year
exile on Ujelang. Upon our return to Enewetak, we suffered and continue
to suffer the severe damage to our ancestral land. This severe damage
has not only made the land unproductive for food production purposes,
but has also deprived us of the natural resources required to live a
customary and traditional life.
The suffering we endured and the damage to our atoll is too lengthy
of a discussion for inclusion in this statement. However, evidence of
such suffering and damage was presented to the Nuclear Claims Tribunal
at a historic hearing which occurred in April of 1999. We presented
evidence from radiation scientists, engineers, anthropologists, an
atoll agriculture specialist, and members of our community. On the
basis of such evidence, the Nuclear Claims Tribunal on April 13, 2000
awarded us the sum of $386 million for the loss of use of our land, for
the cost to restore the land to a condition of full and unrestricted
use, and for the hardships we endured during our 33 year exile to the
small, resource-poor, remote and isolated atoll of Ujelang.
It is important to remember that in 1947, prior to our removal from
Enewetak, the United States promised us that we would have all
constitutional rights accruing to U.S. citizens, that we would be taken
care of during our exile to Ujelang, and that we would not be exposed
to any greater danger than the people of the United States. The
constitutional rights to which we are entitled include the right to be
justly compensated for the damages we suffered as a result of the U.S.
nuclear testing program. In addition to the well documented promises to
us, the U.S. in the Compact of Free Association (1) accepted
responsibility for the just compensation owing for loss or damage
resulting from its nuclear testing program and (2) agreed that the
Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal make a final determination of
the amount that would satisfy the constitutional requirement of just
compensation. The Nuclear Claims Tribunal, following well established
U.S. constitutional, legal, and regulatory principles, determined that
the just compensation to be provided to us was an amount of $386
million in addition to what has already been received or will be
received under the Compact. The funding of this amount by the U.S.
would satisfy its constitutional obligation to us. This funding would
permit us to rid our land of radiological contamination, rehabilitate
the soil, revegetate the land, resettle the Enjebi people on their home
island, and provide the means by which we could establish a local
economy in the fishing and tourism sectors. The foregoing would permit
us to once again become self-reliant and self-sufficient. Until this
funding materializes, we require continued and increased funding of the
Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program.
RESETTLEMENT OF THE ENJEBI PEOPLE ON THEIR HOME ISLAND OF ENJEBI
The Enewetak people consist of two groups: The people of the
southern part of the atoll, the Enewetak group; and, the people of the
northern part of the atoll, the Enjebi group. The people of Enjebi have
not been able to resettle their home island because it remains
contaminated. As a result, the Enjebi people need to share the limited
land and resources with the other Enewetak people on the islands of
Enewetak, Medren and Japtan. As the populations grow, this is becoming
an increasingly difficult situation. Yet Enjebi cannot be resettled in
the near term because insufficient funding exists for the cleanup and
resettlement. The situation at Enjebi is difficult since Enjebi island
was ground zero for a number of tests. In addition, it underwent
bulldozing, scrapping and soil removal during the 1977-1980 partial
cleanup activities. In order to make the island habitable again,
funding for radiological remediation, soil and plant rehabilitation,
and housing and other infrastructure costs is required. The funding of
the $386 million award would permit the necessary work and resettlement
to occur.
radiation monitoring of the people, the environment, and the runit dome
Because of the residual radiation contamination at Enewetak Atoll,
we and our environment need to be monitored. The DOE is working with us
to initiate an appropriate whole body counting and plutonium detection
regime. The DOE responsibilities under such a regime need to continue
until Enewetak is radiologically remediated. In addition, the Runit
Dome (Cactus Crater Containment Site) contains over 110,000 cubic yards
of radioactive soil and debris including plutonium and other
radioactive elements. This site needs to be monitored to assure the
integrity of the structure and to assure that no health risks from the
radioactive waste site are suffered by the Enewetak people.
IMPROVEMENT OF THE HEALTH CARE PROGRAM
As described in other portions of this statement, over half of the
land at Enewetak remains contaminated. In addition, the sufferings of
the people during their 33 year exile to Ujelang have arguably caused
health problems that continue to manifest themselves in an aging
population. These health problems are not adequately addressed by the
current health care program. The program funds need to be increased and
the funds need to be allocated in an equal amount to each of the four
atolls. The increase would only solve part of the problem. The
allocation of an equal amount to each of the four atolls would solve
the other part of the problem by allowing each community to best
determine how its health care funds be spent.
We would now like to describe the food and agriculture program and
its components, and the efforts we have made to make this program as
effective as possible.
ENEWETAK FOOD AND AGRICULTURE PROGRAM
The Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program enables us to live on
Enewetak. It provides funding for imported food, continued agriculture
rehabilitation, operation of a motor vessel which brings us the
imported food, a nutrition education program, and an operation and
maintenance component conducted out of a facility on Enewetak known as
the field station.
1. Efforts made to increase food production.--The most significant
aspects of the agriculture rehabilitation program are the infusion of
nutrients into the soil and the planting of buffer plants along the
island's shore to protect the interior plants from salt spray. The
infusion of nutrients into the soil is accomplished by digging trenches
and placing organic material in the trenches along with a compost
mixture of copra cake and chicken manure. This activity is extremely
labor intensive and required the importation of copra cake and chicken
manure. Although the work is progressing, additional funding is
required to provide greater manpower and the necessary equipment,
materials and supplies.
2. Importation of food.--Imported food is required because of the
poor soil condition of the land available to us and the radiation
contamination of other lands. Imported food is now approximately
$500,000 of the program budget and is expected to increase because of
the increase in food costs and because of our growing population. These
issues further illustrate the need to increase the program to $1.7
million.
3. Nutrition education program.--Since our people cannot rely on
traditional foods we must import food, the nutritional value of which
is unfamiliar to us. Several years ago we became aware that some of our
people, particularly our children, suffered from malnutrition.
Accordingly, we instituted a nutrition education program. We are
pleased to report that we have been apprised by physicians that
malnutrition among our children has been greatly reduced.
4. Vessel.--In 1999, we purchased, repaired, and refitted a 104-
foot motor-vessel as a replacement vessel for our 54-foot motor-sailer,
which sank. This replacement vessel, named the KAWEWA, has greater
capacity for cargo and passengers than the previous vessel. The KAWEWA
permits us to transport machinery, equipment, supplies and other
necessary cargo. It also provides transportation to members of our
community. Both the transport of cargo and people have become extremely
difficult in the Marshall Islands because of the lack of transport
vessels and aircraft. The KAWEWA provides the necessary lifeline for
goods, materials, and transportation for our community.
5. Field Station.--Operation and maintenance of the entire program
is conducted out of a facility referred to as the Field Station. The
machinery and equipment required by the agriculture, food and
transportation components of the program are kept at the Field Station.
Field Station personnel provide all the required agricultural work;
maintain, service, and operate the equipment required by the various
components of the program; make payments and maintain books of
accounts; and coordinate the procurement of food, material and
equipment. The overall manager of the program is Johnson Hernest. Other
management personnel include Samson Yoshitaro and Mathan David. The
program employs over 50 members of our community.
CONCLUSION
In closing, we thank the Congress for its past funding of the
Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program and request that it provide
funding for fiscal year 2002 in the amount of $1.7 million to address
the increased costs incurred by the program. In addition, we look
forward to discussing with the Congress the funding of the $386 million
Nuclear Claims Tribunal award to finally complete the remediation,
rehabilitation, resettlement of Enewetak and to provide us the just and
full compensation to which we are entitled for the damages we sustained
as a result of the United States Nuclear Testing Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Weston Observatory of Boston College
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am a Professor of
Geophysics at Boston College and the Director of Boston College's
Weston Observatory, which specializes in the study of earthquakes and
earthquake hazards in the northeastern United States. I thank you for
this opportunity to submit testimony in support of the National
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) and specifically of the
Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) that was recently initiated by
Congress. One very strong research program at Boston College is the
study earthquakes, earthquake hazards, and earthquake hazard
mitigation, carried out by Weston Observatory. The Weston Observatory
research program has led to new understandings of the earthquake
activity as well as increasing mitigation efforts in the northeastern
United States.
Last year, a special NEHRP authorization for the ANSS was passed by
Congress and signed by the president to improve earthquake monitoring
throughout the United States. in support of earthquake hazard
mitigation efforts. For fiscal year 2002 funding for the ANSS was
authorized at $33.5M. I strongly believe that the fiscal year 2002 ANSS
authorization should be fully appropriated in addition to full funding
for the rest of the fiscal year 2002 NEHRP efforts within the U.S.
Geological Survey. This is necessary if we are to meet our goals of
mitigating the losses in future earthquakes throughout the country. As
the M6.7 Seattle earthquake demonstrated earlier this year, strong
earthquakes can strike well populated and economically important parts
of the country at any time. We only stand to increases our potential
losses if we do not fully fund these important programs.
In this testimony, I describe how current earthquake monitoring has
led to new understandings of the potential for earthquakes in the
northeastern United States. I explain why the increased NEHRP spending
for the ANSS program is vital for further earthquake hazard mitigation
efforts. Finally, I point out some important ancillary benefits of
increased NEHRP funding for the ANSS in the areas of environmental
protection and oil exploration. Current levels of NEHRP funding for
earthquake monitoring in the northeastern United States are
insufficient to meet the modern demands of emergency managers,
government officials, the insurance and financial industries, and
building construction professionals for immediate, comprehensive
earthquake information. The ANSS program within the NEHRP is designed
specifically to meet the needs of those important stakeholders in the
northeastern United States and throughout the entire country.
EARTHQUAKE HAZARD AND RISK IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
It may be a surprise to some people, but earthquakes occur year-in
and year-out throughout the northeastern United States. For example,
since January 2000 there has been at least one felt earthquake centered
in each of the six New England states as well as in New York and New
Jersey. All of these earthquakes were small (magnitude less than 3.5)
and none caused any damage. Nevertheless, they serve to remind the
residents that earthquakes are a potential threat. While not the
largest, probably the most significant seismic event during this period
was the January 17, 2001 magnitude 2.4 earthquake centered under
Manhattan Island in New York City. While not damaging, the earthquake
was felt by many in Manhattan and Queens. Emergency service agencies
were inundated with telephone calls from citizens. Media interest in
this earthquake was very high, first as they tried to determine whether
an earthquake or explosion had occurred and later when they wanted to
get an exact location and magnitude. The Lamont Doherty Earth
Observatory of Columbia University, which does earthquake monitoring
for this part of the region, was deluged with telephone calls looking
for information. Even Weston Observatory near Boston received phone
calls looking for information about this earthquake.
Aside from the curiosity factor, this small New York City
earthquake highlighted to many citizens and officials that earthquakes
are a threat to New York City. The business and financial centers in
the area were made aware that earthquakes can affect their headquarters
and operations. Obviously, if a damaging earthquake were to affect the
New York City area, the economic consequences would reverberate
nationally and even internationally. My colleagues at Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory are studying this earthquake and its one very small
after shock to attempt to learn more about the possibilities of
damaging earthquakes in the New York City area.
In a different study, a recent new analysis by Prof. Alan Kafka of
Weston Observatory and myself has shed new light on the predictability
of earthquakes in the New England region. Rather than focusing on a
single earthquake, Kafka and I analyzed pattern of occurrences of small
earthquakes in the region over the past 25 years. We discovered that
the pattern of small earthquakes is more temporally clustered than
would be expected from random earthquake activity. In layman's terms,
this means that whenever there is a small, felt earthquake in New
England, there is an increased chance of another felt earthquake
somewhere in the New England region during the next week or so. We
don't yet know why this is happening, but the implications are quite
important. For example, it could be possible that strong, potentially
damaging earthquakes in our region take place during times of increased
numbers of small earthquakes. This would mean that continuous
monitoring of the small earthquakes could give insight into times when
strong earthquakes would be most prone to strike. This research is
still in its early stages, but it does suggest that there may well be
patterns in the occurrences of small earthquakes that may eventually
make some level of earthquake forecasting possible.
The two studies reported here emphasize the importance of
continuous, routine monitoring of the small earthquake activity in the
northeastern United States. The small earthquakes help us better define
the earthquake hazard and threat to the major cities of the region.
Furthermore, patterns in the occurrences of the small earthquakes may
someday give important clues about the imminence of strong earthquakes
in our region. Continued funding of the NEHRP program and expansion of
regional earthquake monitoring for small as well as large earthquakes
through full funding of the ANSS initiative is needed to maintain and
expand our ability understand and forecast the earthquake hazard in the
northeastern United States.
ANSS AND EARTHQUAKE HAZARD MITIGATION IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED
STATES.
I believe that we are at an important juncture in earthquake
monitoring in the northeastern United States. On the one hand, those
who are concerned with coping with earthquakes when they happen or with
promoting and enforcing earthquake hazard mitigation measures are
demanding ever more rapid and comprehensive information about
earthquakes in the region. On the other hand, a slow erosion in federal
funding for such activities over the past decade has severely limited
the capabilities of local scientists to meet this growing demand. To
make matters worse, funding limitations have significantly reduced the
number of seismic experts actively working to monitor and study the
earthquake activity in the northeast region, making it ever more
difficult to meet the demands of those in the public and private
sectors who are sincerely interested in reducing the losses in future
earthquakes.
Those who were engaged in the planning efforts for the ANSS several
years ago recognized that the above problem exists not only in the
northeastern United States but also throughout the country as a whole.
The framework for the ANSS, outlined in U.S. Geological Survey Circular
1188, was designed not only to upgrade earthquake monitoring hardware
throughout the country but also to provide the necessary manpower and
infrastructure to maintain such a system. It was urged in Circular 1188
that earthquake monitoring be coordinated and administered on a
regional basis with oversight by an advisory group of stakeholders in
the region to ensure that the data and research results from regional
earthquake monitoring would have the greatest impact in earthquake
hazard mitigation measures.
In March 2001 I chaired (with Dr. Art Lerner-Lam of Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory) a workshop to begin organizing the ANSS in the
northeast region. Attendees at the workshop included representatives
from various state emergency management agencies, state geological
surveys, fire and police departments, university geoscience and
engineering departments, the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and the
Small Business Administration. Several needs, not being met by current
earthquake monitoring capabilities, were identified by the participants
as important products and services of the ANSS in the northeast region.
The first of these is the availability and dissemination of rapid and
accurate information about an earthquake as soon as possible after it
happens, ideally within minutes of the event. For example, officials
from New York City indicated that for the January earthquake they
needed to know immediately that the event was an earthquake and not a
terrorist bombing or an underground explosion in a utility conduit or
subway station. This information was critical for their response to the
event. The current earthquake monitoring system in the region is
incapable of providing such near real-time information, nor can it be
made so at current funding levels. The workshop enthusiastically
recommended that the ANSS system in the region be designed and built to
provide accurate earthquake information within minutes of the
occurrence of a seismic event.
Another necessary capability for the northeast ANSS system
identified at the workshop is the rapid assessment of earthquake
shaking maps and maps of potential damage immediate following an
earthquake. The emergency management specialists at the workshop were
especially vocal about this requirement. Such a capability cannot be
done at present with the current earthquake monitoring equipment and
funding. Finally, the workshop participants argued strongly for
dedicated local expertise to study local earthquakes and to explain
what happened after an earthquake has occurred. There are typically
questions about aftershocks, active faults, and the potential for other
earthquakes immediately following the occurrence of a felt or damaging
earthquake. The news media and the public at large look to local
experts for information, advice and interpretation. This need is one of
the important elements in the implementation of the ANSS not only in
the northeast but also throughout rest of the country as well.
The workshop participants strongly endorsed the need for the ANSS
in the northeastern United States. Some expressed frustration with the
current poor state of earthquake monitoring in the region, and many
argued that a new system was necessary to meet their needs. All agreed
that implementation of the ANSS would have a positive impact on
earthquake hazard mitigation measures in the northeast.
ANSS AND EARTH SCIENCE EDUCATION
One important side benefit of the funding that NEHRP provides to
universities is that some of that external funding goes to support the
training of students in earthquake research. Some of these students
graduate to work professionally in one capacity or another in the
earthquake field, but many others use their geoscience training to go
to other jobs. For example, at Boston College, many of our students
have graduated to jobs in oil exploration, environmental cleanup and
monitoring, engineering, teaching, and high technology applications.
The work of these students to help with earthquake monitoring in New
England helped support their education, with an obvious benefit to the
earthquake monitoring program.
A few weeks ago I attended a conference, sponsored by the American
Geological Institute, that discussed the training of students in
geology and geophysics at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
Representatives from the oil and engineering industries made
presentations about their expected hiring of geoscientists in the next
several years. Given the current energy crisis and the need for
continued oil and gas exploration, the companies expressed concern that
the number of university students majoring in the geosciences is
currently declining, even as hiring is expected to increase in the
future. In a few years the universities will not produce enough trained
geoscientists to fill industry's needs. Increased funding to the
universities for projects like NEHRP and the ANSS strongly encourages
students to enter and train in the geosciences. Conversely, funding
cutbacks in programs like these lead to reduced numbers of geoscience
students in university programs. One benefit of full ANSS funding in
fiscal year 2002 and beyond would be a larger future pool of trained
geoscience students who could help fill the coming manpower shortfall
in the oil and gas exploration industries.
In summary, continued funding for the NEHRP and full $33.5M funding
of the fiscal year 2002 authorization for the ANSS is necessary for
earthquake hazard mitigation in the northeastern United States. In
particular, the full ANSS funding is needed for the northeastern region
to meet the increasing demands of emergency planners, structural
engineers, and natural hazard specialists for prompt and accurate
information about earthquakes in the region. Furthermore, full funding
for the ANSS will provide the important side benefit of encouraging
students to study the geosciences, something that is necessary to fully
meet the manpower needs in the oil and gas exploration industries in
the coming years.
______
Prepared Statement of the Yurok Tribe
Since time immemorial, the Yurok people have lived in the lower
Klamath River basin and high country in northwestern California. The
current Yurok Reservation was created by a 1853 federal statute,
executive orders and a 1988 federal statute. In 1891 Prsident Harrison
merged the Hoopa Valley Reservation and the Klamath River Reservation
into one Reservation known as the Hoopa Valley Reservation. Both the
Yurok people and the Hoopa people resided on this merged or communal
Reservation. Neither tribe was formally organized. In the 1950's the
Bureau of Indian Affairs effected the formal organization of the Hoopa
Valley Tribe; the Yurok Tribe remained unorganized. The Hoopa Tribe
entered into timber leases and began to receive timber revenues.
Individual Yuroks and other Indians sued and won a series of cases
known as the Short decisions (See e.g., Jessie Short v. United States
486 F.2d 561 (Cl.Ct 1973). These cases essentially held that neither
tribe had more rights than the other in the Reservation and that the
United States could not provide timber revenues to only one group.
(Individual plaintiffs waited some 40 years before they received
monetary damages.)
In 1988 the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act (HYSA) was enacted. The HYSA
divided the former Reservation unequally. Although Yuroks made up over
70 percent of the communal Reservation, the Yurok Tribe received
approximately 6000 tribal and individual trust acres in a 56,000 acre
Yurok Reservation where the remaining lands are held in fee simple
title by a major timber company. The Hoopa Tribe, in contrast, received
87,000 trust acres, most of which are commercial timber lands. Since
the Yurok Tribe was not organized, did not have funding, and had no
legal counsel, it did not participate in the HYSA process.
Additionally, the United States did not survey communal Reservation
residents to determine their desires before enacting the HYSA.
After the Yurok Tribe formally organized, it challenged the
constitutionality of the HYSA. On March 28, 2001, the U.S. Supreme
Court declined to review a sharply divided decision by the circuit
court, upholding a determination that the courts of the United States
would not explore the Yurok Tribe's claim of a fifth amendment taking
without fair compensation. The Court would not reach these issues
because it held that the 1851 Act did not technically vest permanent
title in either tribe.
The Yurok Tribe, from its aboriginal territories, is now left with
a small Reservation along forty five miles of a river system designated
as a ``wild and scenic river''; a system whose once abundant fisheries
resource is in significant decline. The HYSA identified this fishery
resource as the primary economic resource of the Tribe. This resource
has declined 90 percent from its historic averages. Nonetheless, the
Tribe has a federally recognized fishing right and a priority water
right. These issues have been litigated to the U.S. Supreme Court
level. The Tribe has as its goal fishery restoration through fish
harvest management and a significant regulatory program.
The ``Wild and Scenic'' designation does not completely capture the
Reservation's situation. The upper end of the Reservation is not
electrified, has no telephone service and has minimal roads. All of
these conditions combine to present serious emergency service, fire,
law enforcement, medical delivery issues, as well as housing and
education problems. 42 percent of the tribal population is unemployed
and only 29 percent have a moderate income level or higher. 46 percent
are at the poverty level. A sufficient land base, real economic
development and necessary infrastructure are basic tribal needs.
In spite of the inequity of the HYSA, since the Act the Yurok Tribe
has, among other accomplishments, organized under its inherent
sovereignty, adopted a tribal constitution recognized by the Department
of the Interior; has become a self-governance tribe; has developed a
significant biological staff, law enforcement staff and court for
fisheries development and regulation; and has secured significant court
victories recognizing its fishing and water rights. Its current
membership is approximately 4,300 Yuroks.
Our requests for fiscal year 2002 are in order of priority:
1. $4,600,000 (Add-on Self-Governance-Tribal Priority
Allocation).--The Yurok received New Tribes Funding calculated on the
BIA base roll developed under the HYSA. Yuroks objected to the HYSA
criteria as too limited and secured a technical amendment that allowed
a small number of Yurok children to be added to the Roll. The Yurok
Constitution adopted different criteria and the base roll is now 4,300
persons in 2001, almost double the BIA base roll. It is a severe
handicap to provide services based on an erroneous count. While BIA
officials have been sympathetic, they have been unable to
administratively correct this problem. It requires a specific add-on
with instructions to transfer the funds to the Yurok Tribe's base as
part of its B.I.A. self-governance funding agreement.
2. $2,000,000 (Add-on Construction).--As noted, the lack of
telephone services on the Reservation is a serious problem and requires
significant resources because of the extremely rural and gorge
characteristics of the Reservation. These requested funds would be used
to extend modern telephone service to two public schools, two tribal
government offices, and one hundred-eighty tribal households. The Tribe
will use optical fiber and copper facilities as well as microwave radio
links and modern electronics to extend services from off-Reservation
providers to the schools, government offices, and households. A three
year budget is required to complete this project. The annual funding
requirements are:
First year--$2,000,000.
Second year--$2,500,000.
Third Year--$2,500,000.
3. $2,500,000 (Add-on Miscellaneous Payments to Indians).--The HYSA
authorizes not less than $5,000,000 for land purchases by the United
states for the benefit of the tribe. The Committees have previously
appropriated $2,500,000, which needs to be made available to the Tribe.
As noted above, tribal land needs are significant. The trust land base
within the Reservation is insufficient to provide for housing and
economic development of the members. In order to facilitate land
purchases, an addition add-on of $665,000 (Real Estate Services) is
necessary to provide adequate resources to process real estate
transactions, including NEPA compliance, preparation of FONSI, title
reports, preparation of inter-agency coordination with county and local
governments, surveys, probates, and maintaining records for trust
responsibility purposes. Also under the Miscellaneous Payments to
Indians account should be a restoration of the $300,000 previously
provided to implement the HYSA; implementation is far from over.
4. $1,500,000 (Add-on Tribal Priorities Allocation, Human Services/
Housing Improvement Program).--As noted above, significant portions of
the Reservation do not have electrical services. These funds are sought
in order to correct fire and life safety deficiencies and provide safe
electrical connections in approximately one hundred and eighty
households on the upper Reservation. This will allow these households
to connect to tribal solar, hydro, hybrid community serving alternative
energy systems. In order to connect to community serving energy
systems, each household must have internal wiring, electric meters and
service panels that comply with the National Electric Code.
5. $870,000 (Add-on to B.I.A.--Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife (FW) Resource Management, and BOR--Native American Affairs
Program and Trinity River Restoration).--One of the Tribe's highest
priorities is to protect and preserve the resources of Klamath and
Trinity Rivers, and in particular, to restore the anadromous fish runs
to levels that would once again sustain the Yurok people. Long term
this goal will require a system wide solution that reduces the demand
for water, and restores the river system's habitat. This year we are
seeking funds for some of the research and assessments required as
necessary stepping stones. These include: $150,000 to conduct
biological and habitat assessments within the Klamath River Estuary
(BIA Wildlife & Parks add-on); $70,000 to monitor tribal fisheries for
sensitive species (''threatened'' Coho Salmon & ``candidate'' species
Seelhead Salmon) FW; $100,000 for Klamath Basin Fall chinook salmon
escapement estimation and age determination; and $300,000 for mainstem
Klamath River biological monitoring to continue the Tribe's co-
management, $100, 000 for water quality monitoring of the mainstem
Klamath River, and $150,000 for data management needed for the Klamath
River Flow Study.
______
Prepared Statement of John L. Burton, President Pro Tempore, California
Senate
Dear Chairman Burns and Committee Members: As you are determining
funding priorities for the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations
Bill, I respectfully request that you include funding for acquisition
from a willing seller of nearly 19,000 acres of restorable wetlands in
the San Francisco Bay. If the acquisition can be completed, it will set
the stage for the largest, most promising coastal wetland restoration
project ever undertaken on the U.S. Pacific Coast. Without a
substantial federal commitment to the acquisition this year, we will
likely lose this opportunity forever.
San Francisco Bay is one of the great estuaries of the world,
providing habitat to a rich complex of fish and wildlife including over
twenty species currently threatened with extinction. Three quarters of
all shorebirds and over half of all diving ducks that annually migrate
along the great Pacific Flyway rest, feed, or breed at San Francisco
Bay. The Bay also serves as the lifeblood for shipping, fishing,
farming, recreation and commerce in the nation's fourth largest
metropolitan region.
A century ago, the Bay Estuary contained almost 200,000 acres of
tidal marshes and close to 100,000 acres of seasonal wetlands, creeks,
and streams. Today, nearly 80 percent of the San Francisco Bay's
original wetlands have been diked and filled for farming, grazing, salt
extraction, building and other development. The Bay's wetlands are its
kidneys, filtering toxic pollution and excess nutrient runoff that
would otherwise destroy this fragile ecosystem. Restoring these lands
will lead to the recovery of endangered fish and wildlife, improved
water quality and increased flood protection.
Bay wetlands restoration planning began in 1993 when California
governor Pete Wilson and the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) signed a Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) for the San Francisco Bay Estuary. The CCMP
identified the protection and restoration of wetlands as one of the
highest priorities for the San Francisco Bay estuary, and recommended
that wetlands habitat goals be developed as part of a focused regional
wetlands planning effort.
In 1995, over 100 scientists and resource managers from local,
state, and federal agencies, private consulting firms, and universities
convened to develop the wetlands goals called for in the CCMP.
Development of the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Report (Goals
Report) was co-sponsored by nine state and federal agencies, including
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Coastal
Conservancy, State Department of Fish and Game, State Department of
Water Resources, State Resources Agency, National Marine Fisheries
Service, U.S. EPA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Following
four years of intensive scientific review and extensive public comment,
the Goals Report was published in early 1999. The document embodies the
consensus of the scientific community regarding restoration of the San
Francisco Bay Estuary's wetlands and associated habitats.
The Goals Report calls for the restoration of 100,000 acres of
wetlands throughout the region over the course of many decades. The
Goals Report identifies and sets restoration goals for 124 sites around
the Bay. These goals emphasize restoring tidal marsh along the Bay edge
and providing adequate buffer zones to protect restored habitats from
disturbance.
Right now we have an historic opportunity to acquire and restore
18,800 acres of diked historic Bay wetlands owned by Cargill Salt at
the edge of San Francisco Bay. Cargill is a willing seller, and
Congress has already authorized this property for addition to the Don
Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. These lands are a
critical component of overall Bay restoration efforts. Restoration of
the property will increase the Bay's existing tidal wetlands by nearly
50 percent, dramatically expanding the size and diversity of wildlife
habitat along the Bay. Acquisition and restoration of the property has
been identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as
crucial to the recovery of no less than four federally listed
endangered species. The Goals Report specifically states that
restoration of the southern section of the Bay ecosystem depends upon
acquisition and restoration of the Cargill salt ponds. Restored
wetlands on the property would also improve water quality and create
public access to thousands of acres of open space in the heart of the
nation's fourth largest metropolitan region.
As you may know, California and federal resource management
agencies have been negotiating with Cargill for the sale of this
property since 1998. Cargill currently is engaged in a formal appraisal
process with the USFWS. The final appraisal should be completed later
this month. Although the appraised value of the property is expected to
exceed $300 million, based on the results of preliminary appraisals,
the landowner has agreed to cap its asking price at $300 million. The
funding is expected to come primarily from state and federal sources,
with some private support as well. Last year, the State of California
appropriated $25 million for the acquisition while the federal
government appropriated $8 million. These contributions were positive
first steps; however, more substantial commitments must be made soon
since Cargill has indicated that it will seek other buyers if a deal
cannot be finalized this year. Therefore, this appropriations cycle
represents the best opportunity we have to make this unique
acquisition.
I urge you to appropriate the funds necessary to meet the federal
share for acquisition of these 18,800 acres so we can capitalize on
this extraordinary opportunity to enhance and restore San Francisco
Bay's wetland ecosystem. We look forward to continuing to partner with
you on this unique and exciting wetland acquisition and restoration
project.
Thank you for your consideration of this request, and for this
opportunity to include written testimony in your Committee's official
hearing record.
______
Prepared Statement of the Golden Gate Audubon Society
Dear Chairman Burns and Committee Members: The Golden Gate Audubon
Society strongly supports the request from Senator Dianne Feinstein to
this Subcommittee for $75,000,000 for the acquisition of approximately
18,000 acres of salt ponds in San Francisco Bay. The purchase would be
made from the Cargill Salt Company, a willing seller. No more important
acquisition can be made for the improvement of an entire ecosystem than
that of the Cargill Salt Ponds in San Francisco Bay.
San Francisco Bay has lost more than 85 percent of its historic
tidal wetlands through diking and filling. As a result of this loss of
tidal wetlands, San Francisco Bay now has an inordinately large number
of tidal-wetland related species listed as Threatened or Endangered
under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts.
The five-year long San Francisco Bay Estuary Program, a component
of the National Estuary Program, concluded in its Comprehensive
Conservation Management Plan that significant wetland restoration was
essential for the health of San Francisco Bay and recommended the
creation of a Regional Wetland Plan.
Such a plan has been developed by a multi-agency effort that
resulted in the creation of the San Francisco Baylands Ecosystem
Habitat Goals project. This project brought together over 100
scientists who looked at the 125 wetland-related species and from this
perspective produced a wetlands restoration plan that would recover
endangered and threatened species and provide sufficient wetlands for
the long-term survival of all of those 125 species. Their conclusion
was that the Bay needed to see significant wetland restoration take
place if the aquatic ecosystem was to survive.
The restoration of approximately 18,000 acres of South San
Francisco Bay salt ponds back to tidal marsh is a significant component
of the San Francisco Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals.
San Francisco Bay has long been recognized as an estuary of global
significance. It also is recognized as the nation's estuary most
heavily impacted by man. Here is a chance, with a willing seller, to
turn the tide and return to health this wonderfully important natural
resource.
We urge you to support Senator Feinstein's request for funding for
the acquisition of the Cargill Salt Ponds.
We thank you for your consideration of our views.
______
Prepared Statement of the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative Metal
Mining Sector
Thank you for agreeing to consider this request for funding of the
Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) through the federal multi-
agency mechanism. The Geological Survey (USGS) is being requested to
provide annual funding of up to $200K, to match the standard set by the
Office of Surface Mining (OSM). OSM funding is going primarily to the
Coal Mining Sector of ADTI and a predictable base of funding is also
needed for the Metal Mining Sector activities, in order to identify the
best science for controlling acid and metal drainage from metal mines
and related materials.
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
find remedies for acid drainage from active and inactive metal and coal
mines. It is not a regulatory or policy development program. The Acid
Drainage Technology Initiative Metal Mining Sector (ADTI-MMS) is an
organization of volunteers committed to the development of the best
science and technology-based solutions to mine water quality issues at
metal mines. The Review Committee is responsible for developing and
implementing the consensus review process for documents, editorial
services, international networking and membership coordination. The
consensus review process is developed by this Committee is available on
the world wide web at: http://www.bucknam.com/chb/consensu.txt and
several draft documents are also being reviewed on the ADTI-MMS web
site at: http://www.mackay.unr.edu/adti.
As you may be aware, it has been estimated that correcting the mine
drainage and abandoned mined land problems will cost up to $70 billion.
As this figure suggests, it will be necessary to lead off on this
effort with an adequate foundation of current technology-based
solutions. Our organization is in the process of preparing and
maintaining handbooks to provide that foundation and is prepared to
launch the necessary research programs to develop the best science and
technologies.
ADTI-MMS is backed through participation from members of numerous
mining companies, environmental consulting firms, federal and state
research, land management and regulatory agencies, academic researchers
committed to the ADTI mission, and the Western Governors Association.
The Western University Consortium, consisting of University of Nevada--
Reno, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, University of
Idaho, University of Utah and University of Alaska, Fairbanks and other
members of the ADTI-MMS University Network (Colorado School of Mines,
Montana Tech at the University of Montana, South Dakota School of Mines
and Technology, University of Colorado, Berkeley, Northern Arizona
University, Montana State University-Bozeman, and the University of New
Mexico) provide part of our research foundation under direction of the
Mining Life Cycle Center at the University of Nevada, Reno. In
addition, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Restoration of
Abandoned Mined Sites (RAMS) program and the headquarter-based Research
Programs are actively pursuing research coupled with on ground
cleanups. Coordination with sister organizations in other countries,
including Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND)--Canada, Mitigation
of Environmental Impact From Mining Waste (MiMi)--Sweden, (other),
signifies our position in the international realm.
We are seeking funding for technical-professional review and
illustrations for ADTI-MMS Workbooks on prediction, sampling and
monitoring, modeling, mitigation and pit lakes. We feel that minimal
funding (10 percent of ADTI-MMS annual budget) can provide needed
training documentation for what proves to be an expensive multi-decade
effort.
The NMA, the Interstate Mining Compact Commission and several
Federal agencies [OSM, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of
Energy (DOE), and USGS] have actively participated in the Acid Drainage
Technology Initiative (ADTI) since 1995. 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 three 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. In addition, the EPA has
provided $10,000 for travel and administration, and is currently
providing funding for prediction workbook preparation. If each of the
Federal agencies, OSM, BLM, DOE, USGS, and other agencies as
appropriate [i.e. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and U.S. Forest Service
(USFS), were provided funds to commit $200,000 toward ADTI,
approximately $1 million would be available to support the work of this
vital initiative.
In fiscal year 1999, House Report No. 105-581 acknowledged that
acid mine drainage is a serious environmental problem and that the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers possessed the experience and capability to
assist in the ADTI's efforts. Further, the subcommittee directed the
Corps to participate in this initiative with available funds. Since
that time, the Corps participated in several workshops with members of
the ADTI to exchange information on mining and related environmental
issues and to explore the nature and extent of the Corps' involvement.
In order to participate along with the Corps, we respectfully request
that the USGS be provided funds to commit $200,000 annually (with other
Federal agencies involved, such as [OSM, DOE, USACE, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), BLM, BOR, NPS and USFS] to further the Corp's
goals of ecosystem restoration.
Thank you for your time and interest in this vital area. Your
continued funding of this Committee's activities will significantly
improve our ability to develop the best science for addressing drainage
issues with an organized and predictable schedule.
______
Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States
Thank you for the opportunity to offer 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
7.7 million supporters nationwide. As the largest animal protection
organization in the country, The HSUS urges the Committee to address
these priority issues in the fiscal year 2002 budget.
TRAPPING ON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES
National Wildlife Refuges should not permit 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?
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 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.
Voters in Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and
Washington 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. 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, Washington, and
Florida. There have been no adverse impacts on those refuges from the
statewide bans.
In 1999, the House approved an amendment 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 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.
We urge the Committee to incorporate the language of the Torricelli
amendment in the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations Act. It is a
sensible, humane, and narrowly crafted provision. The 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
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.
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 and
a full complement of Special Agents are essential if law enforcement is
to have any hope of effectively enforcing the nation's endangered
species trade laws. The HSUS strongly supports an increase of $10
million over the Administration's request for U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Law Enforcement Operations and Maintenance.
The Law Enforcement Division is currently undergoing a three-year
rebuilding effort designed to bring the number of Special Agents to
253. These Special Agents investigate domestic and international
wildlife crime and monitor wildlife trade. In addition to field agents,
the Division of Law Enforcement is charged with the responsibility of
inspecting shipments at ports of entry. Wildlife inspectors play an
invaluable role in stopping wildlife smuggling by inspecting wildlife
shipments to ensure compliance with laws and treaties.
Investigating sophisticated wildlife smuggling operations requires
the latest in law enforcement technology. The Clark R. Bavin Wildlife
Forensics Laboratory is capable of providing assistance in the
prosecution of wildlife crimes by analyzing claws, teeth, feathers,
tissue, blood, and other wildlife samples. The Clark R. Bavin Wildlife
Forensics Laboratory is indispensable in the vigorous enforcement of
the nation's wildlife trade laws. The HSUS urges the Committee to
appropriate an additional $500,000 over the Administration's request.
This increase will allow the lab to expand its staff and physical
location.
ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR MANATEES
We urge your subcommittee to appropriate an additional $1 million
over the President's budget for manatee protection and enforcement of
speed zones in manatee sensitive areas throughout the State of Florida.
Recognizing the problem of increased manatee deaths and injuries
from collisions with boats, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) has
deployed on-water enforcement teams to patrol areas where manatees are
frequently seen and the risk of watercraft collisions is high.
Unfortunately, a lack of resources makes it difficult for the Service
to keep up a consistent presence on the water. It is imperative that
these patrols not only continue, but increase in frequency. Thanks to
the Committee's leadership, $1 million was appropriated in fiscal year
2001 for this enforcement. While we are grateful for that good start,
the mortality numbers so far this year indicate the need for a further
increase for this crucial enforcement. The additional enforcement
efforts made by FWS have begun to make a difference. With the
additional resources, FWS can go a long way towards reducing the number
of human-caused manatee mortalities.
MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND
The HSUS joins a broad based coalition of organizations in
requesting an increase over the Administration's request for the
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MNSCF). The MNSCF is a fund
established by Congress to benefit African and Asian elephants, rhinos
and tigers, great apes, and neotropical migratory birds. Congress has
authorized a combined total of $30 million dollars for the five
programs that constitute the MNSCF. Unfortunately, only $3.25 million
was appropriated for the fund in fiscal year 2001 and the same amount
was requested by the Administration in fiscal year 2002. We believe
that a minimum of $7.5 million, or $1.5 million for each of the five
programs, is needed.
Although there are severe threats to the long-term survival of
African and Asian elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes, and
neotropical migratory birds, there have been improvements attributable
to funds made available through the MNSCF. Grants made from the MNSCF
provide a stable funding source that has leveraged over four times as
much in additional contributions from range states, non-governmental
organizations, and others.
While The HSUS wholeheartedly supports increased funding for the
MNSCF, we are very concerned about previous incidents and future
opportunities for funds from these conservation programs to be
allocated to promote trophy hunting, trade in animal parts, and other
consumptive uses--including live capture for trade, captive breeding,
and entertainment to meet the demand of the public display industry--
under the guise of conservation for these endangered animals. We
respectfully request Committee Report language directing this program
to limit grants to projects that are consistent with the spirit of the
law.
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 fiscal year 2001, the Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse
and Burro Program received a substantial increase to its annual
operating budget. This increase is to be used to implement BLM's four
year strategic plan by which appropriate management levels will be
achieved in all herd management areas through the use of increased
round-ups of wild horses and burros. Yet BLM has never completed a
thorough and complete evaluation to determine whether an over-
population actually exists. The Agency has consistently refused
requests to complete a programmatic environmental impact statement (or
evaluation) to analyze the impact of the current wild horse and burro
population and ascertain the combined effects of the existing wild
horse and burro populations and the livestock grazing in those areas on
the land's sustainability. The HSUS did not believe then, and does not
believe now, that increased round-ups are consistent with the spirit or
intent of the law or justified while BLM refuses to base its need to
round-up on empirical data, but continues to rely on anecdotal
conjecture.
In addition to the more traditional threats faced by wild horses
and burros, which include habitat destruction, wildfires, and cattle
ranching encroachment, wild horses are coming under pressure from the
increasing demand for horsemeat as a result of ``mad cow'' disease
threat in Europe. The BLM documented that in 1999 hundreds of wild
horses were sold into slaughter despite the Congressionally mandated
prohibition on such action.
In light of the current pressure on wild horses and burros from
decreasing habitat and mad cow disease, we urge this committee to once
again include the following standard language in the fiscal year 2002
Interior Appropriations bill: ``The appropriations made herein shall
not be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses
and burros in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its
contractors.''
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 under funded. 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.
Dogs bite more than 4.7 million individuals 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 places a priority on animal
control problems on Native American Reservations. In an effort to
assist tribal leaders in developing their own programs for animal
control and to prevent pet overpopulation, our Northern Rockies
Regional Office and West Coast Regional Office have provided hands-on
help. The Northern Rockies office performed forty-seven days of spay/
neuter, vaccination, and educational clinics on fourteen reservations,
seeing to the needs of thousands of animals. Our West Coast Regional
Office worked with 852 animals on the Quinault, Walm Springs, Round
Valley, and Hoopa reservations. Clinics were held in rural areas where
there have been few options for preventing pet overpopulation and
health concerns associated with roaming animals. Humane education
materials, collars and leashes, and pet carriers were provided to pet
owners.
However, to address the full range of public health issues
associated with free-roaming, proliferating, and unvaccinated canine
populations on Native lands, and to do so in a way that will achieve
long-term results rather than just providing stopgap aid, federal
assistance is needed. The funding requested would help several Native
Nations begin to establish their own effective animal control programs.
The proposed initiative would include training (workshops for animal
control personnel about safe animal capture, handling, and
vaccinations); animal sterilization and other veterinary services;
humane education (instruction on how to deal with roaming animals,
proper animal care, and responsible pet ownership); grants to Native
Nation animal control agencies for facilities improvement or
construction; and, if appropriate, legislation (helping communities
develop effective local animal control laws). The HSUS will continue to
work to address this issue and welcomes the interest and assistance of
the Committee.
______
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 2002 for
purchase of lands by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for inclusion
in the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Texas.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley contains the Nation's most valuable
lands for protecting biological diversity. The cost of purchasing land
remains low. Now is the time to commit substantial funds to completing
the ``wildlife corridor'' intended to protect this biological
treasurehouse.
Data for a study \1\ that appeared in Biological Conservation last
year show that the Valley is a ``hot spot of vulnerability'' for
biodiversity because of the combination of biological uniqueness and
heavy development pressures. A study of 94 counties along the Nation's
southern fringe found that Hidalgo County ranks highest for the number
of bird and butterfly species with restricted ranges; Cameron is the
second county in the hierarchy, and Starr County is sixth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Robbyn J.F. Abbitt, J. M. Scott, D.S. Wilcove. The geography of
vulnerability: incorporating species geography and human development
patterns into conservation planning. Biological Conservation 96 (2000)
169-175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scientists also assessed these biologically rich counties'
vulnerability to human population growth and resulting habitat loss.
Again, Cameron and Hidalgo counties were among the highest-ranking
counties. This is not surprising as the McAllen-Edinburg-Mission and
Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito metropolitan areas have been among the
ten fastest-growing areas nation-wide for the past several years.
The biological richness of the Lower Rio Grande Valley was
recognized in 1979 with establishment of the Lower Rio Grande Valley
National Wildlife Refuge. The Valley is home to more species of animals
and plants than any other similar-sized area of the country. These
include 465 bird species--half of all bird species found in the United
States. Sixty of the bird species live in no other part of the country.
In addition, there are more than 200 species of mammals, reptiles,
amphibians, and fish; 300 species of butterflies; and 1,200 species of
plants.
The threats to this biological treasurehouse are also well
documented. Twenty-one species in the region are listed under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act. An additional 35 are considered to be
imperilled in Texas. More than 100 of the bird species are listed by
the Texas Partners in Flight program as ``species of special
interest''.
As a consequence of the combined biological values and rising
threats to them, the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge
has consistently ranked among the Fish and Wildlife Service' highest
priorities for land acquisition.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge will protect
nearly half of a planned 285,000 acre wildlife protection network--the
``Wildlife Corridor.'' Other lands and waters in the corridor are
managed by state, county, and private conservation organizations as
well as the Laguna Atascosa NWR. The entire planned complex will
protect a modest 10 percent of the area of the four counties involved:
Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy.
Lands acquired for the refuge all come from willing sellers.
Currently, approximately 30 landowners are interested in selling their
lands to the Refuge. Appraisals on 19 parcels should be completed in
June; these lands are expected to have a total value of $7 million.
However, the Refuge has only $5.1 million--not enough to complete these
purchases.
Appropriation of $5 million for fiscal year 2002 would allow
purchase of approximately 10,000 acres over this year and next. This
funding is critically important to protecting the highest priority
wildlife habitats in the Nation.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge protects
valuable remnants of eleven biotic communities. The Refuge has achieved
its protection goals for several of these biotic communities: Barretal,
loma/tidal flats, mid-delta thorn forest, upland thorn scrub, mid-
Valley riparian woodland, and woodland potholes and basins. However,
the Refuge has acquired 20 percent or less of its goals for five other
unique habitat types: upper Valley flood forest, Chihuahuan thorn
forest, and ramaderos--all in Starr County; Sabal palm forest--in
Cameron County near the river's mouth; and coastal brushland and
potholes, found in Willacy County. Eight of the 19 parcels now being
appraised are in the under-represented habitat types of Starr County.
In recent years, purchases have been stalled by problems at the
Regional Office in completing appraisals. We believe these difficulties
are now on the verge of solutions. First, there has been turnover among
the appraisal staff at the regional office of the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Region 2, Albuquerque), and the new staff has taken some time
to get ``up to speed''. One result has been that the Refuge staff has
waited 11 months or longer for completed appraisals. A second problem
has been how to value land sold separately from the water rights
(landowners can sell their water rights to development interests for
higher prices). The price offered by the Fish and Wildlife Service for
land separate from water rights is so low that landowners often
decline. The Department of Justice has suggested a new appraisal
approach that would result in higher bids--but the FWS appraisers have
not yet decided to adopt the new methodology. Frontera Audubon is
encouraged, however, that the Deputy regional Director has instructed
his staff to solve these problems and speed up land acquisitions.
The investment in land acquisition at the Lower Rio Grande Valley
NWR is quickly recouped by the increased economic activity stimulated
by just one group of recreationists--birders.
Tourism is the third largest industry in Texas. In the early 1990s,
tourism brought $25.4 billion and 446,000 jobs to Texas. Nature tourism
is the fastest-growing segment of the industry, and Texas is the number
one birding destination in the United States. The Lower Rio Grande
Valley, in turn, is one of three ``birding hotspots'' in Texas.
In 1999, the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department issued a
``sustainable ecotourism strategy'' \2\ for the Lower Rio Grande Valley
that was developed in partnership with local communities. The strategy
notes the region's status as the most biologically diverse region in
the country, its rapid population growth, and its persistent poverty
(all four counties rank in the lowest 3 percent of counties nation-wide
on per capita income). While developing the strategy, the Department
determined that nature tourists stay longer in the Valley and spend
more money each day than do other visitors to the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ David R. Heil, T.L.Eubanks, M. Lindsay. World Birding Center. A
Sustainable Ecotourism Strategy for Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas.
July 1, 1999. Economic Development Administration Grant #08-29-03147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the strategy, visitors would be attracted to a multi-site
World Birding Center. The Center would consist of three main
interpretation sites--at Mission, Brownsville, and Weslaco; and another
seven satellite sites placed in municipalities across the four counties
from South Padre Island to Roma (in Starr County).
According to the study, the Lower Rio Grande Valley now receives
3.6 million visitors annually. Preliminary research indicates that 77
percent of these tourists--and numerous residents--would visit one or
more units of the World Birding Center. The estimated 100,000 visitors
to the World Birding Center would generate $56 million in local
expenditures, $1.7 million in local tax revenues, and over 930 new
jobs. Another benefit would be distributing the economic gains more
widely among towns in the Valley.
Completion of the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR is critical to
providing the public bird viewing opportunities on which the ecotourism
strategy is premised.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
INTRODUCTION
It has long been said that the Colorado River is the lifeblood of
the West. Today, the Colorado River supplies vital water and power
resources for more than 20 million people in Arizona, California and
Nevada.
Concerns have been raised about the reliability of these water and
power resources following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994
designation of critical habitat for four endangered fish species in the
Colorado River Basin.
In response, representatives of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Arizona, California, and Nevada, Native American tribes,
along with various stakeholders and water and power agencies along the
lower Colorado, have formed a regional partnership, which is developing
a first-of-its kind multi-species conservation program aimed at
protecting sensitive, threatened and endangered species of fish,
wildlife and their habitat.
The partnership formed a 35-member steering committee, which has
been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an Ecosystem
Conservation and Recovery Implementation Team (ECRIT) under the federal
Endangered Species Act. The steering committee has retained the
services of professional facilitator and technical consultant teams to
help develop a plan for the conservation program. The conservation plan
is scheduled for completion in Fall 2002.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The multi-species conservation program will work toward the
recovery of listed species through habitat restoration and species
conservation, and reduce the likelihood of additional species listings
under the federal and California Endangered Species Act.
The MSCP planning area includes the historic floodplain of the
lower Colorado River and reservoir full-pool elevations from Lake Mead
to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. MSCP habitat
restoration and preservation activities are intended to address the
following habitat types: aquatic, wetland/marsh, riparian and upland
desert fringe. It is the intent of the MSCP to conserve, protect, and
re-vegetate native cottonwood-willow and mesquite trees in the
floodplain, and remove the non-native salt cedar, or tamarisk, that has
become established.
The MSCP will be implemented over a 50-year period. The long-term
program is also intended to accommodate current water diversions and
power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
development. This comprehensive program will provide long-term
environmental compliance for participating federal agencies, pursuant
to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, and non-federal
agencies under Section 10. California Agencies will also pursue
programs and actions to achieve compliance with California
Environmental Quality and Endangered Species Acts.
Over the past four years, interim conservation measures (ICMs) have
been developed and implemented to address the immediate critical needs
for certain endangered species. ICMs benefiting the endangered
razorback sucker, bonytail, and southwestern willow flycatcher were
initiated.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT COST
The cost to develop the long-term conservation plan is projected to
be approximately $6.7 million over five years for planning needs and
implementation fICMs. A federal/non-federal cost-sharing agreement is
in place for development of the program and implementation of interim
conservation measures. The federal and non-federal participants shared
program development costs on a ``50/50'' basis. Among the non-federal
participants, the shares were distributed as follows: 50 percent of the
non-federal share was borne by California, 30 percent by Arizona, and
the remaining 20 percent by the State of Nevada.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The MSCP will be implemented over the fifty-year period beginning
in late 2002. However, MSCP proponents are desirous of implementing a
series of ``pilot projects'' in order to begin evaluating potential
habitat restoration and species conservation technologies within the
planning area. Additionally, the pilot projects would be supplemented
with species and habitat monitoring and research programs, providing
the basis for a comprehensive adaptive management approach.
PROPOSED PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION PILOT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In order to complete the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) by Fall 2002, and support Reclamation's
continued compliance with the 1997 biological opinion, the MSCP
Steering Committee has identified several critically needed planning
projects which, if developed, ensure overall comprehensiveness of the
MSCP. These planning projects are necessary to accomplish the
following:
--Provide additional or lacking species and habitat data, evaluations
and analyses ($200,000);
--Provide critically needed groundwater and soils data ($200,000);
--Provide for the development of conservation opportunity area site
suitability assessments ($500,000);
--Develop conceptual habitat restoration site designs for
approximately six sites within the MSCP planning area
($500,000);
--Develop digital elevation mapping (1-2 foot contour intervals)
within the MSCP planning area ($200,000);
--Develop updated detailed vegetation mapping within the MSCP
planning area ($200,000);
--Provide funds for completion of conservation planning on the
Colorado River Indian Reservation ($500,000);
--Provide funds to the California Department of Fish and Game,
through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in support of the
Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act requirements and
requisite Scientific Review Panel ($200,000); and
--Provide funds for completion of the development of the Lower
Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program ($500,000).
PILOT PROJECT FUNDING
It is respectfully requested that this suite of proposed LCR MSCP
habitat conservation planning and data acquisition projects should be
funded with an additional appropriation of $3.0 million to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Conservation Planning budget line
item, for which the federal, tribal, and state MSCP participants shall
receive credit as part of their long-term conservation commitments.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
Dear Chairman Burns and Members of the Subcommittee: Mr. Chairman,
members of the Subcommittee, I am Beverly Bridgewater, President of the
Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC). The OWRC represents irrigation,
water control, drainage and water improvement districts, private ditch
and irrigation corporations, cities and counties, individual farmers
and ranchers statewide as well as having agribusiness associates as
members.
I am writing to urge your support for $25 million for fiscal year
2002 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement Public Law
106-502, the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of
2000.
BACKGROUND
Public Law 106-502, (H.R.1444) the Fisheries Restoration and
Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000, established a new program within the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to plan, design, and construct fish
screens, fish passage devices, and related features to mitigate impacts
on fisheries associated with irrigation system water diversions by
local governmental entities in the Pacific Ocean drainage of the States
of Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho.
The goals of the program are to decrease fish mortality associated
with the withdrawal of the water for irrigation and other purposes
without impairing the continued withdrawal for water for those purposes
and to decrease the incidence of juvenile and adult fish entering water
supply systems. Nonfederal participation in the program is voluntary.
Projects to be undertaken by the program will be evaluated and
prioritized on the basis of: benefits to fish species native to the
project area, particularly to species that are listed as being, or
considered by Federal and State authorities to be, endangered,
threatened, or sensitive; the size and type of water diversion; the
availability of other funding sources; cost effectiveness; and
additional opportunities for biological or water delivery system
benefits.
The legislation authorized $25,000,000 a year to be allocated
within the four states, starting in fiscal year 2001. Because the
legislation was not signed into law until November of 2000, the
opportunity for funding the program in the Interior Appropriations bill
was not available. The Congressional Budget Office had estimated
outlays for the program at $8 million in fiscal year 2001, $15 million
in fiscal year 2002, $22 million in fiscal year 2003 and $25 million in
fiscal year 2004. Because Congress was not able to act on
appropriations for fiscal year 2001, we are requesting the full $25
million for fiscal year 2002. The Act stipulates that not more than 25
percent of the total funds may be used for one or more projects in any
single state. The act also caps the amount of Federal administrative
expenses of carrying out the program to not more that 6 percent. The
Act would require nonfederal participants in the funded projects to pay
35 percent of development and implementation costs and all operating
and maintenance costs on nonfederal projects.
PRESENT STATUS
In order to move forward there is a need for the inventory phase to
occur. The OWRC would have liked to have had the inventory phase of
this Act funded out of the fiscal year 2001 Budget so that construction
on projects could begin in fiscal year 2002. At this time that does not
appear to be possible. In order for this to have occurred, funding
would have had to been provided out of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Budget. The ``Deferred Allocation Budget'' that was established
by former Director Jamie Clark could have provided limited funding for
high priority issues arising subsequent to budget approval. We believe
the fishscreens program fit that definition. We recognize there may be
other priorities for the use of this money from within Region 1 of the
Service, and for that matter, the other regions. However, from a water
user standpoint, where the right to the use of our water is at stake,
and our very livelihood and economic stability of our communities
endangered, we believe there to be a strong need to recognize our
willingness to address the issue as a major factor in seeking this
money. We would still like to see this possibility explored.
As one of the four water user associations for the four Pacific
Northwest States that would benefit and be the major users of the
program, and who are currently under Federal mandates from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Services to
correct the problems associated with our diversions, there is a
responsibility on the part of the Service to partner with us to move
forward towards a solution. The water users were at the forefront in
advocating passage of this legislation. We recognized and welcomed the
support from the states, the environmental community and the Native
American community for passage of this important piece of legislation.
It is only through these types of partnerships that our region can move
forward with solving the structural and financial issues associated
with salmon and other fisheries related issues.
Thank you for considering our request for full funding in fiscal
year 2002, and we look forward to whatever help you might extend with
respect to fiscal year 2001 funding for this important program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lower Colorado River Basin States--Arizona,
California, and Nevada
INTRODUCTION
It has long been said that the Colorado River is the lifeblood of
the West. Today, the Colorado River supplies vital water and power
resources for more than 20 million people in Arizona, California and
Nevada.
Concerns have been raised about the reliability of these water and
power resources following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994
designation of critical habitat for four endangered fish species in the
Colorado River Basin.
In response, representatives of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Arizona, California, Nevada and Native American tribes, along
with various stakeholders and water and power agencies along the Lower
Colorado River, have formed a regional partnership, which is developing
a first-of-its kind Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) aimed at
protecting sensitive, threatened and endangered species of fish,
wildlife and their habitat.
The partnership formed a 35-member steering committee, which has
been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an Ecosystem
Conservation Recovery Implementation Team (ECRIT) under the federal
Endangered Species Act. The steering committee has retained the
services of professional facilitator and technical consultant teams to
help develop a plan for the MSCP. The conservation plan is scheduled
for completion in Fall 2002.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The MSCP will work toward the recovery of listed species through
habitat restoration and species conservation, and reduce the likelihood
of additional species listings under the federal and California
Endangered Species Act.
The MSCP planning area includes the historic floodplain of the
Lower Colorado River and reservoir full-pool elevations from Lake Mead
to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. MSCP habitat
restoration and preservation activities are intended to address the
following habitat types: aquatic, wetland/marsh, riparian and upland
desert fringe. It is the intent of the MSCP to re-vegetate native
cottonwood-willow and mesquite trees in the floodplain, and remove the
non-native salt cedar, or tamarisk, that has become established.
The MSCP will be implemented over a 50-year period. The long-term
program is also intended to accommodate current water diversions and
power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
development. This comprehensive program will provide long-term
environmental compliance for participating federal agencies, pursuant
to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, and non-federal
agencies under Section 10. California agencies will also pursue
programs and actions to achieve compliance with California
Environmental Quality and Endangered Species Acts.
Over the past four years, interim conservation measures (ICMs) have
been developed and implemented to address the immediate critical needs
for certain endangered species. ICMs benefiting the endangered
Razorback Sucker, Bonytail and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher were
initiated.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT COST
Current program development costs are projected at about $6.7
million over five years for planning needs and implementation of ICMs.
A federal/non-federal cost-sharing agreement is in place for
development of the program and implementation of interim conservation
measures. The federal and non-federal participants shared program
development costs on a ``50/50'' basis. Among the non-federal
participants, the shares were distributed as follows: 50 percent of the
non-federal share was borne by California, 30 percent by Arizona and
the remaining 20 percent by Nevada.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The MSCP will be implemented over the fifty-year period beginning
in late 2002. However, MSCP proponents are desirous of implementing a
series of ``pilot projects'' in order to begin evaluating potential
habitat restoration and species conservation technologies within the
planning area. Additionally, the pilot projects would be supplemented
with species and habitat monitoring and research programs, providing
the basis for a comprehensive adaptive management approach.
VIRGIN RIVER PILOT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Located in the northeastern corner of Clark County, Nevada, the
Virgin River Pilot Project is approximately 60 miles northeast of the
City of Las Vegas. This project area is to the south of Interstate 15,
and it extends from the City of Mesquite southwest nearly 35 miles to
the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Encompassed within this project
area is a mosaic of federal, state and privately held lands totaling
sum 31,300 acres.
The Virgin River Pilot Project provides numerous opportunities for
LCR MSCP covered species conservation, and it has a high potential of
creating synergies between the LCR MSCP and a number of other regional
planning and environmental programs. Over 300 wildlife species occur
along the lower Virgin River corridor. Of these, at least 23 have been
proposed for coverage by the LCR MSCP. Anticipated actions for this
pilot project include acquisition/conservation of privately held lands,
enhancement of riparian and wetland habitats and collaboration with
ongoing federal, state and local agency planning and environmental
efforts.
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
The Virgin River is a natural flowing perennial stream, which
originates in the mountains of southern Utah and terminates at the
Overton Arm of Lake Mead, Nevada. Within the project area, the
floodplain is broad (over a mile in several places) and the stream is
braided during most of the year. Soils are predominately sands and the
riparian vegetation is dominated by the nonnative shrub Tamarix.
Relatively small clusters of native riparian and wetland vegetation are
scattered throughout the floodplain. These clusters of native
vegetation provide valuable habitat for many native and several
federally listed threatened and endangered species.
The lower Virgin River corridor is biologically rich as it supports
over 300 wildlife species. During the spring and fall, migrating flocks
of song birds, geese, white pelicans and many other birds forage and
take refuge along the River corridor as they migrate through the
region. Other bird species like the Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo and
the federally endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher use the area
for breeding and raising young. Presently, the Colorado River Basin's
second largest breeding population of Southwestern Willow Flycatcher is
located in this area. Other federally listed endangered species that
are known to occur within the project area include the following:
--Yuma Clapper Rail;
--Woundfin;
--Virgin River Chub; and,
--Desert Tortoise.
Human land use activities within the project area include urban
development within and around the City of Mesquite, agriculture and
motorized recreation. All three of these activities are potential
threats to the Virgin River ecosystem and could potentially be
mitigated with this project.
PROJECT ACTIONS
In keeping with the intent of the LCR MSCP, acquisition and/or
conservation of privately held lands in the Virgin River floodplain is
a primary component of this project. There are over 9,000 acres of
private lands within the project area, and approximately 1,000 acres
are proposed to be acquired and/or conserved as part of this project.
There are currently parcels available for purchase, but values vary in
price to a large extent.
Restoration of riparian and wetland habitats on acquired/conserved
private lands and on existing public lands will be an important
component of this project. As stated above, the nonnative shrub Tamarix
dominates the riparian community, and relatively small clusters of
native riparian and wetland vegetation provide substantial benefits to
the native vertebrate species. An aggressive program of Tamarix
eradication and native species revegetation in the project area will
provide significant benefits to those species of interest to the LCR
MSCP.
In addition, implementation of this pilot project will potentially
enhance ongoing regional planning and environmental programs that
intersect at the Virgin River corridor. These programs range from
endangered species recovery implementation to public lands disposal.
Following is a partial list of these programs:
--Bureau of Reclamation Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat
Acquisition
--Clark County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
--Lincoln County Land Act of 2000
--Southern Nevada Riparian Restoration Initiative
--Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998
--Virgin River Fishes Recovery Implementation Team
--Virgin River Resource Management and Recovery Program
--Virgin River Tamarix Workgroup
POTENTIAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Potential benefits of this pilot project include:
--Habitat conservation and restoration for several federally listed
and sensitive species that are proposed covered by the LCR MSCP
(most importantly the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yuma
Clapper Rail and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo);
--Consolidation of land use types in an area troubled by checkerboard
land use;
--Opportunities for collaboration among several regional planning and
environmental programs; and,
--Potential to provide a portion of Nevada's overall commitment to
long-term implementation of the LCR MSCP.
FUNDING
It is proposed that the acquisition, preservation and restoration
of lands along the lower Virgin River, on behalf of the LCR MSCP, be
funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Currently, it is
estimated that approximately $7,000,000 will be required toward this
effort. Once acquired, title to these parcels would be transferred to
adjacent federal or state land managers.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tribal Law and Policy Institute
On behalf of the Tribal Law and Policy Institute, I am pleased to
submit this written testimony on the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations
for Interior Department funding of the Indian Tribal Justice Act
(Public Law 103-176) and Tribal Courts (under the Tribal Priority
Allocations Account).
The Tribal Law and Policy Institute is a Native American owned and
operated non-profit corporation organized to design and deliver
education, research, training, and technical assistance programs which
promote the enhancement of justice in Indian country and the health,
well-being, and culture of Native peoples.
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT FUNDING
Indian Tribal Justice Act and Tribal Court Funding
+$58.4 million. Full Funding for Indian Tribal Justice Act.--The
Tribal Law and Policy Institute strongly supports full funding ($58.4
million) for the Indian Tribal Justice Act (Public Law 103-176). On
December 21, 2000, the 106th Congress re-affirmed the Congressional
commitment to provide this increased funding for tribal justice systems
when it re-authorized the Indian Tribal Justice Act for seven more
years of funding at a level of $58.4 million per year (see Public Law
106-559, section 202). The Tribal Law and Policy Institute strongly
supports FULL FUNDING of the Indian Tribal Justice Act as promised in
1993. The Tribal Law and Policy Institute 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
eight years ago.
Tribal Courts--at least $15 million (under the Tribal Priority
Allocations Account).--The Tribal Law and Policy Institute strongly
supports increased funding for Tribal Courts to a level of at least $15
million under the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA). This minimal
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 in the enactment of Public
Law 103-176 and re-affirmed with the enactment of Public Law 106-559),
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--specifically finding 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 $58.4 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.
--The 106th Congress re-affirmed the Congressional commitment to
provide this increased funding for tribal justice systems when
it re-authorized the Indian Tribal Justice Act in December 2000
for seven more years of funding at a level of $58.4 million per
year (see Public Law 106-559, section 202).
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.
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.
Eight (8) 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. In December 2000, Congress re-
affirmed its commitment to funding of the Indian Tribal Justice Act by
re-authorizing the Act for seven more years of funding (see Public Law
106-559, section 202). Now is the time to follow through on this long
promised funding and provide actual funding under the Indian Tribal
Justice Act!
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 Acount). Thank you very much.
______
Prepared Statement of the Navajo Mountain School Board
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
Navajo Mountain Community Board of Education, I thank you for this
opportunity to offer comments regarding the fiscal year 2002 budget. We
wish to highlight several aspects of the budget which we hope will see
increased funding in fiscal year 2002: Administrative Cost Grants ($55
million), Student Transportation ($44 million), ISEP Formula Funds
($400 million), and Facilities Operations and Maintenance funding
(eliminate the current 21 percent constraint).
Now is the time to take bold action to eliminate the chronic
funding shortfalls that have too long been considered a given for BIA-
funded schools. The new Administration has placed education among its
highest priorities, and has pledged that the ``federal government will
meet its responsibilities to Native American children''. The
Administration has voiced support for local control and flexibility
over education programs, a philosophy that should translate to
enthusiastic support for tribally-operated schools, which currently
constitute nearly two-thirds of all Bureau-funded schools. Budget
surplus estimates demonstrate that there is room in the federal budget
to prudently choose increased appropriations in areas where funding is
most needed--and the need of the BIA-funded school system is certainly
such an area. We look forward to working with your subcommittee to
ensure that this unique opportunity is fully capitalized upon to
improve the lives of Native American youth throughout the BIA system.
ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS
Like many tribally-operated BIA schools, we are facing a crisis in
our administrative budget, operating at less than 80 percent of the
funding necessary for prudent management of a school. We receive our
administrative funding through Administrative Cost Grants, a formula-
based method created by Congress to calculate the amount of funds that
should be provided for the administrative and indirect cost expenses
incurred in the operation of BIA school programs--similar to ``contract
support'' costs provided to non-school contractors. The Administrative
Cost Grant formula was designed as a compromise, a minimum calculation
of the administrative costs necessary for prudent management of
tribally operated schools. When 100 percent of these costs are not
funded, our schools are set up for failure.
We were pleased that Congress finally increased Administrative Cost
Grant funding by $1 million in fiscal year 2001 after funding had been
frozen at the same level ($42.1 million) for three consecutive years.
But this small increase does not yet address the depth of the current
shortfall, as appropriations have not increased at all in recent years
to accommodate rising costs or the strain of additional schools
converting to tribal operation and further stretching the already
limited pot of funding. The percentage of the formula met declined from
89.5 percent (SY 1998-99) to 79.68 percent (SY 2000-01) in the three
budget years where funding remained level.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BIA education program funding is ``forward funded'', as are
most federal aid to education programs. Thus, for example, the fiscal
year 2000 budget funded the current school year, SY 2000-2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The impacts of these shortfalls are far from abstract. Tribally-
operated schools have been forced to make reductions-in-force that cost
them vital, well-trained administrative staff. Remaining staff struggle
under the stress of being overloaded with the work of multiple people.
Some schools have had to convert their administrative staff to a 10-
month employment year, leaving them ill-prepared to close out the
administrative work of the previous school year and to prepare for the
coming school year and annual audit. Reduced funding jeopardizes our
ability to comply with the internal controls needed for prudent fiscal
management.
Please end this mounting crisis by providing funding for the full
need generated by the Administrative Cost Grant formula, which we
estimate will require approximately $55 million in fiscal year 2002. We
also ask that the rider included in recent Interior Appropriations
measures capping Administrative Cost Grant funding be excluded in
future.
STUDENT TRANSPORTATION
Like many tribally-operated schools, we are located in a remote
area where poor road infrastructure and harsh weather make student
transportation a significant challenge. Many of the roads our buses
travel are unpaved, and are prone to becoming extremely muddy and icy
during the winter 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.
In the current school year, the Bureau-funded transportation rate
is $2.31 per mile, far short of the nationwide average of $2.92 that
was reported for public schools over six years ago. Yet the fiscal year
2001 budget included less than a $200,000 increase in funding for
Student Transportation. Sharp increases in fuel costs over the past
year have made increased funding for Student Transportation an absolute
necessity. With wear and tear and repair costs well above average and
GSA rental and mileage rates escalating at a rapid rate, our student
transportation have far outstepped the budgeted rate.
If BIA transportation reimbursement rates continue to lag behind
actual costs for student transportation in fiscal year 2002, we will
still have to find a way to get their students to class. What choice
will we have but to dip into funds that should be used--and are
desperately needed for--classroom instruction? This is not an
acceptable trade-off. We ask that you increase the BIA budget for
student transportation to a level that can at least support a rate of
$3 per mile, which we estimate would require an appropriation of at
least $44 million, and ensure that maintenance and extracurricular
miles are included for funding. We also hope that Congress will
consider securing immediate emergency supplemental funding to address
the crisis of rising fuel costs that we face.
Indian Student Equalization Program (ISEP)
The ISEP program, which provides basic instructional funding for
students in BIA-funded schools, has been consistently underfunded. In
fiscal year 2001, Congress took a step in the right direction, agreeing
to a desperately needed $14 million increase in funding for ISEP
formula funds, which resulted in a final funding level of $330.8
million. But even with this increase, we estimate based on BIA
projections that the resulting Weighted Student Unit (WSU) will be
approximately $3,650 for School Year 2001-02.
Recently, representatives from the Office of Indian Education
Policy, in discussion with school representatives and others, forged
the following goals for all BIA-funded schools:
--All children read independently by the third grade
--70 percent of students are proficient/advanced in reading and math
--Individual student attendance rate at 90 percent or better
--Students demonstrate knowledge of their language and culture
--Increased enrollment, retention, placement and graduation rates for
post-secondary students.
These are reasonable, important goals--but given the severe
underfunding that we face under the current budget, we truly have no
means by which to effect these much needed changes. Our basic
educational funding is still 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. This
will make it all but impossible to progress toward the educational
goals set by the Office of Indian Education Policy.
We recommend that Congress appropriate at least $400 million for
the ISEP Formula program in fiscal year 2002. By funding ISEP at this
level, Congress could come closer to offering educational opportunities
to Indian students that are more comparable to those enjoyed by other
children in this country.
Facilities Maintenance And Operations
While the shortfall in the formula distributions for Facilities
Operations and Maintenance improved somewhat this year, our
distributions remain inadequate, often proving insufficient to cover
even basic utilities, let alone basic maintenance. Adequate formula
funding for everyday upkeep of schools is a critical element in
assuring that schools will last longer and remain safe for students.
With Facilities Operations and Maintenance funds recently divided into
two accounts, and Facilities Maintenance blended into the overall line
item for Facilities Improvement and Repair under the Education
Construction budget, it has become difficult to discern what funding
will be available for Facilities Operations and Maintenance under the
FACCOM formula. The BIA has notified us that the constraint or
shortfall for this year is 21.18 percent. We ask that you work with the
Administration to ensure that adequate funding is appropriated to
eliminate this shortfall.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for
considering these matters that are so critical to the welfare of Indian
children at the Navajo Mountain School. . We hope that this testimony
will prove useful to your efforts to craft a fair and reasonable budget
for BIA education programs. We have appreciated your support over the
years, and look forward to working with you for many years to come in
our mutual effort to assure the best possible education for young
people attending BIA-funded schools. Our administration, school board,
teachers, parents, and students thank you for your assistance.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
The Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. (RNSB) expresses its
appreciation for the opportunity to submit its views on American Indian
education matters coming before the 107th Congress. RNSB requests that
Congress appropriate funds or enact policies in the fiscal year 2002
budget as follows: (A) Fund Administrative Cost Grants at 100 percent,
but at a minimum fund the full need generated by the Administrative
Cost Grant formula estimated at $55 million for fiscal year 2002, and
exclude language in recent Interior Appropriations measures capping AC
Grant funding. (B) Amend Title III of ESEA to include a set aside for
Education Technology for recurring funding to be distributed to BIA-
funded schools. (C) Appropriate adequate funding to enable the BIA to
provide Direct Contract Support costs to tribal education contractors
and modify the Indirect Cost rate according to the court ruling in
Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan. (D) Appropriate at least $362 million
for the Indian School Equalization Program in fiscal year 2002. (E)
Appropriate $44 million for Transportation in fiscal year 2002. (F)
Facilities Maintenance: RNSB opposes the recent change in Facility
Improvement and Repair funding and we ask that Congress appropriate
sufficient funding to eliminate shortfalls in the BIA's Facilities
Maintenance appropriations. (G) Appropriate $4.45 million for new Pine
Hill Dorm Replacement and not the inadequate $2.95 we understand is to
be requested by the BIA. (H) Appropriate $1.4 million for the
construction of an additional Elementary Classroom for the Pine Hill
School.
Administrative Cost Grants
The Federal government supplies administrative funding to tribally-
operated schools through Administrative Cost Grants (AC Grants), which
are based on a formula created by Congress to cover the administrative
and indirect cost expenses incurred in the operation of BIA-funded
school programs. The AC Grant formula was a compromise to provide the
minimum funding necessary for prudent management of tribally-operated
schools. When 100 percent of these costs are not funded, our schools
are set up for failure. Yet this year, tribally-operated schools are
receiving less than 80 percent of the funding that Congress determined
to be necessary to cover basic administrative costs and to ensure
prudent management. We were pleased that Congress increased AC Grant
funding by $1 million in fiscal year 2001 after funding had been frozen
at the same level ($42.1 million) for three consecutive years. In those
years, additional schools converted to tribal operation, causing the
percentage decline from 89.5 percent (SY 1998-99) to 79.68 percent (SY
2000-01) in the three budget years when funding remained at the same
level. BIA education programs are forward funded, as are most Federal
education programs (i.e., the fiscal year 2000 budget funded the
current 2000-01 School Year). It is now time for Congress to address
the backlog created in the years it failed to increase funding and to
raise appropriations to fully fund the costs it committed to cover when
tribes operate these schools on behalf of the Federal government. The
impact of AC Grant shortfalls will continue to undermine and cripple
tribal operation of BIA-funded schools if under funding continues
unchecked. Schools, such as our Pine Hill School, are struggling to
afford the annual audits required by law; many are forced to cut
administrative staff below levels required for prudent fiscal
management; others are unable to hire staff willing to work in remote
locations at the salaries the schools afford given the shortfalls; and
some have converted administrative staff to ten-month employment
leaving the schools unprepared to close out the previous school year
and prepare for the coming year and annual audit. If this trend
continues, we will begin to see a sharp increase in fiscal failure
among these schools, with many having no choice but to revert back to
Federal control and give up local tribal control over the education of
their own children--a right enjoyed by other Americans through their
local school boards. Both the National Congress of American Indians and
the National Indian Education Association passed resolutions calling
for full funding of AC Grants. We urge Congress to join these bodies
and tribes in recognizing that the needs of tribal schools for
administrative costs are just as great as those of other tribally-
operated BIA and IHS programs. We ask that Congress fund the full need
generated by the Administrative Cost Grant formula, which we estimate
at $55 million for fiscal year 2002. In addition, we request that
language included in recent Interior Appropriations measures capping AC
Grant funding be excluded from the fiscal year 2002 measure.
Separate ``Pot'' of Funding for New Contract/Grant Conversions.--We
also ask Congress to amend Public Law 95-561 by adding authorizing
language to create a separate AC Grant ``pot'' for new contract and
grant conversions to alleviate the shortfalls caused by additional
schools converting to tribal operation and drawing from the already
under-funded pot without new funds to support the conversions. Congress
should automatically fund a set aside for an amount estimated by the
BIA.
Authority to Negotiate and Collect Direct Contract Support.--The AC
Grant provision should be amended to enable tribally-operated schools
to negotiate for direct contract support funds, which includes
administrative and overhead expenses directly attributable to a
particular program, such as: phones, postage, training, fringe
benefits, etc. Section 106 of the Indian Self-Determination Act (ISDA)
calls for BIA and IHS to provide direct contract support to tribal
contractors. (Tribally-operated schools are not covered by Sec. 106
since Congress created the AC Grant mechanism for schools.) As a matter
of policy, BIA has not paid direct contract support to ISDA
contractors, such as RNSB. BIA only provides ``regular'' contract
support funds based on negotiated indirect cost rates because it
asserts it does not get enough funding to pay direct contract support.
By contrast, IHS does provide funding for direct contract support.
Congress will also need to amend Public Law 95-561.
Remove the Discretionary Nature of Administrative Cost Grant
Funding.--Congress has been able to consistently under fund AC Grants
because language in the statute makes the formula ``subject to
appropriations.'' This has resulted in schools receiving less than 100
percent of their AC Grant amount since Congress does not provide enough
money to fund at 100 percent. For SY 1999-2000, only 82 percent of the
AC Grant formula was funded. We recommend that the ``subject to
appropriations'' language be removed from the authorizing legislation
to enable schools to obtain 100 percent of the AC Grant amount. This
would only be the first step in achieving full funding since we also
ask that Congress remove the ``cap'' on AC Grants that has appeared in
the last several Appropriations Acts.
Recurring Funding for Education Technology
Amend Title III (Education Technology) of the ESEA to provide a
set-aside for recurring funding for education technology for the
schools in the BIA system. Current law gives the BIA status as a
``state'' to apply for these funds, but BIA does not currently
distribute those funds to all schools in the system, which could
benefit from recurring funding to upgrade school computer systems and
Internet access for students.
Direct and Indirect Contract Support
RNSB is requesting that appropriations for Direct and Indirect
Contract Support continue to increase in order to meet the funding
needs of tribes to administer Federal grants and contracts. Currently,
the BIA does not recognize Direct Contract Support Costs as identified
in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
Appropriations must be made for Direct Contract Support for the BIA so
these funds can be provided to tribes. In addition to funding, RNSB
requests that modifications be made to the Indirect Costs rate
calculations currently utilized by the Office of Inspector General for
tribal Indirect cost agreements. We request that these calculations be
modified to reflect the May 8, 1997 decision in the Ramah case (Ramah
Navajo Chapter vs. Lujan, 112 F.3d 1455 (10th CIR. 1997)). The Office
of Inspector General has ignored this decision and continues to
calculate tribal indirect cost rates inappropriately.
Indian School Equalization Program
ISEP Formula Funding, which provides basic instructional funding
for students in BIA-funded schools, remains far short of equivalent
funding per student provided to Department of Defense schools and
average funding received by public schools. This lower level of funding
should not be accepted. In fiscal year 2001, Congress agreed to a
desperately needed $14 million increase for a final funding level of
$330.8 million. But even with this increase, we estimate that (based on
BIA projections) the resulting Weighted Student Unit (WSU) will be
approximately $3,650 for School Year 2001-02. This remains woefully
inadequate, especially when compared with similar expenditures for
students in other school systems in the U.S. Unless additional ISEP
funding is provided, we will continue to lose our best teachers to
salary freezes, teacher layoffs, better paying jobs, and our students
will suffer decreased instruction hours and inadequate instructional
materials. To seriously address this shortfall, we recommend that
Congress appropriate at least $362 million for the ISEP Formula program
in fiscal year 2002. Based on BIA projections, this will result in a
WSU of approximately $4,000 per student. By funding ISEP at this level,
Congress will come closer to offering educational opportunities to
Indian students that are comparable to those enjoyed by all other
children in this country.
Transportation
The BIA transportation rate is $2.31 per mile for the 2000-01 SY,
far short of the national average of $2.92 reported for public schools
six years ago. Yet the fiscal year 2001 budget included less than a
$200,000 increase for transportation costs which have constantly
exceeded the budgeted rate because of: (1) Sharp increases in fuel
costs. (2) Above average repair costs for school buses which are used
mainly in rural areas with unpaved and unmaintained roads. (3)
Escalating GSA rental and mileage rates. Our school has been forced to
use $100,000-to-$150,000 of its ISEP funds to cover the shortfalls in
the transportation funding we received; a tradeoff we should not be
forced to make. We ask Congress to increase student transportation to a
level that can at least support a $3 per mile rate, which we estimate
would require an appropriation of at least $44 million.
Facilities Maintenance and Operations
The formula distributions for Facilities Operations and Maintenance
remain inadequate, often proving insufficient to cover even basic
utilities, let alone basic maintenance. Adequate formula funding for
everyday upkeep of schools is a critical element in assuring that
schools will last longer and remain safe for students. With Facilities
Operations and Maintenance funds recently divided into two accounts,
and Facilities Maintenance blended into the overall line item for
Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI & R) under the Education
Construction budget, it has become difficult to discern what funding
will be available for Facilities Operations and Maintenance under the
FACCOM formula. Currently we face a constraint or shortfall of 21.18
percent. RNSB asks that Congress work with the Administration to ensure
that adequate funding is appropriated to eliminate this shortfall. In
the fiscal year 2000 budget, the BIA requested Congress to split the
Facilities Operations and Maintenance line item into two line items.
Schools objected to this change, but Congress approved the BIA's
request. In fiscal year 2000, Facilities Operations was funded at $54
million and Facility Maintenance was funded at $27 million. The
Facility Operations funding request for the fiscal year 2001 budget is
only $55.6 million. For fiscal year 2001, the Facility Maintenance
funding request is being combined with the Facility Improvement and
Repair line item in the Education Construction portion of the budget.
The Facility Maintenance funding has been distributed based on a
formula driven methodology and the Facility Improvement and Repair
funding is distributed based on a project-by-project and on a one-time
basis. If this change results in the Facility Maintenance funding no
longer being distributed by the formula funding methodology, then the
impact would be devastating to the already under funded daily
operations and maintenance needs. RNSB requests that funding levels for
the Facility Maintenance portion be distributed as in previous years.
If Facility Maintenance funding levels are to be distributed in the
same manner as the Facility Improvement and Repair funding, RNSB
opposes this change. These funds are imperative to the operations of
the Pine Hill School and RNSB's Indian Self-Determination operations.
Pine Hill Dorm Replacement
RNSB appreciates the planning & design money received in the fiscal
year 2001 budget for new dormitory facilities, and we urge approval of
funds for actual construction in the fiscal year 2002 budget. Our dorm
accommodates the critical housing needs of many Ramah Navajo students.
However, information provided by the BIA reflects a funding level of
only $2.95 million for this project. Similar size dormitories on the
Navajo Reservation have been projected at 100 students 330
Sq. Ft. Per Student $135 = $4.45 million. Therefore, RNSB is
in need of approximately $1.50 million more to complete this planned
project. The BIA's request omits a cafeteria and reduces the dorm rooms
from 100 to 80, which does not reflect RNSB's original need.
Education Facilities Construction
RNSB requests $1,400,000 to construct an Elementary School
classroom building for Pine Hill School needed because of continued
increases in enrollment for the past eight years. The Pine Hill School
has experienced a 50 percent increase in enrollment since the 1992-1993
SY (371 to 558 enrolled students), and the average increase per year is
approximately 8 percent. There is also a serious concern associated
with the unsafe issues of overcrowding in the Pine Hill School K-12
programs. Gross square footage of the proposed facility is 8,643. The
total square footage includes six classrooms at 871 square feet; girls
and boys restrooms at 297 square feet each; and a teachers workroom at
349 square feet. The building will be built with steel structure, metal
roof and a brick veneer exterior. Each classroom will be wired for
computers and connected to the local network system. The architect and
engineering costs are projected at $85,000. Waste treatment and site
utilities are projected at $145,000. Construction cost is estimated at
$135 a square foot for a actual construction amount of $1,170,000. The
total cost of the project is $1,400,000.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada
INTRODUCTION
It has long been said that the Colorado River is the lifeblood of
the West. Today, the Colorado River supplies vital water and power
resources for more than 20 million people in Arizona, California and
Nevada.
Concerns have been raised about the reliability of these water and
power resources following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994
designation of critical habitat for four endangered fish species in the
Colorado River Basin.
In response, representatives of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Arizona, California, and Nevada, Native American tribes,
along with various stakeholders and water and power agencies along the
lower Colorado, have formed a regional partnership, which is developing
a first-of-its kind multi-species conservation program aimed at
protecting sensitive, threatened and endangered species of fish,
wildlife and their habitat.
The partnership formed a 35-member steering committee, which has
been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an Ecosystem
Conservation and Recovery Implementation Team (ECRIT) under the federal
Endangered Species Act. The steering committee has retained the
services of professional facilitator and technical consultant teams to
help develop a plan for the conservation program. The conservation plan
is scheduled for completion in Fall 2002.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The multi-species conservation program will work toward the
recovery of listed species through habitat restoration and species
conservation, and reduce the likelihood of additional species listings
under the federal and California Endangered Species Act.
The MSCP planning area includes the historic floodplain of the
lower Colorado River and reservoir full-pool elevations from Lake Mead
to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. MSCP habitat
restoration and preservation activities are intended to address the
following habitat types: aquatic, wetland/marsh, riparian and upland
desert fringe. It is the intent of the MSCP to re-vegetate native
cottonwood-willow and mesquite trees in the floodplain, and remove the
non-native salt cedar, or tamarisk, that has become established.
The MSCP will be implemented over a 50-year period. The long-term
program is also intended to accommodate current water diversions and
power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
development. This comprehensive program will provide long-term
environmental compliance for participating federal agencies, pursuant
to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, and non-federal
agencies under Section 10. California Agencies will also pursue
programs and actions to achieve compliance with California
Environmental Quality and Endangered Species Acts.
Over the past four years, interim conservation measures (ICMs) have
been developed and implemented to address the immediate critical needs
for certain endangered species. ICMs benefiting the endangered
razorback sucker, bonytail, and southwestern willow flycatcher were
initiated.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT COST
Current, program development costs are projected at about $6.7
million over five years for planning needs and implementation of ICMs.
A federal/non-federal cost-sharing agreement is in place for
development of the program and implementation of interim conservation
measures. The federal and non-federal participants shared program
development costs on a ``50/50'' basis. Among the non-federal
participants, the shares were distributed as follows: 50 percent of the
non-federal share was borne by California, 30 percent by Arizona, and
the remaining 20 percent by the State of Nevada.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The MSCP will be implemented over the fifty-year period beginning
in late 2002. However, MSCP proponents are desirous of implementing a
series of ``pilot projects'' in order to begin evaluating potential
habitat restoration and species conservation technologies within the
planning area. Additionally, the pilot projects would be supplemented
with species and habitat monitoring and research programs, providing
the basis for a comprehensive adaptive management approach.
proposed planning & implementation pilot project description
In order to complete the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) by Fall 2002, and support Reclamation's
continued compliance with the 1997 biological opinion, the MSCP
Steering Committee has identified several critically needed planning
projects which, if developed, ensure overall comprehensiveness of the
MSCP. These planning projects are necessary to accomplish the
following:
--Provide additional or lacking species and habitat data, evaluations
and analyses ($200,000);
--Provide critically needed groundwater and soils data ($200,000);
--Provide for the development of conservation opportunity area site
suitability assessments ($500,000);
--Develop conceptual habitat restoration site designs for
approximately six sites within the MSCP planning area
($500,000);
--Develop digital elevation mapping (1-2 foot contour intervals)
within the MSCP planning area ($200,000);
--Develop updated detailed vegetation mapping within the MSCP
planning area ($200,000);
--Provide funds for completion of conservation planning on the
Colorado River Indian Reservation ($500,000);
--Provide funds to the California Department of Fish and Game,
through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in support of the
Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act requirements and
requisite Scientific Review Panel ($200,000); and
--Provide funds for completion of the development of the Lower
Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program ($500,000).
pilot project funding
It is respectfully requested that this suite of proposed LCR MSCP
habitat conservation planning and data acquisition projects should be
funded with an additional appropriation of $3.0 million to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Conservation Planning budget line
item.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
This testimony is in support of funding for the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) for activities that assist the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program. The BLM budget, as will be proposed by the
Administration, will support 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
will be 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 from public lands
administered by the BLM are not, in excess amounts, contributing to the
river system. Our analysis indicates that the BLM 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 2002.
Although the Forum has not been able to determine from limited
budget documents how appropriated funds will be spent, we are
encouraged by recent efforts by the BLM. 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. This year the BLM has been
charged by the Congress to prepare a special report as to how the
Bureau is moving ahead with salinity control activities. It has been
difficult in the past to determine how much funds and efforts were
being expended by the BLM in the water quality program and they have
been very general in their accounting for their accomplishments. The
Forum hopes that when the BLM reports to the Congress as is required
under S. 1211 (Public Law 106-459), which was signed into law November
7, 2000, that a better understanding of the BLM's efforts can be
obtained. The success of the BLM 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. Inadequate BLM control efforts will
result in very significant additional economic damages to water users
downstream. The Forum submits this testimony in support of adequate
funding so that the BLM 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 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 is about $.5 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 damage from the high salt levels in
the water will be even more widespread in the United States and Mexico.
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. Legislation passed last year, S. 1211,
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 2002, 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 Subcommittee 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
Subcommittee require meaningful accounting 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 American Association of Museums, the
Association of American Universities, the Society for Historical
Archaeology, the Society for American Archaeology, and the Native
American Rights Fund
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, the Native American Rights Fund, the Society for
American Archaeology, 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 $2.472 million for
fiscal year 2001 to allow the statutorily-mandated repatriation process
to proceed, we respectfully urge Congress to increase the appropriation
to $5 million for fiscal year 2002. 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 2001, 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 2001, the NPS has been able to make 311 NAGPRA grant awards
totaling $19.05 million since the beginning of the program, but during
that time, it has received well over 700 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 in 1995, 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 Preservation Action
Preservation Action respectfully submits this testimony in support
of full funding for the Historic Preservation Fund at $150 million as
part of the fiscal year 2002 Department of Interior Appropriations
Bill.
America's historic resources are as diverse as its citizenry. Rural
settlements and their attendant agricultural structures dot the
landscape of the far west. Lighthouses stand sentinel on our
shorelines, while county courthouses tower above the plain. Small town
main streets tell of an earlier era. Dense urban districts and large
industrial complexes offer the historic face of our larger cities. The
scenic byway and the ubiquitous train station, the tiny house and the
multi-story apartment building, all have a story to tell. And now, the
relics of a more recent past--cold war military installations, the
centers of pioneering air and space development, and the mid-century
suburb--are achieving significance as well.
Through the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Federal
government has made a commitment to preserve and maintain this
patrimony, in all its diversity, for generations to come. But, historic
preservation is more than a celebration of the past, it is an economic
engine for the future. Historic preservation activities rebuild and
reuse existing infrastructure, revitalize main streets, restore the tax
base and generate tourism. Preservation has transformed abandoned
warehouse districts into multi-use residential and entertainment
centers, struggling commercial strips into retail destinations, and
abandoned houses into thriving neighborhoods. In an age of rapid
development it is a way to harness economic energy and put it to work
for existing communities. It is the answer to growth's unintended
consequences.
Acknowledging the important role that preservation plays in the
health and welfare of our communities, Congress has asked each state,
through its State Historic Preservation Officer and many Tribes through
their Tribal Preservation Officers, to work in partnership to achieve
the goals of the Historic Preservation Act. Indeed, it created the
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), endowed it with Outer Continental
Shelf Oil Lease proceeds, and authorized it at $150 million annually.
This funding, matched by the States and Tribes, is to carry out the
mandates of the Act including 106 Review of federal actions and their
consequences for historic resources; certification of rehabilitation
activities eligible for receipt of the Historic Rehabilitation Tax
Credit; survey and documentation of historic resources; and technical
assistance (architectural, planning, archeological, etc.) to local
communities, state and federal agencies and individuals.
Unfortunately, until last year, the Historic Preservation Fund had
rarely received even half of its authorized amount. Indeed, when
adjusted for inflation and cost-of- living considerations, the Historic
Preservation Fund appropriation had declined markedly. Further, of the
amount appropriated, less than half went to the partners, the States
and Tribes. This meant that year after year the States and Tribes could
do little more than meet their base obligations; they made no big
plans.
In 2001, Congress appropriated $94 million to the HPF--$52 million
to States and tribes--a level that for the first time in decades, gave
States and Tribes the money they needed to do the job they have been
asked to do by Congress. Preservation Action considers this $94 million
a long-awaited and much-deserved course correction that brings the HPF
closer to its appropriate funding level. We ask you to build on this
foundation and in 2002 appropriate the HPF's full authorized amount of
$150 million.
From our perspective, there is no component of the program that
better illustrates the power of the federal-State partnership than the
Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit. This tax incentive program
leveraged more than $2.6 billion in private investment for historic
resources in 2000. Tax Act projects rehabilitated or created 17,270
housing units. It created 41,535 jobs. On the ground these numbers
translate into comfortable high-quality places for people of average
means to live. They mean that boarded up and vacant buildings are
restored and re-opened as viable business enterprises and are put back
on the tax rolls for the benefit of the entire community. They mean
that the federal government, working with its partners, quadrupled its
investment, put people to work, and repaired the fabric of our
neighborhoods. The tax act program carries out the spirit of the
National Historic Preservation Act in concrete ways.
However, the tax act program, indeed preservation activities of all
kinds, can not work without the technical support, administrative
commitment, time and effort of the State and Tribal Historic
Preservation Offices. We are a nation experiencing tremendous growth
but facing the challenge of creating a thriving future that does not
wholly compromise our natural and historic resources. If we are to be
successful, we must make preservation an integral part of how we do
business in all our communities. We ask that you fulfill the federal
commitment to historic preservation by fully funding the Historic
Preservation Fund in 2002 at $150 million.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation
The Society for Animal Protective Legislation urges the Senate
Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Interior and Related
Agencies to appropriate an additional increase of $10 million for the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Law Enforcement, an
additional $8.5 million for the Clark R. Bavin National Fish and
Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, $10 million for the Multinational
Species Conservation Fund, an additional $1 million for manatee
protection, and appropriate protection for wild horses, in fiscal year
2002.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Society for Animal Protective Legislation urges significant
increased funding to enable the Law Enforcement Division of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake its important, expanding work.
We urge this distinguished Subcommittee to recognize the critical need
for a full complement of Special Agents to contend with the major
criminal efforts of organized poachers, smugglers and dealers who are
greedily exerting pressure on wildlife, which ultimately will drive
many species to extinction. Therefore, we respectfully request an
additional $10 million for wildlife law enforcement.
The amount proposed in the President's budget would not adequately
meet the basic needs of the Division, which is currently undergoing a
three-year rebuilding effort in order to get back to the number of
Special Agents it needs--253. The Service is currently at 197 Special
Agents, under 80 percent of its full, necessary staff level.
Further, the Service's Division of Law Enforcement must ensure
adequate inspections at all appropriate ports of entry in the United
States. Port inspectors play an invaluable role in catching wildlife
profiteers who try to smuggle wildlife into and out of the country. As
the wildlife trade becomes more complex scientifically, as in the well-
known caviar cases, dedicated, well-trained inspectors must be
employed. In fiscal year 2000, over 87,000 shipments were inspected in
the United States. Congress should ensure an appropriation that
prevents the number of port inspectors from ever falling below 94, and
that supports port inspectors with a full, operational budget.
THE CLARK R. BAVIN NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FORENSICS LABORATORY
The Service's forensics lab is uniquely capable of providing
assistance in the prosecution of wildlife crimes. The lab analyzes
teeth, claws, hairs, feathers, tissues, blood, and other wildlife
samples to determine species of origin and connect wildlife and
suspects to the scene of the crime. This lab has always been on the
cutting edge of wildlife prosecutions and must be funded adequately to
fulfill its vital roles.
The laboratory operated on a budget of $2.8 million in fiscal year
2001. We urge the Committee to increase that lab appropriation to $3.3
million for fiscal year 2002 to cover personnel costs and operating
expenses. Without necessary funding the lab will be hampered in its
ability to function properly and to its fullest capability.
Additionally, the laboratory has begun a rehabilitation and
expansion project to acquire the necessary additional lab space and
staff. The estimated total expansion project cost is over $24 million
spaced over the next six years, if the project takes that long to
complete. We respectfully urge the Committee to appropriate $8 million
in fiscal year 2002 toward this rebuilding project. Appropriating these
funds earlier on in the life of the project will reduce the overall
projects costs. Of equal importance, wildlife criminals will not wait
until 2003 or 2005 to engage in their illegal profiteering--the Clark
R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory must be able
to address the breadth of wildlife crimes without delay.
MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND
Since 1988, the United States has shown its steadfast commitment to
global conservation efforts by legislatively creating a series of funds
to assist in wildlife protection in all regions of the globe. The
African Elephant Conservation Act, the Asian Elephant Conservation Act,
the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, and, most recently, the
Great Ape Conservation Act, are vital tools to prevent these species
from declining further and, in some cases, going extinct. The
Administration Budget for fiscal year 2002 provides for total funding
of $3,243,000 for implementation of these funds. The Society for Animal
Protective Legislation respectfully requests that this amount be
increased to a total of $10 million.
The African Elephant Conservation Act has provided important
funding for elephant conservation projects across Africa. For decades,
poachers and smugglers exploiting the global ivory trade have targeted
African elephants. Increasingly, elephants are at great risk not only
for ivory, but also for their meat, which is consumed as ``bushmeat,''
and are increasingly involved in human--elephant conflicts. Vital
conservation projects that have received funding under this Act
include: immunocontraception research as a means of non-lethal
population control, anti-poaching assistance, acoustic monitoring of
forest elephants, and programs exploring the interrelationships of
humans, people, and the protection of their crops. As the human
population in Africa continues to expand, and elephants remain under
constant threat for a renewed worldwide ivory trade, additional funding
is sorely needed.
The Asian Elephant Conservation Act has funded similar projects in
Asia where the highly endangered Asian elephants barely cling to
existence. Already this year, elephants have been poached in India's
Corbett Tiger Reserve for their ivory. The Asian elephant Conservation
Act has recently provided valuable grants to the Forest Department of
Assam for construction of anti-poaching camps, to the Wildlife
Protection Society of India for investigative work into the poaching of
elephants in India and the illegal ivory trade, and to the Wildlife
Trust of India to provide elephant reserve field staff with anti-
poaching equipment.
The Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act provides essential
financial assistance to protect the world's remaining five rhino
species and tiger subspecies. Rhinos have been historically poached for
their horns, which are used in traditional Asian medicines, while
tigers have been exploited for their valuable skins, bones and other
body parts. In the last century, it is estimated that the total number
of all wild tigers scattered across their range has plummeted to 5,000
animals. Funding under this Act recently has contributed to the
equipping and operating of anti-poaching patrols, studies of population
dynamics using DNA technology, establishing conservation education
programs in rhino and tiger range states to increase awareness about
these species, rhino translocations, and studies of the illegal trade
in tiger parts. Without these projects and others in the future, these
species will likely disappear within our lifetimes.
The Great Ape Conservation Act appropriately recognizes the growing
threat of the trade in bushmeat and the habitat decimation perpetrated
on great apes by timber companies and other extractive industries.
Chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan and gibbon populations have
declined substantially and there is a serious threat to their long-term
survival. Grants from this fund enable conservation and anti-poaching
projects to be established and effectively implemented to the benefit
of these highly endangered ape species. Additionally, grant money could
help establish collaborative projects to assist people in the range
states of these animals to find alternative sources of protein and
address other issues of land competition between wildlife and people.
Together the money appropriated under the Multinational Species
Conservation Fund may establish or finance the operations of programs
that directly and indirectly contribute to the survival of entire
species. The Congress should increase funding for these programs
accordingly.
MANATEE PROTECTION
Increased funding is badly needed for on-water law enforcement
officers in order to protect manatees. We urge this Subcommittee to
appropriate an additional $1 million over the President's budget for
manatee protection and enforcement of speed zones in manatee sensitive
areas throughout the State of Florida.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recognized the problem of
increased manatee deaths and injuries from collisions with boats and
has deployed on-water enforcement teams to patrol areas where manatees
are frequently seen and the risk of watercraft collisions is high.
Unfortunately, a lack of resources makes it difficult for the Service
to keep up a consistent presence on the water. It is imperative that
these patrols not only continue but increase in frequency. The
mortality numbers for 2001indicate an urgent need for a further
increase of enforcement efforts by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Additional resources will enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to
continue working to reduce the number of human-caused manatee
mortalities.
THE WILD HORSE AND BURRO ACT
In 1971, Congress charged the Bureau of Land Management (Bureau)
with preserving America's wild horses. The Wild Horse and Burro Act
states that ``wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of
the historic and pioneer spirit of the West . . . [and] shall be
protected from capture, branding, harassment or death.''
During fiscal year 2001, the Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse
and Burro Program received a substantial increase to its annual
operating budget. This increase was to be used to implement BLM's four-
year strategic plan to achieve appropriate management levels in all
herd management areas through increased round-ups of wild horses and
burros. Increased round-ups of wild horses and burros are not
justified, especially given BLM's refusal to do a complete programmatic
evaluation to determine if an overpopulation problem exists. However,
we do wish to ensure that the wild horses and burros that have been
captured are well cared for and adopted into good homes.
In addition to the more traditional threats faced by wild horses
and burros, which include habitat destruction, wildfires, and cattle
ranching encroachment; wild horses are coming under pressure from the
increasing demand for their meat as a result of the ``mad cow'' disease
in Europe. The BLM documented that in 1999 hundreds of wild horses were
sold into slaughter despite the congressionally mandated prohibition on
such action.
It is because of the current pressure on wild horses and burros
from decreasing habitat and mad cow disease that we urge this committee
to include once again the following standard language in the fiscal
year 2002 Interior Appropriations bill: ``The appropriations made
herein shall not be available for the destruction of healthy,
unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau of Land
Management or its contractors.''
______
Prepared Statement of the National Indian Education Association
On behalf of the National Indian Education Association (NIEA)
President, Carole Anne Heart (Lakota), and Board of Directors, I would
like to thank Chairman Burns and Vice Chairman Byrd for the opportunity
to submit testimony today on the President's fiscal year 2002 budget
request. NIEA is the oldest and largest national organization
representing the education concerns of over 3,000 American Indian/
Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian educators, tribal leaders, school
administrators, teachers, parents, and students.
Funding for Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools and Department
of Defense schools is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government
while public education is a combination of state and federal resources.
Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and their surrounding communities have
the ability to pass bonds in order to build or repair local school
buildings. Tribal and BIA schools, on the other hand, must rely on the
federal government to ensure their academic and construction needs are
met. The extent to which the federal government has assumed this
responsibility can be exemplified in the backlog of construction and
repair/renovation needs now exceeding $800 million. The budget request
this year, however, maintains a positive move to finally clear up the
persistent backlog in Indian school construction and renovation needs
in the Bureau of Indian Affairs education system.
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Within BIA's overall departmental framework are six categorical
areas that contain education-related programs serving federally-
recognized Indian tribes. These include: Tribal Priority Allocations;
School Operations; Tribally Controlled Community Colleges; Special
Programs and Pooled Overhead; and Education Construction. The following
are the fiscal year 2002 President's budget request for each category
(education programs only).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
BIA category -------------------------------- Difference
2001 enacted 2002 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal Priority Allocation...................................... $49,685,000 $50,036,000 +$351,000
School Operations............................................... 488,418,000 504,015,000 +15,597,000
Tribally Controlled Community Colleges.......................... 38,118,000 39,118,000 +1,000,000
Special Programs/Pooled Overhead................................ 15,598,000 16,039,000 +441,000
Education Construction.......................................... 292,341,000 292,503,000 +162,000
-----------------------------------------------
BIA Education total....................................... 884,160,000 901,711,000 +17,551,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.--(+$273.4
million--Education programs only with increases shown over fiscal year
2001 enacted levels)
Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA).--(+ $18.7 million)
--Adult Education.--Increase from $2.5 million to $5 million. Adult
Education continues to be one of the most underfunded areas
despite the fact that these programs can greatly improve the
economic situations of Indian adults who want to obtain their
General Educational Development (GED) degrees. The BIA
estimates that approximately 20,000 Indian adults participate
in the program.
--Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) Program.--Increase from $17 million to $25
million. The JOM program provides supplemental educational
services for 272,000 American Indian students in 23 states.
NIEA recommends lifting the current moratorium that caps the
number of participants.
--Scholarships.--Increase from $27.8 million to $35 million. This
program provides undergraduate scholarships for American
Indians. The needs of Indian students pursuing postsecondary
education are often neglected, especially when critically-
needed programs are cut or eliminated such as the Department of
Education's Office of Indian Education Fellowship Program.
--Tribally Controlled Community Colleges Supplements to Grants.--
Increase from $1.1 million to $2 million. These funds provide
supplemental operations for tribal colleges such as policy
development, curriculum additions, and general program
operations.
--Other Education Design.--Increase from 1.4 million to $1.5 million
Other Programs.--School Operations (+ $130.8 million)
--Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula.--Increase from
$331 million to $400 million. The ISEP program provides
formula-based funding for 185 federally-operated and contracted
schools serving 50,000 students. There are several types of
schools funded with ISEP funds including BIA-operated, grant,
and contract elementary and secondary schools.
--ISEP Program Adjustments at $667,000
--Family and Child Education (FACE) Program.--Increase from $12
million to $20 million. Currently there are 22 FACE sites
serving 1,800 children and 1,800 adults from a total of 1,700
families in two settings which include home and school. The
program serves an additional 3,200 children in grades K-3 by
supporting teacher training in the High/Scope active learning
curriculum which is implemented in the FACE Program and
included in the School's Consolidated School Reform Plan.
--Student Transportation.--Increase from $36.3 million to $43
million. In SY1999-2000 the BIA-funded transportation cost is
estimated to be $2.26 per mile with 14,363 miles (School Year
1999-2000) driven for day and boarding schools. According to
the latest School Bus Fleet information, the national average
for student transportation costs in school year 1993-94 was
$2.94 per mile for public schools. Therefore, the BIA-funded
schools, which are located primarily in rural, isolated areas,
are at least $.78 below the national per mile average.
--Institutional Disabled.--Increase from $3.8 million to $5 million
--Administrative Cost Grants.--Increase from $43 million to $50
million. For SY 1999-2000, the Bureau projects there will be
127 contract/grant schools and 58 Bureau-operated schools.
During fiscal year 1999, 5 schools converted to contract or
grant status. The Bureau projects 6 schools will convert to
contract or grant status in School Year 2000-2001 for a total
of 127 contract/grant schools. An accurate level of need will
not be known until the BIA releases its fiscal year 2002 budget
request.
--Area/Agency T.S.--Increase from $7.4 million to $8 million.
--Education Facilities Operations.--Increase from $54.5 million to
$90 million. In fiscal year 2001, this budget item transfers
the maintenance portion to Facilities Improvement and Repair
(FIR). In fiscal year 2000, the Bureau will provide funds for
essential services for educational facilities consisting of
2,390 buildings (excluding quarters), containing approximately
17.9 million square feet.
--Tribal Departments of Education.--Fund at $3 million. This program
is currently not funded. Sufficient funding should be provided
to assist tribes in planning and developing their own
centralized tribal administrative programs. This would be
appropriate given the recent trend to convert more schools from
BIA to Tribal control.
--School Statistics.--Increase from $700,000 to $800,000
--Emergency Operations.--Increase from $0 to $200,000
Tribally Controlled Community Colleges.--(+ $6.4 million)
--Tribal Colleges.--Increase from $38.2 million to $44.6 million. The
proposed budget includes $43.5 million for Operating Grants,
$114,000 for Technical Assistance Grants, and $977,000 for
Endowment Grants.
Special Programs and Pooled Overhead.--(+ $7.4 million).
--Graduate Scholarships.--Increase from $1.3 million to $5 million.
This program is the primary funding source for American and
Alaska Native graduate students and is totally inadequate to
help these individuals meet the costs of an advanced degree.
For school year 1997-98, the actual unmet need was $5.7
million. During the 1996-97 school year, the program funded an
estimated 378 students with an average award of $3,955. Because
of reduced funding, scholarship awards are being drastically
reduced while the demand for these limited scholarships
increase. This program funds students in 27 states with 128
tribes represented. No other federal graduate level scholarship
program, specifically for American Indian students, currently
exists.
--Postsecondary Schools.--Increase from $14.3 million to $18 million.
This includes Haskell Indian Nations University at $11 million
and Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) at $7
million.
Education Construction.--(+ $112.1 million)
--Replacement School Construction.--Increase from $141.2 million to
$200 million. Full funding of replacement school construction
would reflect President Bush's pledge to eliminate the
construction backlog. Bush envisions eliminating the $923
million backlog in six years. NIEA recommends four. The
replacement school construction program funds replacement of
older, unsafe, and dilapidated schools on reservations. School
replacement priorities are based on a new priority list of 13
schools, which is comprised of the last three uncompleted
school schools from the old priority list published in 1993 and
10 new schools.
--Education Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R).--Increase from
$148.3 million to $171.2 million. The dollars moved from
Operations and Maintenance are now included in the $171.2
million. This funding will be used to fund critical health and
safety concerns at existing education facilities.
--Indian School Construction Bonding.--Fund at $30,000,000.
--Employee Housing.--Increase from $3.1 million to $3.5 million.
Institute of American Indian Arts.--(+ $2 million)
--Increase from $4.25 million to $6.25 million.--NIEA is concerned
that proposed funding for the Institute of American Indian Arts
(IAIA) is being terminated with the last year for
appropriations in fiscal year 2001.This institution has been in
existence for 35 years and is the only facility solely
dedicated to the arts for American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Their progress in becoming a four-year institution should not
be impeded as they struggle to become a major cultural and
educational institution for Indian people.
HUMAN SERVICES
--Substance Abuse/Alcohol Education.--Increase from $0 to $500,000
CONCLUSION
NIEA supports full funding for all Indian Education programs in the
President's fiscal year 2002 budget request. Programs for American
Indian and Alaska Native students have been underfunded for years with
the results evident in low achievement scores, substandard facilities,
and high dropout rates. As mentioned earlier, the federal government is
responsible for only two school systems in the United States--those
operated by the Department of Defense and those operated by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. Ideally, these two systems should be the ``state of
the art'' when it comes to federal education policy and practice. The
lack of a high quality federal commitment further exaggerates the
already poor conditions that Indian students face in trying to obtain
an education. With new programs likely to focus on accountability,
Indian schools and communities will be hard pressed to meet the ever-
increasing standards being proposed by the Bush Administration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Nevada Water Authority
INTRODUCTION
It has long been said that the Colorado River is the lifeblood of
the West. Today, the Colorado River supplies vital water and power
resources for more than 20 million people in Arizona, California and
Nevada.
Concerns have been raised about the reliability of these water and
power resources following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994
designation of critical habitat for four endangered fish species in the
Colorado River Basin.
In response, representatives of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Arizona, California, and Nevada, Native American tribes,
along with various stakeholders and water and power agencies along the
lower Colorado, have formed a regional partnership, which is developing
a first-of-its-kind multi-species conservation program aimed at
protecting sensitive, threatened and endangered species of fish,
wildlife and their habitat.
The partnership formed a 35-member steering committee, which has
been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an Ecosystem
Conservation and Recovery Implementation Team (ECRIT) under the federal
Endangered Species Act. The steering committee has retained the
services of professional facilitator and technical consultant teams to
help develop a plan for the conservation program. The conservation plan
is scheduled for completion in Fall 2002.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The multi-species conservation program will work toward the
recovery of listed species through habitat restoration and species
conservation, and reduce the likelihood of additional species listings
under the federal and California Endangered Species Act.
The MSCP planning area includes the historic floodplain of the
lower Colorado River and reservoir full-pool elevations from Lake Mead
to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. MSCP habitat
restoration and preservation activities are intended to address the
following habitat types: aquatic, wetland/marsh, riparian and upland
desert fringe. It is the intent of the MSCP to re-vegetate native
cottonwood-willow and mesquite trees in the floodplain, and remove the
non-native salt cedar, or tamarisk, that has become established.
The MSCP will be implemented over a 50-year period. The long-term
program is also intended to accommodate current water diversions and
power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
development. This comprehensive program will provide long-term
environmental compliance for participating federal agencies, pursuant
to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, and non-federal
agencies under Section 10. California Agencies will also pursue
programs and actions to achieve compliance with California
Environmental Quality and Endangered Species Acts.
Over the past four years, interim conservation measures (ICMs) have
been developed and implemented to address the immediate critical needs
for certain endangered species. ICMs benefiting the endangered
razorback sucker, bonytail, and southwestern willow flycatcher were
initiated.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT COST
Current, program development costs are projected at about $6.7
million over five years for planning needs and implementation of ICMs.
A federal/non-federal cost-sharing agreement is in place for
development of the program and implementation of interim conservation
measures. The federal and non-federal participants shared program
development costs on a ``50/50'' basis. Among the non-federal
participants, the shares were distributed as follows: 50 percent of the
non-federal share was borne by California, 30 percent by Arizona, and
the remaining 20 percent by the State of Nevada.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The MSCP will be implemented over the fifty-year period beginning
in late-2002. However, MSCP proponents are desirous of implementing a
series of ``pilot projects'' in order to begin evaluating potential
habitat restoration and species conservation technologies within the
planning area. Additionally, the pilot projects would be supplemented
with species and habitat monitoring and research programs, providing
the basis for a comprehensive adaptive management approach.
PROPOSED PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION PILOT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In order to complete the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) by Fall 2002, and support Reclamation's
continued compliance with the 1997 biological opinion, the MSCP
Steering Committee has identified several critically needed planning
projects which, if developed, ensure overall comprehensiveness of the
MSCP. These planning projects are necessary to accomplish the
following:
--Provide additional or lacking species and habitat data, evaluations
and analyses ($200,000);
--Provide critically needed groundwater and soils data ($200,000);
--Provide for the development of conservation opportunity area site
suitability assessments ($500,000);
--Develop conceptual habitat restoration site designs for
approximately six sites within the MSCP planning area
($500,000);
--Develop digital elevation mapping (1-2 foot contour intervals)
within the MSCP planning area ($200,000);
--Develop updated detailed vegetation mapping within the MSCP
planning area ($200,000);
--Provide funds for completion of conservation planning on the
Colorado River Indian Reservation ($500,000);
--Provide funds to the California Department of Fish and Game,
through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in support of the
Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act requirements and
requisite Scientific Review Panel ($200,000); and
--Provide funds for completion of the development of the Lower
Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program ($500,000).
PILOT PROJECT FUNDING
It is respectfully requested that this suite of proposed LCR MSCP
habitat conservation planning and data acquisition projects should be
funded with an additional appropriation of $3.0 million to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Conservation Planning budget line
item.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wyoming State Engineer's Office
Dear Chairman Burns and Ranking Minority Member Byrd: This
statement is sent in support of fiscal year 2002 funding for the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) for activities that assist the Colorado River
Salinity Control Program. The BLM budget will, we believe, support
ecosystems and watershed management. The activities needed to control
salts reaching the Colorado River system from lands managed by the BLM
are a part of ecosystem and watershed management. Due to the BLM's
budgetary process ``lumping'' all activities together, this request
supports efforts in those ecosystem and watershed management that will
enhance Colorado River water quality and accomplish salt loading
reduction in the Basin.
The State of Wyoming is a member state of the seven-state Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum, established in 1973 to coordinate
with the Federal Government on the maintenance of the basin-wide Water
Quality Standards for Salinity. Based on analyses conducted by the
Forum, our testimony specifically requests that BLM be directed to
target the expenditure of $5,200,000 for activities to reduce salt
loading from BLM-managed lands in the Colorado River Basin in fiscal
year 2002.
The Forum is composed of gubernatorial representatives and serves
as a liaison between the seven States and the Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The Forum advises the Federal agencies on the
progress of efforts to control the salinity of the Colorado River and
annually makes funding recommendations, including the amount believed
necessary to be expended by the USDA for its on-farm CRSC Program.
Overall, the combined efforts of the Basin States, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of
Agriculture have resulted in one of the nation's most successful non-
point source control programs.
The basin-wide water quality standards for salinity consists of
numeric water quality criteria set for three Lower Colorado River
stations and a Plan of Implementation that describes the overall
Program and the specific salinity control projects that are being and
will be implemented to remove sufficient salt from the River system so
the salinity concentrations of the River's waters arriving at the three
stations do not exceed the numeric criteria values. Under the
provisions of the Clean Water Act, the water quality standards for
salinity are reviewed at least once each three years and the Plan of
Implementations is jointly adjusted and revised by the States and
involved Federal agencies, including representatives of the Bureau of
Land Management, to ensure continuing compliance with the numeric
criteria for salinity.
The success of the BLM in controlling erosion and the resultant
salt contributions to the Colorado River system is essential to the
success of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and
compliance with the water quality standards adopted by each of the
seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency. Inadequate BLM control efforts will result in
significant additional economic damages to water users downstream.
Congress has recently highlighted its interest in the efforts of
the Bureau of Land Management in controlling salt loading from lands
the agency manages within the Colorado River Basin. Section 2 of Public
Law 106-459, enacted into law on November 7, 2000, states the
following:
``The Secretary of the Interior shall prepare a report on the
status of implementation of the comprehensive program for minimizing
salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by the
Bureau of Land Management directed by section 203(b)(3) of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1593). The report shall
provide specific information on individual projects and funding
allocation. The report shall be transmitted to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of
the House of Representatives no later than June 30, 2000.''
The Basin States, like the Congress, are looking forward to the
required report in anticipation of gaining a better understanding of
how funding provided to the BLM has been used to assist this important
basin-wide water quality program. We are hopeful that the preparation
of this report will lead the BLM to conclude that it can provide a
better accounting to its federal agency and state partners engaged in
reducing salt concentrations in the waters of the Colorado River
system.
At its recent October 2000 meeting, the Forum, in consultation with
BLM officials, recommended that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
should expend $5,200,000 in fiscal year 2002 for salinity control. It
is the Forum, and the State of Wyoming's request that the Management of
Lands and Renewable Resources line-item be adequately funded. Further,
we request that $800,000 of the amount appropriated to the Management
of Lands and Renewable Resources line-item be marked for the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program. We gratefully acknowledge the
support of this Subcommittee in making this mark in past years and make
the same request again for the fiscal year 2002 amount.
This funding level is appropriate to reduce a growing ``backlog''
in meeting the pace of salt loading reductions necessary to avoid
exceedance of the numeric salinity concentration criteria contained
within the water quality standards for the Colorado River. Failure in
maintaining the basin-wide standards could result in the imposition of
state-line water quality standards and impair the Colorado River Basin
States' ability to develop their Compact-apportioned water supplies.
``Catch-up'' funding in the future will require expending greater sums
of money, increase the likelihood that the numeric salinity criteria
are exceeded, and create undue burdens and difficulties for one of the
most successful Federal/State cooperative non-point source pollution
control programs in the United States.
The State of Wyoming greatly appreciates the Subcommittee's support
of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program in past years. We
continue to believe this important basin-wide water quality improvement
program merits funding and support by your Subcommittee.
______
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 2002.
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 220 tribes
(which consists of 64 Alaskan Native villages and non-profit
corporations), over 2,000 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.
Due to its structure and its proven track record the Society has
evolved into one of the leading national Native organizations working
in the area of tribal natural resource management.
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.
Through its evolution, the Society has focused and fine-tuned its
ability to provide the necessary training seminars and individual
tribal technical assistance at a cost-effective manner.
This claim is evidenced and supported by having had received three
consecutive years (fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999) of clean, exception free audits. An accomplishment the
organization is proud of and feels demonstrates its ability to maximize
the benefit of the federal appropriation it receives in a pro-active
and professional manner.
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 of 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. 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. Specifically, 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, as previously noted, 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 continue to 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. For example, in fiscal
year 2000 over 24 separate training and/or educational sessions were
conducted with a collective participation of over 1,600 individuals.
This impressive accomplishment was made possible by working in
conjunction with over 18 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.
The following list contains the titles of some of the common
seminars that have been conducted by the Society in the past: Hazardous
Materials (Haz Mat) Awareness Level Training, Haz Mat Incident Command
Training, Field Identification of Contaminants, Conservation Officer
Hazardous Materials Recognition & First Responder, Wildlife
Conservation on Indian Lands, Wildlife Diseases, Conservation Officer
In-Service Training, Habitat Conservation Restoration and Management,
Black Tailed Prairie Dog Management, 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.
Recognizing that Native youth will someday become the Stewards of
their tribal lands, the Society has developed a national 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. Regions of the Society have taken
the lead from the national program and have been sponsoring their own
Summer Youth Practicums which brings higher levels of interest and
attention for managing Natural Resources by Tribal members.
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.
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 six 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 occurred last year when one of the program's
first students (having earned a degree in natural resource management
and hired into a new position with the Bureau of Land Management)
returned 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.
Once again, as in past years, the Society's intent is not to ask
for additional funds to meet the increasing cost of the programs it has
developed, but rather 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. Mindful of having to
compete with tribes and other noteworthy Native organizations for
limited federal funding, the Society identified the need for and
established a permanent endowment.
The Society's goal is to raise sufficient funds to not only sustain
the organization on an annual basis but also enable it to create a
small tribal natural resource management grants program. To help
expedite the realization of this important endeavor, the Society formed
the Native American Fish & Wildlife Foundation (Foundation) to serve as
the fund-raising arm of the organization. The Foundation continues to
focus entirely on raising endowment funds, allowing the Society to
concentrate on delivery of its programs 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 a direct benefit to tribes and the lands they manage.
In light of the fact that there is a shortfall 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 the Interior and Related Agencies, Society is requesting a Total of
$491,000.00 for fiscal year 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metlakatla Indian Community
The Metlakatla Indian Community is honored to provide this
statement on the fiscal year 2002 budget for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the Indian Health Service. A summary of our requests is:
--$16.4 million for the Metlakatla Indian Community health clinic and
quarters
--Continued and increased funding for BIA law enforcement
--Authorize use of Law Enforcement funds for marine patrol equipment
--Eliminate the BIA and IHS contract support costs shortfalls
The Metlakatla Indian Community (Community is located on the
Annette Islands Reserve in southeast Alaska, a land base of 87,000
acres. The Annette Island is accessible only by small floatplanes, but
such access is often restricted by the weather conditions-particularly
in the winter months. Providing essential services to a population of
over 1,500 is severely impacted not only by our location but also the
economic devastation of the Community. Due to the recent closure of our
timber processing facilities and the marked drop in the fishing
industry, the Community's unemployment rate has skyrocketed to the 85
percent range. Although the Community is aggressively pursuing
alternative businesses, it will be several years before such ventures
could conceivably bring about an economic vitality that would address
the immediate needs we present below.
IHS BUDGET
Clinic and Quarters Construction.--For many years, the Metlakatla
Community has sought funding to replace the Annette Islands Service
Unit Health Center, which for some time has been inadequate to meet the
service needs of our people. It has also become a safety risk to
patients and employees. Because of the conditions of our buildings, we
have not been able to meet the Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Health Care Organizations standards. Since the health center is the
sole source of health care on the Annette Islands Reserve, we have done
our best to keep the buildings patched together enough to keep the
doors open.
As you may know, we received fiscal year 2001 HHS funds through the
Denali Commission for planning and design of our clinic. We are pleased
to report that the design work for our 31,722 square foot clinic and 8
staff quarters is expected to be completed by the end of this calendar
year and we will be ready to begin construction in fiscal year 2002.
You may recall that our Program Justification Document for the
clinic and quarters was completed by the IHS in April 1995, but the
project has been languishing since being identified on the list of
approved projects in the IHS budget requests to the Congress since that
date. Originally, the PJD construction schedule estimated the target
date for completion of the project as April 2000. Realistically, if our
project receives construction funds of $16,354,000 in fiscal year 2002,
we could have a new clinic and quarters by the end of fiscal year 2003.
Recommendation.--We respectfully request the Committee recommend
$16.4 million fiscal year 2002 IHS Construction funds for Metlakatla's
clinic construction needs.
BIA BUDGET
Law Enforcement.--The Community's law enforcement program is
comprised of a small police force and a one-person fisheries
enforcement patrol. In addition to the inherent difficulties associated
with Indian reservation law enforcement (inadequate funding, poor
equipment, insufficient detention facilities to name a few), there is
no resident state or federal law enforcement presence on the Island.
Thus, except for fisheries enforcement, under federal law the non-
Indian residents and visitors are not subject to tribal criminal
authority so that absent a crime taken seriously by state authorities,
non-Indian criminal conduct is virtually free from enforcement. The
following address some of the Community's law enforcement needs:
Marine Patrol.--The Fisheries Enforcement component is responsible
for the offshore law enforcement within our maritime boundary that
extends 3,000 feet offshore over the entire circumference of the
islands, which is approximately 60 miles. There is no ``down time'' for
fisheries enforcement since the various fisheries and dive fisheries-
herring, salmon, halibut, sea urchin, geoduck, and sea cucumber-go
year-round. Since we have not been able to fund more than a single,
low-speed vessel and one officer to patrol the entire area, the
principal beneficiaries resulting from the absence of fisheries
enforcement are the non-resident charter fleet who profit from
Metlakatla's resources but ignore our laws.
The Community is disappointed that in spite of the increased
funding for BIA law enforcement, many of our unmet or underfunded law
enforcement needs continue to remain unaddressed due to the allocation
priorities established by the Bureau. For example, from the increases
provided in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, a portion was
identified for replacement of police vehicles. However, the Bureau
limited use of those funds to replacement of police sedans and SUV's
with 100,000 miles or more, with no consideration for other types of
vehicle needs tribes might have-such as our need for a patrol boat. We
had to instead rely upon a DOJ COPs grant to purchase a smaller skiff,
which has been inadequate for our needs but was all we could afford.
Personnel.--Another of our primary concerns is recruiting and
retaining an adequate number of officers to properly staff Metlakatla's
police force and marine patrol. We have not been able to meet the
salary expectations of trained law enforcement personnel. There are
also the additional factors of isolation, inadequate housing and high
living costs for the Community to overcome when hiring. Unfortunately,
the increases for BIA law enforcement have not significantly impacted
our funding. As you may know, in fiscal year 1999, the Bureau dedicated
$4 million of that year's increase for BIA Law Enforcement to hire
uniform police officers-but only BIA-operated programs were eligible
for these funds. In fiscal year 2000 we received an $85,000 increase to
our base funding for our law enforcement but this amount did not do
much more than address existing pay cost increases.
Recommendation.--The Metlakatla Indian Community strongly urges the
Subcommittee to support an increase for the BIA Law Enforcement
program. Within these funds, we respectfully request the Subcommittee
to provide at least $300,000 to the Community so that we may adequately
patrol the shores and protect the resources of the Community. These
funds would be used to purchase the much needed larger vessel ($75,000-
$100,000), hire additional manpower, and provide a support budget for
the Fisheries Enhancement component.
CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS
The Community hopes that the new Administration's budget request
will include, and the Congress will provide, increases for BIA and IHS
contract support cost funds. We also urge the continued funding of the
BIA Indian Self-Determination Fund. We understand that the current
estimated shortfalls in contract support costs are $25 million for BIA
programs and $45 million for IHS. Therefore, we urge that Congress fund
at least the amounts identified in the IHS and BIA budget requests for
the Contract Support Cost Funds.
On behalf of the Metlakatla Indian Community, we appreciate the
opportunity to provide our views to the Subcommittee regarding the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and IHS budgets for fiscal year 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of Kayenta Community School, Inc.
Ladies & Gentlemen: Kayenta Community School, Inc. is a Bureau
funded school that was converted to a grant school under Public Law
100-297 in 1996.
The school has had student population between 175 and 500 in the
past 10 years. The student enrollment would be higher except for
inadequate school facilities that is outdated and in poor conditions.
A 7-member board that is elected under Navajo Nation election laws
governs the school. The school is currently on the Federal Register and
ranked as No. 13 and is on the BIA facility replacement plan for 2003.
We are requesting Congress to fund our school as follows:
--Administration--100 percent of administrative cost of $54 million.
--ISEP--$386 million.
Special Education--$3.7 million.
IRG (residential)--$2.9 million.
--Maintenance--21.18 percent increase for shortfalls.
--Facility--$802 million.
--Others--transportation--$44 million (4,000 per weighted student
unit).
We welcome President Bush's proposal to fund FI&R to replace
outdated facilities and $802 million for Facility Improvement and
Repair backlog. We fully endorse President Bush's plans for local
control and flexibility in school curriculum, innovative programs,
etc., as well as accountability and high standards to ensure student
success. We believe that parents should be fully involved in the
education of their children so that no child is left behind.
INDIAN STUDENT EQUALIZATION PROGRAM
It has been difficult for Kayenta Community School to attract
experienced teachers to work in the remote and isolated area. Teachers
are subjected to lower salaries, poor housing, and poor educational
facilities. As a result the school as with other schools on the Navajo
reservation face turnover and recruiting problems. The ISEP program
provides the basic instructional funding for BIA funded schools.
Limited resources and unsafe facilities due to under-funded
programs have not been conducive to a positive learning environment. In
fiscal year 2001, Congress agreed to increase ISEP funding by $14
million, which results in the funding level at $330.8 million.
We are recommending that Congress appropriate at least $362 million
for ISEP programs in fiscal year 2002, which would put the student
weight at approximately $4,000.00.
STUDENT TRANSPORTATION
The cost of transportation has increased considerably in the past
two years. The cost of GSA vehicle rentals, fuel, maintenance and
repairs have been costly due to the poor road conditions, distances
traveled as well as being required to use leased vehicles, and
certified bus drivers. The schools don't receive funding for extra-
curricular activities, such as sports programs, field trips and
transporting students for medical purposes.
We ask Congress to provide emergency funding to help us with
shortfalls this school year, and fund student transportation at $3.00
per mile in fiscal year 2002. Also the formula needs to implement the
cost of educational field trips, extra-curricular activities between
schools, and the transportation of students with medical needs.
ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS
Administrative Cost Grant is a formula based method created by
Congress to calculate the amount of funds that should be provided a
grant school board for administrative and indirect cost expenses
incurred in the operation of BIA funded school programs. The amount of
funding has decreased as new schools convert to tribal grant schools.
We ask congress to provide funding for the full 100 percent
administrative Cost Grant formula, which we estimate at $54 million in
fiscal year 2002.
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AT KAYENTA COMMUNITY SCHOOL
Kayenta Community School is presently ranked number 13 in the
Federal Register and is scheduled to begin replacement in 2003. We ask
the Congress and the Administration to work together to fund the
remainder schools on the priority list. The School has also asked for
the Quarters to be replaced due to the unsafe conditions. These are
needed for teachers who are non-Navajo and the remoteness. Quality
housing would be an asset in teacher recruitment and retainment, which
will assist in the improvement of student achievement.
In conclusion, we thank you for your attention in addressing these
critical requests. We appreciate your support to our staff, community
and Navajo Nation in providing quality educational programs for our
children. We applaud your concern and your commitment to Indian
Education as well as national education issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
On behalf of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission member
tribes, I want to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present
this written testimony on our fiscal year 2002 fisheries and habitat
management needs that fall within the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget.
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
The NWIFC generally supports the enacted fiscal year 2001
appropriation levels. However, without a firm budget request to review,
we are uncertain of exact funding levels. We request funding and
direction which will achieve the following for fiscal year 2002:
--Support for the $6.8 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 million 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 2001 levels;
--Provision of Contract Support Funding at 100 percent levels
necessary for existing and emerging programs
INTRODUCTION
Twenty-seven years ago, the U.S. v. Washington case was decided by
the federal court system. In 1999, 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, not only in fisheries management
in the Pacific Northwest, but they have also fostered a nationwide
quest for tribal self-determination and self-governance led in part by
the Northwest tribal leadership.
We are at a turning point in natural resource management in the
Pacific Northwest. We have developed great professional capabilities
and policy respect, and we are efficient and effective. There are new
and highly difficult complexities abound, many precipitated by the
demands of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act
(CWA). Treaty rights to harvest shellfish are often thwarted due to
pollution in marine waters. To meet this challenge, we will need all of
our existing funding and additional new resources.
It is true that over the past decade, tribes have been able to
secure new monies for additional responsibilities. However, over the
same period of time, tribes have seen monies for other duties diminish,
through inflation or through the elimination of programs and support
funding. And in this process, Indian natural resource management
capacity has been unfairly affected. 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 was included in last year's budget.
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. In 1999, the Supreme Court denied
cert. and let stand the favorable 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 fully 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. Without new resources this success
will be short-lived.
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, which will make it difficult to assess 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 which establishes shellfish
sanitation programs designed to protect the public health. The
implementation of the decree has revealed that the presence of
biotoxins in shellfish is dangerously unacceptable, and threatens the
viability of both the state and tribal fisheries. Additional research
and monitoring of this biotoxin is necessary to prevent illness and
death that may result from consuming toxic shellfish. The significant
value of deep-water shellfish fisheries has increased illegal
harvesting and enforcement is inadequate. Tribes and state enforcement
agencies are addressing problems by coordinating patrols, but
additional monitoring of these harvest is needed.
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. The Western Washington tribes request the Subcommittee to
add an additional $6.8 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.
WILDSTOCK RESTORATION INITIATIVE, WATERSHED RESTORATION, NORTHWEST
FOREST PLAN, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IMPLEMENTATION
In 1999, 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). Last year, 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 are affected by this federal process. As fishermen, 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, Assessments, Opinions,
Consultation, and Recovery Planning are just a few of the processes
tribes will now be forced to participate in just to ensure their treaty
protected fisheries. The tribes harvest opportunity and management are
placed in severe jeopardy by these actions without additional funds to
manage 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.
We are requesting that the Subcommittee continue to provide
$400,000 for the Wild Stock Restoration Initiative from the $3.0
million Bureau of Indian Affairs, Forest Development, Woodland
Management and the Northwest Forest Plan ``Jobs in the Woods''
Initiative line item. The WSRI is essential to developing a habitat
inventory base from which restoration efforts can begin. The remaining
$2.6 million from this initiative will allow tribes throughout the
Pacific Northwest to continue to conduct watershed analysis and
watershed restoration 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.
The negotiations leading up to the development of the TFW Forest and
Fish Report were exceedingly contentious. 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 is for a strong monitoring and adaptive monitoring process be
put in place, which will require additional funding.
Tribes are now using the funds provided last year by the Committee
in a very organized fashion. Tribes have a strong central and regional
coordination component and are focusing 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 at TFW. 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 2002, we are requesting $3.048 million, plus an
additional $1.0 million to further develop tribal participation in the
TFW Forest and Fish effort.
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 the
necessary funds. An artificial cap upon the funding pool for indirect
cost reimbursements places a huge burden on tribal fisheries programs.
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.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the Subcommittee's continued support for the tribes
and the NWIFC as we implement co-management responsibilities. It takes
funding resources to make our management system work, but the returns
to our efforts are many. The challenges are great, and we must continue
our effort with renewed vigor. We thank you for your attention to our
needs. We have provided the subcommittee staff with additional
supporting documentation for our requests. We are available to meet
with you and your staff at your leisure.
Thank you.
______
CULTURAL AGENCIES
Prepared Statement of the Association of American Universities and the
American Council on Education, National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
The Association of American Universities, on behalf of the American
Council on Education and the National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges, appreciates this opportunity to submit for the
record testimony in support of the National Endowment for the
Humanities (NEH). Through our combined memberships, our associations
represent all of 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. We respectfully request that
the Subcommittee provide $150 million for NEH in fiscal year 2002.
The United States possesses a culture of worldwide significance.
NEH helps preserve this heritage by promoting lifelong learning,
strengthening communities, and making the humanities available to all
Americans. The humanities include language and literature, philosophy
and history. They encompass a world of stories, an ongoing dialogue
about meaning and value. They provide a framework for clear thinking,
help produce good citizens, and instill in them a respect for history.
The humanities represent the endless human attempt to understand our
world and our place in it. More than any other set of disciplines, they
can be thought of as our cultural capital, and they are no less
important than other forms of capital upon which our society relies.
Two characteristics of NEH are particularly noteworthy. First, NEH
sustains long-term projects that are of national significance but that
are unlikely to be funded by any single state or institution. Many of
these endeavors can only be achieved with help and encouragement from
the federal government. Second, NEH grants leverage state, local, and
private philanthropic investment and increase public engagement with
the humanities. The imprimatur of NEH funding, awarded on the basis of
merit as determined by rigorous peer review, has a multiplier effect,
increasing public participation in humanistic endeavors and attracting
additional funds.
Research universities, small private institutions, state colleges,
and community colleges use NEH grants to conserve and nurture our
American heritage, bring the humanities to the community, expand
knowledge, and educate the next generation of Americans. NEH-supported
summer seminars and institutes provide an opportunity for high school
and college teachers to spend six to eight weeks learning from and
working with leading scholars in the humanities. Summer seminars and
institutes provide an exhilarating boost to the participants,
regenerate their enthusiasm, and facilitate the transfer of new
knowledge. Last year, approximately 1,000 teachers attended 50 summer
seminars. These teachers, in turn, reached 147,500 students
At the University of Oregon, an NEH-funded summer seminar provided
secondary school Spanish teachers with an opportunity to study the
history and literature of Mexico under a team of scholars and bilingual
specialists. The seminar included methodology training with emphasis on
integrating the teaching of language, culture, and literature at the
high school level. In addition, the seminar included instruction on the
use of technology in the instructional process.
Faculty and students both benefit from NEH-funded research
projects. Such projects become part of the learning environment,
contributing not only to our knowledge base, but also to the education
of new generations of scholars. For example, the University of Michigan
has initiated ``The Arts of Citizenship Program'' which explores the
role of university arts, humanities, and design in public life. A
component of the project, Students On Site, brings together university
faculty and students with teachers and students from Ann Arbor schools
to explore the city's rich history and landscape. University of
Michigan faculty and students have worked with schools and the
community on a local history field trip for third graders, the redesign
a neglected park, and the relationship between poetry and everyday
life.
NEH investments also make a crucial difference in the support of
long-term projects. It is important to realize that in the humanities,
NEH is often the only source of national support. Only an agency like
NEH, with its federal funds and broad vision can support such projects,
which include bibliographies, encyclopedias, and the preservation of
papers of great leaders, such as George Washington, Frederick Douglass,
and Mark Twain.
At Rutgers University, NEH grants have helped support the Thomas A.
Edison Papers project. This project involves collection, selection,
editing, and publication of the correspondence, laboratory notes and
related technical and business records of the nation's most prolific
inventor. By making Edison's most significant records widely available
for the first time, the project has fostered scholarship concerned with
historical and contemporary issues of interest to a wide range of
students and scholars, including historians, philosophers, social
scientists, engineers, natural scientists, and policy makers.
Shepherding and nurturing endeavors of this scale and magnitude-in
essence, preserving our heritage-is the government's trust and must
remain at the federal level.
Preservation activities, in particular, are an area unlikely to be
funded by any individual state but of substantial benefit to the entire
nation. With NEH support, Cornell University is coordinating the
identification and preservation of 8,075 aging volumes on American
agricultural history and rural life published between 1820 and 1945 and
held by land grant universities in California, Florida, Nebraska,
Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, and New
York. The preservation of brittle books and newspapers assist scholars
in producing source material accessible to all Americans, from legal
scholars to political scientists to school children.
The fiscal year 1996 budget cut disproportionately affected many
NEH national programs, including preservation activities. 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. An increase is needed to allow NEH to
recover some of the lost ground and to support the digitization of
historically significant collections held by museums, libraries,
historical organizations, and archives, as well as undertake the
preservation of recorded sound collections. New digital technology can
play a crucial role in helping us preserve our country's heritage.
While the state humanities councils have the primary responsibility
for state-based humanities programs, colleges and universities also use
NEH support to bring humanities to their communities. For example, the
University of Illinois has engaged in several NEH-funded projects that
enabled 4,000 people to participate in symposia, exhibitions, and
lectures focused on Jane Addams' Hull House. Similarly, the University
of Mississippi used an NEH grant to develop a ``Memories of
Mississippi'' exhibit that recorded the recollections of the Depression
Era from northern Mississippi citizens. A ``traveling trunk'' toured
the region, visiting seniors' groups, nursing homes, and schools. The
trunk included printed essays, prerecorded and blank audiotapes, a tape
recorder, photographs and memorabilia of the Depression Era.
The NEH has enjoyed bipartisan support throughout its 36-year
history and has been the single most important source of support for
humanistic endeavors in the United States. In calling for the creation
of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Lyndon Johnson said, ``A
great nation, and a great civilization, feeds upon the depth of its
scholarship, as well as the breadth of its education opportunity.''
Nearly 20 years later, Ronald Reagan observed, ``Our cultural
institutions are an essential national resource; they must be kept
strong.'' Again, we urge the Subcommittee to provide $150 million for
NEH in fiscal year 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Museums
Chairman Burns, Senator Byrd and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in
support of the fiscal year 2002 budget of the Institute of Museum and
Library Services. My name is Edward H. Able, Jr., and I am President
and CEO of the American Association of Museums (AAM), the national
service organization helping museums serve their communities. AAM
assesses museum operations and accredits museums, provides education
and training for museum professionals, operates international museum
programs, and advocates for museums. Since its founding in 1906, AAM
has grown to include more than 16,400 members, including more than
11,400 museum professionals, 3,000 museums, and 1,900 corporate members
in every State of the Union. On behalf of the museum community, I
respectfully ask the Committee to increase funding for The Office of
Museum Services (OMS) at the Institute of Museums and Library Services
(IMLS) by approximately $3 million to $28 million, at the very least,
for the coming fiscal year. We firmly support the President's proposed
increase of $120,000 for administrative expenses but we would ask the
Committee to provide a corresponding and substantial increase for
programmatic expenses as well. We believe an increase to $28 million
would be both reasonable and fiscally responsible, and provide the
agency desperately needed funding to address the growing needs of the
museum community. The main reason for establishing the OMS in the first
place--``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.
Museums are witnessing a huge increase in attendance. According to
conservative AAM estimates, museums welcome 865 million visits per year
compared with around 600 million only a decade ago. That's an
impressive 2.3 million visits to American museums per day. Museums are
also consistently listed in the top three of family vacation
destinations by the travel and tourism industry. And in a recent
nation-wide survey, one-third of Americans said they have visited an
art museum, a history museum, an aquarium, zoo, botanical gardens, or
science and technology center within the past six months. Almost one
quarter of Americans have visited within the past year. The evidence is
overwhelming; more people visit museums today then in any time in
history, and this trend shows no sign of slowing down.
In addition, people are expecting more from their local museums. In
the last few weeks it has been nearly impossible to pick up a newspaper
or magazine without reading a story about how the latest census figures
show that America has become a more diverse society. Changes in where
people choose to live, how they work, and how they spend their leisure
time, as well as the increasing ethnic diversity, leave no doubt that
America of the 21st Century will be technologically, socially,
culturally, racially and ethnically very different from America of the
20th Century. Museums have a role to play in meeting some of the most
critical challenges in community life they are increasingly called upon
to play greater roles in:
--Education and lifelong learning
--Supporting families and family involvement in education
--Community engagement
--Economic development
--Access for all, whether at the museum itself or through technology
--Preservation of our heritage (scientific, social, cultural, natural
and artistic)
Museums have become what the Washington Post once dubbed ``The New
Town Square,'' offering everything from jazz concerts to education
forums. At the same time they remain places of learning for our
children, families and adults; of scholarly research; and of quiet
contemplation of beauty, our cultural heritage, and civilizations past
and present. Perhaps Steven Holl, a New York architect said it best
when he talked about the success of his new Bellevue, Washington art
museum in a recent Newsweek article. He said, ``There was no
institution in town that brought people together, this is really a
social condenser.''
These new expectations place tremendous demands upon a museum's
infrastructure. To be successful museums need to invest tremendous
resources to ensure that their exhibits are both intellectually
understandable and meet real community needs. Unfortunately, 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. But only 8 percent of the museum
community unfortunately, believe they have the resources to cope with
critical issues in the near future.
While need has substantially increased, the museum side of IMLS'
budget has shrunk, dropping dramatically from a high of $28.7 million
in fiscal year 1995 to today's level of $24.9 million, a slight
recovery from the $22 million budget of fiscal year 1997. This recent
period of shrinking or relatively static budget has meant that the
General Operating Support program, the core of the museum half of IMLS,
was only able to fund 19 percent of applications in fiscal year 2000,
down from 20 percent in fiscal year 1998, and 26 percent in fiscal year
1995. Yet according to outside peer reviewers 59 percent of the grants
are worthy of funding. Given that the program is highly competitive and
receiving an award is a mark of great achievement, and recognized by
the field as such, that 59 percent figure is truly remarkable.
The $28 million we are requesting is a relatively modest but
worthwhile investment that would significantly increase the ability of
IMLS to help more museums, especially small and rural 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 clearly help museums further
increase and enhance their services to local school systems and other
community organizations. A budget of $28 million would also represent
an 11.5 percent increase over the current baseline budget of $24.9
million, be consistent with the Administration's proposed increase for
other educational programs, and send a strong message from Congress
that museums are a valuable educational resource.
Museums are first and foremost educational. In fact, education has
always been a cornerstone of museum service. But, it has taken on even
more significance and prominence. For example, 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 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 raised the bar and helped
reinforce the importance of museum education when it published ``True
Needs, True Partners,'' an 80-page book that profiled 15 museums-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 our nation's schools. Prior to the issuance of
Excellence and Equity and True Needs, True Partners, the idea that
museums make a major contribution to education was broadly understood.
The results of nationwide research conducted for AAM showed that 93
percent of those surveyed believed the statement ``Museums are active
participants in education, providing hands-on learning experiences for
children and tours for school field trips. Museum often form
partnerships with public schools providing unique classroom
opportunities, after-school programs and professional development for
teachers.'' True Needs, True Partners, for the first time, provided
museum and educational professionals with 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 America's museums provide K-12 programming, spending
roughly $193 million annually on K-12 educational programming.
--70 percent of museums responding to the survey reported an increase
in the number of schools, teachers and students served in the
previous five years.
--Museums report the substantial use of school curriculum standards
in shaping educational programming for a given subject. Ninety
two percent of math related educational programs use curriculum
standards, 87 percent of science offerings, 76 percent of art
programs and 72 percent of history educational programs use
curriculum standards.
--The typical museum now provides between 100 and 223 instructional
hours to student each year, with a low estimate of 3.9 million
hours collectively for all museums.
In May, AAM will release the results of a recent national survey
that reveals that Americans view museums as ``one of the most important
resources for educating our children and as one of the most trustworthy
sources of objective information.'' A museum's ability to fulfill its
educational mission, however, whether through in-person involvement or
through the World Wide Web, stems directly from the health of its most
basic operations. I cannot stress this point enough. We would all
agree, I think, that the vast wealth of cultural, scientific,
technological, historic and artistic treasures preserved, protected and
researched by America's museums should be as accessible as possible as
a learning resource. Our country's museums house an enormous wealth of
information though--more than 700 million, objects, specimens and
associated documentation of our cultural, scientific and artistic
heritage. And a museum at any one time has only five to ten percent of
its collection on exhibition, with access to objects in storage
necessarily restricted. Before the advent of the Internet, 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 regional electronic networks, and they are
digitizing their collections to increase accessibility through the
World Wide Web. Digitizing a three dimensional object is simply not as
easy or straightforward as running the pages of a book through an
electronic scanner, and digitization is a critical step toward
providing compelling ``virtual visits'' and greater access to school
programming via distance education technology. Private funding for
complex and costly digitization projects is scarce. It costs art
museums, for example, an average of $38 per visitor to just keep the
doors open and the lights and heat turned on. The average admission
charge per visitor is $1.46. That means on average, art museums lose
$36.54 every time someone walks into the building. Museums simply do
not have the resources to handle these types of projects on their own.
That is why an increase for IMLS's core programs like National
Leadership Grants for Technology Advancement for Museums, and
particularly General Operating Support (GOS), are so critical. I cannot
emphasize enough what an enormous difference Federal financial support
through programs like IMLS' GOS program can make, especially for small
or rural museums. To quote William Ebie, Executive Director of the
Millicent Rogers Museum of Northern New Mexico, GOS funds ``Pretty much
help us keep the door open.''
While it is true that museums can use GOS money where they
determine it is most needed to improve public service, by and large we
are not talking about giving museums money to pay the light bills. We
are talking about an investment that insures America continues to have
a strong, viable and relevant museum community fully capable of
fulfilling its educational mission and potential. And research
conducted by IMLS has shown that 94 percent of museums use their GOS
funds to do just that by improving their educational programs, services
and materials.
For example, the Santa Fe Children's Museum used a GOS grant to
partner with the local Social Service Department to provide vouchers
for under-served members of the community to visit the museum free of
charge. The Heath Adventure Museum in Asheville, North Carolina used a
GOS grant to expand the availability of its programs and services for
local schools, increase the activities of its education staff, and
greatly expand its summer science program. And the Museum of Art at
Washington State University in Pullman, Washington used a GOS grant to
promote the use of museum exhibitions in local schools and to fund free
art workshops for schoolchildren. The list goes on and on.
The Office of Museum Services at the Institute of Museum and
Library Services is a valuable agency with a valuable role to play in
the museum community. It supports the needs of the museum field as a
whole, in the absence of a coherent state mechanism for museum support
(like the state arts and humanities councils and the state library
agencies); it helps leverage financial support from private sector,
state and local governments; it assists in building alliances of
national impact between museums and other sectors (e.g. education); it
initiates partnerships with other federal agencies; it conducts
research; and it provides national leadership for new initiatives. All
of this comes at a relatively minor cost to the American taxpayers.
I would also encourage the Committee to provide significant
increases for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National
Endowment for the Humanities. Working singularly and in partnership
with IMLS, the NEH and NEA have provided critical support for America's
museums since their inception 35 years ago, and we support increases
for these valuable agencies so they can continue their good work.
In closing, I would just reiterate that IMLS is a valuable Agency
that has had a tremendous positive impact. There is no doubt in my mind
that it can continue to have a strong positive impact for years to come
if adequately funded. Therefore, I strongly urge the committee to
provide at least $28 million for the Office of Museum Service at the
Institute of Museum and Library Service for fiscal year 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, FL
On behalf of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this written testimony to you today on two
extremely important initiatives, currently underway within our city. We
respectfully request your consideration of these projects for funding
from your fiscal year 2002 appropriations legislation.
--Miami Beach Cultural Arts Initiative: The City of Miami Beach is
requesting assistance in the amount of $1.5 million from the
NEA, NEH or IMLS programs to continue the City's efforts to
support programming and training opportunities for performing
and visual arts organizations in Miami Beach, and to support
local museum and educational initiatives.
--Atlantic Corridor Greenway Network: An important project which
brings together urban revitalization and economic redevelopment
in a linear park or greenway setting. The City is seeking a
$3.2 million appropriation from the Urban Park Restoration and
Recovery program to continue construction of this linear park
which will stretch the entire length of the City.
miami beach cultural arts initiative
During the past decade, the City of Miami Beach has fast become a
world-class center for the creation and consumption of culture. The
entire City has been designated as an arts district, and the City is
currently developing a Cultural Campus in Collins Park that is home to
the Miami City Ballet, an $8 million expansion of the Bass Museum, and
the future home of the Miami Beach Regional Library.
There are currently 82 large and small dance, music and theater
companies, visual and performing arts organizations, museums, and
galleries. Among these groups are, the Miami City Ballet, the New World
Symphony (America's Orchestral Academy), the ArtCenter South Florida,
the Wolfsonian-FIU Museum, the Bass Museum, and the Jewish Museum of
Florida. The City houses several venues that play a key role in the
region, including the Jackie Gleason Theater of Performing Arts, the
Lincoln Theater, and the Colony Theater, which was recognized by
Congress last year as one of America's Treasures. Additionally, the
``Superbowl'' of art shows, Art Basel, based in Switzerland, has chosen
Miami Beach as the location for its first annual show outside of its
home base, beginning in December 2001.
The Miami Beach Cultural Arts Council was created in 1997 to
develop, coordinate, and promote the performing and visual arts groups.
It accomplishes this mission by serving as arts advocates before
governmental bodies, by coordinating marketing programs, by funding
not-for-profit arts organizations, by promoting international cultural
tourism to the city, and more. Since 1997, the Miami Beach Cultural
Arts Council has awarded over $2 million to 76 arts groups, and joined
economic forces with the Miami Beach Visitor and Convention Authority
(VCA) and the Miami-Dade Department of Cultural Affairs to award grants
for Beach-based cultural events and to help promising local arts groups
develop. The Council is comprised of nine spirited and knowledgeable
Beach residents who express their commitment to the community through
their involvement with the Council. The Mayor and City Commission
appoint members to the Council for three-year terms with limits of six
consecutive years.
Secured annual funding is about $1 million, with strong
administrative and political support to augment this level. Due to a
special $200,000 allocation, funding for fiscal year 2000/01 is $1.74
million. Cultural arts grants are awarded to eligible organizations,
i.e., local, not-for-profit corporations producing or presenting visual
or performing arts in the City of Miami Beach. Since its inception, the
Miami Beach Cultural Arts Council has awarded the following grants:
1998-1999--awarded to 55 groups............................... $509,000
1999-2000--awarded to 56 groups............................... 585,000
2000-2001--awarded to 58 groups............................... 958,000
The Council has also succeeded in securing outreach opportunities,
including 2 PBS documentaries on Miami Beach culture, with an estimated
6-year worldwide audience of 550 million viewers.
Another key component of the Miami Beach cultural scene is the
Miami Beach Arts Trust, a not-for-profit corporation created by the
City of Miami Beach Cultural Arts Council in 1999. The Arts Trust
supports the work of the Cultural Art Council by working to build a
financial endowment for the arts in Miami Beach. The City has also
entered into a contract to purchase an old movie theater in the North
Beach area of town for a $7 million renovation project that will
transform it into a cultural center.
In 2000, the Cultural Arts Council began a monthly Miami Beach Arts
Night called ``Second Thursdays''. This is a free celebration of the
arts on the second Thursday of every month from 6 to 9 pm in many
different locations throughout Miami Beach, and including performances
by the majority of the City's arts groups. After only seven months,
this series has generated extensive local coverage and has also had
national and international reach, including the Sunday New York Times.
Educational institutions are also an important part of the City's
cultural scene, as illustrated by Florida International University's
partnership with the Wolfsonian Museum. The City of Miami Beach has
placed high priority on development of the arts through educational
institutions, not only at the university level, but in primary and
secondary education as well.
The cultural arts played a key role in the development of Miami
Beach's South Beach area into an international economic phenomenon. The
creative atmosphere the arts established in the City made Miami Beach
the ideal location for multi-national entertainment companies when they
looked to expand their operations into the America's. The City is now
houses over 135 entertainment industry firms, including the Latin
American headquarters of companies such as Sony, MCA, MTV, Nickelodeon,
Elite Models, ASCAP, and LARAS, the Latin American operations of the
NARAS, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. Along with
the renourishment of the City's beaches and the redevelopment of the
Art Deco Historic District, the development of the arts was one of the
most important ingredients that led to South Beach's re-emergence as
one of the nation's most important international tourist destinations.
A recent study conducted by the Economics Department of Florida
International University established that the Performing Arts provide
Miami Beach with the highest economic impact multiplier of all sectors
studied, meaning that more money is funneled through the local economy
per dollar invested into Performing Arts than any other sector. The
challenge for cities such as Miami Beach, is providing a large enough
investment from which the City can receive the biggest ``bang for the
buck.''
Miami Beach is a leader in the continued role that the State of
Florida plays to insure that the United States remains competitive in
the international economy, not only in the arts and tourism, but in all
sectors, especially as South Florida, with Miami Beach at its
epicenter, emerges as the Capital of the Americas. In order to help
maintain Miami Beach's role in the 21st Century, the continued
investment in quality cultural activities is necessary. To this end,
the City of Miami Beach is requesting a federal $1.5 million commitment
to the City's efforts to support programming and training opportunities
for performing and visual arts organizations in Miami Beach, and to
support local museum and educational initiatives.
ATLANTIC CORRIDOR GREENWAY NETWORK
The City of Miami Beach exists as an eight mile long chain of
barrier islands that is separated from the mainland of Miami-Dade
County by the Biscayne Bay Marine Estuary. The historic and scenic
Indian Creek Waterway system snakes its way through the chain of
islands. Miami Beach was settled in the late 1800's as a farming
community. Just after the turn of the century, entrepreneurs recognized
the area's potential and launched the development of a resort
community. The result was a development boom which reached its peak in
the 1930's & 40's and established Miami Beach as the number one beach
tourism destination in the world.
The post-war prosperity of the 1950's brought on a vast expansion
in the development of single family homes and lower density multifamily
residential facilities to Miami Beach. By the time changes in world
economic conditions brought new development in Miami Beach to a halt in
the 1960's, the City of Miami Beach was a completely developed
metropolitan area. The area remained in economic doldrums until the
mid-1980's when Art Deco revival and a resurgence in beach tourism
ignited a wave of redevelopment that has eclipsed any previous period
of development in Miami Beach history. This resurgence in development
has also brought on major changes in both Miami Beach's population
demographics and traffic patterns. Since 1980, the median age of Miami
Beach residents has dropped from 65 to 44 years old. During that time,
approximately 25 percent of the City's hotel and apartment facilities
that historically catered to the City's retiree and seasonal visitor
populations, were converted to condominiums occupied by permanent
residents. Unfortunately, with this explosion of year-round residents,
the creation of parkland within the City for these individuals was
vastly overlooked.
Through the development of the Atlantic Corridor Greenway Network,
the City of Miami Beach is creating a regional system of parkland which
will interconnect key intermodal centers, area business districts,
cultural/tourism centers, residential neighborhoods, parking
facilities, schools and the beaches. The Network will be comprised of a
citywide system of bicycle/pedestrian accessways, enhanced public
transit facilities, expanded Electrowave electric shuttle service and
innovative regional parking improvement programs.
The system of bicycle/pedestrian trails will be created to provide
continuous, multi-purpose public access corridors throughout the City.
The access corridors will be developed as Greenways or linear parks
which will snake their way along the City's beaches, waterways and
natural ecosystems with connections to residential areas, resort areas,
business districts, civic centers, transit sites and parking
facilities. Rest areas, vista areas, waterway access facilities, and
interpretive signage will be interspersed throughout the greenways to
provide enhanced heritage and ecotourism amenities and recreational
opportunities for park and trail users.
By connecting the Greenway trails with improved transit sites in
strategic residential areas, employment centers and regional parking
facilities, the Network will encourage greater utilization of public
and alternative modes of transportation for daily commuting.
Furthermore, these new park lands will encourage new economic
development in Miami Beach by reducing the concurrency restrictions
currently limiting new development and by increasing local business
utilization by residents and visitors.
Local government has already made a substantial investment in the
development of the Atlantic Corridor. To date, the City has obtained
more than $12,000,000 in project funding, completed the design and
permitting of more than 3.5 miles of the Network's trails, and will
complete the construction of the first 2.5 miles of trail in fiscal
year 2001/2002. If approved, this $3,200,000 appropriation request will
allow the City to complete the development of a series of residential
parkways, which will directly link the City's key residential areas
with regional employment centers, transit facilities and the Citywide
trail network.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History
ABOUT THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
The American Museum of Natural History [AMNH] is one of the
nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and public
education. Since its founding in 1869, the Museum has pursued its
mission to ``discover, interpret, and disseminate--through scientific
research and education--knowledge about human cultures, the natural
world, and the universe.'' It is renowned for its exhibitions and
collections of more than 32 million specimens and cultural artifacts.
With nearly five million annual visitors--approximately half of them
children--its audience is one of the largest, fastest growing, and most
diverse of any museum in the country. More than 200 Museum scientists
conduct groundbreaking research in fields ranging from all branches of
zoology and paleontology to earth, space, and environmental sciences
and anthropology. Their work forms the basis for all the Museum's
activities that seek to explain complex issues and help people to
understand the events and processes that created and continue to shape
the Earth, life and civilization on this planet, and the universe
beyond.
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 research
fellowships, and offers talented undergraduates an opportunity to work
with Museum scientists.
In its exhibition halls AMNH scientific knowledge and discovery are
translated into three dimensions. One of the most exciting chapters in
the Museum's history culminated just over one year ago with the opening
of the Rose Center for Earth and Space in February 2000. Greeted with
critical and popular acclaim and record-setting attendance surpassing
all projections, the Rose Center includes a rebuilt Hayden Planetarium,
Hall of the Universe, and Hall of Planet Earth. It leads to the Hall of
Biodiversity, which reveals the variety of Earth's living things and
expands the Museum's efforts to alert the public to the critical role
biodiversity plays in sustaining life as we know it. 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 Education Department builds on the Museum's unique research,
collections, and exhibition resources to offer rich 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. Each year hundreds of thousands of
students, teachers, and schools participate in workshops, courses for
college credit, and Museum visits; more than 500,000 students and
teachers visit on school trips, prepared and supported by curriculum
resources and workshops. The Museum is also reaching beyond its walls:
through its National Center for Science Literacy, Education, and
Technology, launched in 1997 in partnership with NASA, it is exploiting
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 provide scientists with ready
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 which inform scientists about natural groups of organisms. The
collections are also the source of the extraordinary ``Spectrum of
Life'' exhibit in the 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 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
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, field journals, photos and drawings, 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 collections and
holdings, the Museum serves as custodian of one of the most important
records of life on earth. 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, exhibit, and
education for generations to come. New technologies now allow the
collections' reach and power to be increased exponentially. Digital
imaging, electronic cataloging, and databasing can make it possible for
the first time for researchers, no matter where they may physically be
located, to access and study AMNH holdings.
The Museum has a demonstrated record of success in leading
preservation and access practices. The Anthropology Department, for
example, is nearing completion of a 25-year collection storage upgrade.
Scheduled for completion in 2002, this upgrade will ensure that the
artifacts are protected and stored for study by generations to come.
The Department is also completing an initiative in which a database of
digital images of objects in all of the Anthropology collections will
be linked to catalog and accessions information. Supported by the
National Endowment for the Humanities, this project will give scholars
everywhere greater access to the Museum's unique cultural collections.
The Library is engaged in an ambitious 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 these resources 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. Museum departments
have recently moved into a new nine-story Natural Science Building.
This facility significantly increases 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.
BIOLOGICAL COLLECTION STORAGE UPGRADE AND DIGITIZATION PROJECT
With the successful Anthropology project nearly complete and to
guarantee the entire collections' preservation and access, the Museum
must turn its focus to critical upgrading of other storage facilities
and to digitizing its biological collections. The IMLS has a
distinguished history of supporting cutting edge collection and
technological practices.
Collection Storage Facilities
Collections preservation and access are top Museum priorities. The
Museum's collections are the core 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 preserve tissue samples for future DNA study.
We seek support in fiscal year 2002 to continue to improve our specimen
and library collection storage facilities so that we may preserve and
protect the integrity of our specimens and artifacts for years to come.
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. They provide enormous amounts of object-
associated information, such as locality, age, conditions under which
objects were collected, etc. This information then becomes the raw data
in whole new fields like Geographical Information Systems and distance
learning. Indeed, if properly digitized and databased, this object-
associated data allow more sophisticated questions to be asked of the
collections, more flexible use of specimen data and images in remote
learning, and more access and accessibility worldwide; such data also
provide for more efficient and critical care of these important
international resources. The Museum therefore would like to expand its
digitizing and databasing efforts into a comprehensive database, with a
web front end for worldwide general audience access, to allow digitized
specimens and field data to be searched across many fields.
Comprehensive digital imaging and electronic cataloging of collections
will allow the Museum readily to share our resources with a national
and international audience. Detailed digital renderings would also
provide 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. We seek support in fiscal year 2002
to develop and expand, in partnership with IMLS, our leading
digitization initiatives.
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. IMLS has a distinguished history of
supporting cutting edge collection practices and technology
applications. The American Museum of Natural History [AMNH] seeks
$1,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 to partner with IMLS to provide
leadership in collection practices and to serve as a national model in
improving public access to museum and library resources through
technology.
______
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Prepared Statement of the Northern Forest Alliance
The Northern Forest Alliance is a coalition of more than 40 state,
regional and national organizations dedicated to the protection and
stewardship of the 26 million acre Northern Forest which spans northern
New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. Together we represent the
interests of more than one million people. On behalf of the Alliance, I
am submitting testimony in strong support of a significant increase in
funding for the Forest Legacy Program to at least $100 million, and for
full funding of the state and federal components of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF), consistent with the pledge made by President
Bush.
The Northern Forest is the largest remaining continuous wild forest
East of the Mississippi. Its 26 million acres blanket Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont and New York and hold the headwaters of all of the
Northeast's greatest rivers and the mountains, lakes and forests that
define the northeastern region of the country. It provides economic and
environmental benefits that go well beyond state lines.
A decade of important conservation achievements have set the stage
for addressing the challenges that threaten the landscape, culture and
communities of the Northern Forest. This vast forest is facing a time
of extraordinary transition: over the past year more than five million
acres of mountains, rivers, lakes, ponds and woodlands have changed
hands including more than 20 percent of the entire state of Maine and
vast tracts in Vermont and the Adirondacks. Land sales of this scale
speak to deep forces for economic and social change that will have a
defining impact on the future of the region. Unless we act now to
conserve the vast unfragmented forests that underpin our economy and
way of life, the region and country will lose an irreplaceable resource
of national significance--the last and largest wild forest in the East.
Given the scale of these projects, it is clear that federal assistance
to the states, through robust programs such as Forest Legacy and a
fully funded Land and Water Conservation Program, will be essential to
realizing the opportunity before us.
THE CASE FOR SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE FOREST LEGACY
PROGRAM
In recent years the number of compelling projects in need of
funding under the Forest Legacy Program, along with its popularity, has
grown exponentially. A major reason for the success of the program is
that the conservation mechanisms available under the program are well
suited to private land conservation needs of the 21st century, with the
flexibility to utilize easements or full fee acquisition as
appropriate. The program enables landowners to retain ownership of
their land and continue to earn income from it; conserves open space,
scenic lands, wildlife habitat, and clean water; and ensures continued
opportunities for outdoor recreational activities such as hunting,
fishing, and hiking. In addition, with its minimum requirement of 25
percent non-federal matching funds, the program leverages state and
private dollars to complement federal money, creating partnerships that
have lasting value.
Authorized by Congress in 1990, the Forest Legacy Program helps
preserve threatened forestlands and protect critical resources. As our
population grows and land values rise, many private forests are in
danger of overcutting and conversion to housing subdivisions or second-
home development. The United States loses more than half a million
acres of privately-owned timberland to development each year. These
changes are impacting the economic integrity of our forest-based
communities, and they are also limiting the amount of recreational open
space and critical wildlife habitat we all enjoy. The Forest Legacy
Program, administered by the U.S. Forest Service through grants to
states, provides a mechanism and a small pot of federal funds for
protecting forestland and the multiple benefits these lands provide. It
is increasingly apparent, however, that the modest funds historically
provided for this program, despite the significant increase in fiscal
year 2001, is inadequate to meet the enormous current and future
projected demand.
The Forest Legacy Program must be funded at a minimum of $100
million annually on a dependable basis to meet the nation's need for
conserving large tracts of forest with a variety of tools, including
easements and acquisition. Legacy is an essential tool in land
conservation because it enables a public/private partnership for
protecting the many public benefits of large tracts of forest land.
FOREST LEGACY FUNDING IN THE NORTHERN FOREST
It is clear that Forest Legacy will play a central role in
completing the emerging conservation projects in the Northern Forest.
Several of these projects are largely completed, and speak to the
unqualified success of Forest Legacy when adequate funds are available.
These projects include:
--Nicatous Lake, Maine.--A 22,000 acre project surrounding Nicatous
and West Lakes, with easement terms that prevent harvesting
along the 36-mile shoreline but allow it on the forested
backland. The landowner, the Robbins Lumber Company--a family-
owned, fifth-generation sawmill company--continues to harvest
the white pine for its sawmill, while Champion International
has the rights to harvest the remaining hardwoods.
--Pond of Safety, New Hampshire.--A 1,200 acre project sandwiched
between the northern and southern segments of the White
Mountain National Forest. Here a Forest Legacy easement
prevented the necessity of expanding the National Forest
boundary. The landowner, Hancock Timber Resources, opted to
sell the property outright. The fee portion was sold to the
town of Randolph while a Forest Legacy easement was granted to
the State of New Hampshire. Randolph will harvest the timber to
generate local revenues, while the easement to the state will
ensure that this unique tract remains undeveloped--thereby
maintaining the historic recreation and scenic attributes that
distinguish the White Mountains. The net result is that the
effort will keep the local economy strong in two ways: first
through direct timber revenues and second by providing
continued recreational access to the White Mountains.
Yet a great deal remains to be accomplished. Below is a small
sampling:
--West Branch Project, Maine.--An ambitious and unprecedented project
to conserve 656,000 acres along the West Branch of the
Penobscot River in the heart of Maine's North Woods, this
public-private undertaking will prohibit development, preserve
traditional public access, and allow continued commercial
forest management, while protecting precious ecological,
recreational and scenic resources. The Forest Legacy Program
was instrumental in securing phase I of this project in fiscal
year 2001, but the all important Phase II will safeguard such
remarkable features as the headwaters of the St. John River,
the West, South and North Branches of the Penobscot River and
other shore, mountain and ecologically significant areas.
--The International Paper Lakes.--Bordering the Whitney/Lake Lila
Wilderness Area, in the Oswegatchie Wildland, are miles of
forested tracts containing numerous lakes and historic canoe
routes, long closed to the public. 26,500 acres, still owned by
International Paper, are an excellent candidate for state
acquisition of the Forest Preserve or a sustainable forestry
easement.
--West Mountain, Vermont.--The 22,000 acres of the West Mountain
Wildlife Management Area comprise a truly wild place of rare
plants and tranquility, deep within Nulhegan Basin. It provides
critical habitat for bear, moose, and bobcat, loons and bald
eagles, and is a great draw for outdoor enthusiasts. Protecting
remaining inholdings in this special place through the Forest
Legacy program is the key to building a strong future for
nearby Northeast Kingdom communities such as Island Pond, Burke
and Bloomfield.
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS
The Forest Legacy Program offers the opportunity for the federal
government to work in partnership with states, local communities and
private landowners to ensure that the multiple benefits found on forest
lands--economic sustainability, wildlife habitat protection, and
recreational opportunities--are secured for future generations. Since
its inception, the program has proven extremely popular but unable to
meet the demand across the nation. In fiscal year 2001, 22 states
submitted funding requests for almost $120 million in Forest Legacy
funding to help protect almost 1 million acres of private forestlands
valued at almost $245 million. Yet only half of the $120 million was
appropriated. In addition, several other states are planning to enroll
in the program in the near future, increasing the demand for funding.
States currently enrolled in the Forest Legacy Program are:
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico. Several other states are currently developing plans for
enrollment in the program or considering beginning the planning
process.
Congressional support for the program has grown at the same rate,
with funding levels increasing from $7 million in fiscal year 1999 to
$30 million in fiscal year 2000 to the current level of $60 million in
fiscal year 2001. Even at this level, however, several properties being
offered for protection by willing landowners and states through the
Forest Legacy Program could not be fully funded and will have to be
carried over to the following year. The Northeast in particular has an
abundance of worthwhile projects and documented needs for Forest Legacy
funding which will go unmet unless Forest Legacy is significantly
increased or other sources of funding are identified.
Given this documented and growing need, the Forest Legacy Program
must be funded at a minimum of $100 million annually on a dependable
basis to meet the nation's need for conserving large tracts of forest
with easements. Legacy is an essential tool in land conservation
because it enables a public/private partnership for protecting the many
public benefits of large tracts of forest land. It is clear that Forest
Legacy will play a central role in completing the emerging conservation
projects in the Northern Forest.
FULLY FUND THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
We strongly urge Congress and the Administration to fulfill the
promise made to the American people 35 years ago and fully fund the
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Last year more than 5,000 organizations representing a wide
spectrum of American interests, including all 50 Governors, signed
letters and petitions to Congress to approve the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act, which provided full funding for the LWCF. Sixty-seven
senators sent a letter to the Senate Majority Leader asking him to
bring CARA to the floor for a vote, and the House of Representatives
approved CARA overwhelmingly. A fully funded and revitalized LWCF would
serve the people and communities of the Northern Forest and the country
well. This well-tested, but often neglected program has an impressive
legacy and has been responsible for the acquisition of nearly seven
million acres of open space and the development of more than 37,000
parks and recreation projects.
People and policy makers across the Northern Forest and surrounding
states have spoken clearly to the urgent need to take action to protect
threatened forests. As land sales change the ownership landscape across
the Northern Forest, residents, elected officials, community leaders
and conservationists are coming together to identify the next wave of
opportunity for conservation. Rather than be blind-sided by mega sales
and unwanted development, people across the region are assessing what
is most important to them, their communities, and their way of life.
In response, the states have delved into their limited financial
resources to provide funds for critical conservation: Maine voters
recently approved a $50-million bond for land conservation, which must
be matched by another $25 million investment; New York has allocated
hundreds of millions of dollars for conservation through its
Environmental Protection Fund and its Clean Water, Clean Air bond;
Vermont provides a continuous stream of funding through its Housing and
Conservation Trust Fund; and New Hampshire is on the verge of creating
a new state program for protecting threatened lands.
Without a new partnership with the federal government, however,
even these landmark state funding programs cannot meet the conservation
challenges in the Northern Forest. Millions of acres of forest, clean
rivers, and pristine lakes need to be protected in this most densely
populated part of our country. We are poised now on the cusp of an
historic opportunity to protect the cherished landscape of the Northern
Forest, a mainstay of the economy, ecology and culture of the
Northeast. Full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund is a
critical component in assuring the success of the decade long struggle
to achieve a sustainable future for the Northern Forest.
We challenge Congress to fully fund the Land & Water Conservation
Fund at $900 million annually; to meet documented conservation need now
and in the future.
Mr. Chairman, as we begin the 21st Century we are faced with an
historic opportunity to conserve places of extraordinary natural and
public value. The work of protecting and caring for these special
places must be a partnership that engages government, businesses and
non-profit organizations. But federal funds, leadership and expertise
are a critical element of this partnership. We urge the continued
commitment of Congress to work with the people of Maine, Vermont, New
Hampshire and New York to protect these irreplaceable resources. Thank
you for considering our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Conservation
Districts
The National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) 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. They work with nearly two-and-half
million cooperating landowners and operators--many of them forestland
owners--to provide technical and other assistance to help them manage
and protect private forestlands in the United States. In achieving
their mission to coordinate and carry out all levels of conservation
programs, districts work closely with USDA's Forest Service (FS) and
state forestry agency programs to provide the technical and other help
landowners need to plan and apply complex conservation treatments.
On behalf of America's conservation districts, I am pleased to
provide our recommendation on selected conservation programs carried
out through the U.S. Department of the Interior and through the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service. Conservation districts
are actively involved in many states in the Forest Service's State and
Private Forestry (S&PF) programs and consider those to be top
priorities for private lands conservation. To that end, we are asking
for increases in some of the S&PF budget items. Our request includes
funding for our Private Forest Lands Fire Protection Initiative
(PFLFPI), an effort to have the National Fire Plan draw more
effectively on the capabilities and resources of conservation
districts. Our specific recommendations include:
--$35 million increase in fiscal year 2002 for the Community and
Private Lands Fire Assistance Program in the National Fire Plan
to fund the PFLFPI to be allocated as described below;
--a $21 million increase over fiscal year 1901 in the Forest
Stewardship Program;
--a $15 million increase over fiscal year 1901 in Urban and Community
Forestry; and
--an $18 million increase over fiscal year 1901 in the Stewardship
Incentives Program.
USDA FOREST SERVICE--STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY
The National Fire Plan is a program in which conservation districts
can be key players in the delivery of this federal initiative and its
companion state efforts. We believe that the plan would benefit greatly
if it took advantage of the local, on-the-ground experience of
districts and their access to landowners and communities. A quick
survey of the Western states and others across the country has shown
that conservation districts are ready and willing to be involved in the
National Fire Plan. We are calling our national effort the ``Private
Forest Lands Fire Protection Initiative.''
NACD is concerned that the overall funds made available in the
National Fire Plan currently are not benefiting from the local, on-the-
ground access to landowners and communities. Current efforts are not
gaining from districts' knowledge of local landowners, community
resources and conservation needs. The nation's conservation districts,
as partners with the key state agencies working on this effort, have an
enormously important contribution to make. For this reason, we urge the
subcommittee to include the following in report language accompanying
its fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill supporting the National Fire
Plan:
``The Committee expects the USDA Forest Service to work closely
with the nation's conservation districts to help implement a wide range
of actions in the National Fire Plan, including fuels reduction, market
development and community assistance.''
In addition, we recommend that the subcommittee provide $35 million
for the Community and Private Lands Fire Assistance Program as part of
the National Fire Plan. We request that these funds be allocated as
follows: (1) $15 million for hazardous fuels reduction; (2) $9 million
for community planning for long-term fire protection of these
resources; (3) $11 million for multi-resource stewardship planning to
ensure that hazardous fuels reduction is accomplished according to
sound conservation principles.
State, local and tribal governments, and private individuals own
nearly two-thirds of the forested land in the United States. Since
these lands are managed by millions of individuals with diverse goals
and objectives, the Forest Service's Cooperative Forestry Programs are
critical in helping to maintain the health and ability of our nation's
forests to produce the values and products desired by the American
people.
The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) provides the technical
assistance for the development of Forest Stewardship Plans on non-
industrial private forestlands. It is intended to help 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. Cost-shared with the states, the FSP provides high quality
technical and stewardship planning assistance that enable landowners to
manage their lands for multiple use, while maintaining a robust forest
ecosystem. A recent survey of the Forest Stewardship Program found that
more than 80 percent of the landowners with plans are implementing them
and that 94 percent of the respondents would recommend the FSP to
others.
The number of landowners requesting assistance constantly outstrips
the ability to provide assistance. To expand assistance to the ever-
growing number of private, nonindustrial forestland owners,
conservation districts recommend funding the Forest Stewardship Program
at $50 million in fiscal year 2002. This roughly $21 million increase
over fiscal year 2001 levels is needed to reach out to more than the
six percent of landowners currently receiving these services.
Trees and forests are a vital component of healthy urban and
suburban ecosystems. The Urban and Community Forestry Program (UCFP)
provides 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 UCFP provides
technical support urban issues such as sprawl, fragmentation, wild land
and urban interface. It also provides leadership for state of the art
technology and grants to urban areas to improve quality of life through
tree planting and urban health initiatives. More than 8,000 communities
and 7,000 volunteer organizations participate in the program with
requests exceeding these numbers by a factor of eight.
Nearly one quarter--24 percent--of the conservation districts that
responding to an NACD forestry survey indicated that urban sprawl is a
key forestry issue and 21 percent said forest fragmentation needs to be
addressed. Further, recent satellite photography has shown a
significant loss of tree cover in several large urban areas such as
Atlanta and Washington, DC. To address these issues, conservation
districts recommend funding for Urban and Community Forestry at $50
million in fiscal year 2002--an increase of roughly $15 million over
current levels.
Overall, federal funding to assist nonindustrial, private
forestland owners in implementing sustainable forestry practices is
currently inadequate. The key Forest Service program to provide such
assistance, the Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP), has received no
funding in the last several years. Although the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) does provide some forestry cost-share
assistance, less than five percent of its funds are used to address
forestry issues.
Responses to the survey mentioned above indicate that 63 percent of
forestland owners who received cost-share assistance in the past would
not have accomplished their management objectives without the cost-
share. To include more forestland owners and increase the range of
benefits from well managed private forestlands, conservation districts
recommend funding SIP at $18 million in fiscal year 2002. The enclosed
table shows funding recommendations for other Forest Service programs
in which conservation districts are involved.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposes $450 million for
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) state grants and expands the
program to provide a new comprehensive approach to funding a wider
array of state recreation and conservation needs. The proposal gives
states flexibility to go beyond traditional recreational land
acquisition and development projects. Conservation districts support
fully funding the LWCF state grants and expanding eligible activities
to include protecting fish and wildlife habitat, conserving threatened
and endangered species, enhancing and restoring wetland ecosystems and
other conservation activities as determined in State Action Agendas
developed under the program.
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. Conservation
Districts have been major partners in the program, raising matching
funds and sponsoring more than 900 wetland restoration projects.
Since 1987, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFWP) has
worked with more than more than 20,000 landowners to restore nearly a
million acres of wetlands, native prairie, grassland and other upland
habitats nearly 3,000 miles of riparian and in-stream aquatic habitat.
More than 2,000 landowners are on waiting lists for assistance
under the PFWP. Conservation districts recommend raising the funding
level for the program to $37 million in fiscal year 2002 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. WCFSP is
designed to provide technical and financial assistance in conservation
planning, education, demonstration of innovative conservation
technologies and implementation of effective conservation measures.
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. Conservation
districts recommend funding the WCFSP at $20 million in fiscal year
2002.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
The Bureau of Land Management (BLML) manages more than 264 million
acres of land--about one-eighth of the U.S. land mass. The wealth of
natural resources on these lands will continue to face challenges and
expanded use as populations continue to grow in the Western United
States.
Two years ago, 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 additional forestry activities to maintain
and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, support species diversity and
produce other multiple forest benefits.
In spite of the availability of funding under FEHRF for projects,
BLM lacks the personnel necessary to plan and administer authorized.
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. Conservation districts recommend earmarking $1.6 million in
fiscal year 1902 to support the equivalent of 24 forestry positions to
plan and administer forest health improvement activities under FEHRF.
LOCAL AND PRIVATE CONSERVATION GRANTS
The President's budget proposal includes funding for two new
programs that provide landowner incentives to expand private lands
stewardship. The proposal provides $50 million for competitively
awarded cost-shared landowner incentive grants and $10 million for
private stewardship grants to support local, private and voluntary land
and wildlife conservation. While conservation districts strongly
support the voluntary, incentives-based concept underlying these
proposals, sufficient details are not yet available to allow us to make
specific recommendations.
OTHER RELATED AGENCIES
The Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP), administered by USDA's
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), addresses health, safety
and environmental hazards by partnering with state and local
governments to reclaim abandoned mine lands. However, over the past 20
years, only about 40 percent of the country's abandoned mine 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 intended 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, very little of those funds have been transferred in
the past four 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 2002.
On behalf of the nation's 3,000 conservation districts, we
appreciate the opportunity to provide our views on fiscal year 2002
funding recommendations for select USDI and related conservation
programs. We look forward to working with you over the next few months
in finalizing your proposals.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Professional Forestry
Schools and Colleges
The National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and
Colleges (NAPFSC) is comprised of the 67 universities that conduct the
Nation's research, teaching, and extension programs in forestry and
related areas of environmental and natural resource management. Many
NAPFSC schools work in close partnership with the USDA Forest Service
research program through extramural contracts and cooperative
agreements.
NAPFSC's testimony will focus on a couple of issues. First, we
would like to make some specific comments about the research planning
and priority setting process within Forest Service research. Second, I
want to reiterate NAPFSC's strong support for an increased focus within
the Forest Service research agenda on non-federal forest land issues
and the establishment of a competitive grants component within the
Forest Service research program.
forest service research, outreach planning and priority setting
The Forest Service should be commended for driving much of the
decision making about research priorities to the individual research
station level. The scientists and administrators at this level are much
closer to the ground and the needs of managers in the various federal
and nonfederal forests in the nation. This is important since there is
great variety in the forest and range lands of this country and since
many of the research needs vary from region to region-specific insect
problems in one region, different social and cultural patterns in
another region, wildlife needs that vary from one region to the next,
and so forth.
In an effort to improve Forest Service priority setting for
outreach and cooperative programs, NAPFSC encourages the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee to urge the Forest Service to improve the
functioning of the State and Private Forestry (S&PF) operations by
including the following language within the fiscal year 2002 Interior
Appropriations bill.
``The Committee directs the Forest Service to develop a plan within
90 days of the enactment of this bill to establish a S&PF Area Office
to deliver cooperative programs in the Western U.S. Further, the Area
Office should be co-located with a Forest Service regional office,
research station, or university forestry school. In addition, managers
direct the Forest Service to reestablish the Southeastern Area office
situated in Atlanta, Georgia.''
By including this provision within the subcommittee report, Members
will be establishing a western office based upon the model of the
Northeastern Area office. S&PF functions very efficiently and
effectively with the Northeastern Area office, but functions much less
efficiently in the Southeast and the Western regions. The language
would create similar direction, implementation, coordination, and
reporting in each region. Specific benefits would be:
--Recognition of the unique mission area of S&PF;
--An increase in the ability of stakeholders to participate in the
development of priorities and implementation of programs;
--Bring programs closer to stakeholders, and;
--Improvement in program efficiency, visibility, and communication in
each region.
One major concern NAPFSC has with the current process of priority
setting is that university research programs are often left out as the
Forest Service identifies and formulates research priorities, even
though in recent years between 8-15 percent of the research funds of
the Forest Service have been directly spent through university research
programs. Based upon our information, NAPFSC believes the percentage of
collaborative research between the Forest Service and universities has
been flat or may actually have declined in recent years, even though
Congress has urged that more Forest Service research dollars be spent
through extramural programs. NAPFSC commends the House Subcommittee for
the language included under Forest and Rangeland Research in the fiscal
year 2001 Interior Appropriations report calling for additional
collaboration: ``The Committee stresses the need for collaborative
research with land managing agencies, private and public forest
managers, and especially, universities.''--(pg. 74, H. Rept. 106-646)
We often find that the Forest Service research program is not
nearly as coordinated as it might be with university research
initiatives, possibly leading to sub-optimal allocation of resources.
At times, it seems the Forest Service is reluctant to bring university
partners into their planning early in the process, yet for the forestry
research enterprise to be effective and efficient, collaboration in
planning is absolutely necessary among these two major players in
forestry research. This is especially true where the Forest Service
needs the universities to carry out some of the research they have
planned. Two immediate benefits of such increased collaboration would
be greater emphasis on major research activities (providing more bang
for the same buck) and the building of larger research teams, thus
providing more scientists to attack specific problems from multiple
perspectives.
Greater inclusion of university scientists and administrators in
the Forest Service research priority setting process would also allow
universities to be more supportive of the proposals that come through
the Administration's budget. It has often been the case that we only
learn about new Forest Service initiatives after the budget proposal is
released. At this point it is past time to really influence priorities
and too late to build support for those where support is warranted. It
often is too late to consider a collaborative and more cost-effective
approach to the purely internal research program being proposed. It
also is too late for the Forest Service to gain the insight it could
use to develop an effective and efficient program of research that
builds on the total natural resource research capacity of the Nation.
We believe that the Forest Service can maximize the benefits of its
research dollars by increasing the share of its budget committed to
cooperative agreements with our nation's universities. We believe a
goal for these cooperative agreements of 15-20 percent of the Forest
Service research budget is achievable and would increase the overall
return on the research dollars appropriated to the Forest Service. We
urge the Committee to direct the Forest Service to ensure that such a
goal for collaborative efforts is met. We would suggest language such
as:
``The Committee is aware that reduced timber harvesting from public
forests has greatly increased the demands on the nation's private
forest lands as a source of wood and fiber. These same non-federal
lands are also under increasing pressures for recreation, wildlife, and
environmental quality. The Committee urges the Forest Service to
increase its research focus on private land issues, including forest
productivity, water quality, and sustained management, and to expand
its collaborative research efforts with the nation's forestry schools.
The Committee urges the Forest Service to ensure that at least 15
percent of its overall research budget is committed to such
collaborative research activities.''
the case for enhanced forestry research and outreach funding
The Bush Administration fiscal year 2002 budget calls for level
funding for Forest Service's Forest and Rangeland Research at $235
million, but cuts more than $33 million from the fiscal year 2001
funding level of $271 million for Forest Service State and Private
Forestry. NAPFSC urges the committee to at least provide level funding
for both of these important Forest Service research and outreach
programs.
The past, present, and future success of forestry research and
extension activities arising from the NAPFSC member institutions
results from a unique partnership involving federal, state, and private
cooperators. Federal agencies have concentrated on large-scale national
issues while state funding has emphasized applied problems and state-
specific opportunities. University research in contrast, with the
assistance of federal, state and private support, has been able to
address a broad array of applied problems related to technology
development and fundamental biophysical and socioeconomic issues and
problems that cross ownership, state, region, and national boundaries.
The 1998 Farm Bill and various subsequent reports and conference
proceedings have identified the need for greater attention on the
emerging issues confronting non-federal forest landowners. NAPFSC is
pleased to be one of the cofounders of the National Coalition for
Sustaining America's Nonfederal Forests. The founding of the Coalition
and its subsequent report emerged from a Forestry Summit held in 1999
that brought together key forestry leaders and landowners from across
the nation. The outcome of the Summit confirmed the need for increases
in forestry research funding focused on non-federal lands and for an
increase in collaborative efforts between university-based research and
the federal agencies. We urge the Subcommittee to see that these
congressional goals are achieved in future Forest Service research
agenda.
Tremendous strains are being placed upon the nation's private
forest lands by the combination of increasing demands for forest
products coupled with dramatic changes in timber policies concerning
our National Forests. Because of the changes in federal forest policy,
private forest lands in the United States are now being harvested at
rates not seen since the beginning of the 20th century. To meet this
challenge, research priorities must be adjusted to better address the
needs of private landowners, and to specifically enhance the
productivity of such lands through economically efficient and
environmentally sound means.
NAPFSC urges the creation of a new program entitled ``Technology
Transfer and Applied Research'' to forestry schools under the
Cooperative Forestry Program in the State and Private Forestry (S&PF)
budget. NAPFSC recommends the following language be included in the
Interior Appropriations fiscal year 2002 Subcommittee report:
``The Committee directs the Forest Service to create a Technology
Transfer and Applied Research (TTAR) line under the Cooperative
Forestry Programs in the S&PF budget and direct the S&PF staff to
establish criteria for a challenge cost share program by consulting
with forestry schools eligible to receive funds under the McIntire-
Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Act. Criteria may include cost
sharing, duration of funding, linkage to state forestry agency efforts,
linkage to basic and applied research conducted by the subject schools
or the USDA Forest Service Research and Development, addressing
critical state needs, and multi-school or multi-state cooperation.
General themes for this new line may be forest productivity, critical
forest management information and analysis, and forest fire, or they
may vary in consultation with the regions (Northeast, Southeast, and
West). Funds would be equally allocated between the three regions. This
Technology Transfer and Applied Research (TTAR) program is funded in
fiscal year 2002 at $5 million.''
While some of the funds from the various programs within the
Cooperative Forestry Programs find their way to forestry schools,
typically via state forestry agencies, there is no program that
specifically links S&PF with university forestry schools and the
considerable forestry school based research and technology transfer
capabilities and networks in those states and institutions. This new
program would establish such a link and would greatly strengthen
cooperation among S&PF, state forestry agencies, forestry schools,
industry, and non industrial forest landowners (via the numerous
university connections with these entities in states). The partnership
would provide an effective vehicle for technology transfer of research
results from USFS Forest Service Research and Development units. Also,
such a partnership and funding would greatly strengthen the targeting,
timeliness, and effectiveness of technology transfer and applied
research focused on state needs relating to stewardship, critical
information development and analysis, etc. This funding and link would
be a significant step in addressing the nonfederal forest land research
and information needs expressed in the recent report ``A National
Investment in Sustainable Forestry'' prepared by the National Coalition
for Sustaining America's Nonfederal Forests in June 2000.
Lastly, NAPFSC believes it is very important that this be funded
with additional funds to the Cooperative Forestry Programs. This new
line item should complement rather than compete with the existing set
of programs.
CONCLUSION
The needed investment for these programs is substantial, but the
potential returns are enormous and crucial to our society's future.
Disciplined and rigorous implementation of research on forestry issues
will contribute greatly to attaining our vision for America's
nonfederal forests for the future. NAPFSC urges cooperation at federal,
state, and University's levels to make this research and the vision it
will support a reality.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Environmental Law Center
The Southern Environmental Law Center is an environmental advocacy
organization focused on protection of the natural resources of the
southeastern United States. Among our highest priorities is the
conservation of healthy forest ecosystems within our region. Toward
this end, we work closely with a diverse set of ally organizations,
including the North Chickamauga Creek Conservancy, the Tennessee River
Gorge Trust, the Lula Lake Land Trust, Georgia Forest Watch, the South
Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and the Southern Appalachian
Forest Coalition (a regional coalition of 18 forest conservation
organizations in this mountain region). On behalf of SELC and these
partner organizations, I offer the following testimony in support of
funding the Forest Legacy Program of the U.S. Forest Service at a
minimum level of $100M, as well as full funding of the state and
federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As outlined
below, these programs are essential to the conservation of forestland
and other special areas in our region.
The above-mentioned conservation groups are active in the
southeastern states of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, a region with extensive, relatively
undisturbed forest lands and other natural areas. The magnificent mixed
hardwoods of the Southern Appalachian forests provide a focal point for
shared cultural, recreational, and natural heritage values from
Virginia to Alabama. Equally impressive is the extensive coastal plain,
which partially encircles our region from eastern Virginia through the
two Carolinas and across the southern stretches of Georgia and Alabama.
This coastal subregion also boasts its own cultural uniqueness and
special natural heritage, including extensive forested wetlands.
Linking the mountains and the coastal plain are the great river systems
of the Southeast, flowing down from the ancient mountains across the
intervening piedmont to the Atlantic, the Gulf and the Mississippi
River. Within each of these subregions, critical needs exist for
conservation efforts, which can only occur with significant federal
funding.
THE NEED FOR INCREASED CONSERVATION FUNDING
While ample conservation opportunities still exist here, the South
is under unprecedented development pressure due to rapid population
growth. The South (broadly defined from Maryland around to Texas) grew
by an impressive 17 percent during the 1990's,\1\ adding some 15M
people to reach a total population of 100M. This gain in population was
greater than any other region of the country over the past decade. At
the heart of this Southern growth are several of our southeastern
states, some of which grew at phenomenal rates: Georgia by 26 percent
and North Carolina by 21 percent, for example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Perry, Marc J. and Paul J. Mackun. ``Population Change and
Distribution: 1990 to 2000.'' U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census
Bureau. April 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This population growth, coupled with our sprawling land use
patterns, means that the Southeast is now experiencing a rapid
conversion of undeveloped land to urban and suburban uses. In a recent
study of land conversion nationwide, Georgia, North Carolina,
Tennessee, and South Carolina all ranked in the top ten states with
respect to the most land converted to developed uses in recent
years.\2\ Between 1992 and 1997, North Carolina lost 101,000 acres of
undeveloped land annually, Tennessee another 80,000 acres annually, and
South Carolina 72,000 acres annually. Many of the lost acres were
forestland, which is discussed below, in connection with the Forest
Legacy Program. These figures on population growth and rural land loss
indicate that the Southeast has an urgent need for conservation
dollars. If we cannot seize the current opportunities to conserve
undeveloped lands in our region in the immediate future, that
opportunity may well be lost forever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. ``Summary Report:
1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000)''. Table 2. p
21. 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conservation of these undeveloped areas has great significance
for the quality of life, economic health, and natural heritage of our
region. In several states, the tourism and recreation industry ranks
with the very top tier of industrial sectors in economic importance.
The viability of this part of our economy is largely dependent on the
maintenance of scenic beauty and open space, as well as wildlife and
aquatic habitat for hunting and fishing.
Investing in land conservation in this region is also extremely
important to the ecological diversity of our nation. The Southeast is
one of the two regions with the highest ecological community diversity
in the United States. Within the Southeast, the Atlantic and Gulf
coastal plains and the Appalachian highlands are the hotspots of
ecological diversity. These are also two of the areas most threatened
by current trends. For example, the recently completed North Carolina
Chip Mill Study \3\ found that 80 percent of bird species of
conservation concern, 95 percent of reptile species of conservation
concern and all amphibians of conservation concern on the North
Carolina coastal plain are projected to be negatively impacted by
forest trends over the next 20 years. Protection of our region's
natural forest ecosystems such as longleaf pine, forested wetlands and
mature hardwoods is crucial to maintaining the outstanding ecological
diversity in the Southeast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Cubbage, F., D. Richter, R. Schaberg and P.B. Aruna. Economic
and Ecological Impacts Associated with Wood Chip Production in North
Carolina. Southern Center for Sustainable Forests. 31 July 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
protect forest land through the forest legacy program
Forestland in the Southeast is, however, now at significant risk
due to the population growth and economic development of recent
decades. From 1992 to 1997, forests were the land use type most
commonly converted to developed uses.\4\ North Carolina is, perhaps,
being most adversely affected in terms of absolute numbers of acres
lost. This state lost 53,000 acres of forestland annually during the
most recent reporting period (1992-97) and 79,000 acres annually during
the previous reporting period (1987-1992). The rate of forest land
loss, however, is a particular concern in Tennessee where the number of
acres lost has recently (1992-97) jumped 13-fold from previous years
(1987-1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ USDA. ``1997 National Resources Inventory.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faced with these alarming trends, several southeastern states have
enrolled in the Forest Legacy Program, which has the statutorily
mandated purpose of conserving ``environmentally important forest
areas.'' 16 U.S.C. Sec. 2103c(a). Tennessee and the two Carolinas were
the earliest participating states from our region, with Virginia and
now Georgia joining the effort.
The initial projects in the Southeast testify to the importance of
the Forest Legacy Program in our region. Previously appropriated Forest
Legacy dollars have enabled several successful conservation projects.
For example, South Carolina wisely used its fiscal year 2000
appropriation of $1M for the purchase in fee simple of 571 acres
adjoining the spectacular Jocassee Lands, part of the Blue Ridge
Escarpment which stretches from the Chattooga River to the Mountain
Bridge Wilderness. In Tennessee, federal funding of $2.3M in fiscal
year 2001 is enabling the North Chickamauga Creek Watershed project to
move forward with acquisition of conservation easements on some 5,000
acres. These tracts are part of a 39,000 acres watershed in the fast
growing Chattanooga metropolitan area containing numerous endangered,
threatened and rare species as well as unique scenic and cultural
values.
In addition to these already initiated projects, significant
additional Forest Legacy opportunities exist throughout our region.
Some of these are truly ``once in a lifetime'' opportunities which are
related to the extensive disposition of forest industry lands which is
currently underway. The most recent Tennessee Forest Inventory and
Analysis indicates, for example, that the forest industry owned
approximately 10 percent of the forest land in that state, or some 1.4M
acres. According to a report by the Tennessee Forest Commission, this
ownership pattern is changing dramatically, with almost half a million
of those acres recently sold or currently up for sale.\5\ Similar
restructuring by the forest industry in other states is creating
additional, truly historic opportunities for public land acquisition
throughout the Southeast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Tennessee Forestry Commission. ``Tennessee Forest Industry
Lands.'' January 30, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific examples of worthy projects in need of immediate funding
through the Forest Legacy Program include the following:
--South Carolina.--Coastal Forest Ecosystem Restoration Initiative,
Phase II--$10 million for the acquisition of conservation
easements and fee simple rights on 22,000 acres along the Pee
Dee river, protecting black and red river swamps, near the
Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge. This project is particularly
significant given the alarming rate of loss of forested
wetlands in the Southeast in recent decades.
--Tennessee.--Tennessee River Gorge and North Chickamauga Creek
Watershed projects, including the Aetna Mountain and Gwynn
tracts, respectively--The first-mentioned tract is a 2,400 acre
area, partially abutting already protected lands, comprised of
mature upland forest dissected by deep gorges with mature cove
hardwoods. Acquisition of a conservation easement on the 3,400
acre Gwynn tract, adjoining the 26,000 acre Prentice Cooper
State Forest near Chattanooga, would provide conservation
linkage between these two ongoing land protection initiatives
in the North Chickamauga Creek and Tennessee River Gorge Forest
Legacy Areas. (Tennessee is requesting a total of $10.7M for 12
projects covering 8,735 acres in fiscal year 2002.)
--North Carolina--Shocco Creek.--$2.9 million for the fee simple
acquisition of 1283 acres of floodplain surrounding the only
stream known to contain two specific federally endangered
mussels. This is only 1 of 6 preliminarily identified projects,
totaling some $8.5M in Forest Legacy requests.
PROTECT SPECIAL PLACES THROUGH THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Also critical to conservation efforts in the Southeast is the full
funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. After an unfortunate
hiatus in needed support, last year's federal appropriation began to
revitalize this popular program. It should be fully funded in this and
coming years in order to take full advantage of important land
conservation opportunities in the Southeast and across the country. A
wide variety of projects (urban and rural, large and small) have been
identified through our six state region and enjoy support from diverse
constituencies, ranging from urban recreation users to backcountry
hunters and fishers.
While LWCF enables the states and multiple federal agencies to
complete many different kinds of projects, several proposed additions
to our public lands in the Southeast are especially noteworthy. While
our region is home to several of the most extensive National Forests in
the East, these lands tend to be highly fragmented. Accordingly, their
recreational, scenic and ecological values can be significantly
enhanced by acquisition of nearby parcels from willing sellers. A few
of the projects in need of immediate LWCF funding in our region, all of
which have been rated as national priorities by the Forest Service, are
provided here:
--Chattahoochee River (GA).--$2.7M--This 160 mile long buffer along
the river would protect forests and provide open space to
communities.
--Chattooga Wild & Scenic River/Watershed (GA/NC/TN).--$4.3M. This
river corridor traversing three states has been a long-term
national priority for watershed-based conservation efforts.
--Francis-Marion Forests & Wetlands (SC).--$7.0M. Additions to this
national forest on the coastal plain of South Carolina would
help complete a public land base generally known both for its
longleaf pine and low-lying wetland forests.
-- Lake James (NC).--$5.0M. These parcels on the fragmented, eastern
edge of the Pisgah National Forest enjoy strong local support
for public acquisition due to encroaching development.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the above-listed conservation
organizations from the Southeast strongly support both full funding for
LWCF and greatly increased appropriations for the Forest Legacy
Program. We appreciate this opportunity to acquaint you with the
significant conservation opportunities that exist in our region at
present as well as the urgent need for federal support to move forward
with protection of forestland and other special areas in the Southeast.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition
It is our pleasure to submit this testimony on behalf of the
Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition (SAFC), a collaborative alliance
of 18 conservation organizations working to protect the native forests
of the southern mountains from Virginia to Alabama. Our comments focus
on funding for the national forests of the Southern Appalachians, with
an eye toward conserving these biologically rich and much-loved public
lands. To accomplish that overarching goal, we ask that the following
steps be taken in the appropriations process for fiscal year 2002:
reduce timber sale subsidies for the u.s. forest service
Budget priorities and incentives that favor timber production over
other uses perpetuate management problems on the National Forests. Over
$1,200,000,000, or one third of the agency's budget request for fiscal
year 2001, is allocated for logging including outlays for timber sale
planning, timber management, road expenditures, and reforestation
activities. To put the timber budget in perspective, appropriations for
watershed, wildlife, and recreation programs combined comprise only 11
percent of the agency's budget.
Logging continues to damage forest ecosystems at great cost to the
American taxpayer. In 1998 alone, the Forest Service documented that
the timber program cost $125,900,000 more than the revenue it
generated. This is an underestimate, as the Forest Service's accounting
methods do not include all the costs associated with the timber
program. For instance, the annual Timber Sales Program Information
Reporting System (TSPIRS) excludes the payments the Forest Service
makes to counties based on timber sales on federal lands.
Even the U.S. Congress has acknowledged the problem of the money-
losing timber program. The Congressional Budget Office has produced a
report addressing this problem which can be viewed at ftp://
ftp.cbo.gov/27xx/doc2731/300.pdf. The report estimates the funds that
would be conserved in the federal budget if money-timber sales were
eliminated. Total savings over the period 2002-2011 would be an
astonishing $1,600,000,000 (relative to current appropriations, and
adjusted for inflation). The report notes the drawbacks of below-cost
timber sales: ``They may lead to reductions in the federal surplus,
excessive depletion of federal timber resources, and the destruction of
roadless forests that may have recreational value'' (page 2).
Meanwhile, Forest Service RPA data (1995) show that the economic
benefits of forests left intact for recreation are thirty times greater
than the economic value of forests harvested for their timber.
INCREASE FUNDING FOR LEGITIMATE RESTORATION SUCH AS ROAD
DECOMMISSIONING AND OBLITERATION, INVASIVE SPECIES, STREAMSIDE
REHABILITATION, SPECIES REINTRODUCTION, AND SIMILAR CONSERVATION
OBJECTIVES
While the timber program never lacks sufficient appropriations from
Congress, nontimber-related programs suffer for lack of adequate
funding. Funding for road maintenance and obliteration is an important
example. Over 433,000 miles of road criss-cross the National Forests.
The Forest Service estimates that 82 percent of these roads are not
maintained to modern public safety and environmental standards. The
agency estimates that there is an $8,000,000,000 backlog in
reconstruction and maintenance on these roads. Funding for road
maintenance, decommissioning, and obliteration are investments in
future dividends--in the form of improved wildlife habitat for species
that avoid roads (such as black bears)--and also are insurance against
degradation of water quality and fish habitat, since roads in poor
condition are a major source of sediment runoff into streams.
Wildlife and fisheries programs are also considerably under-funded.
A significant portion of the funds allocated to wildlife and fisheries
programs are devoted to assessing the impacts of extractive activities
on terrestrial and aquatic species. Because agency ecologists,
biologists, and hydrologists spend so much time predicting impacts from
extractive pursuits such as logging and mining, they often cannot work
proactively to improve and protect habitat. The Forest Service manages
more acres of freshwater fish habitat than any other agency. In
addition, almost 65 percent of all listed aquatic species in the U.S
occupy habitat on public lands. In order to accomplish true multiple-
use objectives we need to increase funding for activities that will
restore and enhance existing fish and wildlife habitat.
FULLY FUND THE FOREST SERVICE ROADS POLICY
The Road Management Strategy Rule and Policy was published in the
Federal Register on January 12, 2001. The overall emphasis of the new
strategy is to ``balance scientific information, public needs, safety
and environmental protection, and funding levels.'' The Strategy
proposes an important shift in emphasis from ``transportation
development'' to ``managing access within the capability of the land.''
It provides programmatic guidance for future management of the Forest
Service's road network; it does not make on-the-ground land management
decisions. Such decisions--e.g., how many miles of roads will be
decommissioned, and what road density standards or limits to road
construction should be observed in sensitive areas--will be developed
through the Roads Analysis Process, a key component of the new strategy
which will occur with input at the local forest level. This public
process will require adequate funding to be successful; please provide
full support for this important effort.
PROHIBIT FUNDING TO BUILD ROADS OR LOG IN ROADLESS AREAS, OR TO LOG OLD
GROWTH FORESTS
The Roadless Area Conservation Rule, established in January of this
year, enjoyed the greatest degree of public support in U.S. rulemaking
history. Over 1,500,000 Americans submitted comments favoring this
federal rule, which is awaiting implementation even as the President
urges the Justice Department to find ways to overturn it. The effort to
protect roadless areas goes back to 1926, when then-Chief William
Greeley directed the Forest Service to conduct the first inventory of
roadless areas. Please work to uphold the public's long-standing desire
to protect these last intact national forest areas from road building
and development.
The nation's last remaining old growth forests deserve similar
protection. According to a 1995 study by the US Department of
Interior's National Biological Service, less than 5 percent of the
lower 48 states' original old growth forests remain. In the Southern
Appalachians, that figure is smaller still. Even so, SAFC has supported
field inventories of remaining old growth forest in North Carolina that
are now accepted by our national forest planners. Old growth is
recognized as having great ecological and economic importance. These
forests act as repositories for genetic diversity, harbor medicinal
plants and potential new treatments for disease, provide critical
habitat for a great variety of wildlife, and are sources of drinking
water for downstream communities. What is more, economists understand
that preserving these incredibly beautiful forests contributes to the
high quality of life which draws new businesses--from recreation to
high technology--to rural communities, helping to diversify the local
economic base. If leading corporations including The Home Depot can
pledge to end use of old growth wood, isn't it time for federal
policies to bring an end to the destruction the last of the oldest,
tallest living things on earth?
EARMARK FUNDING FOR MAPPING AND INVENTORYING OLD GROWTH FORESTS ON
NATIONAL FOREST LANDS
Former Chief Michael Dombeck announced in January that the agency
is to complete old growth mapping and inventories as soon as possible.
His announcement validated a de facto old growth mapping effort that
has been ongoing on some of our region's national forests (the North
Carolina National Forests, and the George Washington and Jefferson
National Forests). The remaining Southern Appalachian national forests
need to join in. Adequate funding and direction from Congress to
complete this important work is critical now.
INCREASE FUNDING FOR LISTING ENDANGERED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT
(USFWS)
Each year Congress allocates some $200,000,000 on endangered
species conservation for over 1,100 listed species. Recent history
shows that the Endangered Species Program is grossly under-funded. A
1990 Department of Interior Inspector General's report emphasized this
funding shortfall, noting: ``It is obvious that the Service's [ESA]
mission cannot be fully accomplished at present funding levels.'' Last
year, the Service placed a moratorium on any new species listings,
citing a backlog in critical habitat designation and other required
functions for already-listed species.
In the last 10 years ESA funding needs have increased tremendously:
the number of listed species has doubled, increasing the need for
recovery planning, implementation, consultations, and monitoring. Yet
in that time, the funding for the program has shrunk. Under-funding the
program is a mistake that ultimately will have far-reaching effects. A
recent article in U.S. News and World Report found that nature provides
us with an estimated $33 trillion in services each year, including: (a)
crop pollination from insects, bats, and birds; (b) proceeds from
recreational fishing, wildlife and bird watching; (c) commercial uses
of wild fish and plants; (d) animals and insects controlling crop
pests; and more.
A fully-funded ESA is a more cost-effective ESA. With a program
that provides protection to species as soon as possible, we will be
able to catch species early in their decline before recovery options
have become limited and recovery costs have skyrocketed. For species,
funding means they will receive protection when they need it, rather
than at the last minute when chances of long-term survival are grim.
For landowners, as well as public land managers, full funding means
that the agencies can respond to their need for permit or consultation
more quickly, thereby avoiding costly and frustrating delays.
Endangered species funding is needed for:
--scientific assessments of wildlife populations
--buying important habitat areas in threat of development
--review of mining, logging, grazing, and other harmful actions
--recovery planning and on-the-ground conservation programs
--stopping illegal trade of endangered animals and plants
A century ago, your Congressional predecessors allocated ``a sum
not to exceed $5,000'' to ``investigate the forest conditions in the
Southern Appalachian Mountain region'' in the wake of rapacious
commercial timbering. It is to their credit that the subsequent report
by Secretary of Agriculture, James Wilson, led to the creation of the
first National Forests east of the Mississippi River and the natural
bounties we enjoy and depend upon today.
Similarly, it will be to your credit and the benefit of generations
to come if we are to address the issues cited above in a robust and
sustainable way. To do so will clearly require a sum far in excess of
what was spent back in 1901. Yet rest assured that funds appropriated
today toward the long-term health of Southern Appalachian forests will
return dividends in the next century just as great, ecologically,
socially and economically, as they were in the century past.
We thank you for this opportunity to comment, and wish you well in
your deliberations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Georgia Appalachian Trail Club
The Georgia Appalachian Trail Club is an organization with a
principal purpose of protecting, managing, and maintaining the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail, its associated side trails, and
other designated trails in the state of Georgia. As a part of the
protecting and managing function we sponsor programs to encourage the
responsible use of public lands by hikers and campers and encourage
observation of conservation ethics. We maintain the view that the
preservation of the experience of enjoying the Appalachian Trail
requires not only the protection of the trail corridor itself but the
entire north Georgia region. To promote our goal of protecting the
water, the plants, and wildlife in this area--all of which are
important to users of the Appalachian Trail--we work closely with the
Appalachian Trail Conference, Georgia Forest Watch, the Wilderness
Society, and a number of state and federal agencies having management
responsibilities for public lands in Georgia. As President of the
Georgia Appalachian Trail Club, I present this testimony in support of
funding the Forest Legacy Program of the US Forest Service at a minimum
level of $100M and the full funding of the state and federal sides of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The forests of north Georgia are some of the most magnificent
forests in the entire state. They also contain some of the most
biologically diverse watersheds in the United States, and indeed the
world. The Chattahoochee River originates on National Forest land and
provides drinking water for over four million people. The rivers and
forests not only supply drinking water but also supply recreational
opportunities for a rapidly expanding Atlanta population. The southern
terminus of the Appalachian Trail on Springer Mountain lies deep within
the Chattahoochee National Forest. Last year, the Chattahoochee
National Forest, including the trails in this forest, received over ten
million recreational visits, a number which rivals the twelve million
received by the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the most visited
National Park in the United States.
AN OPPORTUNITY AND A NEED
While ample conservation opportunities still exist here, north
Georgia is under unprecedented development pressure due to rapid
population growth. Georgia is now the 10th most populated state in the
country with nearly 6.5 million people. The South (broadly defined from
Maryland around to Texas) grew by an impressive 17 percent during the
1990's adding some 15M people to reach a total population of 100M. This
gain in population was greater than any other region of the country
over the past decade. At the heart of this Southern growth are several
of our southeastern states, some of which grew at phenomenal rates:
Georgia by 26 percent and North Carolina by 21 percent, for example.
This population growth, coupled with our sprawling land use
patterns, means that the Southeast is now experiencing a rapid
conversion of undeveloped land to urban and suburban uses. In a recent
study of land conversion nationwide, Georgia, North Carolina,
Tennessee, and South Carolina all ranked in the top ten states with
respect to the most land converted to developed uses in recent years.
Between 1989 and 1997, north Georgia lost over 90,000 acres of forest
and agricultural land to development. These figures on population
growth and rural land loss indicate that Georgia has an urgent need for
conservation dollars. If we cannot seize the current opportunities to
conserve undeveloped lands in our region in the immediate future, that
opportunity may well be lost forever.
The conservation of these undeveloped areas has great significance
for the quality of life, economic health, and natural heritage of our
region. The attractiveness and viability of this region is largely
dependent on the maintenance of scenic beauty and open space. Investing
in land conservation in north Georgia is also extremely important to
the ecological diversity of our nation. The Southeast is one of the two
regions with the highest ecological community diversity in the United
States. Within the Southeast, the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains and
the Appalachian highlands are the hotspots of ecological diversity.
These are also two of the areas most threatened by current trends. For
example, the recently completed North Carolina Chip Mill Study found
that 80 percent of bird species, 95 percent of reptile species, and all
amphibians on the North Carolina coastal plain are projected to be
negatively impacted by forest trends over the next 20 years. Protection
of our region's natural forest ecosystems such as longleaf pine,
forested wetlands and mature hardwoods is crucial to maintaining the
outstanding ecological diversity in the Southeast.
protect special places through the land and water conservation fund
Critical to conservation efforts in north Georgia is the full
funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It should be fully
funded in this and future years in order to take full advantage of
important land conservation opportunities. A number of projects have
been identified in our north Georgia area and these projects enjoy
support from diverse constituencies, especially campers, hikers and
fishermen.
While LWCF enables the states and multiple federal agencies to
complete many different kinds of projects, several proposed additions
to our public lands in Georgia are particularly noteworthy. While
Georgia is home to two of our National Forests in the East, these lands
tend to be highly fragmented and are under intense pressure from urban
sprawl. For example, the Chattahoochee National Forest in north Georgia
is one of only two national forests in the eastern United States
officially designated by the Forest Service as an ``Urban'' National
Forest. This designation was derived from the fact that the
Chattahoochee NF is within a short drive for over four million people.
Accordingly, their recreational, scenic and ecological values can be
significantly enhanced by acquisition of nearby parcels from willing
sellers. A few of the projects in need of immediate LWCF funding in our
state, all of which have been rated as priorities by the Forest
Service, are outlined below. In each of these situations progress has
been made toward the protection of these watersheds and ecosystems, but
additional specific properties must be acquired to adequately protect
these special areas.
--Springer Mountain/Appalachian Trail Corridor--$1.5M.--This mountain
is the southern terminus of the Appalachian Trail. A critical
property needed to protect the viewshed at this location has
been identified.
--Chattahoochee River (GA)--$2.7M.--This 160-mile long buffer along
the river would protect forests and provide open space to
communities.
--Chattooga Wild & Scenic River/Watershed (GA/NC/TN)--$4.3M.--This
river corridor traversing three states has been a long-term
national priority for watershed-based conservation efforts.
Plus, an additional $1.3M for tracts in the following areas:
--The Jacks River (GA).--These tracts are on the main tributary of
the Conasauga River, the most biologically diverse river in the
U.S., and home to 92 species of fish--species that rely on
unfragmented ownership to decrease ever-threatening non-point
source pollution.
--Mt. Yonah (GA).--One of Atlanta's favorite mountain playgrounds,
the purchase of this tract will expand the areas recreational
capacity and reduce impact to rare and fragile botanical areas.
--Etowah River (GA).--This tract will increase the buffer on one of
Georgia's most imperiled rivers. The Etowah is threatened by
urban sprawl and second-home development.
FUND THE FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM
We support the full funding of the Forest Legacy program in our
state. Georgia's draft Assessment of Need (AON) for Forest Legacy
funding resulted in the identification of six areas in Georgia that
could possibly benefit. These areas contain Georgia's most significant
watersheds and unbroken forested lands. The full funding of Forest
Legacy could result in as much as $500,000 this first year to purchase
Conservation Easements from willing sellers.
In summary and closing, Mr. Chairman, the Georgia Appalachian Trail
Club strongly supports both full funding for LWCF and greatly increased
appropriations for the Forest Legacy Program. We appreciate this
opportunity to acquaint you with the significant conservation
opportunities that exist in our state at present and how these
opportunities will support the protection and maintenance of the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail in Georgia.
______
Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Partnership for Eastern Forests
OVERVIEW
The Forest Legacy Program was created in the Farm Bill of 1990. The
program was designed to provide a new funding source and mechanism for
forest protection in the highly threatened forests of the eastern
United States. The eastern forests, and particularly the charismatic
Appalachian Forest, are at serious risk of permanent degradation and
fragmentation from the nation's most rapid rates of development and
timber harvest. Unlike the western United States, where many states
have as much as half of the land base in public ownership, eastern
forests are predominantly in private hands (84 percent) and
unprotected.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hertel, Gerard. ``The Eastern Non-industrial Private Forests''.
USDA Forest Service. 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management of these abundant private lands will become even more
important in future years. The Forest Service projects that timber
production from non-industrial private forestlands will increase by 64
percent over the next 50 years.\2\ As it stands now, eleven of the top
fifteen states in the nation for timber removals are in the eastern
forests.\3\ Almost two-thirds of the timber removals in eastern forests
are from the lands of non-industrial private landowners.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid.
\3\ USDA Forest Service. ``Net Annual Growth, Removals, and
Mortality of Growing Stock on Timberland in the United States by
Species Group, Region, Subregion, and State''. 1996
\4\ Hertel, ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development will also increase in this densely populated region.
The population is booming in states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, and
Massachusetts, leading to rapid development. From 1992 to 1997,
Pennsylvania and Georgia ranked number two and three nationally in
acres developed, over 1.7 million acres just between the two states.\5\
All trends suggest that this rate of forest and farmland conversion
will only increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. ``State Rankings
by Acreage and Rate of Non-Federal Land Developed''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Legacy Program can help right this balance by adding
some lands to public ownership while protecting other lands kept in
private hands through the use of conservation easements. The
flexibility of the Forest Legacy Program enables governments and land
managers to work harmoniously with local communities, crafting
conservation strategies that fit each individual situation.
The Forest Legacy Program also takes advantage of the impressive
commitment of states in the region to forest protection. States like
North Carolina, New Jersey, and Vermont have been aggressive in funding
protection for open space. Throughout the region states are setting
aside unprecedented new sums for protection of natural areas,
watersheds, and wildlife habitat. The Forest Legacy Program's matching
requirement of 25 percent for each project assures that federal money
from the program will be leveraged with state and private money for the
maximum impact.
LOOKING FORWARD
The Forest Legacy Program has historically been used to protect
forests in New England, with smaller sums going towards projects in
other states scattered across the country. However, as pressures on
forestlands have grown throughout the East, other states have hurried
to join the program. Although the overall program allocation has grown
somewhat, it has not increased quickly enough to keep up with overall
demand. The appropriation in fiscal year 2001 of 60 million dollars was
only half of the almost 120 million dollars in requests that came in
from the 22 states in the program.
Now even more states are joining the program, including states like
Georgia, Alabama, and Pennsylvania that have some of the nation's
highest rates of timber removals and development. The need for Forest
Legacy dollars will only grow more acute in the coming years.
The Forest Legacy Program requests for this year could easily reach
200 million dollars. In the Appalachian Forest and surrounding areas
alone there are over 125 million dollars in identified Forest Legacy
projects that would meet critical needs. Effective conservation of the
eastern forests, including priority areas like the Southern
Appalachians, Highlands, and Northern Forest, will require at least a
100 million dollar appropriation for the Forest Legacy Program in
fiscal year 2002.
SAMPLING OF FOREST LEGACY PROJECTS IN THE EASTERN FORESTS
Northern Forest Region
West Branch Project, Maine.--An ambitious and unprecedented project
to conserve 656,000 acres along the West Branch of the Penobscot River
in the heart of Maine's North Woods, this public-private undertaking
will prohibit development, preserve traditional public access, and
allow continued commercial forest management, while protecting precious
ecological, recreational and scenic resources. The Forest Legacy
Program was instrumental in securing phase I of this project in fiscal
year 2001, but the all important Phase II will safeguard such
remarkable features as the headwaters of the St, John River, the West,
South and North Branches of the Penobscot River and other shore,
mountain and ecologically significant areas. This project will require
$19,600,000 from Forest Legacy in fiscal year 2002.
The International Paper Lakes, New York.--Bordering the Whitney/
Lake Lila Wilderness Area in the Oswegatchie Wildland are miles of
forested tracts containing numerous lakes and historic canoe routes
long closed to the public. 26,500 acres, still owned by International
Paper, are an excellent candidate for state acquisition of the Forest
Preserve or a sustainable forestry easement. This project will require
$11,000,000 from Forest Legacy in fiscal year 2002.
West Mountain, Vermont.--The 22,000 acres of the West Mountain
Wildlife Management Area comprise a truly wild place of rare plants and
tranquility, deep within Nulhegan Basin. The area provides critical
habitat for bear, moose, and bobcat, loons and bald eagles, and is a
great draw for outdoor enthusiasts. Protecting remaining inholdings in
this special place through the Forest Legacy program is the key to
building a strong future for nearby Northeast Kingdom communities such
as Island Pond, Burke and Bloomfield. This project will require
$412,000 from Forest Legacy in fiscal year 2002.
Highlands Region
Sterling Forest, New York.--Sterling Forest is certainly one of the
most remarkable conservation projects in the history of the Appalachian
Forest. This large wildland of pure waters and interior forests just
miles from New York City is threatened by development. Despite the
incredible pressures to develop the land, a coalition of governments
and private interests has used the Forest Legacy Program among other
sources to begin to protect this special place. The ultimate result
will be enduring clean water supplies, wildlife habitat and
recreational opportunities for the nation's most densely populated
region.
Newark Watershed Lands (Phase IV), New Jersey.--This critical basin
in New Jersey contains one of the state's largest blocks of intact
forest. The effort to preserve this land has been a multi-year effort.
This phase includes 2,700 acres of land in West Milford and Rockaway
Townships to be secured with a conservation easement that secures
public access. The area is significant habitat for sensitive species
including the barred owl, red-shouldered hawk, and bobcat. This project
will require $5,000,000 from the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year
2002.
Lake Gerard, Hardyston Township, NJ.--The protection of the Lake
Gerard property has been of critical importance to the Trust for Public
Land, the State of New Jersey and a broad coalition of conservation and
municipal partners. The property, which is located within the Sparta
Mountain Greenway, a Highlands Coalition Critical Treasure Area,
includes nearly 2,000 acres of contiguous forest, pristine waterways
and critical wildlife habitat. Acquisition would provide a link between
Hamburg Wildlife Management Area and lands protected through NJDEP
easements within the Newark Pequannock Watershed. The Lake Gerard
property represents one of the finest large tracts of land in the fast
developing New Jersey Highlands region. The project will require
$4,000,000 from the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year 2002 to
protect 1,893 acres.
Southern Appalachian and Coastal Plain Regions
Coastal Forest Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, Phase II, South
Carolina.--This project involves the acquisition of conservation
easements and fee simple rights on 22,000 acres along the Pee Dee
River, protecting black and red river swamps near the Waccamaw National
Wildlife Refuge. This project is particularly significant given the
alarming rate of loss of forested wetlands in the Southeast in recent
decades. This project will require $10,000,000 from Forest Legacy for
fiscal year 2002.
Tennessee River Gorge and North Chickamauga Creek Watershed, TN.--
The 2,400 acre Aetna Mountain tract is a rich forest area partially
abutting already protected lands, comprised of mature upland forest
dissected by deep gorges with mature cove hardwoods. Acquisition of a
conservation easement on the 3,400 acre Gwynn tract, adjoining the
26,000 acre Prentice Cooper State Forest near Chattanooga, would
provide conservation linkage between these two ongoing land protection
initiatives in the North Chickamauga Creek and Tennessee River Gorge
Forest Legacy Areas. Tennessee is requesting a total of $10,700,000
from Forest Legacy for 12 projects covering 8,735 acres in fiscal year
2002.
Shocco Creek, North Carolina.--This project involves the fee simple
acquisition of 1,283 acres of floodplain surrounding the only stream
known to contain two specific federally endangered mussels. This
project will require $2,900,000 from Forest Legacy in fiscal year 2002.
SUMMARY
The projects listed for each region are just a sample of the
critical areas in the eastern forests at immediate risk from conversion
to non-forest uses. Full funding of all the Forest Legacy project
opportunities in any one of the three priority regions--the Northern
Forest, Highlands, and Southern Appalachians--would consume almost the
bulk of last year's 60 million dollar appropriation for the Forest
Legacy Program. As our need for forest conservation in the eastern
forests becomes more urgent, we must respond with increased funding for
land protection.
Looking ahead, the Forest Legacy Program will have to grow at a
rapid rate to continue to meet demand. Forest Legacy easements and
acquisitions will be a critical piece of achieving universal public
goals like preventing sprawl, protecting water supplies, and conserving
forest wildlife habitat. Remarkably, the program's inherent flexibility
has allowed us to achieve these goals without some of the conflicts
surrounding other land management schemes.
The densely populated eastern United States is deeply dependent on
these forests, as a source of clean water and air, wildlife habitat,
for recreational opportunities, and as an enduring economic engine.
Without a dramatic increase in funding for the Forest Legacy Program
and other land protection programs, we may lose the eastern forests
that are the source of life for rural and urban communities alike.
______
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
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, state
government agencies, and universities. 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 energy
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 2002
budget request as well as future funding requests should be guided by
the roadmap's R&D goals. The CURC is very pleased to see that this
Administration has recommended a significant increase in funding for
cost-shared clean coal demonstrations. The new Clean Coal Power
Initiative (a follow-on program to the Power Plant Improvement
Initiative that Congress began in fiscal year 2001), is a welcome
signal that there is a recognition of the need to conduct demonstration
scale projects to provide assurances to industry that a technology will
operate successfully at commercial (or near commercial) scale. In
addition, the Clean Coal Power Initiative demonstrates the President's
fulfillment of a promise he made during his campaign to initiate a 10-
year and $2.0 billion clean coal program. The proposed Clean Coal Power
Initiative is a welcome downpayment on that promise. The CURC supports
the $150 million requested by the President and urges the Congress to
grant the appropriations. It is exceedingly important, however, that
these funds be utilized judiciously.
As the Committee knows, the Department has yet to select proposals
from the on-going Power Plant Improvement Initiative. The CURC has
steadfastly advised that funding should be granted to proposals that
will demonstrate near commercial-scale applications of technologies.
Moreover, because these projects are likely to be large and costly, it
is anticipated that very few projects will be selected--providing
support for a great number of proposals may defeat the purpose of a
program designed to encourage commercial demonstrations. Appropriations
to initiate the Clean Coal Power Initiative should be similarly
directed; that is large scale, cost-shared projects should be
anticipated and the technology criteria should be ever more demanding
so that demonstrations in each subsequent year result in significantly
improved means to use coal.
While we enthusiastically welcome the new Clean Coal Power
Initiative, funding for this demonstration program should not be
accomplished at the expense of the Department's on-going coal research
and development program. These R&D programs are the means through which
the President's decade-long demonstration program will be successful.
It is the advancements that are made in research and development that
will ``feed'' better and better demonstrations. In several important
areas DOE's fiscal year 2002 budget request falls short and must be
increased.
The CURC has examined the proposed fiscal year 2002 funding levels
for several coal-based R&D programs against the timelines and
objectives outlined in the Roadmap. In order to achieve timely
technology development certain levels of funding must be maintained. By
reducing, or in certain cases, eliminating funding, it is our
contention that the technologies will not be developed in the
timeframes required to insure that coal remains a dominant contributor
to meeting the Nation's energy needs. 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--Proposed fiscal year 2002 $19.5 million; CURC
Recommendation: $23.5 million.--Advanced materials as well as basic
science are central to technology improvements and increased funding is
essential. CURC recommends that out of the funds included in this
year's budget request a focus be maintained on work to advance high
temperature heat exchanger materials, including novel alloys and
ceramics. These materials are essential to power plant efficiency
improvements. Of highest priority CURC recommends that $4.0 million in
additional appropriations be provided to this account so that a program
initiated by industry and government last year is continued over a
several year period. The initiative is a cost-shared research program
to develop new alloys for application in high temperature environments.
These materials are essential to supercritical and ultra supercritical
boilers if the promise of greater conversion efficiencies are to be
realized.
INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE (IGCC)--Proposed fiscal year
2002 $35.0 million; CURC Recommendation: $45 million.--Gasification of
coal is projected to be the primary means by which significantly
greater efficiency in energy conversion and emissions controls are to
be achieved long term. To insure that IGCC systems achieve the
technology and cost targets set forth in the CURC Technology Roadmap it
is essential that primary subsystems are developed in a timely fashion.
Two such subsystems are the coal feed and ash removal systems. The
recommended increase in funds should be utilized to accelerate work in
these two important areas. The CURC also recommends that within the
existing funding for this program DOE focus upon projects that will
monitor existing gasification/IGCC plants for environmental emissions,
especially trace elements. Funding should also be allocated for R&D on
multi-contaminate controls.
PRESSURIZED FLUIDIZED BED (PFB)--Proposed fiscal year 2002 $8.0
million; CURC Recommendation: $10.0 million.--The CURC supports the
continued development of PFB to insure that a variety of options by
which coal can be converted to useful energy are developed. However,
with limited funds, we have also concluded that an expanded R&D effort
in PFB is not warranted. It is recommended that the Department use the
increase in funds recommended for the PFB program to reorient this
program towards supporting combustion/hybrid systems. In succeeding
budget years, it is recommended also that the focus of this program be
shifted towards novel systems that that rely upon both combustion and
gasification to achieve high efficiency and emissions control.
TURBINES--Proposed fiscal year 2002 $0; CURC Recommendation: $15.0
million.--The turbines development program supported by industry and
the U.S. DOE has accomplished very significant improvements in turbine
technology of producing electricity from natural gas through their
leadership of the Advance Combustion Turbine System (ATS) program over
that last several years. Efficiencies of over 60 percent can be
practically achievable by as early as 2005 using technologies developed
in the ATS program.
DOE's Vision 21 goals present for coal-based technologies are
projected to achieve efficiencies of over 60 present by 2015. To
accomplish efficiencies that high will require combining coal
gasification with advanced fuel cell technologies still in the
development phase. Coal-based technology efficiencies can approach 50
percent by as early as 2010 if coal gasification can be combined with
ATS class turbines, an intermediate step toward the 60 percent
efficiency goal of 2015. However, before we can be certain that the ATS
class machines can operate on coal-derived gas, tests must be performed
by the turbine manufacturers. These tests are relatively low priority
for the turbine manufacturers at this time since their first goal is to
make sure that they can manufacture the machines and prove their
operation on natural gas. Industry needs an incentive or federal help
to increase the priority of testing these machines and related
componentry on coal-derived gas not natural gas. Since DOE currently
has the internal expertise to develop a test program for coal-derived
gas, it will be more cost effective in the long run to keep that
expertise and start the coal-derived ATS test program now rather than
try to re-build that expertise at a later date. A coal-derived gas
program will take 3 to 5 years to complete. If we wait until 2005 to
begin a test program, it may be too late to allow ATS class turbines to
enter the coal-gas market by 2010.
The most critical part of the coal-derived gas/ATS combination is
the uncertainty in the burner/combustor performance. Burner/combustor
performance, including life and environmental emissions cannot be
predicted by mathematical models--the manufacturers must perform real
tests on full-scale combustors. The $15 million recommended for fiscal
year 2002 will provide sufficient funds to begin resolving the most
important technical issues associated with burning coal-derived gas.
Additional issues may be discovered during that test program.
TRANSPORTATION FUELS AND CHEMICALS--Proposed fiscal year 2002 $7.0
million; CURC Recommendation $30.0 million.--A fundamental issue
regarding the future use of our Nation's vast coal resources is whether
a significant R&D program should be maintained to develop technologies
to convert coal to useful chemicals and clean transportation fuels. The
CURC Technology Roadmap supports the aggressive funding of R&D programs
conducted in cooperation with industry and the academic community to
convert coal to chemicals or ultra clean transportation stationary
fuels. The CURC does not support the dramatically reduced funding
requests in this area and we urge the Congress to restore, and
increase, funding for the coal to chemicals program as well as the coal
component of the ultra clean fuels program.
SEQUESTRATION R&D--Proposed fiscal year 2002 $20.7 million; CURC
Recommendation: $30.0 million.--The CURC agrees with the budget
increase to this program area over fiscal year 2001 and recommends an
additional $9.3 million so that actual field testing of promising
carbon sequestration approaches can be initiated. Also, concurrent with
sequestration R&D, analytical 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. To achieve the
goals set forth in the CURC Technology Roadmap within the timeframes
set forth a significant amount of funding for this program is required.
Without additional funding, the program will be constrained to a bench
scale exploratory effort.
INNOVATIONS FOR EXISTING PLANTS--Proposed fiscal year 2002 $18.0
million; CURC Recommendation: $21.0 million.--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. DOE is currently evaluating mercury and
NOX control concepts to establish mercury removal
performance, reduce the cost of mercury and NOX control, and
increase generation reliability. To maintain the current schedule and
meet EPA regulatory deadlines, this R&D 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 fine
particulate matter source apportionment need to be continued.
Evaluating the stability of HAPs captured in flue gas desulfurization
processes, on fly ash, in scrubber gypsum and the fate of mercury in
products made of these materials needs to be undertaken. 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.
Proposed funding in this area has been decreased by $3.0 million
compared to fiscal year 2001. It is important that at least level
funding be maintained in fiscal year 2002 and that the $3.0 million of
added funds be focused upon the areas outlined above.
REASONS FOR THE CURC RECOMMENDATIONS
A number of specific and recent events add to the urgency of these
recommendations. The dramatic increase in dependence upon imported
petroleum products and the likely continuation of that dependency
emphasizes the need for maintaining a variety of energy choices and
options. 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 accelerate 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 has been 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.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
California Ozone Study (CCOS) 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 2002 funding request of $1,000,000
for CCOS as part of a Federal match for the $8.7 million already
contributed by California State and local agencies and the private
sector. This request consists of $500,000 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 was conducted during
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:
--Developed the design of the field study
--Conducted an intensive field monitoring study from 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 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
$8.7 million for the field study. The federal government has
contributed $500,000 for some data analysis. In addition, CCOS sponsors
are providing $2 million of in-kind support. The Policy Committee is
seeking federal co-funding of additional $8.5 million to complete the
data analysis and modeling and for a future deposition study.
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
took place concurrently with the California Regional Particulate Matter
Study--previously jointly funded through Federal, State, local and
private sector funds. Thus, CCOS was timed to enable leveraging of the
efforts for the particulate matter study. Some equipment and personnel
served dual functions to reduce the net cost. From a technical
standpoint, carrying out both studies concurrently was a unique
opportunity to address the integration of particulate matter and ozone
control efforts. CCOS was cost-effective since it builds on other
successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Study.
Federal assistance is needed to address these issues effectively and
CCOS provides a mechanism by which California pays half the cost of
work that the federal government should otherwise pursue.
For fiscal year 2002, our Coalition is seeking funding of $500,000
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
is utilizing 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 2002, 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 involved with the 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.
______
Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association
This testimony pertains to the request for appropriations in fiscal
year 2002 by the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), for 3 specific, mission-
oriented, biomass research programs and part of the Bioenergy/
Bioproducts Initiative (Initiative) managed by EERE's Office of
Industrial Technologies (OIT). In addition to the Initiative, the 3
research programs are: The production of organic commodity chemicals
from biomass feedstocks in the Industries of the Future (Specific),
Agriculture Vision program; The development of advanced biomass
gasification processes in the Industries of the Future (Crosscutting),
Enabling Technologies program; and Advanced biomass technologies for
the forest and paper industries, Forest and Paper Products Vision
program. The Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA) recommends that
$36.1 million be appropriated for these high-priority biomass programs
in fiscal year 2002. A separate statement has been prepared and
submitted in support of biomass research funded by EERE under the
Energy and Water Development Bill.
BERA is a non-profit association headquartered in Washington, DC.
It was founded in 1982 by researchers and private organizations that
are conducting biomass research. Our objectives are to promote
education and research on the production of energy and fuels from
virgin and waste biomass that can be economically utilized by the
public, and to serve as a source of information on biomass RD&D
policies and programs. BERA does not solicit or accept federal funding
for its efforts.
On behalf of BERA's members, I would like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity to present our Board's position on the
funding of mission-oriented biomass RD&D. On this occasion, I would
like to focus on the high-priority projects and programs that we
strongly urge be continued or started. Specifically, BERA recommends
that the appropriations for OIT's high-priority biomass programs be
allocated as follows in fiscal year 2002.
--BERA urges that the Initiative that was created as a result of
``The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000,'' and
Executive Order 13134, ``Developing and Promoting Biobased
Products and Bioenergy,'' be incorporated into OIT's program
($10.0 million). The goal of this program is to triple U.S.
usage of bioenergy and biobased products by 2010. Estimation of
the potential contribution to the program goal of each
technology that is funded under the Initiative is essential to
optimize the project mix. New projects should not be started
until this is done. The amount of fossil fuels displaced by
waste and virgin biomass in 1999 was 1.65 million barrels of
oil equivalent per day (3.49 quad per year).
--Continuation of the chemicals-from-biomass core research ($7.0
million). 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 ($7.0 million). This program is implemented
through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and
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 ($12.1 million).
PROGRAM INTEGRATION, COORDINATION, AND MANAGEMENT
For several years, BERA has urged that all 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.
BERA strongly recommends that at least 50 percent of the federal
funds appropriated for biomass research, excluding the funds for scale-
up projects, are used to sustain a national biomass science and
technology base via sub-contracts for industry and universities. 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 researchers
committed to the advancement of biomass technologies.
BERA also urges that the Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative be
continued and incorporated into the overall federal biomass RD&D
program. The USDA has a long history of developing advanced biomass
production technologies, which are essential to meet the objective of
tripling biomass energy consumption by 2010. It is especially important
that the biomass research of DOE and USDA be closely coordinated so
that each agency is fully aware and apprised of the research that the
other is conducting.
Implementation of the Initiative should include identification of
each federal agency that provides funding related to biomass energy
development, each agency's programs, and the expenditures by each
agency. This will enable the coordination of all federally funded
biomass energy programs through the multi-agency Biomass Research and
Development Board (BRDB) that was established to manage the program.
The BRDB is co-chaired by the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of
Agriculture. It is expected to facilitate new starts that target the
program goal, and to avoid duplication of efforts, unnecessary
expenditures, and continuation of projects that have been completed or
that are not focused on the program goal. If the Initiative is fully
implemented, the value of the federal expenditures on biomass research
to the country will be enhanced in many different ways.
BACKGROUND
Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative
Congress provided funding for the Initiative for biomass R&D in the
power and transportation fuel sectors under the Energy and Water
Development Bill in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. BERA
strongly recommends that this program be continued as described in our
separate testimony for fiscal year 2002. BERA also strongly recommends
that the Initiative be added to OIT's program at a funding level of
$10.0 million in fiscal year 2002. It is expected that DOE will
allocate a large portion of these funds to scale-up projects after
evaluating the projected contribution of each technology to the goal of
the Initiative. The main goal as already mentioned is to triple U.S.
usage of bioenergy and biobased products by 2010. A strategic plan has
been developed to reach this goal by the BRDB. Its achievement is
sorely needed because of what has happened to U.S. crude oil, natural
gas, and electricity markets, our continually increasing dependence on
imported oil, our struggling rural economy in both the agricultural and
forestry sectors, and environmental issues. It is also time to
determine whether practical biomass systems can be developed that are
capable of displacing much larger amounts of fossil fuels. The BRDB
will address this question, and help to coordinate the many different
biomass RD&D projects in progress in the different agencies to ensure
that each is necessary and on course. The BRDB has projected that
achievement of the targeted goal requires RD&D funding to be increased
by $500 million to $1 billion per year of public-sector investment. It
is clear that a significant increase in appropriations is necessary to
implement this program.
Organic Commodity Chemicals from Biomass (Agriculture Vision)
This program was started by OIT in fiscal year 1999 ($1.981 million
appropriated). It was continued in fiscal year 2000 ($4.0 million
appropriated) and fiscal year 2001 ($7.0 million appropriated).
Solicitations support projects to integrate technology, markets, and
policies for using crops and agricultural wastes to produce fuels,
power, and biobased products in biorefineries. BERA recommends that
this program be continued in fiscal year 2002 at a funding level of
$7.0 million.
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. As noted in BERA's testimony for fiscal year 2001, OIT
incorporated displacement by biomass of process energy consumption
supplied by fossil fuels into the program objectives. BERA had
previously recommended that the program goal be expanded to include
both fossil feedstock displacement and process energy inputs provided
by fossil fuels. In addition, reductions in process energy consumption
through higher efficiency unit operations and process energy
conservation should be part of this goal. DOE reported last year that
they expect to achieve a 30 percent reduction in energy consumption per
pound of chemicals produced, materials used, water consumption, and
pollutant and toxic dispersion. This is important because in 1999 for
example, the total fossil feedstock converted to organic commodity
chemicals in the United States, 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.
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 generally 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 OIT in fiscal year 2001 ($13.5 million
appropriation). 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 competitive
solicitations. Supporting areas include sulfur management, gas clean-
up, materials, system integration, and other combustion-related
studies. Black liquor gasification provides a pathway to cost-
effectively recover and recycle chemicals in the paper industry. 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 and increase its global competitiveness. BERA recommends that
this work be continued at a funding level of $7.0 million in fiscal
year 2002.
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 has been substantial. Some of
this work is on-going and includes other EERE projects in progress that
are currently funded 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 has been categorized by
DOE as biomass energy RD&D. As already stated, 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 utilized by
industry. This basic assessment, along with preliminary economic
analyses, when applied to development of this program, will help ensure
its success.
The appropriations provided for this program were about $12.1
million for each of the last three fiscal years, fiscal year 1999 to
fiscal year 2001. The program was described by various titles last year
as follows: Energy Performance consists of approximately 12 projects on
efficiency, heat recovery, wood and paper drying, environmental
impacts, and Kraft pulping; 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; 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; Recycling consists of approximately
8 projects to develop a new screening technology to reduce energy
consumption during the removal of contaminants from recycled fiber;
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; 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, and approximately 7 additional projects to implement
the relevant results and 8 additional projects that involve
biorefineries.
This program has shown and continues to show significant value in
addressing both national and industry priorities and has significant
matching funds from industry. BERA recommends that it be continued in
fiscal year 2002 at a funding level of $12.1 million.
______
Prepared Joint Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation; the
American Society of Plant Physiologists; the American Soybean
Association; the National Association of Wheat Growers; and the
National Corn Growers Association
The American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Society of Plant
Physiologists, the American Soybean Association, the National
Association of Wheat Growers, and the National Corn Growers Association
appreciates the opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with our
recommendations regarding the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations
bill. We, strongly, urge you to provide $15 million in funding for the
Department of Energy (DOE), the Plant/Crop-Based Renewable Resources
Vision 2020 (the Agricultural Vision) program that is funded under the
Industries of the Future (specific) program within the Energy
Conservation budget.
We can reduce our reliance on imported oil by using corn, wheat,
soybeans, trees, and other crops, instead of petroleum, as chemical
feed stocks to produce a wide range of everyday consumer goods, such as
plastics, paints, adhesives, fibers, anti-freeze, and personal care
products. Several years ago, with assistance from the DOE Office of
Industrial Technology (OIT), the U.S. agricultural, forestry, and
chemical communities developed a long-term, strategic vision of
increasing the utilization of renewable inputs, such as corn, soybeans,
and wheat, for basic, chemical building blocks. The vision is for
plants to capture 10 percent of the market by 2020 and 50 percent by
2050. If crops were the feed stock for 10 percent of this market, it
would result in increased farm income of more than $5 billion per year,
reduced greenhouse gas emissions, increased recycling opportunities,
the creation of new, world-class industries here at home, and, most
importantly, decreased dependence on foreign oil.
As we have experienced first hand over the past year, 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 time periods
as annual or perennial crops. Right now, the most significant
opportunity to help offset the need for imported oil is the use of
alternative feed stocks derived from renewable plants and crops. With
an adequate research investment, 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. 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 Agricultural Vision of using plants for 10
percent of the chemical feed stocks market, we may lay the research
foundation today. If we are to realize, fully, the potential for bio-
based resources, 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, the
agricultural, forestry, and chemical communities developed a technology
roadmap based on the input of numerous scientific and marketing experts
from a broad range of disciplines. The Technology Roadmap 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 be
able to meet future demand by increasing the 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.
Our greatest opportunities over the next few years are with
bioproducts; yet, 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 DOE Agricultural
Vision is the sole program that concentrates on increasing the use of
renewable resources for chemicals (for bioproducts) and 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.
The matching requirement ensures that the science supported has a great
potential for commercialization and increasing the efficiency of the
Federal investment.
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 $15 million, devoted
to R&D needs outlined in the Agricultural Vision's Technology Roadmap,
projects that address the highest priorities in each of the four major
research categories listed in the Roadmap could be supported.
While the Administration's budget reduced significantly the funding
for most of the Industries of the Future programs, the budget request
provides for level funding ($6.8 million) for the Agricultural Vision.
The Administration placed a high priority on the Agricultural Vision
program by not proposing to reduce funding. We are extremely pleased
that the Administration believes that bioproducts have an important
role to play in the Nation's energy policy. However, we believe that
now is the time for a significant research investment in this area and
level funding for this program is simply inadequate.
We, strongly, urge you to provide $15 million for fiscal year 2002
for OIT to implement, more fully, the Agricultural Vision's Technology
Roadmap. This funding will help to decrease our dependence on imported
oil, increase farm income, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, spur rural
development, and increase recycling opportunities. 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 2002 Interior appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to
provide this testimony for the record to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies as it considers fiscal
year 2002 appropriations for the Energy Conservation programs of the
U.S. Department of Energy. Within this appropriation, the CONEG
Governors request that funding for the Weatherization Assistance
Program be increased to $306 million and that funding for the State
Energy Program be increased to $75 million in fiscal year 2002.
Recent increases in the price of energy, coupled with the strain on
energy infrastructure created by the rapid growth in energy demand,
place a new emphasis on making the most efficient use of the nation's
energy resources. Energy efficiency is a vital component to a balanced
energy policy that yields multiple economic, environmental and national
security benefits. Efficient use of energy helps reduce the nation's
energy costs and contributes to improved economic productivity.
The Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program and
State Energy Program provide valuable opportunities for the states,
industry, national labs and the U.S. Department of Energy to
collaborate in moving energy efficiency and renewable energy research,
technologies, practices and information into households, businesses,
schools, hospitals and farms across the nation. Administered by the 50
states, District of Columbia and territories, these programs are an
efficient way to achieve national energy goals, as they tailor energy
projects to specific community needs, economic and climate conditions.
The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) helps low income
households better manage their ongoing energy use, thereby reducing the
heating and cooling bills of the nation's most vulnerable citizens.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, low-income households spend
14 percent of their annual income on energy, compared to 3.5 percent
for other households. The Weatherization Assistance Program strives to
reduce the energy burden of low-income residents through such energy
saving measures as the installation of insulation and energy-efficient
lighting, and heating and cooling system tune-ups. These measures can
result in energy savings as high as 30 percent.
The State Energy Program (SEP) helps move energy efficiency and
renewable energy technology into the marketplace and ensure that states
and communities are prepared for and respond to energy emergencies.
Through the SEP, states assist schools, municipalities, businesses,
residential customers and others in both the private and public sectors
to incorporate the practices and technologies which help them manage
their energy use wisely. The modest federal funds provided to the SEP
are also an efficient federal investment, as they are leveraged by non-
federal public and private sources.
We request that the Subcommittee increase funding for both the
Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Programs. These
programs have demonstrated their effectiveness in contributing to the
nation's goal of environmentally sound energy management and improved
economic productivity.
We thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to share the views
of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors, and we stand ready to
provide you with any additional information on the importance of the
Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program to the
Northeast.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gasification Technologies Council
The Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) wishes to take this
opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2002 budget proposal for the
Department of Energy's Fossil Energy Research and Development Program.
Council members includes gasification technology developers and
suppliers that account for more than ninety-five percent of the
installed syngas production capacity around the world. We count among
members a significant share of companies supplying engineering and
construction services, turbines, industrial gases, gas cleanup and
processing and other critical equipment and services to the industry.
Our membership also includes a growing number of users of the
technology, reflecting the growing commercial acceptance of
gasification in the energy marketplace.
Gasification provides the cleanest, most efficient means of
producing power, chemicals and fuels from coal, petroleum residues and
low value feedstocks. It is being used worldwide and offers the
opportunity for further advancements in reduced cost, higher efficiency
and lower emissions through continued research and development and
commercial scale demonstration. Gasification is central to the
Department of Energy's Vision 21 Program because of its high
efficiency, environmental superiority and flexibility in feedstocks and
product slates. Members of the Gasification Technologies Council have
been engaged in a year-long project of company-by-company interviews
and briefings with the Department of Energy to offer their thoughts on
future investments the DOE and industry may wish to make in
gasification-related research, development and demonstration. This
process will provide the DOE with market-driven guidance on R&D
projects and directions that offer the greatest chance for private
sector participation and ultimate adoption in commercial scale
manufacturing plants.
Our statement will address the gasification-related research and
development elements of the fossil energy budget proposal, but first we
wish to make the general observation that the R&D portion of the budget
(items exclusive of the proposed Clean Coal Initiative which addresses
commercial demonstration, not research) would be cut by more than 50
percent. This is inconsistent with President Bush's clearly expressed
desire to accelerate development of domestic energy supplies, a move
that will require step changes in fossil fuels technologies'
environmental, efficiency and economic performance. If the goals of the
Department's Vision 21 program are to be achieved, with much higher
efficiency, sharply reduced emissions and multiple product slates from
coal-based manufacturing plants, the R&D budget must be increased, not
cut in half.
Our recommended changes to the proposed budget with regard to
specific categories include:
Gasification Combined Cycle.--The $35 million budgeted under this
item should be increased by $15 million to permit accelerated work on
ceramic membrane separation technologies, advanced gas cleanup, and
gasification system sensors and controls. These are necessary for the
technological advances required to meet Vision 21 efficiency and
emissions targets in a timely manner.
Advanced Turbines.--Much of the success in increasing the
efficiency of integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology
has been in the development and commercial introduction of more
efficient gas turbines. The budget proposes to zero out this program
from a fiscal year 2001 level of just under $31 million. The funding
for the advanced turbine program should be restored. This will
accelerate introduction of even more efficient turbines to reduce
carbon emissions from power generation; fuel flexible turbines that can
run on synthesis gas as well as natural gas; and improvements that
provide greater reductions in NOX emissions without add-on
systems.
Fuels R&D.--The coproduction program has also been zeroed out. It
should be restored. Central to the concept of the Vision 21 complex is
the ability to produce liquid fuels from coal and other fossil fuels.
Gasification and the indirect liquefaction of the synthesis gas to
produce ultra clean fuels, such as methanol, dimethyl ether, and
Fischer-Tropsch liquids, provide the most viable path. R&D on the
technologies to produce such fuels should be continued.
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--The budget calls for $150 million as
the first installment of President Bush's clean coal initiative. The
budget amount should be increased to $200 million, consistent with the
President's ten year, $2 billion program.
Gasification offers clear and measurable environmental benefits
when compared to combustion based power generation technologies.
However, an active research and development program is necessary to
build on these strengths with an eye toward the much more aggressive
Vision 21 goals. A restored DOE fossil energy budget addressing the
above cited items offers a way forward to make the necessary step
changes in the supporting technologies and to induce the private sector
involvement necessary to bring the results of the research into the
marketplace.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views. Additional
information about gasification technologies is available on our web
site: http://www.gasification.org. I also remain available to respond
to any questions on the issues addressed in this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of Ohio State University
We strongly encourage the Subcommittee to restore a specific budget
item currently under consideration. That item provides $6.5 million to
the United States Department of Energy--Fossil Energy Research and
Development--Coal and Power Systems--Fuels budget for further
development of Clean Liquid Fuels at the LaPorte Alternative Fuels
Development Unit, a DOE-owned pilot plant. This funding continues a
program supported by DOE in previous years and provides a cost-sharing
of technology development with a unique collaboration that includes
DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory, Iowa State University,
Ohio State University, Washington University, and Sandia National
Laboratories. Air Products, who operates the LaPorte AFDU under
contract to DOE, leads seven cost-sharing industrial partners.
The LaPorte Alternative Fuels Development Unit is a unique
resource, as the nation's only indirect liquefaction pilot plant
facility. This facility is one of the keys to DOE's Clean Liquid Fuels
Program, and provides an essential link in the development of
laboratory scale studies to commercial utilization of liquefaction
technologies. Recently, based on pilot scale demonstrations at LaPorte,
Eastman Chemical built a 260-ton per day coal-derived methanol plant in
Kingsport, Tennessee, replacing 260 tons per day of foreign crude
import with 260 tons per day of domestic coal use. Further studies
planned for LaPorte will enable more efficient usage of liquefaction
reactors, and more stable reactor behavior when scaling up to
production-scale systems.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The basic energy policy of the United States conflicts with
projected energy supplies: we are increasingly reliant on foreign oil.
The projected energy supplies provide a threat to the economic health
of this great nation.
A look at total U.S. petroleum supplies (energy and chemical) is
shown above. The 1979 oil crisis appears with a peak in imports during
1979. In the years preceding 1979, U.S. utilities were converting from
coal to oil. In 1979, President Carter declared that energy imports
would never exceed the 1979 levels. Congress passed the Fuel Use Act
that required utilities to convert back to coal, and the post-79 data
show its effects in reducing crude imports.
Beginning in the mid-80s, however, imports began to increase again,
and now exceed both the 1979 levels and the current domestic production
rate. Federal projections to 2020 show a continuation of current
trends, with an America dependent on foreign supplies for 2 out of
every 3 gallons of crude oil
Our nation is well aware of the dangers of foreign oil dependency.
The dangers were manifested in the ``oil shocks'' of 1973 and again in
1979. Those supply disruptions resulted in significant damages to the
American economy.
In November 1999, the Department of Commerce issued a report titled
The Effect on National Security of Imports of Crude Oil and Refined
Petroleum Products. The report stated that there is no current
substitute for liquid fuels used in transportation (nearly two-thirds
of oil is consumed by transportation). The report recommends continuing
the five policy goals set forth by the Department of Energy in 1998 as
US energy policy. One of those goals is ``to expand future energy
choices by continuing progress in science and technology to provide
future generations with a portfolio of clean and reasonably priced
energy sources.'' The recommendation specifically calls for ``continued
budgetary increases over current levels for technology partnerships
with the private sector.'' On March 24, 2000, President Clinton
responded by approving the report and accepting its recommendations,
and specifically accepted the recommendation to continue existing
policies to--``limit the dependence on foreign oil.'' Yet, our
dependence is increasing.
DISCUSSION OF PROBLEM
A mix of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and renewable energy
sources fuel the United States energy consumption. The Department of
Energy projects only energy sources: the chart does not represent use
of coal/oil/or natural gas as chemical feedstocks.
While coal, natural gas, and nuclear power compete to supply the
nation's needs for electricity and steam, effective competition for
petroleum used in transportation does not exist. As noted above, the
Department of Congress states that nearly all of our transportation is
powered by and dependent on crude oil, and therefore on foreign crude
oil.
It is possible to reduce our reliance on imported crude by making
transportation fuels from coal and natural gas. Considering the price
increases observed in natural gas during the last 2 years, and
considering that the United States has 30 times more coal reserves than
reserves of oil and natural gas together, the use of coal as a
feedstock to produce liquid fuels is preferable to the use of natural
gas.
Conceptually, a coal-to-liquid fuel process is straightforward.
Conversion of solid fuels to liquid fuels is based on processes
initially developed in the early 20th century. Such processes were
employed by Germany during WWII to produce nearly 50 million barrels
per year. South Africa, recognizing the threat it faced from its
dependence on foreign oil, has built 9 alternative fuel production
plants since 1955.
The economics of coal conversion should favor the development of
alternative fuels. Mined coal costs around $1.25 per million Btu, while
raw crude oil costs around $4.20. Thus, there is substantial economic
``room'' for processing costs to liquefy coal.
Yet, the price of alternate fuels still remains high relative to
oil. In part, liquefaction technologies are immature relative to their
oil technology brethren. Key advances need to be made to develop state-
of-the-art materials and catalysts, and to apply newly developed
processes, models, and sensing technologies to improve conversion
technology to economically competitive levels. However, the current
price structure of the oil market, and uncertainties in that structure,
make such investments in new technology extremely risky, providing
little or no incentive for energy companies to invest in liquefaction
technologies research, development, and/or commercialization.
The U.S. energy policy correctly recognizes the need for the
federal government to ``partner'' with private industry in these areas.
Continued support of the Alternative Fuels Development Unit is fully
consistent with US energy policy. Funding for this unit is one key to
the continued development of coal-based clean liquid fuels and
chemicals:
--AFDU research focuses on the most promising venue for technology
improvements--e. g. the use of high pressure/high temperature
conversions;
--AFDU research has already led to the successful commercialization
of one coal-derived liquid fuel plant. The Kingsport methanol
plant resulted from coal-derived fuel development and research
conducted in the pilot stage at the LaPorte facility;
--AFDU research is built on a comprehensive multi-year partnership
and contributes leadership, knowledge, and skills to the
nation's energy needs. Termination of this program would result
in immediate and long-lasting detriments to the nation's
alternative fuels program;
--AFDU research promises the increased use of the nation's coal
resources. Coal is the nation's largest known energy reserve,
and coal mining is the sole major economic activity in much of
the Appalachian area of West Virginia, Kentucky, western
Pennsylvania, and eastern Ohio. Coal mining in these areas has
been declining, with the result being a serious loss of jobs.
ONE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM
If the nation is to fully implement its energy policy, then it is
necessary for the government to enter into technology partnerships to
create new alternative sources of liquid fuels. The LaPorte AFDU
funding is one of those opportunities. Past governmental funding at
AFDU has built an unparalleled bank of skills and abilities to
conceive, research, design, develop, and demonstrate alternate fuel
technologies, and resulting in notable commercial success.
Generally, federal funding of this partnership should be
encouraged. The rewards from further successes by the AFDU team may
include:
--A demand for new coal production from economically challenged areas
of the country;
--A reduction of a need to import crude oil;
--The construction and operation of coil-liquid fuel plants, creating
jobs and income, in the economically challenged areas of the
country;
--The addition of new petroleum facilities in the nation's
midsection, offsetting some of the supply line problems the
area has faced in recent years, and stabilizing its oil prices.
On the other hand, termination of funding would disburse the
assembled team of industrial partners and researchers, a loss of their
pooled skills, and result in a setback in the nation's efforts to
develop alternative liquid fuels.
CONCLUSION
The focus of the LaPorte AFDU is the key element in the attainment
of the nation's goal of developing a portfolio of clean and reasonably
priced energy sources. Its success will result in significant economic
benefits to the Appalachian coal basin areas of the country, and a more
stable supply of transportation fuels. We request that the 2002 funding
of $6.5 million for this important program be restored.
______
Prepared Statement of Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
I strongly encourage the Subcommittee to add $89 million to the
Transportation Fuels and Chemicals Program budget request of $7.0
million within the Fossil Energy Research and Development, Fuels and
Power Systems, Fuels program.
The need for domestically produced, clean liquid fuels will be a
critical issue for this Nation in the 21st century. The Energy
Department's Fossil Energy Program seeks to ensure the development and
demonstration of economically competitive, efficient, environmentally
superior coal and natural gas based technologies that produce ultra-
clean transportation fuels, stationary fuels, and chemicals.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2020,
total carbon emissions in the U.S. will increase to 1,960 million
metric tons under business-as-usual assumptions, with transportation
accounting for 690 million metric tons, or 35 percent of total U.S.
carbon emissions. Furthermore, a host of potential regulatory actions
could require major additional reductions in energy-related emissions
during the next decade, and some are expected to be very expensive if
compliance must depend on conventional fuels produced via conventional
technologies. Likewise, restructuring in the electric utility industry
will place market pressures on utilities to find cost-effective
approaches to meeting increasingly stringent environmental regulations
for air pollutants. The EIA also predicts that by 2020, U.S. oil
imports (already representing over 50 percent of consumption) will rise
to 65 percent and increase our negative balance of payments, as well as
our reliance on a single geographic area to satisfy the increased
demand.
For the long-term, the wisest policy is to depend on a balanced
mixture of energy sources. This portfolio should include an emphasis on
the environmentally superior use of coal, the Nation's most abundant
energy resource, and should also include the use of remote natural gas,
biomass, and opportunity fuels, such as petroleum coke and waste
materials. The development of new technologies to convert coal and
other non-oil feedstocks to clean liquid fuels is critical to our
country's energy, economic, and environmental future. Without such new
technologies and fuels, the ability to manage emissions of carbon
dioxide and air pollutants will be limited, and the costs of energy
will increase.
Experts estimate that there are more than 38 trillion cubic feet of
recoverable remote natural gas on the Alaskan North Slope. 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. Oil production in the large North Slope Alaskan fields
is declining. Already, 4 of 11 operating crude petroleum 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. Because of its
geographical remoteness, North Slope natural gas is an undeveloped
resource. Developing a means to recover and transport this remote
natural gas is of vital importance to the Alaskan economy, the Nation
and to the future of the TAPS.
Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) technology being developed under the DOE
Fossil Energy Research and Development, Fuels and Power Systems, Fuels,
Transportation Fuels and Chemicals program is the most promising means
of converting the vast quantities of Alaskan North Slope natural gas to
liquid fuels. These liquid fuels could then be moved to market through
the Trans Alaska Pipeline, thereby extending its functional life.
Additionally, a compact synthesis gas generation/liquid fuels
production facility could be a feasible source of power generation and
transportation fuels in remote locations for U.S. military needs.
Widespread 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 clean burning liquid fuels.
Production of synthesis gas alone can represent over 50 percent of
final product cost. Recently, considerable DOE-supported research has
been underway to significantly reduce the cost of synthesis gas
production via selective high-temperature membrane systems.
Through a team led by Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. of
Allentown, Pa., the Department of Energy's Transportation Fuels and
Chemicals Program has been sponsoring the multi-phase development of an
important new synthesis gas technology--referred to as ITM Syngas. 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. ITM Syngas technology is based
upon a novel ceramic membrane reactor that could significantly reduce
the cost of synthesis gas production, enabling economic GTL conversion.
Completed conceptual process design and economics for ITM Syngas show a
>33 percent capital cost savings versus conventional autothermal
reforming/cryogenic air separation. 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.
The ITM Syngas process is also ideally suited to generate hydrogen
in the quantities required for future fuel cell-powered vehicles and
stationary fuel cell power generators. Lower cost hydrogen made
possible by ITM Syngas will also help 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
that 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.
The $90 million, 8\1/2\ year ITM Syngas project will ultimately
result in a pre-commercial-scale field demonstration. The team has
provided more than 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. However, 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.
DOE's fuels program has also led to the development of the Liquid
Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) technology. This technology can be
used to convert synthesis gas produced from a variety of carbonaceous
feedstocks to produce methanol. This application has appeal both for
the power and the refinery processing industries for co-production of
electric power and methanol for power peak shaving or as a chemical
feedstock. Successful development of LPMEOHTM at the DOE-
owned, Air Products-operated LaPorte, Texas Alternative Fuels
Development Unit (AFDU) led to a proposal and subsequent award under
the Clean Coal Technology Program. The resulting LPMEOHTM
process demonstration unit, located at Eastman Chemical's Kingsport,
Tennessee chemical complex, was successfully started up in April 1997.
The LPMEOHTM process demonstration unit reached full
production capacity within 4 days of start-up and maintained an on-
stream availability of 99 percent from 1998 through 2000.
With successful technical development of the Liquid Phase Methanol
technology, the program objectives were broadened to extend the basic
technology to other feedstocks and to the production of other liquid
products. One such product is dimethyl ether, a clean-burning liquid
that has the potential to become an environmentally superior diesel
replacement.
A unique government/university/national laboratory/industrial
partnership was created to effectively conduct the research and
development work described above, including periodic operations at the
LaPorte AFDU. The major technical objectives of the program are
threefold: (1) to develop the design tools and a fundamental
understanding of the hydrodynamics of a slurry bubble column reactor,
so as to maximize reactor productivity, (2) to develop improved
catalysts to enable the economic production of liquid fuels such as
dimethyl ether, and (3) to demonstrate developing technologies at an
industrially relevant scale at the LaPorte AFDU. Successful completion
of these objectives will permit more economic reactor designs, increase
overall reactor efficiency, and ensure a design that leads to stable
reactor behavior when scaling up to large diameter reactors. This
program has successfully progressed with contributions from the
National Energy Technology Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory,
renowned researchers at five universities, and seven cost-sharing
industrial partners. Current partners include the National Energy
Technology Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, Iowa State
University, Ohio State University, and Washington University in St.
Louis.
In the future, the LaPorte AFDU will lend itself conveniently to
another important development in the production of low-cost liquid
fuels. The development-scale demonstrations of ITM Syngas and other
technologies are planned for the LaPorte site, where the infrastructure
is already in place for such demonstrations. The synthesis gas
generated via the ITM Syngas process could be used in conjunction with
the AFDU to produce methanol, dimethyl ether, or FT liquids, allowing
the complete, step-by-step demonstration of liquid fuels production
from remote natural gas.
The focus of the DOE Fossil Energy Fuels program is consistent with
the national policy of meeting environmental goals through the
development of clean-burning, liquid fuels from a vast array of
domestic carbonaceous feedstocks. We request that the Subcommittee
provide $96 million to continue support of this important work and make
the Department's aggressive energy and environmental goals a reality.
______
Prepared Statement of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Dr. L.R.
Lawrence, Jr., and I am President of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., a
consulting firm located in Alexandria, Virginia. With me today is Ms.
Patrice Courtney, a Senior Associate with my firm. We are here, today,
to request full funding for the Department of Energy's Building
Technology Programs. Specifically, we request fiscal year 2002 funding
of $340M for these programs within which Weatherization and State
Grants would receive no more than $140M total. I and my firm have been
involved in issues of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy since
1975, when this Subcommittee played an active and major role in helping
to solve our country's first, major energy crisis. Ms. Courtney is
responsible for communications regarding energy efficiency issues with
a focus on New York State's Hudson Valley.
Although the major oil use in this country is in transportation,
buildings account for one-third of all energy used here, once you
factor in the significant percentage used to generate electricity to
heat, cool, light, and control buildings and their occupants. In
addition, most oil use in buildings occurs in those parts of the
country where the percentage of imported oil use is the highest.
Therefore, efficiency increases in buildings and their associated
technologies offset directly the import of foreign oil.
Our purpose today, Mr. Chairman, is to support the Department of
Energy's Building Technology, State and Community Programs which have
been uniquely successful. Specifically, Federal investments in five
major areas: building design software, electronic fluorescent lamp
ballasts, low emissivity windows, advanced oil burners, and efficient
refrigerator compressors throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s resulted
in savings in the U.S. economy totaling nearly $33 billion through 1997
while, simultaneously preventing the emission of millions of metric
tons of atmospheric pollutants.
The slowing U.S. economy is significantly threatened by still--high
oil prices. Energy efficiency has become an economic priority--because
it is key to reducing our vulnerability to high oil prices controlled
by unpredictable foreign hands. Today, many states are deregulating
electric utilities in an effort to lower electricity prices. The
California energy crisis in recent months underscores the mounting
challenges to our infrastructure in the wake of this deregulation, even
in these relatively prosperous times. These developments have important
implications for energy efficiency in building technology.
BTS--the Department of Energy's Office of Building Technology,
State and Community Programs--plays a major role in developing,
introducing and encouraging the adoption of technologies that make
buildings more energy-efficient. After a decade of investment, real
returns are clearly materializing.
Commercial buildings, homes, factories and schools are all being
improved by technology developed under BTS programs. From fiscal year
1980 through fiscal year 1999, energy cost savings of an estimated
$90.64 billion were realized from greater energy efficiency in
buildings. The list of innovations is long: more energy-efficient
windows, insulation, heating and air conditioning systems and home
appliances; better lighting; advanced oil burners; EnergyPlus design
software for architects; and fuel cells, triple-effect chillers and
other equipment for advanced, ``green'' buildings.
Here are some examples of BTS programs and how they're saving
energy and dollars:
Rebuild America is a leading example of BTS's ability to build
partnerships with local government and the private sector. Today, three
years ahead of schedule, BTS has more than 300 public-private community
partnerships at work around the country. Rebuild is saving $170 million
every year by improving the energy efficiency and operations of
schools, municipal buildings, businesses, multifamily residences, and
other buildings. Rebuild partners have already completed or planned
retrofits of more than half a billion square-feet of space. And they
are saving more than 10 trillion Btus of energy every year, enough
energy to power 250,000 homes.
Schools are a large part of Rebuild America. A nationwide survey
conducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office estimated a
conservative $112 billion to complete needed repairs, renovations, and
modernizations for our nation's public schools. According to the DOE,
the nation spends $6 billion each year on energy costs for schools--
about 25 percent more than necessary.
A number of rapidly growing school districts are using ``Energy
Smart'' school designs. Clark County, Nevada, for example, plans to
build upwards of 100 new schools at a cost of $4 billion over the next
several years. The school district has hired an architect who is
working with BTS to develop first-of-a-kind ``green'' school
construction guidelines, which have been developed with varying
recommendations based on climate, geography and energy mix.
BTS and its industry partners are creating ``technology road maps''
to target key technologies in the building and construction industries
and to allocate future funding for research, development and
commercialization. The maps help industry identify barriers to
investment in energy efficiency. Road maps were completed in 2000 for
lighting; windows; heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration; and for high performance commercial buildings. Next will
be a building envelope road map. BTS now is jumpstarting research in
the most promising areas through competitive R&D solicitations.
DOE is now working with two companies--Trane and York
International--to introduce to the marketplace triple-effect chillers
that will improve U.S. economic competitiveness and energy efficiency.
The objective of the program is to build a U.S.-developed triple-effect
chiller that uses lithium bromide/water fluids and has a coefficient of
performance of 1.4, which will represent a 30 to 50 percent improvement
over double-effect chillers now available. This level of performance
represents a revolution in large commercial chillers.
The joint DOE-EPA Energy Star designation has become a popular one
with consumers. That's because the typical U.S. household spends about
$1,300 on its home energy bill. ENERGY STAR appliances and
heating and cooling equipment can reduce that bill by up to 40 percent.
Today more than 4,000 stores nationwide market appliances labeled
as ``Energy Star,'' including retailers such as Best Buy, Circuit City,
Montgomery Wards, Sears, Tops, Appliance City and others. There now is
a voluntary partnership with the fenestration industry to promote the
sales of energy efficient windows, doors, and skylights bearing the
ENERGY STAR label; and a new generation of Compact
Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) have been introduced, which meet the
stringent criteria of ENERGY STAR.
High Performance Buildings are a BTS area where research has given
way to action and the result is savings. For example, the Zion National
Park Visitor Center and Comfort Station in Springdale, Utah is one of
the National Park Service's most efficient complexes. Features included
in its design are daylighting, Trombe walls for passive solar heating,
downdraft cooltowers for natural ventilation cooling, energy-efficient
lighting, and advanced building controls. It is estimated that these
features result in about 10 kW of electrical demand savings. A roof-
mounted photovoltaic system provides electrical power. The PV system
reduces the amount of power purchased from the utility and it supplies
backup power when grid power is not available. BTS provided extensive
technical assistance to the architects and construction team.
BTS is a leader in technology transfer to professionals in building
technologies. For example, on its Web site is a powerful software tool
that can be downloaded for free. EnergyPlus, formerly known as DOE-2,
is a new generation building energy simulation program designed for
modeling buildings with associated heating, cooling, lighting,
ventilating, and other energy flows. A newer area at BTS is the
Emerging Technology program, whose purpose is to increase demand for,
and to bring new highly efficient technologies to market for buyers,
while assisting manufacturers, ESCOs, and utilities. The goal is to
pull these emerging technologies, as they appear in new, highly
efficient and affordable products, into the marketplace through
competitive procurements that are backed by large volume buyers.
During the 1980s, funding was drastically cut for energy-efficiency
R&D. When the programs were revisited in the early 1990s, lost ground
had to be regained. Research successes are now turning into
commercially viable products. It is crucially important to cost share
the field testing phase and to push new products through the R&D
pipeline to market acceptance, particularly in the fragmented building
industry.
Mr. Chairman, the required annual investment in Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy is less than one percent of what we invest in
defense, but its purpose is no less important. It is an investment in
our economy, our standard of living, and our very way of life.
We thank you for your attention to this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of General Electric Power Systems
This statement is submitted by General Electric Power Systems (GE)
for the information of the Committee during its review of the
Department of Energy's fiscal year 2002 budget requests for Fossil
Energy programs. The testimony addresses several key Department of
Energy programs: the Next Generation Turbine Program, Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle, and Distributed Energy Resources.
GE recognizes that this is a transitional year for the Department
of Energy's budget, and that future energy policy directions will be
guided in large part by the recommendations being developed by the
Energy Policy Development Working Group led by Vice President Cheney.
During this period of change in the Department's policy direction, it
is especially important to assure that adequate emphasis is maintained
on the advancement of technologies that will enable our nation to meet
the growing demand for electricity generation. The Administration's
proposals for a Clean Coal Power Initiative signify its commitment to
advancing technologies that enable greater use of domestic fossil
energy resources.
The Administration's expanded focus on coal need not preclude
continued Federal investment in focused research and development on
natural gas power generation technologies. Natural gas turbine
technology is fuel flexible, and will be an integral part of projects
to make greater utilization of the nation's abundant coal resources.
Gas turbines are an essential building block for the ``Vision 21''
powerplant of the future, and may offer a means to use our nation's
coal resources to its best advantage.
Moreover, as the Energy Information Administration has reported in
its Annual Energy Outlook 2001, natural gas will fuel 90 percent of the
new powerplants expected to come on line in the next 20 years. Given
this, it is important that the DOE budget make appropriate investments
in research and development that will enable the most reliable and
efficient use of natural gas-fired power systems.
The model for such programs should be the Advanced Turbine Systems
(ATS) program. There is no better example of the benefits of
government-industry collaboration to advance technology than the ATS.
The ATS program was competitive, heavily cost-shared, and successful in
achieving rigorous standards for energy efficiency and environmental
improvement. The ATS program has been completed on time and within
budget, and will make a major contribution to the future of power
generation not only in this country but around the world. Technology
developed in the ATS program is currently being incorporated into all
new GE product designs, assuring new commercial introductions as the
result of this successful effort in the immediate future.
While the ATS program represents significant advancement in turbine
technology, there are still important technical challenges to be
overcome. For this reason, GE is particularly concerned by the
Department's proposal to terminate all funding for the Next Generation
Turbine (NGT) program. There is a continuing need for focused,
cooperative DOE-industry efforts in natural gas turbine technologies.
NEXT GENERATION GAS TURBINE SYSTEMS
As provided in the program's vision statement, the Next Generation
Turbine (NGT) program seeks to ``develop advanced technologies that
will significantly improve the performance, operation, and reliability
of gas turbine power plants while maintaining United States industry
leadership in global electric power markets,'' in order to support the
continued availability of clean, reliable and low life-cycle cost gas
turbine based power in the U.S. GE Power Systems has participated in
the initial phases of this program, which have sought to characterize
the technology needs and future market for new power technologies that
are fuel flexible (capable of operating on coal, oil, natural gas or
biomass), satisfy intermediate and peak loads, and have low life-cycle
operating costs.
The NGT program incorporates three primary elements: systems
development and integration; improvement in reliability, availability
and maintainability (RAM); and cross-cutting technology support. GE
believes that in going forward, it is critical that the NGT program
focus on the development of technologies that may be widely applicable,
rather than concentrating on the identification of a specific
technology platform. If only limited resources can be devoted to the
NGT program in this transition year, GE urges strongly that adequate
resources of at least $3 million to $5 million be provided for RAM and
technology support efforts.
Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM)
There can be no clearer indication of the problems that ripple
throughout the economy if powerplants go off line than the recent
California experience. The high rate of powerplant outages, both
scheduled and unscheduled, has been cited as a factor contributing to
the rolling blackouts in California earlier this year. Research and
development focused on RAM is critical to improving powerplant
operability. Such a program will have tremendous economic benefit by
increasing the operational flexibility of gas turbines to provide more
power to the electrical grid during periods of peak demand, reducing
the costs associated with unplanned turbine outages, making the
scheduling of maintenance more efficient, and optimizing turbine
performance to reduce emissions. This is particularly so with new,
highly efficient turbines, which are also far more complex to operate
and maintain.
Importantly, advances in RAM technology can be moved into the
marketplace quickly and applied to the installed base, including
current coal based systems. The economic impacts would be substantial.
GE estimates that if only 25 percent of the F-class turbines operating
in 2005 could have their availability increased by one day of peak
period usage each year, the annual economic impact to the U.S. would be
over $150 million. Furthermore, the economic benefits would increase to
at least $750 million per day when these RAM technologies are applied
to other GE and non-GE gas turbine powerplants.
Industry is diligently pursuing RAM improvements. Partnering with
the government will accelerate the pace of this work and speed the
introduction and widespread deployment of new technology in the field.
Improved parts life assessment methodologies for RAM is a critical
element of the RAM initiative. Such methodologies will provide the
materials data and analyses required to life manage components and to
determine when components should be taken out of service and repaired
or replaced.
Particular emphasis also should be placed on developing
technologies for monitoring, predicting and managing the leading
contributor to RAM reduction: the degradation of gas turbine combustor
and hot gas path components. Additionally, improved information
technology is needed to seamlessly integrate information between
sensors, databases, and analysis tools and to provide fault detection,
diagnostics, prognostics, predicted parts usage, and plant outage
scheduling.
DOE support for this RAM technology development will greatly
accelerate the implementation of condition assessment and condition
based maintenance procedures, which will lead to a more rapid
realization of the associated benefits to the U.S. public and industry.
New concepts developed under this initiative will form the foundation
upon which fuel flexible Vision 21 powerplants will be monitored,
controlled and optimized.
Supporting Technology
Advances in high temperature materials and processes, cooling
techniques, sealing techniques and design optimization tools are
enabling technologies for improving gas turbine output and efficiency,
increasing reliability, and increasing power availability. GE strongly
supports process development in the critical areas of investment
casting of airfoils and melting/casting/forging of large rotor
structures. New advanced gas turbine engines require complex
directionally solidified and single crystal airfoils. Improved casting
processes, such as liquid metal cooling, are needed to reduce defects
and improve yields. Process development for nickel-base superalloy
rotor structures is also a critical need. Development of robust
melting/casting processes for large ingots and development of improved
forging process models and practices will eliminate ingot defects and
reduce variability in forging microstructures. Advanced high
temperature materials include nickel-base superalloys for airfoil
applications, improved durability thermal barrier coatings, and
ceramic-matrix composites. In addition, high temperature steel alloys
for high efficiency steam turbines are a critical development need. A
collaborative program to develop material design methodologies to
address these needs would be extremely useful throughout the U.S.
industry.
INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE
GE strongly endorses the development of technology that will
advance the utilization of coal resources for power generation in a
clean, environmentally superior and efficient manner. Coal fueled
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) has been demonstrated to
provide high efficiency with low emissions. Gas turbine technology
development has greatly contributed to increased use of IGCC power
plants worldwide.
IGCC technology can provide clean power from a broad range of
coals, as well as low or negative value opportunity fuels.
Additionally, IGCC can co-produce hydrogen, sulfur, ammonia and
methanol. Continued support for IGCC technology can provide the United
States with the catalyst for the environmentally compatible growth of
coal-based power.
GE has supported DOE's investigation of research needs in
gasification and has provided its recommendations to the Department.
The areas that deserve particular attention are robust gasifier
refractory materials to increase life and reliability, and continued
and aggressive development of low-emissions turbine combustion of low-
BTU gases. GE's own investigations have shown the potential for NOx
emissions in the mid single-digit parts-per-million range. We urge
Congress and DOE to support research that will provide the continued
development of IGCC as an environmentally superior technology for the
burning of coal.
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES
GE supports funding for distributed generation (DG) technology
advances, contained in both the fossil energy and energy efficiency
budget requests. The specific areas of focus for combustion based DG
should be reduction in emissions, increased efficiency, fuel
flexibility and reduction in equipment cost. Combustion based DG would
include microturbines ranging from 30 to 500 kW and reciprocating
engines ranging from 300 to 3000 kW. The specific areas of focus for
PEM fuel cell DG should be high temperature membranes, increased
efficiencies, fuel flexibility and reduction in equipment cost.
In addition to the current programs supported by DOE, there are
other efforts that should be supported. Programs focused on grid
interconnection cost reduction, increased power quality, system
monitoring and reduction in installation and operating cost should all
be considered in order to ensure success of all DG technology options.
The Department's budget request for distributed generation programs
in the fossil energy budget account includes funding for the
development of a commercial prototype of a solid oxide fuel cell/
turbine hybrid. The Department's planned focus on this technology
highlights once again the need for adequate investment in improving
turbine technology, which will be a key contributor to the success of
proposed hybrid systems.
CONCLUSION
Investments in fossil energy programs remain essential to meeting
the nation's energy needs. The Department's budget justifications
acknowledge that technology development is vital to assure that a range
of options is available for power generation in this country, and also
to support U.S. technology leadership in export markets. Gas turbine
technology initiatives should be part of a robust portfolio of energy
technology development programs supported by the Department in fiscal
year 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
International
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 (COE Energy Committee), 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 International is a worldwide engineering
society focused on technical, educational, and research issues. Energy
research to meet national and global needs continues to be one of the
most important topics of interest to ASME members.
INTRODUCTION TO THE COE ENERGY COMMITTEE OF ASME
The 125,000-member ASME International is a worldwide society
dedicated to the advancement of the art and science of Mechanical
Engineering. We focus our efforts on technical, education, and research
in Mechanical Engineering and conduct one of the world's largest
technical publishing operations. The COE Energy Committee consists
primarily of members representing eight technical divisions and three
ASME Boards (approximately 40,000 members) that address energy
technologies, resources, and utilization.
VIEWS OF THE COE ENERGY COMMITTEE
Reliable and affordable sources of energy are essential for
America's economic and national security. Recent price spikes and
supply disruptions have brought the critical nature of energy to the
public eye and underscore the need for a comprehensive energy strategy
for meeting present and future consumer demands for an abundant,
affordable, and available supply of energy.
We offer the following recommendations to the Subcommittee as you
address the myriad, serious energy issues facing the nation in your
work to allocate fiscal year 2002 funding for programs in the Offices
of Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency:
OBSERVATIONS ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT AND FOR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES
We applaud the administration's budget request for a Clean Coal
Power Initiative (a $150,000,000 new program), but we note that the
funding requested for this initiative is obtained at the expense of
drastically reducing, or in some cases eliminating, major R&D programs
that will be critical to addressing what is quickly becoming an energy
crisis in this country. The Energy Committee believes strongly that the
Clean Coal Power Initiative, as worthy as it is, should be supported
with additional funds to the fiscal year 2002 allocation. This addition
will enable an overall, robust fossil fuel research and development
program, which would then be funded at a level commensurate with its
importance. We urge the Subcommittee to attempt to identify additional
funding within its allocation to provide resources for these important
programs.
If our nation is to keep pace with growing energy demand and offset
plant retirements, the Energy Information Administration estimates that
1,300 new power plants will have to be constructed and brought online
by 2020. That will necessitate bringing nearly 69 new plants online
every year for the next 19 years--more than one plant per week. We are
concerned that the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget will seriously
reduce our nation's investments in critical R&D for technologies
necessary to meet the nation's ever-growing demand for electricity.
As we struggle to meet demand, we are also concerned that the vast
majority of the new power plants likely will be fueled with natural
gas. The recent shortages and concomitant price spikes for that fuel
underscore an urgent need to diversify the nation's energy portfolio.
We firmly believe it is folly for the U.S. to continue to rely on one
fuel for an increasing percentage of its electricity generation, while
at the same time relying on the same fuel for a substantial portion of
its home heating needs as well as chemical production. Fuel diversity
will require technologies to improve the environmental performance of
coal-fired power plants and the efficiency of gas turbines to reduce
our reliance on natural gas.
FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAMS
Advanced coal-based power generation will depend on technologies
for gasification, gas stream cleanup, separation of gas mixtures such
as carbon monoxide and hydrogen or oxygen separation from air, and gas
turbines and fuel cells that will have high efficiency and low
emissions. The proposed budget will seriously set back the target dates
for deployment of these technologies.
Advanced turbine systems have been developed for natural gas fired
systems. However, there remain serious issues in R&D to be addressed in
achieving their design operating conditions while meeting target
maintenance schedules. The budget request essentially eliminates the
Advanced Turbine Program. We oppose this decision, because we believe
it is critical that advanced turbines be fuel flexible, such as being
able to operate on synthesis gas from coal. We recommend that funding
be restored to a level of $30 million in fiscal year 2002, with
increased emphasis on fuel flexible turbine designs that include coal-
generated syngas operation.
Fuel cell technologies still require basic and applied research,
engineering development, and successful deployment, to attain the
promise of high efficiency and effective integration with combined
cycle gas turbine systems. We recommend a funding increase of $16
million over the Administration request for fiscal year 2002 in fuel
cell research for power generation systems. Successful integration of
fuel cells with advanced gas turbine systems will result in high
efficiency systems, which inherently will produce fewer carbon dioxide
emissions, in addition to reducing the release of criteria pollutants
into the atmosphere.
It is widely accepted that fossil fuels will be a key player in
meeting national and global energy needs for the first half of this
century. Carbon capture and sequestration technologies will be needed
to address concerns about global climate change from greenhouse gas
emissions. We recommend an increase of $9 million above the
administration's request to enable the rapid development and deployment
of carbon capture and sequestration technologies.
We are dismayed that the budget request for fiscal year 2002 has
essentially eliminated fuels research, which particularly affects the
development and deployment of transportation fuels needed to meet new
air pollution and efficiency criteria projected for the transportation
sector. Attainment of alternative sources of liquid fuels, coupled with
the requirement to meet low sulfur requirements for diesel and
automotive fuels, will require a wide ranging research program in fuel
manufacture, transport, and distribution. We recommend that the fiscal
year 2002 fossil energy program in liquid fuels development--ultra
clean fuels, future fuels, gas-to-liquids--be supported at an overall
level of $50 million over the various programs.
The natural gas and petroleum programs have been reduced to
approximately half their fiscal year 2001 level in the administration's
request. We find such recommendations to be inconsistent with our need
to develop our indigenous resources in an environmentally responsible
way to meet rising demand and reduce imports. Exploration and
production technologies must be further advanced, especially with
regard to sensitivity to the environmental impacts of such operations.
Funding for E&P and environmental programs should be restored to their
fiscal year 2001 enacted levels.
We recommend similar increases over the fiscal year 2002
recommendation for programs in reservoir life extension and management,
emerging processing technology, infrastructure protection and
development, and gas hydrates programs.
The recently established National Energy Technology Laboratory must
be adequately funded to attain the excellence expected of such
laboratories as a leader in science and engineering, especially in a
technology area which affects so many people in their day-to-day and
season-to-season reliance on energy. We recommend that funding be
restored to retain and invigorate the programs undertaken by the
laboratory personnel.
TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAMS
The Administration is preparing a budget amendment to be submitted
shortly which will reduce the funding for transportation technology
programs by about $55 million compared to fiscal year 2001
appropriations. These reductions will especially impact the Partnership
for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program.
Through partnerships with industry, research organizations, state
governments, and other federal agencies, the Office of Transportation
Technologies has developed programs to meet our national standards for
performance and vehicle emissions for a wide class of vehicles. These
programs will develop better engines, lighter vehicles, and better
emission reduction systems for automotive vehicles, and light- and
heavy-duty trucks. Consumer focus on sport utility vehicles (SUVs)
requires innovations in this product line to reduce emissions and
improve efficiency. The proposed significant reduction in funding for
transportation technology programs will seriously impact our ability to
reduce emissions and meet national goals for curbing petroleum imports.
We are concerned that the funding cuts may preclude completion of
the light vehicle diesel engine program that is designed to enable the
industry to meet the Tier 2 standards. Therefore, we recommend
restoration of funding for the PNGV program.
The proposed budget reductions will also limit the funding which
can be dedicated to fundamental science and engineering programs needed
to ensure successful completion of advanced transportation vehicle
systems. Energy efficiency programs have provided advances in
electrochemical technology areas that will be needed in transportation
systems of the future. Additional research is needed in fuel cells
technology, reformer technology, and emissions systems. We recommend
that funding for the overall OTT program be restored to the fiscal year
2001 level.
We note that the Office of Fossil Energy and the Office of Energy
Efficiency are working cooperatively in the engines /fuels area with FE
addressing the production of advanced fuels and EE addressing the
engine and emissions components of this three legged program. Their
mutual success depends on restoration of funding for the fuels program
element under the fossil program as an adjunct to restoring the funding
for engines and emissions work in the energy efficiency program.
BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee is disappointed in the proposed administration budget
for these programs. Buildings consume about one third of the energy
used in the U.S. The last 25 years have seen major efficiency gains
from research and development in this sector. Efficiency of typical
residential air conditioners has almost doubled. Variable air volume
systems have largely replaced constant volume systems in new commercial
buildings. Electronic ballasts and more efficient light sources are
increasingly used. Low-e glass windows have greatly reduced heating and
cooling impact.
The potential for further efficiency improvements in this sector
can lead to further efficiency improvements that can reduce the need
for energy supply by the equivalent of more than 2 billion barrels of
oil equivalent per year. In the face of an energy situation that at
least borders on a crisis, this is not the time to reduce our
commitment to improved efficiency in the buildings sector by cutting
the budget for Buildings Technology almost in half. The industry that
designs, builds and operates buildings is highly fragmented and spends
little on research.
Achieving the potential efficiency improvements in the buildings
sector requires advances in the following areas: residential heat
pumps, furnaces and air conditioners, water heaters, ventilation
techniques, fundamental building thermal processes, and advanced
building materials. Software-testing protocols are needed for
certifying energy code compliance software. In the commercial sector,
there is a broad consensus that better techniques for integrated design
are needed. Development and widespread application of optimum operating
techniques has the potential to increase the efficiency of building
HVAC operation by 20-30 percent over the next 10-20 years. Key needs
are development, testing and automation of the diagnostic techniques
and simulation techniques needed to identify and implement optimum
operation. This technology can be the most cost effective part of a
national energy policy. Lighting, dessicant cooling, better evaporative
coolers and chillers, and controls advances all require additional
research in the commercial sector.
We recommend increased funding slightly above fiscal year 1901
levels to $109.6 million, as the minimum level needed in a budget-
constrained year to permit significant progress in this area.
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES
The Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT), through its Industries
of the Future program, its Best Practices program, its Industrial
Assessment Centers, and the Targeted Audits and Cost-shared Audits
programs, works cooperatively with the nine most energy intensive
industries in the United States. Each of these programs has
demonstrated over many years cost-benefit ratios ranging from 5:1 to
30:1. In helping small- and medium-sized manufacturing facilities--and
indeed entire industries--become more energy efficient, these programs
help to reduce the substantial demand for electricity in our nation,
and will, over time, reduce the number of new power plants that will
have to be brought online over the next 20 years. Because most of these
programs have reached only a fraction of the nation's industrial base,
we recommend that funding for these programs be restored to at least
the levels appropriated in fiscal year 2001 so that important energy
efficiency gains can continue to be realized.
OTHER COMMENTS
The Energy Committee has concerns regarding other elements of the
fossil and energy efficiency programs. The short interval of time
between release of the Administration's budget and the due date for
testimony precluded our developing additional comments. We will be in
contact with the Subcommittee to bring additional concerns for your
consideration in the future.
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. The 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 Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation recommends the following
funding levels for Central Systems and Distributed Generation Systems
in the fiscal year 2002 DOE Fossil Energy R&D budget for Interior
Appropriations:
[In millions of dollars]
Central Systems, Turbines......................................... 15
Central Systems, University Gas Turbine Technology Research
Program....................................................... 5
Distributed Generation, Fuel Cells, Vision 21 Hybrids............. 15
Overall Fuel cell budget.......................................... 60
--Recent problems in the West and elsewhere have demonstrated the
need to increase the supply of clean, affordable electric power
while improving the efficiency of its use.
--Technology development funding is inadequate in the
Administration's budget request for the two technologies that
offer the greatest near-term potential for improvements in
electric system efficiency, economics and reliability.
--Gas turbines and fuel cells are central to increasing the
productivity of the US electricity system because they are the
final step in converting the energy stored in natural gas and
coal to electricity. They have the greatest potential of making
additional improvements in generation efficiency and
reliability.
--The Administration's elimination of all fiscal year 2002 funding
for the DOE's Gas Turbine R&D programs is inconsistent with the
role that gas turbines are expected to play in the U.S. energy
supply mix over the next 20 years. Therefore, we recommend a
fiscal year 2002 funding level for DOE's Gas Turbine R&D
program of $15M, a 50 percent reduction from fiscal year 2001
levels. These funds would allow for the orderly completion of
on-going contracts and accommodate continued technology
development for the Next Generation Turbine program (NGT).
--We also recommend continued support for the University Gas Turbine
Technology Research Program, administered by the South Carolina
Institute for Energy Studies at Clemson at a level of $5M to
encourage pre-competitive basic science program participation
by the university community.
--Proposed 2002 funding levels for the DOE fuel cell R&D program are
also unrealistically low given the promise the technology holds
for meeting future energy efficiency expectations.
--Expand DOE Fossil Energy's overall fuel cell budget from the
Administrations's request of $45 million to $60 million to
include full funding for the SECA program.
--We recommend an increase in fiscal year 2002 funding for the DOE
Vision 21 Hybrid Fuel Cell Program from $11.5 million to at
least $15M; a level consistent with fiscal year 2001 funding.
Such funding will allow for the support of near-term hybrid
demonstration programs that will accelerate commercialization
of the technology.
GAS TURBINES
According to recent testimony by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) natural gas use and production is projected to
increase substantially between 2000 and 2020. A major reason for this
projected increase is a heavier reliance on natural gas for generating
electricity, largely from combustion gas turbines which emit very low
levels of pollution and can be brought on line in a relatively short
time. While EIA projects all sectors to increase their use of natural
gas, electric generation is projected to show the greatest increase
from about 8 TFC to perhaps 12 TCF or about 50 percent.
EIA estimates the need for between 150 and 200 gigawatts of new gas
turbine capacity over the next 20 years; with substantially higher
demands if combined cycle gas turbines are included. As a major
supplier of gas turbines to generate electricity, Siemens Westinghouse
Power Corporation is doing everything it can to meet these challenges
in an environmentally acceptable manner while at the same time
addressing DOE goals for a more efficient and cost effective
technology.
In response to these objectives and other expectations, DOE's
Advanced Turbine System program (ATS), which concludes in 2001,
succeeded in significantly improving the performance of current gas
turbine technologies by increasing operating efficiencies, lowering
unit costs and reducing emissions. The figure below shows the projected
impact of the program on planned additions to the U.S. power grid,
saving almost 30 million tons of CO2.
New environmental requirements, as well as demands for more cost
effective generation technologies, will continue to require a next
generation of even more efficient gas turbines. Our past experience
with the ATS program suggests that there is a direct correlation
between federal R&D spending and the rate of introduction of newer and
more efficient generation technologies. For example, one speaker at the
March 27 EIA National Energy Modeling System/Annual Energy Outlook 2001
Conference noted that continued technology progress has provided
substantially more value to consumers than to industry. The speaker,
Vello A. Kuuskraa of Advanced Resources International Inc, estimated
that over the next 20 years the benefits to domestic gas consumers of
technology progress (a portion of which is gas turbine R&D) would be
$1.6 trillion. This is approximately the same as the Administration's
proposed tax cut!
Former Congressman Phil Sharp pointed out recently in testimony
before the House Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, that since
the 1970's, significant efficiency gains have been accomplished in
nearly every sector of energy production and consumption. He noted that
government policies have undoubtedly contributed, through research and
development and through energy efficiency standards, to these gains.
Thus increased energy efficiencies, especially in gas turbines, have
long been a cornerstone of our federal government R&D program
initiatives. Congressman Sharp quoted one analysis undertaken by Dr.
John Holdren which found that between 1970 and 2000, efficiency
improvements saved us two and one half times more energy than was
supplied by growth in all fuel use. This Subcommittee has played a
critical role in supporting many of the technologies that have made
this progress possible. We appreciate your leadership and we hope to
see this strong role continued in the future.
FUEL CELLS
Though results are just now entering commercial markets, the DOE
Fuel Cell R&D program has produced its own set of successes. It is now
clear that electrical efficiency levels approaching 50 percent are well
within the limits of current fuel cell technologies with virtually no
emissions. This compares to about 25 percent for other distributed
generation technologies, and about 35 percent for the average power
generated in the United States. The 100kW SOFC system demonstrated by
Siemens Westinghouse has shown remarkable performance and long life,
leading a key DOE official to call it the ``Eveready Bunny of fuel
cells--It keeps on going.'' Furthermore, on an overall fuel
effectiveness basis (combining heat and power) it demonstrated 73
percent efficiency! In another recent achievement, a fuel cell hybrid
system produced by Siemens Westinghouse, in combination with a micro-
turbine, has already demonstrated 52 percent electrical efficiency.
Additional development will increase electrical efficiency to 60-70
percent or more. The Subcommittee can take much pride in its support
over the years for fuel cell R&D; but additional resource commitments
are still required to finish the job of demonstrating system
reliability and reducing costs.
Solid oxide fuel cell technology, which Siemens Westinghouse
actively developed with DOE support, has achieved extraordinary
environmental improvements with acid rain pollutant emissions measuring
less than 0.5 ppm, a factor 40 to 100 times lower than typical US power
plants. While costs are still too high for fuel cells to have a rapid
market entry, we are actively working with DOE to reduce fuel cell
costs and accelerate widespread commercial application. We believe the
basic prototype SOFC system can be deployed commercially in 2004. The
Vision 21 Hybrid Power Plant, which combines a fuel cell with a micro-
turbine, holds the greatest promise for broad commercial application
and can be deployed about one year later. Previous fiscal year funding
shortfalls have delayed the introduction of fuel cells into the
marketplace by perhaps as much as two years. Thus, increasing federal
support is critical to keeping the program on an accelerated
introduction schedule.
The United States is Siemens Westinghouse's global center of
excellence for solid oxide fuel cell technology. Private investment in
SOFC fuel cell technology in fiscal year 2002 will be at least $12
million. We believe however, that additional funding will be required
to meet both Siemens Westinghouse's and DOE's expectations for this
promising technology.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Continue the historically strong federal support for improvements
in gas turbine technologies by restoring the DOE gas turbine technology
R&D program to a funding level for fiscal year 2002 of $15 million.
Continue the Government-University-Industry partnership in gas
turbine technology development by funding University turbine research
at $5 million
Continue R&D Fuel Cell Systems and Vision 21 Hybrid Fuel Cell
research funding, increasing the administration's requested amount from
$11.5 to $15 million for each of these programs.
Expand DOE Fossil Energy's overall fuel cell budget from the
Administration's request of $45 million to $60 million, to include full
funding for the SECA program.
As a nation, it is unlikely that we will be able to meet our public
commitment to greater energy efficiencies, lower emissions and lower
electricity costs without continued improvements in gas turbine and
fuel cell technologies. No matter which direction our energy future
takes, gas turbines and fuel cells are the solution to meeting our
future power generation needs. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation
believes that continued progress toward these commitments will
certainly be delayed without increased support for these technologies.
Quoting once again from the testimony of Henson Moore at the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on March 29, ``you are the
investors on behalf of the American people''. These investments will
require both foresight and commitment now if we are to meet our
expectations and commitments in the future.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fuel Cell Power Association
In last year's statement to the Subcommittee, FCPA stated, ``years
of insufficient capacity and transmission additions have resulted in
the North American Electric Reliability Council forecasting negative
power margins in several regions of the U.S. by the year 2007.'' This
year's rolling blackouts in California have brought this problem to the
attention of the entire nation. Electric power industry analysts are
now predicting that this condition is not only going to worsen in
California, but the Northwest, Midwest and Northeast regions of our
nation are in danger of experiencing California style rolling
blackouts' this summer.
The American public now understands that an inadequate supply of
reliable power is threatening the U.S. economy. The nation's consumers
also recognize that electricity can, and must, be produced and
delivered more cost effectively and more cleanly than it has in the
past. Clean, efficient, and highly reliable fuel cells can transform
the way power is generated and delivered in the United States. Fuel
cells emit virtually no pollution, are substantially more efficient
than existing technologies, and are ideally suited to the developing
market place for distributed generation. Because fuel cells can be
quickly installed at the ``point of demand'' to supply high-quality
power, they are the ideal solution for the kinds of problems we are
experiencing in California.
To meet the nation's growing demand for clean power, FCPA
recommends that Congress provide the following fiscal year 2002 funding
levels for DOE government/industry fuel cell research and development
partnerships.
FUEL CELL POWER ASSOCIATION FISCAL YEAR 2002 STATIONARY FUEL CELL R&D
RECOMMENDATIONS
Office of Fossil Energy--Distributed Generation Systems--Fuel Cells
[Millions of dollars]
Fuel Cell Systems................................................. 13.5
Vision 21 Hybrids................................................. 15.0
Innovative Systems Concepts--SECA................................. 21.1
If the nation is to meet its demand for reliable power and realize
fully the goal of clean, cost effective power, we need to increase the
national commitment to fuel cell development and the near-term
commercialization of these technologies. Fuel cells are devices that
convert chemical energy in fuel to electricity and heat, without
combustion. Exceptionally efficient, non-polluting, and highly reliable
fuel cells will transform the way power is generated and delivered.
DOE is leading the federal government's effort to make this vision
a reality through its stationary fuel cell R&D initiatives. These DOE
programs form critical partnerships with the fuel cell industry so that
fuel cell power generation systems can be made available in a timeframe
that coincides with the nation's growing demand for new sources of
power.
FUEL CELL SYSTEMS/VISION 21 HYBRIDS
The vision of commercially viable power generation using molten
carbonate and solid oxide fuel cell technologies has been proven--but
much work needs to be done before the units are ready for commercial
use. Progress is attributable to the DOE Office of Fossil Energy Fuel
Cell Systems technology development partnership program. The partners
are achieving milestones consistent with program funding levels, but
not on program schedule.
While the Federal investment in power generation technology R&D has
increased the pace of fuel cell development efforts, years of funding
at levels well below the amounts identified in the program plans
continues to delay the technologies' readiness. Again this year, the
initial funding levels proposed by the Administration are below the
amounts agreed upon and needed to fulfill the requirements of the
program. Considering the current state of U.S. electric generation
capacity, the Federal government should be attempting to accelerate,
not decelerate, the pace of fuel cell market availability. It is
critical that Congress and the Administration make these two projects a
top funding priority, budgeting and appropriating the resources needed
to drive this much needed power generation technology closer to the
point of commercialization.
In accordance with current program goals, the Molten Carbonate and
Solid Oxide Fuel Cells are expected to be commercially available in
sizes up to 2MW by 2003. These systems will have total system thermal
efficiencies up to 85 percent LHV with fuel to electricity efficiencies
of 50 to 60 percent. Following the markets acceptance of the initial
commercial products, manufacturers are also planning to make systems in
the 50 to 100 MW range. Reductions in the cost of coal gasification and
gas cleanup will ultimately lead to the fueling of these products with
coal as early as 2010.
The Molten Carbonate and Solid Oxide Fuel Cell work directly
impacts the success of Fuel Cell/Gas Turbine Hybrid Systems that are
expected to realize a 25 percent increase in efficiency and 25 percent
reduction in cost for a comparably sized fuel cell. Combining fuel
cells and gas turbines wll provide the synergy needed to realize the
highest efficiencies and lowest emissions of any fossil energy power
plant. The Hybrid System will use the rejected thermal energy and
combustion of residual fuel from the high-temperature molten carbonate
and solid oxide fuel cells to drive a gas turbine. The gas turbine
helps reduce the balance of plant cost.
By 2010, these hybrid configurations are expected to achieve
efficiencies greater than 70 percent, and 80 percent efficiencies are
expected by 2015. Past and current DOE fuel cell and gas turbine R&D
programs have laid the technological groundwork for the hybrid systems.
Exploratory research on fuel cell/turbine hybrids is underway
involving the evaluation of a 75-kilowatt turbine operating in
combination with a simulated fuel cell. Researchers are engaged in
conceptual feasibility and special purpose turbogenerator design
studies.
The Fuel Cell Power Association recommends the Fuel Cell Systems
(Molten Carbonate Systems) and Vision 21 Hybrid (Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
Systems) programs receive fiscal year 2002 funding at $13.5 and $15
million respectively.
INNOVATIVE SYSTEMS CONCEPTS--SECA
The DOE Innovative Systems Concepts--SECA R&D program goal is to
develop a new generation of lower cost fuel cells. To attain lower
costs, the program will focus on integration of design, high-speed
manufacturing, and materials selection. The program aims to realize the
full potential of fuel cell technology through long-term materials
development
The SECA program will focus on the development and mass production
of 5kW solid state fuel cell modules. Ultimately, these fuel flexible,
multi-function fuel cells are projected to attain 70-80 percent
efficiency in combined-cycle mode, and will provide future energy
conversion options for large and small-scale stationary and mobile
applications. The program is also targeting the achievement of stack
fabrication and assembly costs of $100/kW, system costs of $400/kW,
near-zero emissions, and compatibility with carbon sequestration.
Industrial development teams share the development costs on these
fuel cell power generation systems. The teams will develop the
manufacturing capability and packaging needed for the different land-
based power generation systems to automotive auxiliary power units
targeted by the program.
Universities, national laboratories, and other research-oriented
organizations will participate in a Core Technology Program to support
the industrial development teams. The industry teams will determine the
scope of the problem-solving research needed to overcome barriers, and
the resulting research will be made available to all industrial teams.
The National Energy Technology Laboratory and the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory will provide the coordination and technical
resources.
FCPA recommends that the Innovative Systems Concepts--SECA Program
should be funded at $21.1 million in fiscal year 2002.
FULE CELL POWER ASSOCIATION
The Fuel Cell Power Association (FCPA) promotes the interests of
the fuel cell industry by educating the government and public on the
societal benefits of highly efficient, clean fuel cell power. Of
primary importance to FCPA's members is the advocacy of government
support for R&D programs and regulatory policies to facilitate the
development and commercialization of fuel cell technology for
stationary power. A key element of this communication is the education
of government officials on the essential role the government plays in
improving the economic and technical viability of fuel cells for
stationary power.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gas Turbine Association
The Gas Turbine Association (GTA) appreciates the opportunity to
provide the Senate Appropriations Committee's Interior and Related
Agencies Subcommittee with our industry's statement regarding the
Department of Energy's Office of Fossil (FE) and Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE) fiscal year 2002 funding. GTA
recommends Congress provide funding at the following levels for DOE gas
turbine research and development programs:
[In millions of dollars]
FE Next Generation Turbine Program:
Turbine Power Systems Development and Integration............. 45
Reliability, Availability and Maintainability Improvement..... 20
Crosscutting Research and Development......................... 15
EE Distributed Energy Resources Program:
Advanced Microturbine Systems................................. 20
Industrial Gas Turbines....................................... 7
Technology Base............................................... 13
FE NEXT GENERATION TURBINE PROGRAM
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Next Generation Turbine (NGT)
Program focuses on R&D to reduce power transmission congestion, and
improve the reliability, availability, and maintainability of existing
and future turbine power generation systems. The NGT Program has been
designed to fully integrate into the DOE Vision 21 power plant plans by
targeting technologies that will deliver the maximum power supply
efficiency and fuel-flexibility. The following highlights the benefits
of this R&D effort and the Gas Turbine Association fiscal year 2002 R&D
funding recommendations.
Turbine Power Systems Development and Integration ($45 Million)
Flexible Turbine Systems.--The Flexible Turbine Systems will fill a
critical void in the U.S. power generation capability by (1) Operating
in the intermediate range of 500-5,000 hours per year with an output
greater than 30 MW; (2) Providing electricity at a cost 15-20 percent
below that of current systems serving this power generation segment;
(3) Serving as new capacity, or in re-powering of older fossil units by
replacing the more than 120,000 MW of aging oil and natural gas fired
steam cycle plants across the country, and providing at least 15
percent more efficiency than current systems, with both capital cost in
$/kW and maintenance cost in $/kWh 15 percent less than comparable
conventional products; and (4) Enabling the partial re-powering of
existing steam plants, without investing in a full re-powering project
enabling both base load and on-peak power from those facilities, and
provide waste heat for regeneration, feed-water heating, steam raising,
and fuel heating.
Fuel-Flexible Advanced Turbine System.--While most gas turbines are
currently fueled by natural gas, cost-effective conversion of coal and
renewable gas streams into clean power cannot be accomplished without
an advanced gas turbine system. Gas Turbines are the cleanest and most
efficient way of using coal as a fuel, via integration with coal
gasification systems. The achievement of important technological
advancements will enable the near-term, economical utilization of these
fuels in state-of-the-art Fuel-Flexible Advanced Turbine System.
Turbine Fuel Cell Hybrids.--The DOE Vision 21 initiative identifies
Turbine Fuel Cell Hybrids as key technology for enabling energy plants
to serve the U.S. and global energy needs of the early 21st century. A
gas turbine is used to pressurize fuel cells and thus the system
requires development of customized turbo machinery and balance of plant
to reduce the overall cost of projected commercial systems. Development
of multi-megawatt size hybrid systems, and extensive field
demonstrations, are necessary to achieve the goals of the DOE Vision 21
plans. The Hybrid will (1) Achieve the ultra-high 70 percent
efficiency; (2) Emit ultra-low emissions of less than 1 ppm Nox; and
(3) Provide distributed energy with multi-fuel capability (natural gas,
coal and renewable).
Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) Improvement ($20
Million)
The genesis of the deregulated power market has heightened the need
to ensure that RAM improvements are made. In a deregulated market, cost
competitiveness becomes more crucial as electric utilities enter a new
competitive business environment where operating and maintenance costs
cannot be passed on to the consumer. Thus turbine purchasers look more
critically at RAM and expect the manufacturers to provide some
guarantees. This means that RAM improvements must be made for turbines
to thrive in the new market place. To ensure that U.S. turbine power
plants will operate reliably and sustain system viability, improvement
are needed in advanced condition monitoring systems for power plants
must incorporate performance monitoring, mechanical integrity analysis,
and component life management. Advanced monitoring will require
considerable development effort on (1) sensors, (2) controls, (3)
condition/health monitoring systems, (4) expert predictive systems, and
(5) turbine power-plant life-cycle management.
Crosscutting Research and Development ($15 Million)
To support the development and operation of next generation
systems, teams of U.S. government organizations, industries,
universities and DOE national laboratories, will conduct R&D. Key R&D
technology needs have been identified for combustion systems,
materials, advanced computing, sensors and controls /instrumentation.
Crosscutting R&D will continue throughout the NGT Program. The
development of these technologies will solve technical barriers that
cut across all types of gas turbine development needs. A prominent
highlight of the successful ATS Program was the creation of the
Advanced Gas Turbine Systems Research (AGTSR) Program. This work is
being continued under the NGT Program. AGTSR is a consortium of more
then 95 universities in 37 states make up the consortium, bring
together the engineering departments of the nation's leading
universities and industrial turbine developers to ensure that the next
generation of natural gas turbines is built on a solid base of
knowledge. AGTSR programs provide training for students in research
relevant to the U.S. gas turbine industry and hence future employees.
EE DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES
To help meet the next century's projected demand for power,
increased emphasis is being placed on developing distributed generation
systems. Electric utility industry deregulation and uncertainty that
can be associated with capital intensive centralized power plants are
making distributed generation an economically attractive alternative
for expanding electric power generation sources. Improved microturbine
and gas turbine/fuel cell hybrid technologies are needed to expedite
the installation of clean, efficient and affordable distributed
generation systems.
Microturbine Systems ($20 Million)
Microturbines, especially when combined with a heat recovery system
would produce compact, highly efficient power and hot water for
commercial and small industrial applications. High efficiency
microturbines would use significantly less fuel, and are likely to be
environmentally preferred, compared to power generated at a non-gas
turbine based conventional combustion power plant. Microturbines range
in size from about 25 kW's to several hundred kW, and provide:
--Low-maintenance, low first cost and cost effective;
--Standalone operation, i.e. running off-grid, or can operate in
parallel with the grid;
--Multi-fuel capability (natural gas, diesel, propane and even
landfill gas);
--Base load, peak shaving; emergency standby service, combined heat
and power (cogeneration), voltage support to grid, and
improvement in power quality.
Funding for advanced microturbine development to increase
efficiency by 15 percent, reduce cost per kilowatt, achieve lower-
emissions, and customize turbo machinery for hybrid applications.
Industrial Gas Turbines ($7 Million)
Many improvements have been made to industrial gas turbines as a
result of the DOE Industrial ATS program. Work on further reducing the
emissions levels of this distributed generation technology will allow
the installation these systems in ozone non-attainment areas. This will
expand the range of manufacturing, industrial commercial building and
power park applications.
Technology Base ($13 Million)
Work on advanced materials improvements, such as advanced ceramics,
needs to continue in order to fully realize the investments already
made in this base technology area. Materials that allow turbines to
endure higher temperature operation will enable these systems to reach
even higher efficiencies with lower emissions levels. Improvements in
reliability, availability and maintainability will be achieved through
the development and refinement of sensing and process control
technologies. These improvements will facilitate the integration of gas
turbine systems into distributed energy systems.
PUBLIC BENEFITS FROM DOE GAS TURBINE R&D PROGRAMS
DOE gas turbine R&D Programs stimulate economic growth, clean up
the environment, and ensure that the U.S. has a reliable supply of
power. The implementation of the next generation of advanced turbine
technology R&D programs will accelerate U.S. market restructuring and
environmental goals. Armed with new advanced gas turbine systems, the
U.S. power supply industry will provide America with the following.
Provide Reliable Power
The United States can have technologies that can operate better in
the dynamic restructured market including technologies able to perform
``just-in-time'' dispatch without operational or environmental
penalties. This translates into improved power quality and fewer
disruptions in power supply.
Increase Economic Strength through Improved Power Systems
Develop and accelerate deployment of advanced technologies to
reduce the cost of electricity, create new jobs, and stimulate
investment to support economic development. U.S. expertise in these
sophisticated technologies will also position companies for success in
growing international power generation markets.
Meet Mounting Demand for Increased Power Production Capacity
U.S. demand for electrical power is expected to increase by nearly
35 percent over the next 20 years. Manufacturing and information
technology businesses require reliable power generation thus dictating
the need for DOE next generation of R&D programs to develop state-of-
the-art gas turbines for reliable, low-cost electricity.
Ensure A Cleaner Environment
DOE gas turbine programs provide a cost-effective solution for
clean power. Advanced gas turbine technologies developed through DOE
programs have much higher efficiencies and lower emissions than
competing combustion power systems.
Replace Environmentally Deficient, Aging Power Plants
In today's market, only revolutionary, advanced gas turbine
technologies provide the economic advantages needed to trigger the
accelerated retirement of inefficient, environmentally challenged base-
load power plants.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks
I strongly encourage the Subcommittee to support the budget request
of $7.0 million for the Transportation Fuels and Chemicals program
within the Fossil Energy Research and Development, Fuels and Power
Systems, Fuels program of which $3.7 million is for the ceramic
membrane projects. The DOE fiscal year 2002 cost share needs for the
ITM Syngas Project (ceramic membranes) is $5.0 million--$3.7 million
from the Fossil Energy Research and Development, Fuels and Power
Systems, Fuels budget and $1.3 million from the Energy Supply,
Renewable Energy Resources, Renewable Energy Technologies, Hydrogen
Research Program.
The University of Alaska, Fairbanks urges that the budget request
be supported to maintain the technical progress and the program
schedule of this important project. Underfunding of the project budget
in fiscal year 2002 would cause a project delay that could
significantly increase the overall cost of the project and negatively
impact the timing of constructing a commercial-scale Gas-to-Liquids
facility using the ceramic membrane syngas technology on the Alaskan
North Slope. The ceramic membrane-based Syngas projects promise 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. 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
ceramic membrane syngas show a >33 percent capital cost savings versus
conventional autothermal reforming/cryogenic air separation. The
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, School of Mineral Engineering will
provide expertise in Arctic Engineering and materials handling as part
of the ceramic membrane syngas project team which is comprised of a
broad, but complementary group of entities: Technology developer-Air
Products; Economic Evaluation and ultimately commercialization--Chevron
and Norsk Hydro; Reactor Design and Engineering--McDermott; Ceramic
materials Processing--Ceramatec; Ceramic materials and seals
development--Eltron Research and Pacific Northwest National
Laboratories; and Analytical Research work--University of Pennsylvania
and Penn State University.
Over the past three and a half years, the project team has made
very 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. All the objectives of the first phase of the
program were successfully completed, and the project is now one year
into Phase 2, where the technology will be demonstrated in two
significant stages of scale-up. The program continues to be on schedule
and to meet all of its milestones. More detailed process and economic
assessments by Chevron, Norsk Hydro, McDermott International and Air
Products, at larger scale plant size, and incorporating laboratory
data, have confirmed the potential for significant >33 percent capital
cost savings in syngas generation by the new technology compared with
conventional routes. Eltron Research has tested under high-pressure
process conditions laboratory samples of ceramic membranes and seals
produced by Ceramatec. Stable performance has been demonstrated in
these tests for over 3,500 hours of continuous operation under
simulated process conditions. 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) has been built and
installed at Air Products, and is undergoing shakedown. This unit is on
schedule to start operation later in April 2001, and represents the
first significant scale-up from the laboratory test units constructed
in Phase 1 at Eltron Research and Air Products. The unit will
demonstrate the performance and operation of the ITM Syngas process in
a membrane reactor resembling the full-scale design at complete
commercial operating conditions. The first ceramic membrane modules to
be tested in this unit, sub-scale versions of the commercial size
modules, have been successfully fabricated by Ceramatec. A second stage
of major process scale-up, an engineering prototype system operating at
a nominal scale of 500,000 SCF per day (equivalent to 15 bbl/day of
liquid fuel products), is being planned for operation in 2003.
The continued development of the ceramic membrane 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 ceramic membrane 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 ceramic membrane
syngas, will reduce the U.S. dependency on oil imports. In addition,
the 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 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 membrane-based 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 ceramic membrane 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 NMA member companies account for approximately three-fourths of
the coal production in the United States, over one billion tons
annually, and the vast majority of mined minerals. The purpose of this
statement is to present the mining industry's views on fiscal year 2002
programs for the following agencies: Office of Industrial Technology,
Office of Fossil Energy, Energy Information Administration, U.S.
Geological Survey, Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of Land
Management.
OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY
NMA supports the Department of Energy's (DOE) Clean Coal Power
Initiative's requested level funding of $150 million to create
government-industry partnerships to demonstrate innovations that will
allow coal-fueled power plants to operate more efficiently and with
improved environmental performance. It is difficult for utilities,
especially under a deregulated and now competitive environment, to take
the financial and technical risks associated with using first of a kind
technologies. This program will help offset those risks.
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 technologies to enable coal to
meet current environmental and performance standards. NMA supports the
use of $82 million in previously appropriated funds to initiate
construction of the Advanced Pressurized Circulating Fluidized Bed
demonstration project, to continue construction of the fixed-bed
slagging gasification and fuel cell demonstration project and to
initiate operation of the Circulating Atmospheric Fluidized Bed
demonstration project--all projects previously approved under the CCT
program. To address ever expanding environmental requirements, NMA
requests that the $4 million reduction in funding for the ongoing work
on pressurized fluidized bed combustion, primarily at the Wilsonville
Power System Development plant, be restored.
In addition, ongoing past R&D activities must be maintained and
support expanded use of coal while addressing existing and possibly
more stringent environmental standards. Unfortunately, the fiscal year
2002 budget request for Fuel and Power Systems shows a very sharp
decrease of $69 million from fiscal year 2001 levels, $229 to $160
million. As the Administration wants to emphasize energy supply, and
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, coupled with the
need to develop the power plant of the future, the fiscal year 2002
budget should be funded at least at fiscal year 2001 levels. The budget
emphasizes clean coal technologies, which we fully support. But, the
importance of basic coal and fuel systems research should not be
ignored, and it is equally important--for future years--to maintain and
accelerate this work.
In particular, innovations for existing power plants should be
increased by $7 million (in part to sustain development of mercury
control technologies) gasification technologies by $15 million
(important for Vision 21); and the program to develop advanced turbines
should be funded at $30 million, level with fiscal year 2001 funding,
rather than being zeroed out. These dollars would be used to support
follow on work to the highly successful Advance Turbine Systems R&D
program and will develop turbines for the next generation of power
plants for the Vision 21 program.
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 electricity and other products. Vision 21 will
incorporate and expand many of the technologies developed in the Clean
Coal Technology program (e.g., PFBC and IGCC). The work that DOE is
proposing for fiscal year 2002 is critical if Vision 21 technologies,
designed to reduce emissions, are to be demonstrated by 2015. This
program should be accelerated and we support funding at or above the
requests for the various elements of Vision 21 included in the Fuels
and Power System Budget request. 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 (ZECA) 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 promise to offer an alternative to
emitting carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Most of these projects will
be a longer term, with the exception of projects such as the ZECA
project described above. NMA supports DOE's request for an increase in
carbon sequestration funding to $20.7 million and believes that this
program could constructively use at least $10 million in additional
funding. This additional funding could be used to strengthen the
portfolio of near-term R&D sequestration work, to support projects
selected in the second solicitation for sequestration research and to
expand work in this important area. An alternative to Kyoto is needed--
sequestration must be a vital part of that alternative if we are to
continue to use affordable coal (and other fossil fuels) to support our
economy in the future.
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 reduced its funding required for solid fuels
and feedstocks by $2.3 million. This funding should be increased to
$10.0 million, which includes $3.0 million for advanced separation
research. NMA supports continuation of funding for the Steubenville
Comprehensive Air Monitoring Program (SCAMP), which is a program to
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.
University Research. The DOE provides little support for research
on mining at the academic institutions. This diminishes the national
capability to develop fundamental science to improve mining practices,
and impairs the abilities of the universities to train future
generations of mining engineers. In addition to its programs in oil and
gas production, the Fossil Energy office should institute a program to
support academic research in mining.
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 DOE, industry and Congress as the research agenda
needed for a sustainable mining industry in the 21st Century. Response
to the program has been overwhelming. Since 1999, 111 proposals
totaling $113 million have been received--at 50 percent, DOE's cost
share would be $56.5 million. In 2000, 16 new crosscutting projects
were selected from 62 proposals, bringing the total active projects to
26. Another technology roadmap was completed which defines research
requirements that address the industry's mineral processing needs and
21 proposals were submitted in response to a national-laboratory call
for proposals. These proposals were technically evaluated earlier this
year. DOE's fiscal year 2002 obligations for the existing 26 projects
are $3.7 million alone. The $2.1 million that DOE has requested for
mining for fiscal year 2002 is clearly too low to meet the existing
obligations let alone support mineral processing or other mining
research projects. NMA respectfully requests that the Mining Industry
of the Future Program be funded at $10 million in fiscal year 2002.
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (EIA)
In addition to its value to the Nation, the functions performed by
the 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 energy price increases and energy
shortages on our economy. EIA's energy data collection and
dissemination responsibilities are essential to 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. With this decline
has come a very notable deterioration in data quality and timeliness.
Coal data in particular is not of the quality that it once was and NMA
urges the Congress to insist that attention be given to correct this
problem. Data on coal production and consumption in 1999 is not yet
available (April 2001) and this presents a particular problem now that
our Nation is experiencing problems with energy supply and increases in
energy prices. EIA could not begin to estimate either coal production
and production trends, or coal consumption at utilities or stockpiles
on a reliable basis due to lack of information. We urge the
subcommittee to support current levels of funding as a minimum, and
increase the amount available to EIA with the specific instructions to
correct the data collection and reporting problems in the coal and
utility sectors.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)
The USGS'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 USGS 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
Congress and by State and local governments, as well as by industry,
academia and nongovernmental organizations. NMA opposes the reduction
of funding for the Minerals Information Service included in the fiscal
year 2002 budget request. It is our understanding that the USGS plans
to eliminate the International Minerals Component of the USGS Mineral
Information Team. This is the group that collects, analyzes, and
disseminates information and data on the international supply and
availability of more than 100 commodities in more than 180 countries.
This is the U.S. government's ONLY source for this important
information that allows the trackage of the availability of strategic
minerals NOT mined in the United States. Elimination of this program is
very short sighted in an era of increasing globalization of the
minerals industry and expanded trade. It would be very difficult to
replace this data and information effort once eliminated. NMA urges the
Congress to restore this $2 million to the USGS budget with the
explicit instructions that it be devoted to the Minerals Information
Team and that the International Minerals Component be retained.
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 Initiatives (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. ADTI receives funding and
other support from industry and several Federal agencies for specific
projects. The Office of Surface Mining has provided the ADTI $200,000
for the last three fiscal years for activities related to acid mine
drainage from coal mining. If each of the Federal agencies, OSM, BLM,
DOE, USGS, USFS and other agencies as appropriate, were provided funds
to commit $200,000 toward ADTI, approximately $1 million would be
available to support the work of this vital initiative.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING (OSM)
To ensure the continued success of this unique and successful
program, State funding through the Title V grant process is crucial.
Title V grants should be increased at a minimum to reflect the states
``uncontrollable and fixed costs.'' It is patently unfair to increase
the funding of Federal oversight while ignoring the needs of the states
that are on the front-line of program implementation. The Abandoned
Mine Land Fund is funded exclusively by a tax on active mining
operations. The fund's current surplus as well as additional reductions
in Federal overhead should allow for additional state mitigation of
historic abandoned mine sites.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)
While NMA supports additional funding to expand the energy and
minerals activities of BLM, specific attention should be focused on the
need to plan, prepare and implement an accelerated lease-by-application
program for Federal coal resources to meet the increasing demand for
this reliable and inexpensive resource. The solid minerals program has
been all but ignored over the last eight years and needs additional
resources as pointed out in the National Research Council's report
``Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands'' (1999) to accomplish its mission.
Over the next year, the Administration should be encouraged to review
this report and make recommendations to implement necessary
administrative changes to improve the implementation of the 1980
Surface Management Regulations as recommended by the NRC.
______
Prepared Statement of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Roe-Hoan Yoon
and I am the Director of the Center for Advanced Separation
Technologies (CAST) at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University. I appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement in
support of additional funding of $8 million for the Solid Fuels and
Feedstock's Program, Fossil Energy Research and Development, U.S.
Department of Energy. The additional funding request includes $3
million for advanced separation research and development.
In fiscal year 2001, the Congress appropriated a total of $4.291
million for the Solid Fuels and Feedstock's program, which included the
following subprograms:
[In millions of dollars]
Tailored Fuels.................................................... 2.491
Premium Carbon Products........................................... 1.427
Advanced Separation............................................... 0.300
In the Presidents budget request for fiscal year 2002, the first
and the third subprograms were eliminated. Both of these budget items
were directed to develop advanced separation technologies, with the
Tailored Fuels subprogram directed for near-term applications and the
Advanced Separation directed for longer-term high-risk projects. I
believe it is shortsighted to eliminate the support for these important
efforts.
JUSTIFICATION
The Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget request includes $150
million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative, which is a part of its $2
billion commitment for the next 10 years. In addition, it includes
$159.8 million for Coal and Power Systems Research and Development,
most of which is directed to develop technologies that can burn coal
more cleanly at higher efficiencies. Both of these large programs are
directed toward minimizing the environmental impacts of burning coal,
and thus will eventually help the coal industry continue to mine coal.
Therefore, many in the coal industry support the programs. However,
there is also a dire need to develop technologies that can help the
coal industry minimize the environmental impacts associated with
producing coal in the United States.
As coal industry is a mature industry, one would expect that there
may not be any need to develop new, advanced technologies. This is far
from the truth. Since 1985, coal mine productivity more than doubled,
while mine fatalities were cut by more than half. These improvements
were achieved through technology innovations. However, there remain
serious technological problems associated with fine coal impoundments,
valley fill mining, and acid mine drainage, all of which represent
serious environmental issues. The technological barriers are so large
that coal companies by themselves cannot find appropriate solutions to
these problems in near term. The industry needs the cooperation and
assistance from the federal government to pursue new technology
breakthroughs, just as the Nation's utilities need the federal programs
noted above to burn coal more cleanly.
On October 11, 2000, a fine coal impoundment located in
northeastern Kentucky failed, releasing 250 million gallons of coal
sludge into local streams and schoolyards. It was fortunate that no one
was killed by the spillage this time. In 1972, 130 million gallons of
coal slurry ran off an impoundment in Buffalo Creek, West Virginia, and
killed 125 people. These impoundments hold fine coal wastes that cannot
be cleaned and dewatered using the technologies available today. Thus,
the impoundments can be eliminated if advanced technologies become
available from further research.
After the accident in Kentucky, the Sierra Club called for a
national commitment to eliminate all high-risk impoundments, and the
Congress appropriated $2 million for National Research Council to study
prevention of coal waste impoundments. However, this money is for paper
studies and not for developing technologies that can be used to find
technological solutions.
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
Run-of-the-mine coals are washed in water to remove non-combustible
mineral matter from coal. Along with the mineral matter, much of the
inorganic sulfur and trace elements such as mercury are removed. The
costs of cleaning the coal particles finer than approximately 0.15 mm
in size are substantially higher than those for cleaning coarser coals.
Therefore, many companies discard the fines along with water to
impoundments. In general, 5 to 10 percent of the coal mined in eastern
U.S. is too fine to be cleaned efficiently, and approximately one half
of it is being discarded. According to a recent survey, there are 713
fine coal impoundments, which are holding 2.5 to 3 billion tons of fine
coal.
The coal fines discarded in impoundments represent: (i) the money
that companies have already spent for mining, (ii) a waste of valuable
national resources, and (iii) an environmental concern. If advanced
technologies are developed through industry-university partnerships,
they can be used to recover fine coal rather than discarding it to
impoundments. They can also be used to re-mine the coal from old
impoundments and, thereby, counter balance the high costs of mining.
There are two objectives in coal cleaning. One is to separate
mineral matter from coal (solid-solid separation), and the other is to
separate water from cleaned coal product (solid-liquid separation or
dewatering).
Solid-Solid Separation
Considerable progress has been made for separating impurities from
fine coal. The microbubble flotation technology developed with Energy
Department's research funding is used not only in coal but also in
mineral industries worldwide. The enhanced-gravity separation
technology developed more recently can substantially increase the
removal of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) such as mercury from coal.
These technologies represent the lowest cost options for removing
various impurities from fine coal. Therefore, they can be the method of
choice in many developing countries.
Solid-Liquid Separation
The clean coal products obtained from the solid-solid separation
processes are dewatered before being shipped to utilities for power
generation. Since coal is a low-cost material, it is difficult to
justify using thermal driers for dewatering. Furthermore, it is
difficult to obtain permits to install thermal driers in the U.S. due
to the stringent emission standards. Therefore, coal companies are
using mechanical devices such as vacuum filters or centrifuges. But
they are inefficient. The vacuum filters cannot reduce moistures to
sufficiently low levels, while the centrifuges lose substantial amount
of coal fines. Fortunately, promising new methods have recently been
developed. The U.S. Department of Energy selected some of these
technologies to be further developed and tested in operating plants
using the fund appropriated in fiscal year 2001 budget. However, the
Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget directed both the solid-solid
and solid-liquid separation projects to be concluded without further
support.
IMPACTS
In 2000, 56 percent of the nations electricity was generated from
coal in utilities, and this percentage may increase in view of the high
costs of natural gas. The advanced solid-solid and solid-liquid
separation technologies noted above should help the U.S. coal industry
produce cleaner and lower cost solid fuels for power generation.
According to Annual Energy Outlook 2001, the price of electricity
should decline from 6.7 cents per kWh in 1999 to 6.0 cents per kWh in
2020. This prediction was in part based on an assumption that the price
of the solid fuel continues to decline by 1.4 percent per year. Further
development of the promising advanced separation technologies may be
instrumental in meeting this projection and help the U.S. economy
continue to grow.
The advanced separation technologies to be developed under the
Solid Fuels and Feedstock's program can be used not only for cleaning
fine coal but also for producing high-value mineral concentrates. In
2000, the U.S. mining industry produced $59.7 billion's worth of raw
materials, which made the U.S. the largest mining country of the world.
Canada was the distant second with $36 billion (in 1997), and Australia
the third with $27.6 billion (in 1998).
While the country is facing a fuels supply crisis, it is hardly the
time to zero out the R&D budget that can directly help the coal
industry.
Mr. Chairman, with the funding I am requesting for advanced
separation technologies, the Center for Advanced Separation
Technologies (CAST) proposes to conduct research in the areas of solid-
liquid and solid-solid separations that can be used in both the coal
and mineral industries. The first and foremost, we would like to
continue to develop new technologies that can be used to recover coal
from the coal fines that are currently being discarded to impoundments.
Availability of such technologies will be able to eliminate the high-
risk impoundment and, at the same time, recover high-value solid fuels
for electricity generation. The values recovered from such operation
should exceed the costs of eliminating old impoundments. The potentials
for the financial gains are so great that several major companies
showed interest in using the technologies.
Of the various solid-solid separation technologies used in the coal
and minerals industries, flotation is most widely used. In this
technique, small air bubbles are used to separate fine particles. We
would like to further develop this technology so that they can be used
to separate sub-micron sized particles. This can be achieved by
improving our understanding of the basic mechanisms involved in the
process through mathematical modeling, by developing new reagents that
can improve separation efficiencies, and by designing more efficient
bubble generators. Other advanced solid-solid separation methods to be
developed will include enhanced-gravity separation and bio-leaching.
The latter will be an environmentally friendly method of extracting
values from low-grade materials. In addition, CAST will conduct basic
research on surface chemistry, which serves as the basis for developing
new processes, mathematical models, and novel sensors.
I thank you and the Subcommittee for its support of this program to
develop new energy-efficient and environmentally beneficial
technologies.
______
Prepared Statement of the Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
This testimony is presented on behalf of the Electric Vehicle
Association of the Americas (EVAA), a national non-profit organization
of electric and other energy providers, vehicle manufacturers and
suppliers, state and local governments and others that have joined
together to advocate greater use of electricity as a transportation
fuel.
After many years of research and development, all of the world's
major automobile manufacturers, as well as several independent small
businesses, now have made electric vehicles (EVs) available to the
marketplace. Since 1996, a total of 4,017 BEVs have been leased and/or
sold in the United States. Some automakers also have begun to develop
and market small, neighborhood BEVs that have applications in 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. In addition, there is growing use of non-road and
industrial EVs, especially at airports located in urban areas.
Hybrid electric vehicles also are making inroads in the
marketplace. To date, Honda and Toyota have leased and/or sold over
12,480 HEVs in the United States and other automobile manufacturers
have announced plans to introduce hybrids into the marketplace in the
next two to three years. There also is an interest among
environmentalists, regulators, the electric utility industry and others
to pursue development of grid-connected hybrid technologies as a means
to improve the environmental performance of such technologies.
Industry is providing significant investments for all of these
electric transportation technologies, but the federal government has an
important role to play in helping to assure that these technologies are
developed and brought forth from the laboratories into the marketplace.
FUEL CELLS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
There is near unanimous consensus among industry, government and
environmental groups that fuel cell technology represents the best
promise for a long-term solution to the energy and environmental issues
associated with transportation. However, many issues remain to be
resolved, including fuel specifications, infrastructure support and
component technology development. Industry is in a race to bring fuel
cell technologies to market, but the subsystems required to produce
affordable fuel cell technologies have not been developed fully. The
Fuel Cells Research and Development Program is a critical component to
assuring that the technologies that are developed will translate into
cost effective products for the 21st century.
Fuel cells require significant cost reductions in order to make
them acceptable in the marketplace. The California Fuel Cell
Partnership is beginning to demonstrate fuel cell vehicle technologies
and fueling infrastructure in very limited applications.
The introduction of fuel cells into the transportation sector will
increase fuel efficiency, decrease foreign oil dependency, and become
an important strategy/technology to mitigate climate change. Last year,
$41.5 million was appropriated for the continuation of research and
development on fuel cell technologies that can be incorporated into
advanced transportation technologies.
EVAA strongly encourages the Subcommittee to fund fuel cell R&D
efforts at or above last year's enacted level.
UNITED STATES ADVANCED BATTERY CONSORTIUM
EVAA continues to support funding for the United States Advanced
Battery Consortium (USABC) and the Exploratory Technology Research
Program. Significant breakthroughs in battery technology are required
for the successful commercialization of full-function, consumer-
attractive BEVs. The USABC is a battery research and development
program critical to the advancement of EVs. Through this program,
nickel metal hydride advanced batteries have been successfully
developed and introduced for EV use. Over 1,000 nickel metal hydride
battery EVs have been put into service over the last few years,
providing improved vehicle range and performance.
The fiscal year 2002 Budget request includes only $1.079 million
for the commencement of an orderly phase-out of DOE's commitment to
Phase III of the program and $2.3 million for Exploratory Technology
Research. This level of funding is not consistent with earlier
commitments made by the Energy Department to support industry's USABC-
related activities.
Last year, the USABC and Exploratory Technology Research Program
received $9 million in federal funding. EVAA believes this program
should be funded at or above last year's enacted level.
Vehicle Field Test and Evaluation Program
The Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget request includes $1.8
million for the Vehicle Field Test and Evaluation Program. These funds
would be used to conduct performance and reliability testing of light-
duty hybrids and one urban EV; assist the federal agencies in acquiring
15,000 alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs); and, assist industry in
developing procedures to track AFV sales.
EVAA continues to believe these funds should be used to help fund
the increased use of AFVs by the federal agencies in order to comply
with Energy Policy Act (Public Law 102-486) requirements. Recently,
DOE's Field Operations Program provided $14,300 to six Federal fleets
to help them add electric Ford Ranger pickups to their inventory. The
DOE Field Operations Program has provided a total of $996,000 in
incremental funding to 37 federal fleets to support the deployment of
220 light-duty EVs over the last three years.
EVAA also encourages DOE to consider mechanisms to encourage the
use of ``neighborhood'' and other low speed EVs in the federal fleets.
These quiet and environmentally friendly vehicles can be used in a
variety of niche applications. The Vehicle Field Test and Evaluation
Program received $3 million in funds last year; EVAA believes this
program should be funded at or above this level in fiscal year 2002.
Hybrid Systems Research and Development Program
While initial consumer acceptance of hybrids appears to be high,
significant cost reductions need to take place before full volume
marketing will occur. 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 2002 goals include
examining several propulsion system candidates that achieve the
performance and target goals for SUVs and light trucks; supporting R&D
on high power batteries; evaluating advanced power electronics, and
focusing efforts on heavy vehicle propulsion systems. The Hybrid
Systems Research and Development Program was funded at $50 million last
year. EVAA believes this program should be funded at or above that
level in the coming fiscal year.
Clean Cities Program
The U.S. Department of Energy's Clean Cities program is helping the
U.S. to achieve energy security and environmental quality goals through
encouraging and supporting the purchase and use of AFVs at the local
level. Approximately 160,000 AFVs operating in public and private
fleets and 4,800 alternative refueling stations have been deployed with
the help of the Clean Cities program, already reducing CO2
emissions by an estimated 641,000 metric tons. These vehicles also will
reduce oil use by an estimated 125 million gallons per year. The Clean
Cities program takes a unique, voluntary approach to AFV development,
working with coalitions of local stakeholders to help develop the AFV
industry and integrate this development into larger planning processes.
The Clean Cities program was funded at $10 million in fiscal year
2001. Clean Cities Coalitions are seeking $30 million in fiscal year
2002 funding for the Clean Cites program, with the funds specifically
being used to provide grants for the purchase of AFVs and
infrastructure projects. EVAA believes this is an important program and
any funds made available by this Subcommittee will be used wisely by
the enormous cadre of local stakeholders who comprise the 80 designated
Clean Cities.
CONCLUSION
The success of electric drive technologies (including battery
electric, hybrid electric and fuel cell electric vehicles) in the
marketplace continues to require industry and government, working
together, to bring down the costs. The federal government's role should
continue to focus on participating with industry in efforts to advance
electric transportation technologies through research programs like the
Fuel Cell Program and 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 continued funding at the
levels advocated will assure progress in the successful
commercialization of these important technologies.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Energy Institute
SUMMARY
The Administration has requested appropriations of $75.5 million in
fiscal year 2002 for the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an
independent agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. This request
includes $8.5 million for EIA's Office of Integrated Analysis and
Forecasting. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) \1\ believes that EIA's
forecasting, at least as it pertains to nuclear energy, is based on
flawed modeling and methodology and erroneous assumptions, and urges
Congress to require, as a condition of providing the appropriations
requested, independent peer review of EIA's forecasting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the organization
responsible for establishing nuclear industry policy on matters
affecting the nuclear energy industry. NEI's members include all
companies licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the
United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect-engineering
firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other
organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEED FOR ACCURATE ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
There is increasing evidence that the United States faces serious
energy supply and delivery problems. Even assuming successful
conservation and efficiency programs, U.S. dependence on imported oil
is at a historic high. Natural gas prices across the country have
increased dramatically. Several regions of the country face significant
shortages of electric generating capacity. The transportation
infrastructure for delivery of oil and natural gas requires significant
expansion. The transmission infrastructure necessary to move
electricity within and between states and regions is seriously
overloaded, placing reliability at risk.
The imminent threat to reliable supplies of energy at stable,
predictable prices is leading to new interest in national energy
policy. The appropriate authorizing committees in both Senate and House
are holding hearings on U.S. energy policy, and the Bush Administration
intends to offer its proposals shortly. At times like these, policy-
makers in the Administration and the Congress must have access to the
most accurate analysis and forecasting possible. In the case of nuclear
energy, the EIA's forecasts are inaccurate, appear to be based on
hypothetical speculation, and at least to date do not proceed from
well-informed analysis of the current status of nuclear energy in the
United States.
EIA'S FORECAST FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY
EIA's Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting publishes an
annual forecast of U.S. energy supply and demand called the Annual
Energy Outlook (AEO). AEO 2001 provides projections of energy supply
and demand in all consuming sectors and for all fuels through 2020. AEO
2001 forecasts that U.S. nuclear generating capability in 2020 will be
71,600 megawatts (MW), a 25 percent reduction from today's 97,400 MW.
This EIA projection is achieved in three ways: EIA assumes that (1)
some nuclear power plants will be closed before the end of their
initial 40-year operating licenses because they are no longer
economical to operate; (2) others will not renew their licenses for an
additional 20 years because they are no longer economical to operate;
and (3) no new nuclear power plants are built in the United States
because they are too costly to compete with other forms of generation.
THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT
NEI believes that this outlook is incorrect and does not proceed
from a factual understanding of the current status of nuclear energy in
the United States.
U.S. nuclear power plants are well positioned for a competitive
electricity market. The cost of operations, maintenance and fuel has
been declining for more than a decade, and additional efficiencies can
still be gained. U.S. nuclear power plants are not subject to the
volatility in fuel prices that has caused the dramatic increase in
electricity prices in many parts of the nation. And nuclear power
plants are not affected by the escalating clean air compliance
requirements that will increase the cost of electricity from coal-fired
and gas-fired generating plants in the years ahead. In fact, non-
emitting technology like nuclear energy will become even more essential
for providing electricity in areas that aren't in compliance with Clean
Air Act standards.
The steady reduction in the cost of nuclear electricity during the
1990s is partly explained by the significant increase in plant
reliability, and in the amount of electricity plants produce. In 2000,
U.S. nuclear plants produced approximately 755 billion kilowatt-hours
(the second record year in a row), and operated at an average capacity
factor of 89.6 percent, also a record.
On average, a U.S. nuclear power plant produces electricity for
2.0-2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, with the cost decreasing over the past
few years. This includes all costs such as fuel, operations,
maintenance, ongoing capital requirements, property tax, federal and
state taxes, funds for decommissioning the plant at the end of its
useful life, and the one-mill-per-kilowatt-hour fee for used fuel
management paid to the federal government. This is the so-called
``going forward'' cost; it does not include recovery of the original
capital investment, but is the sole determinant of whether or not the
unit will be dispatched.
The 2.0-2.5 cent electricity from the average nuclear unit is
significantly lower than the cost of electricity from new gas-fired
combined cycle power plants. At expected future gas prices to
generating plants ($4-5 per million Btu), NEI's analysis indicates that
a new gas-fired plant will produce electricity for between 4.5 cents
and 5.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. Given that new gas-fired electricity
is twice as costly as existing nuclear electricity, no rational
economic model would shut down a nuclear unit and replace it with gas-
fired capacity, as the EIA's forecasts suggest, unless that model were
being supplied with incorrect economic data and assumptions. (Note:
existing nuclear units are also more economical than gas-fired plants
supplied with fuel at the low natural gas prices prevailing several
years ago. A gas-fired plant using $2.50-per-million-Btu gas would
produce electricity for 3.0-3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, still above
the 2.0-2.5 cents range for electricity from an existing nuclear unit.)
As for license renewal, five nuclear units have already renewed
their operating licenses to run for 20 years beyond their initial 40-
year license. Five other units have filed their renewal applications,
which are now being reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). Thirty-three other units have formally notified the NRC that
they intend to renew their licenses, and NRC officials have indicated
publicly that the agency has received informal notification that 85 of
the 103 nuclear units in the United States intend to renew their
licenses. The industry expects that nearly all 103 U.S. nuclear units
will extend their licenses because operating these plants for an
additional 20 years represents the lowest-cost, most reliable source of
electricity available from any source.
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EIA AND INDUSTRY ASSESSMENTS
Given the significant differences between the EIA's forecast for
nuclear energy and the future suggested by today's business realities,
NEI has analyzed the basis for the agency's forecasts in order to
understand the assumptions and methodology behind them. NEI completed a
detailed assessment of the 1999 edition of the Annual Energy Outlook,
for example, and discovered a number of mistakes, suspect assumptions,
and the use of cost and performance data that were several years out of
date. NEI staff briefed EIA staff fully on the results of our
assessment
In general terms, for the 103 existing nuclear units, the EIA
obtains its forecasting results by assuming an ``aging effect''-i.e.,
that the plants will cost more to operate as they age, and operate less
reliably. The EIA forecast burdens the nuclear units with increasingly,
and unrealistically, high operating and capital costs.
There is no factual basis for these assumptions. NEI has evaluated
the historical data for the 103 nuclear units now operating, which
include a number of units well into the second half of their original
40-year licenses. NEI sees: (1) no statistically significant evidence
that operating costs increase as plants age (in fact, for the fleet as
a whole, they are declining); (2) no evidence that capital costs will
or can increase to levels so high that the plant becomes uneconomic;
and (3) no evidence that capacity factors deteriorate as plants age (in
fact, for the fleet as a whole, capacity factors are increasing).
Consider one specific example: the three unit Oconee station (2,538
MW) owned by Duke Power Co., which received approval from NRC last year
to operate for an additional 20 years beyond the original 40-year
license. From 1999 through 2006, Duke Power will invest close to $1
billion in the Oconee station--approximately $450 million in new steam
generators for all three units, and another $400 million in one-time
improvements and replacements designed (1) to assure another 20 years
of operating life,(2) to maintain plant reliability during that period,
and (3) reduce operating and maintenance costs in the future. Even with
this significant investment, the Oconee station remains easily
competitive with other sources of electricity, and significantly less
costly than building new generating capacity of any kind. The Oconee
case study is broadly representative of nuclear units across the
nation.
THE OUTLOOK FOR NEW NUCLEAR UNITS
The 2001 Annual Energy Outlook assumes no new nuclear power plants
will be built before 2020 in the United States. As with the EIA outlook
for the existing nuclear units, the nuclear energy industry does not
believe this forecast reflects what is really happening in the
marketplace.
The NEMS (National Energy Modeling System) model reaches this
conclusion because EIA analysts have assigned an unrealistically high,
and unreasonably inflated, capital cost to new nuclear generating
capacity. The EIA assumes new nuclear plants would have an overnight
capital cost of $2,188 per kilowatt of capacity. The nuclear energy
industry estimates an overnight capital cost of $1,450-1,500 per
kilowatt for the AP-600 advanced light water reactor. Unlike the EIA
estimate, which is purely theoretical and lacks any substantive factual
basis, the industry estimate is a robust, well-founded cost estimate
based on over $400 million invested in detailed design and testing for
the AP-600 and other ALWR's. Although the industry is taking actions
that will reduce the capital cost of new nuclear generating capacity
further, the current cost estimates for the AP-600, other advanced
light water reactors, and new high temperature gas reactors, coupled
with the low cost for operating nuclear plants, will make new nuclear
capacity competitive over the period from now through 2020 and beyond.
CONCLUSION
Given the potential importance attached to the Energy Information
Administration's forecasts, NEI believes it is important that these
forecasts have a sound factual and analytical basis. At a minimum, NEI
urges that any additional appropriations for EIA's forecasting function
should require (1) rigorous peer review of all EIA's nuclear-related
assumptions and methodologies, and (2) peer-reviewed development of new
economic models better able to simulate the dynamics of competitive
electricity markets, the performance of existing nuclear power plants,
and the timing for construction of new nuclear units.
______
Prepared Statement of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy
INTRODUCTION
The Business Council for Sustainable Energy is pleased to offer
testimony on the role for government in promoting energy research,
development and deployment, specifically natural gas and energy
efficiency programs at the Department of Energy (DOE).
The Council was formed in 1992 by business and industry trade
association executives sharing a commitment to realize our nation's
economic, environmental and national security goals through the rapid
deployment of clean and efficient natural gas, energy efficiency and
renewable energy technologies. Our members range in size from Fortune
500 enterprises to small entrepreneurial companies, to national trade
associations.
A FEDERAL ENERGY COMMITMENT IS CRITICAL
The recent election focused on an energy crisis like none other we
have faced in recent memory. The President acknowledges that the energy
situation is creating critical times for our nation. He outlined
potential solutions in an address to a Joint Session of Congress,
saying in part, ``We can promote alternative energy sources and
conservation, and we must.''
Regarding the federal role in energy supply and use, we eagerly
await implementation of the Administration's demonstrated commitment to
fixing the problems, and a commitment by Congress to ensure that there
is a diverse, environmentally and economically sound menu of energy
options available to the market.
We continue to experience spiraling prices and supply interruptions
in California for electricity and the problems may spread to other
regions this summer. Environmental challenges of energy supply and use
abound, and even energy's national security implications are coming to
the forefront. These challenges will persist for years and will only be
solved by the concerted efforts of industry, government and the public.
The federal government's energy programs are as diverse as the
activities that consume energy. Given their breadth, the BCSE will not
attempt to address all of DOE's natural gas and energy efficiency
programs. Rather, we focus on several programs that the BCSE believes
illustrate the value of the federal government's energy efforts.
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES AND FUEL CELLS
The BCSE supports comprehensive efforts to remove the differing,
but in some cases shared, barriers to the deployment of distributed
generation technologies. Rapid deployment of these technologies,
including microturbines reciprocating natural gas engines and fuel
cells, will make an important contribution toward alleviating rolling
blackouts. Not only can they make more power available to consumers,
they can also relieve stress on the grid by putting their power output
where the loads are, easing the need to transmit electricity long
distances along lines operating at full capacity.
Not only do distributed energy resources put the power where it is
needed, they also provide enhanced energy efficiency. Modern gas
turbines can achieve 35-45 percent efficiency when generating
electricity, and in combined heat and power applications where normally
wasted heat is recovered for space heating or industrial applications,
overall efficiencies can rise to greater that 75 percent. Central
station power plants average approximately 30 percent in overall
efficiency.
Fuel cells continue to make advances. BCSE member Ballard Power
Systems successfully field-tested natural gas PEM fuel cells in Chicago
Transit Authority busses, with actual production units entering the
market within the next few years. More fuel cell power plants of
various power sizes will also be available to fill diverse power
generation requirements. In fact, Ballard plans to introduce the first
commercially available fuel cell generation system later this year.
Now under development are high-temperature natural gas fuel cell
systems that 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.
All of these technologies obtain more useful energy from a given
unit of fuel, which provides tremendous environmental benefits. For
example, microturbines can contribute to reducing emissions
(NOX and CO2) associated with electric power
generation. When fueled by natural gas from our domestic resource base,
they emit NOX at 9-40 ppm; an improvement over the existing
U.S. generation fleet. Emissions reduction technologies such as
catalytic combustion offer the potential of near zero emissions levels.
To achieve these environmental, grid reliability, efficiency and cost-
reduction goals, the BCSE specifically seeks $50 million for research,
development and verification activities in the distributed energy
resources program.
HEAT PUMPS, NATURAL GAS COOLING AND APPLIANCES
The BCSE supports programs for natural gas cooling technologies
such as GAX heat pumps and desiccant dehumidification. While more
research is needed, these technologies hold the potential to shift
summertime energy demand off of the overstressed grid and onto either
directly fired natural gas applications or to combined heat and power
systems utilizing what is now wasted heat energy.
In both the desiccant and the natural gas cooling areas, an
industry-DOE roadmapping has identified combinations of distributed
energy resources with these technologies, (Buildings Combined Cooling
Heat and Power, or BCHP), to further reduce energy cost and use and
improve grid reliability. The BCSE supports an increase of $16 million
in this area.
High-efficiency appliances continue to have an important impact.
The recent publication of rules related to high-efficiency washers that
were put together in cooperation with industry leaders such as Maytag
will result in energy and monetary savings for consumers, and make
energy resources go further.
ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES
Transportation remains the fastest growing energy consuming sector.
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.
Natural Gas Vehicles
Natural gas vehicles hold the potential to move a significant
demand for imported petroleum over to a far cleaner, more secure and
abundant hemispheric resource.
The Clean Cities program is an important program that continues to
develop. Increasing the use of gas-fueled vehicles in proven markets
such as transit and school busses, delivery and other centrally fueled
fleets is building experience as well as establishing critical
infrastructure to foster further expansion. We request $30 million for
this voluntary partnership.
Research and development also continues to be important and the
Council requests an additional $8 million appropriation over the
president's budget request.
Batteries
Advanced batteries are critical to the success of electric vehicles
(EVs) and other alternative fueled vehicles. The technology continues
to improve as the result of the industry-government cooperation, U.S.
Advanced Battery Consortium. Vehicle range has far exceeded 200 miles
in testing and costs continue to be reduced. Economies of scale created
through verification projects promise even more cost reductions and a
growing level of field experience.
Accordingly, the Council recommends that the battery R&D program be
expanded to build upon the successful battery development program.
UTILITY PROGRAMS
DOE also works 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. California and
soon other parts of the nation will recognize that efficiency is one
critical tool for maintaining reliable electricity supplies.
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
The BCSE recognizes that the tremendous demand of the marketplace
has added new stresses to our energy delivery systems. This 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 use of natural gas 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. We request $18 million for the well-
subscribed, cost-shared program.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The BCSE is very supportive of the Federal Energy Management
Program (FEMP). The federal government is the single greatest consumer
of energy in the nation and FEMP's public/private partnership program
is working to save both energy and taxpayer dollars. In these times of
supply constraint and rising prices, this program should be made more
aggressive to include improving significant facilities at all federal
agencies. Funding for FEMP should at a minimum be held level with
current year appropriations.
CONCLUSION
The Council believes that the federal government's participation in
cost-shared public/private partnerships that develop reliability-
enhancing, cost-effective non- and low-polluting technologies is
crucial during this time of energy stress. No single technology or fuel
is a panacea, and making a wide breadth of technologies available to
the marketplace will result in actual energy solutions.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Research Center for Coal and Energy,
West Virginia University
Chairman Burns and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify regarding appropriations for the Fossil Energy
and Energy Conservation programs of the Department of Energy.
FUELS AND POWER SYSTEMS R&D PROGRAM
We note that the Administration has requested a total of
$159,801,000 for the Fuels and Power Systems R&D Program compared to
the enacted level of $324,025,000 in fiscal year 2001. This low funding
level will result in the drastic reduction, or in some cases, the
elimination of important major programs. These budget cuts will
seriously delay the R & D necessary to generate the new technologies
needed to attain a healthful environment and a sound economy. We urge
you to find additional funds to restore the Fuels and Power Systems
appropriation to the fiscal year 2001 level. This action will enable us
to meet our national goals for an abundant, affordable, and available
supply of electric power and for a more environmentally friendly
transportation sector which is less dependent on international oil
supplies.
FUELS PROGRAM IN FOSSIL ENERGY
Liquid Fuels Research and C-1 Chemistry
The President's budget recommendation essentially eliminates
funding for the Transportation Fuels & Chemicals and Advanced Fuels
Research programs, the Early Entrance Co-Production Program which is
integrated with the Vision 21 Energy Plants of the future, the Ultra
Clean Fuels Program, and the Natural Gas to Liquids Program. These R&D
programs must be funded vigorously if the Administration is to achieve
its stated goals of reducing our imports of petroleum below the level
of 50 percent anytime in the near future. We recommend that funding of
$50 million be allocated in the overall budget for liquid fuels
research and development.
In particular, we request that, of this amount, $2 million be
included for the C-1 Chemistry Program. This program was supported by
the Subcommittee at a level of $1.4 million in fiscal year 2001 ($0.4
million from the FE Fuels Program and $1 million from the Office of
Transportation Technology program). C-1 Chemistry research converts
carbon-containing feed stocks such as natural gas, carbon dioxide,
methanol, and synthesis gas produced from coal or natural gas into
ultra clean, high efficiency transportation fuel, hydrogen, and
chemicals. This effort not only supports the Fossil Energy program for
developing alternative fuels, but also identifies fuels and fuel
additives which will enable the Office of Transportation Technology to
attain the Tier II goals for 2004 established by EPA.
Solid Fuels and Feedstocks Program
We recommend that the Solid Fuels and Feedstocks Program be funded
at a level of $10 million for fiscal year 2002. With the projected
increased use of coal to meet our energy demands, new technologies are
needed to minimize the environmental impacts associated with producing
coal. Of the $10 million in funding recommended, we request $3 million
to continue the advanced separations research in solid-solid and solid-
liquid separations initiated in fiscal year 2001 in cooperation with
the National Mining Association and the Center for Advanced Separations
Technology. This program is focused on new ways to economically recover
and utilize coal fines and other minerals discarded during production.
The advanced research supported by this program will make significant
contributions to avoid environmental disasters such as the October 11,
2000 failure of a fine coal impoundment in northeastern Kentucky which
resulted in an estimated half billion dollars damage to the streams and
rivers in Kentucky and West Virginia.
Coal Extraction Program
We request that the Subcommittee continue funding for the WVU Coal
Extraction Program under the Advanced Fuels Research subelement at a
level of $1.7 million, which the Subcommittee also provided for fiscal
year 2001. The WVU program focuses on developing an alternative coal-
based source for a dwindling supply of petroleum-based binders and
pitches. These materials are used to produce high-value carbon products
such as anodes for aluminum smelting, foams and fibers for strong
lightweight materials for structural and transportation applications,
and innovative materials from carbon micro beads and carbon wool.
ADVANCED RESEARCH IN FOSSIL ENERGY
In fiscal year 2001, the Subcommittee established a Technology
Crosscut Program called Focus Area for Computational Energy Science.
This focus area is a key element in enabling NETL to meet the
expectations placed on it to rise in excellence to the level of its
peers as a newly-established national laboratory. High speed computer
connectivity and an appropriate complement of programs and users are
necessary to achieve these goals. This program enables the National
Energy Technology Laboratory [NETL] to form consortium relationships
with regional academic institutions to conduct advanced research in
combustion modeling, dynamic simulation, and power plant design. We
recommend that this program be continued at the fiscal year 2001 level
of $7 million.
We further recommend an enhancement of the Advanced Research
Program by $10 million over the Administration's request. We are
concerned that insufficient funds are available to provide research
support for graduate studies in coal-related technologies. It is
necessary to maintain a quality academic faculty and sufficient
graduate study opportunities to retain our national coal research
expertise. We recommend that a coal center of excellence be established
from a portion ($3 million) of this increased funding which would
support the major coal research universities to conduct fundamental
programs which ensure a supply of coal technology experts well into the
future. As noted in our testimony last year, the university coal
research program has been severely restricted in its scope due to the
effects of inflation on a flat funding profile extending back to the
1980s. Increased funding is needed to keep up with inflation.
NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES
At a time when our nation is looking to natural gas to supply a
wide range of power generation, transportation, chemicals production,
and home heating markets, the fiscal year 2002 budget proposed by the
Administration is drastically lower than fiscal year 2001. We recommend
that the funding for Natural Gas Technologies be increased by $25
million over the President's request. In particular, we recommend that
the Coal Mine Methane program initiated under the Emerging Processing
Technology subelement be continued at a level of $4.5 million in fiscal
year 2002. Currently, coal mine methane sources provide around 7
percent of the natural gas supply and are estimated at about 7 percent
of our nations reserves of 1,200 TCF of natural gas. The technology
transfer programs carried out under the Petroleum Technology Transfer
Council [PTTC] should be continued at the fiscal year 2001 level.
OIL TECHNOLOGY
We have similar concerns about the drastic reductions in oil
research proposed for fiscal year 2002. This program has been cut by
approximately $36 million. We recommend that the Subcommittee increase
the level of support for this program to approach the fiscal year 2001
appropriations. Particular emphasis should be placed on maintaining and
increasing the level of funding to the PTTC technology transfer
activities referenced under the Natural Gas Technologies Program above.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
We note with dismay that the funding allocations for program
direction will result in the loss of about 30 positions in Fossil
Energy Headquarters staff and about 58 positions in field positions at
NETL. We are further concerned that the reduction in research support
will cause the loss of additional in-house researchers. NETL must
maintain its staffing if it is to attain the level of excellence
required of national laboratories. A robust research program at NETL
will also have spin-offs to regional universities which can join with
NETL in cooperative research programs, thereby providing additional
staff expertise and cost sharing. We recommend funding of the Program
Direction line to levels at least equal to the fiscal year 2001
appropriation.
OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY
The Office of Heavy Vehicle Technology [OHVT] in the Office of
Transportation Technology [OTT] undertakes research and development
programs which address engine performance, vehicle emissions, fuel
efficiency, and materials. In fiscal year 2001, the Subcommittee
provided approximately $76.1 million to support these components of the
OTT overall program. The Administration has requested $75.2 million for
fiscal year 2002 for a comparable program. The OHVT program
accomplishments will include worthy objectives such as increasing the
fuel efficiency of heavy vehicles, reducing emissions to meet Tier II
standards to be placed into effect in 2004, and increasing safety. We
recommend that the Subcommittee fully fund the Administration request
for these programs.
OFFICE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
The Industries of the Future [IOF] program has enabled West
Virginia industries to increase energy efficiency in production while
reducing harmful environmental emissions. We believe this program is of
major importance in helping our state industries maintain a competitive
edge while meeting our national needs for improved environmental
performance. The Administration has recommended reduction of the IOF
and the IOF Crosscutting Industries programs by 36 percent and 48
percent, respectively. Such deep cuts effectively eliminate the start
of new projects in fiscal year 2002 and in many cases do not even
provide enough funding to meet mortgages from previous years. We
recommend restoration of the Steel, Aluminum, Metal Casting, Glass,
Chemicals and Mining IOF programs to their comparable fiscal year 2001
level.
We are strong in our support of the Cooperative Programs with
States and recommend that this program, which has been recommended for
zero funding by the Administration, be restored to the fiscal year 2001
level of $2 million. West Virginia relies on this program to enable our
industries and researchers develop quality programs to improve major
sectors of our economic base.
CLOSING COMMENTS
We believe that long range research is essential to maintaining our
technological edge in energy and the environment. Therefore, we
strongly recommend that additional funds be identified to adequately
support the programs identified above. If we do not continue to support
basic research in the short run, then we will have no new technologies
to demonstrate in the long run. We realize the difficult budget
situation which the Subcommittee must address and appreciate your
willingness to tackle the funding shortfall. Thank you for considering
our testimony.
______
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 2002 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 is disappointed in the Administration's level of support for
DOE energy efficiency programs in its funding request for fiscal year
2002. 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 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. Between 1998 and 2001, appropriations rose significantly.
The Administration's proposal to decrease funding in fiscal year 2002
to approximately $795 million, $20 million below the fiscal year 2001
enacted level of $817 million, is bad policy as we encourage
conservation. An increase in expenditures is 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 restore funding for DOE's PNGV program to the fiscal year 2001 level
of $140.4 million. The Administration's request of $100.4 million in
fiscal year 2002 is insufficient given the need to invest in new
generation vehicles. 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 $367.1 million in fiscal year 2002 for the
energy partnership programs and welcomes the dramatic increase in
weatherization funding, up nearly $120 million. Among the partnership
programs, Rebuild America, designed to accelerate energy efficiency
improvements in existing commercial and multi-family buildings,
contributes greatly to our environment. APPA believes however, that the
Administration's reduction of funding from $10.9 million in fiscal year
2001 to $5.9 million in fiscal year 2002 is bad policy. Other programs
like 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 make valuable
contributions to America's communities. 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. This year, it is anticipated that Motor Challenge will
generate energy cost savings of $1.2 billion and electricity savings of
25 billion kWh.
Building Codes and Standards.--EP Act 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 believe the Administration's request of $56 million in
fiscal year 2002 is insufficient to ensure that this program is
effective. APPA urges this Subcommittee to provide level funding of
$104.6 million in fiscal year 2002 to continue this program.
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
adequate funding to fulfill its mission. 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 applauds the dramatic
increase of more than $120 over the fiscal year 2001 appropriations.
APPA supports the Administration's budget request of $273 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 2002 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 $38 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 2002 represents
level funding when compared to the fiscal year 2001 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
operations 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. The Administration is requesting $449 million in fiscal
year 2002 to support all fossil energy research and development. We
urge Congress to fully fund this program so that progress can continue
toward full commercialization.
Power Technologies.--APPA strongly supports the Distributed Energy
Resources program, which aims to develop technologies, and systems that
will move energy supplies closer to the point of use. This provides the
opportunity for more efficient use of waste heat to boost efficiency
and lower emissions, and reduces the strain on congested transmission
systems. The fiscal year 2002 budget focuses on the development of
advanced distributed generation and thermally activated R&D programs to
raise efficiency and performance while lowering coasts and emissions.
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--APPA strongly urges the Subcommittee
to support the Administration's request of $150 million in fiscal year
2002 to fund joint government/industry-funded research, development and
demonstration of new technologies to enhance the reliability and
environmental performance of coal-fired power generators. The CCPI will
also develop the technological foundation for the next generation of
even cleaner, more efficient technologies for both new power plants and
for modernizing older ones.
______
Prepared Statement of the State Teachers' Retirement System, State 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 Federal Government 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. Under the
settlement between the Federal Government and the State, the State is
to receive compensation for its claims in annual installments over 7
years without interest. Each annual installment of compensation is
subject to a Congressional appropriation. In each of the past 3 fiscal
years (fiscal years 1999-2001), Congress has appropriated the funds
necessary to pay the $36 million installment of compensation due for
that year.
Congress should appropriate for fiscal year 2002 the $36 million to
fulfill the Federal Government's obligation to make the fourth annual
installment payment of compensation, due in fiscal year 2002 under the
settlement that Congress directed the Administration to achieve.
For the fourth year in a row, the entire 52 Member California House
delegation has strongly supported by delegation letter 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 Federal
Government 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 year 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'S BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 REQUESTS THE NECESSARY
APPROPRIATION FOR THE FOURTH ANNUAL INSTALLMENT OF ELK HILLS
COMPENSATION DUE UNDER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
The President's Budget for fiscal year 2002 requests that Congress
appropriate $36 million from the sales proceeds being held in escrow in
the Elk Hills School Lands Fund to pay the fourth annual installment of
Elk Hills compensation due to the California State Teachers' Retirement
System. See Budget of the United States Government--Fiscal Year 2002,
Appendix, at pp.416-417.
CONGRESS SHOULD APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS DUE UNDER THE SETTLEMENT THAT
CONGRESS DIRECTED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ACHIEVE
Congress should appropriate for fiscal year 2002 the $36 million
requested by the President to fulfill the Federal Government's
obligation to make the fourth annual installment payment of
compensation due in fiscal year 2002 under the settlement that Congress
directed the Federal Government to achieve.
______
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Indian Health Service
Prpared Statement of the National American Indian Housing Council and
Coalition for Indian Housing and Development
On behalf of the members and Board of Directors of the National
American Indian Housing Council and the Coalition for Indian Housing
and Development, I would like to thank Chairman Burns, Ranking Member
Byrd, and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to submit public witness testimony today. I write in
support of increased funding to a total of $280 million for water and
sewer infrastructure within Sanitation Facilities Construction of the
Indian Health Services and Facilities, Department of Health and Human
Services.
FEDERAL HOUSING AID IN INDIAN COUNTRY
As Chairman of the National American Indian Housing Council and the
Coalition for Indian Housing and Development and Executive Director of
the Navajo Housing Authority, I testify today as a voice for Americans
who daily endure the most deplorable housing conditions in the country.
These are people within American borders who commonly live 15 to 20
people in one small house. These are people for whom proper sewage
facilities, roads, and indoor plumbing is often a luxury, rather than a
standard. These are people who, like many other Americans, dream of
owning their own homes.
Indian housing is at a crucial stage. The passage of the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
(NAHASDA) has given tribes and Tribally Designated Housing Entities
(TDHEs) incredible new opportunities, and with continued funding,
NAHASDA can be the most important tool in building sustainable, healthy
communities in Indian Country. Although tribes and TDHEs are able to
utilize a number of housing programs within the Departments of HUD,
Interior, and USDA, NAHASDA continues to be the basic and most
pervasive program for Indian housing.
Native Americans across the country continue to rely heavily on
federal subsidy in place of other methods of finance that much of the
American population take for granted. The lack of significant private
investment and the dire conditions faced in many communities simply
mean that federal dollars make up a larger portion of the total housing
resources than in other areas. Common sources of construction and
development financing simply do not exist on our nation's Indian
reservations.
infrastructure needs threaten ``housing renaissance''
Under NAHASDA, Indian Country has seen a much-needed ``housing
renaissance.'' A previously neglected population is now utilizing the
principles of self-determination on which NAHASDA is based, creating
self-sustaining communities that will eventually require less and less
federal aid. Tribes have experienced great success over the last
several years in increasing their ability to attract additional housing
resources to their tribes. Unfortunately, the housing renaissance will
come to an end unless currently inadequate funding for infrastructure
development increases proportionately with housing funds. The following
statistics help to illustrate the problem tribes face:
--1 of every 5 homes on Indian reservations lacks complete in-house
plumbing--a rate 20 times the national average.
--Less than 50 percent of homes on Indian reservations are connected
to a public sewer.
--About 1 in 5 American Indian reservation households dispose of
sewage by means other than public sewer, septic tank or
cesspool.
Those administering housing programs in Indian Country understand
that their work must encompass so much more than basic housing
construction. In the rural, and often remote, locations of many tribal
communities, it cannot be assumed that support infrastructure is
present or even available. Hauling water in barrels and pots by truck
or on foot is a daily reality for many tribal members on the Navajo
Nation Reservation where I live and work. The story is the same for
many other tribes. Even where water facilities are present, they are
often stretched beyond capacity and have fallen into disrepair.
A crisis has been reached in Indian Country that has two serious
effects. First, there are currently housing plans for thousands of new
units of housing that cannot move forward without infrastructure
development. There are also thousands of existing housing units that
lack basic water/sewer infrastructure. Second, lack of proper sewage
treatment and swiftly deteriorating or non-existent water systems daily
increase health risks for tribal members.
I ask the members of the Subcommittee today to consider increasing
funding for Sanitation Facilities Construction at IHS to at least the
level requested in order to combat these two urgent needs in Indian
Country.
CURRENT FUNDING
President Bush has requested $650 million for the NAHASDA block
grant for fiscal year 2002. This is the same amount as was appropriated
for fiscal year 2001. Although NAHASDA funding has seen an increase of
34 percent since the Act was passed in 1996, $650 million a year will
bring us nowhere near the levels tribes need to meet their members'
housing needs, much less provide for basic water and sewer
infrastructure.
HUD no longer designates funds specifically for infrastructure, so
tribes much choose whether to use their limited NAHASDA fund
distribution to build homes to relieve overcrowded conditions, or to
use their funds for infrastructure. Furthermore, limitations have been
placed on the ability of IHS to serve HUD-funded homes, compounded by
the sharp increase in the number of new homes being constructed.
In the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments (Public Law
94-437), Congress states that, ``it is in the interest of the United
States, and it is the policy of the United States, that all Indian
communities and Indian homes, new and existing, be provided with safe
and adequate water supply systems and sanitary sewage waste disposal
systems as soon as possible'', and that the Indian Health Service has
the primary responsibility and authority to provide these necessary
sanitation facilities and services to Indian homes and communities.
Funding for Sanitation Facilities Construction for IHS was
appropriated at $93.6 million for fiscal year 2001 and the President
has asked for roughly the same amount in his fiscal year 2002 budget.
About half this amount will serve existing homes, and half is for new
homes. Before NAHASDA, there were only around 2,000 homes being built
per year. Twenty million dollars was enough to serve those new homes
with adequate sanitation facilities. Since 1996, however, 20,000 new
homes have been built or are under development with no significant
increase in infrastructure funding. Although tribal leaders estimate
that the infrastructure backlog in Indian Country would currently
require several billion dollars, NAIHC requests an increase of at least
$180 million per year above the existing amount for tribes to couple
with NAHASDA funds for housing development and improvement. This
increase is vital for meeting current demand and does not consider the
likely growth of the program over the next ten years.
NAIHC feels IHS is the proper authority in Federal trust
assignments under the Snyder Act of 1929 to provide these health and
sanitation funds. It is not proper that HUD funds be used to pay for
infrastructure, especially for scattered sites. Responsibility for
these services should not be required of funds that must be spent on
desperately needed housing in Indian Country.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I would again like to thank all the members of this
subcommittee, in particular Chairman Burns and Ranking Member Byrd, for
their continuing support for Indian programs and the tribes. NAIHC and
CIHD look forward to working with each of you in this session of
Congress and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alaska Native Health Board
The Alaska Native Health Board (ANHB) submits this statement on the
fiscal year 2002 Indian Health Service budget. We may file additional
comments once we have seen the details of the President's proposed IHS
budget. We also bring to your attention that our (calendar year) 2001
Federal Priorities paper addresses issues beyond what we can include
within the four-page limitation of this statement. In summary, our
fiscal year 2002 IHS budget recommendations are:
--Health facilities and associated housing construction at St. Paul
($14 million), Metlakatla ($17 million), and Arctic Slope
Native Association in Barrow ($8 million). All have received
planning and design funding.
--Community Health Aide Practitioner increase of $9.9 million.
--Dental health services increase and continued emphasis on bringing
more dentists into the IHS loan repayment program.
--Contract Health Care funding which will reduce the deferred cases.
--Full funding for contract support.
--Inflation funding of at least $60 million.
Phase-In a Needs-Based Budget.--We ask Congress to seriously
consider the IHS needs-based budget developed last year by tribes,
urban Indian organizations, and IHS and which was submitted to DHHS in
June, 2000. IHS estimates that the per capita health expenditure for
persons in the IHS service population is only $1,351 compared to a
$3,766 per capita expenditure for the general population.
The needs-based budget calls for an IHS appropriation of $18
billion--phased in over ten years--and is comprised of:
--$2.5 billion (fiscal year 2001 appropriation plus inflation)
--$508 million to maintain current services
--$6.3 billion for program expansions in specific health areas of
greatest need
--$3.5 billion for facility backlog
--$5.2 billion for nonrecurring facilities costs
Facilities at St. Paul, Metlakatla, and Barrow.--St. Paul,
Metlakatla Indian Community, and Arctic Slope Native Association health
centers and associated staff quarters are next on the IHS priority list
to receive funding. All have obtained planning and design funding.
These are communities who are the sole source providers of health care
for Native and non-Native populations.
--St. Paul Health Center ($14.29 million).--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. In 1970, a small addition
was added by IHS.
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. The health
clinic is not handicapped-accessible, and hallways and doors
are very narrow. There are only two examination rooms. Due to
lack of examination space, treatment of patients must also be
provided in hallways and in the x-ray room. There is little
privacy for patients, and patient confidentiality is difficult.
The clinic services a Native population which has the highest
rates of diabetes and cardio-vascular disease in Alaska. Deaths
from suicides and accidents among St. Paul Native residents are
several times the national average.
--Metlakatla Indian Community Health Center ($17 million).--The
Metlakatla Indian Community has been pursuing funds for many
years for the replacement of its health facility. At present,
clinic services are housed in four modular units which 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 building continues to re-settle, particularly when freezing
and thawing occurs, resulting in cracked walls and other
damage. There is an ongoing, and losing, effort to do emergency
repairs. Additionally, the facilities are overcrowded and the
utility systems inadequate to support the modernization or
updating of medical equipment.
The Metlakatla Health Center is the sole source of health care as
there are no private providers on the Island. Inpatient or
hospital services must be obtained off-island through Ketchikan
General Hospital, Southeast Alaska Regional Health Corporation/
Mt. Edgcumbe Hospital in Sitka, or the Alaska Native Medical
Center in Anchorage. In winter months, travel between
Metlakatla and Ketchikan and other destinations is often cut
off by heavy winds and storms.
--Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA) ($8 million).--We request
fiscal year 2002 funding for the Planning and Site Acquisition
phase of this hospital replacement project. Efforts have been
underway for over ten years to replace the aging and inadequate
physical plant of the Samuel Simmonds Memorial Hospital (SSMH).
in Barrow. This critical facility is the only hospital
available to residents of an area larger than the State of
Washington. The single story wood frame building was
constructed in 1965 and most of the major systems in the
building are the original equipment. It was designed to meet
the requirements of a much smaller population and now provides
less than 25 percent of the space needed to provide appropriate
medical care for the current population.
The IHS approved the Project Justification Document and a draft
Program of Requirements for this project in 1998. The Barrow
project would cost $98 million when complete and is currently
the fourth priority for inpatient facility construction on the
IHS priority list. The third construction project does not have
an approved Project Justification Document but has been
inserted in the list ahead of SSMH.
The IHS Planned Construction Budget does not request any funds for
the project until fiscal year 2003. The $125,000 provided by the Denali
Commission to complete the planning phase could move the IHS funding
ahead of this schedule.
The normal IHS project funding process needs to be allowed to
work. Funding for the Planning and Site Acquisition phase
should be included in the fiscal year 2002 IHS budget.
Engineering Services based its project cost estimate on initial
funding in fiscal year 2002 and yet IHS Planned Construction
Budget for fiscal year 2002 does not include any funding for
SSMH. Instead, funds are budgeted for the third facility,
despite the fact that IHS required justification for the
project has not been completed. The delays in finalizing
planning for the third construction project should not be
allowed to result in delays for funding SSMH. Congressional
oversight to ensure that IHS follows its own procedures will
permit the funding of the SSMH project.
Community Health Aide/Practitioner Program (CHA/P).--We request a
$9.9 million increase for the CHA/P program for a total of $45 million.
CHA/P provides emergency and primary health care for 50,000 Alaska
Natives of $900 annually per patient. A detailed plan has been worked
out regarding how such an increase would be used. The funding would be
utilized as follows: $6.1 million to increase by 125 the number of CHA/
P positions (for a total of 625); $2.3 million to increase the number
of Field Supervisors (Community Health Practitioners RNs, Midlevel
Practitioners); $1.2 million to increase statewide CHA/P training
capacity; and $300,000 for ongoing updates of materials which are
specific to the CHA/P Program (medical manuals, curriculum and
standards).
Contract Health Care.--We appreciate the $40 million increase in
fiscal year 2001 for Contract Health Care (total of $447 million), and
ask that Congress continue to help address through increased
appropriations the annual unmet need in this area. The need in Alaska
and elsewhere exceeds by far the available contract health services
budget. In Alaska alone, there were 9,416 deferred health services in
fiscal year 1999 due to inadequate IHS contract health care funding.
Nationally IHS deferred payment on 84,000 recommend contract health
care cases in fiscal year 1999.
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 Contract Health Services to assist in the provision of
patient and family housing in Anchorage, Sitka, Dillingham, Barrow,
Kotzebue, Nome, Kodiak, and Bethel.
Dental Care.--There is increased and welcomed attention being given
to the dental crisis among Native people in Alaska and elsewhere.
Studies have documented the need, and the American Dental Association
has testified before Congress in support of increased IHS funding for
dental health. Last year Congress enacted the Children's Health Act
which authorized a new discretionary grant program ($10 million
authorization) specific to Alaska Native and Indian children's dental
health. The IHS has made its loan repayment program more available to
dentists--in fiscal year 2000, 20 dentists participated in the IHS loan
repayment program; in fiscal year 2001 that number increased to 66.
We appreciate the $11 million increase in fiscal year 2001 IHS
budget for dental care (a total of $91 million), and urge this
Committee to again increase substantially the IHS funding for dental
care services and education. We need to develop a system for training
Community Dental Health Aide Practitioners to provide some types of
dental services in villages. And we need dental hygienists to be
trained so that their duties can be expanded, e.g, traumatic
restoration of teeth.
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 rate
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.
Contract Support Costs.--Our understanding is that the
Administration will request no increase for Contract Support Costs for
fiscal year 2002, despite the fact that there is an existing shortfall
of approximately $45 million for ongoing and new contractors. In
addition, when the Navajo Nation exercises its rights under the Indian
Self-Determination Act this year and assumes administration of its
health care program, there will be a need for another $60 million for
contract support funds. We urge Congress to fully fund contract support
costs.
Inflation.--We understand that the Administration's proposed fiscal
year 2002 IHS budget will contain no funding for inflation. Tribal and
IHS health care providers annually see the value of their program
dollars diminish because they must absorb substantial inflationary
increases. While Congress generally provides funding for mandatory pay
raises, there is often inadequate or no funding to cover inflation. IHS
estimated the fiscal year 2001 cost of inflation to be $60 million, but
no funding was provided for this purpose. In fiscal year 2001, Congress
appropriated $20 million to partially offset the cost of inflation.
Thank you for your consideration of the recommendations of the
Alaska Native Health Board.
______
Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde
Community of Oregon
Mr. Chairman, I am Kathryn Harrison, Chairperson of the
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon. I hereby
submit this testimony on the Grand Ronde Tribe's comments and requests
regarding the fiscal year 2002 Indian Health Service and Bureau of
Indian Affairs proposed appropriations.
Our requests are as follow:
(1) For the Indian Health Service, we support the testimony of the
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board.
(2) In the Indian Health Service, increase Clinical Services to
fully reflect cost increases for medical inflation and the service
population increase.
(3) In the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
provide full funding for Indian Self-Determination Act contract support
costs.
(4) In the Bureau of Indian Affairs, provide a general increase to
TPA funding, and be skeptical of the proposed Welfare Assistance cut
proposed in TPA.
Mr. Chairman, because we have not had an adequate opportunity to
receive and review the Administration's detailed budget proposal
released April 9, my comments can only be general. But while specific
numbers might be lacking, we firmly believe our comments are completely
correct, and ask that the Subcommittee give them appropriate weight.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
With regard to the Indian Health Service, we support the comments
of the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board. We understand their
comments are on the way to the Subcommittee requesting a total IHS
increase of $425 million over fiscal year 2001. The Health Board is a
skilled and professional organization that has a good understanding of
the health needs of the Northwest Indian people, and of the IHS budget.
With further regard to the Indian Health Service, we have seen the
rough figures of the Administration's request, and we find them very
insufficient. Specifically, we note that Clinical Services in proposed
for a $94 million increase, which is 4 percent over fiscal year 2001.
Mr. Chairman, 4 percent barely covers standard inflation, and most
likely covers little more than mandatory cost of living increases for
IHS personnel. At a time when sky-rocketing prescription and medical
costs are a preeminent national debate, and when the 2000 Census has
documented an explosion in the Native American population, the proposed
IHS Clinical budget does little to address the health difficulties
faced everyday by the Native American population across the United
States.
For Contract Health Services, it is hard to believe that the
Administration has requested zero increase for this essential function.
The tribes in the Northwest, and many throughout the United States,
must rely upon the Contract Health Services for all in-patient care.
Given service population increases and medical inflation, that's
roughly equivalent to asking us to take a 15 percent to 25 percent
reduction for in-patient services in a single year.
The true level of Native American clinical health care need in the
United States has recently been demonstrated by the Senate's unanimous
adoption Friday, April 6, of a Daschle-Domenici amendment to the fiscal
year 2002 budget resolution increasing the budget allocation for Native
American clinical services by $4.2 billion annually. In discussing the
need for the amendment's $4.2 billion annual increase, Senator Daschle
described Native American health circumstances as follows:
``What is happening now without that critical funding? Health care
is being rationed, often with tragic results. Indians are being told
they face a literal life or limb test. They cannot see a doctor unless
their life is threatened or they are about to lose a limb. They are
told they have to wait until they get worse; that, if there is any
money left, they might get treatment. Non-emergency care is routinely
denied.''
Unfortunately, there is little chance any thing like a $4.2 billion
increase in IHS clinical funding will be appropriated in a single year.
But we urge the Subcommittee to dedicate a very substantial increase to
the IHS clinical budget. To not do so relegates many of America's
Indian people to lives of steadily declining health.
CONTRACT SUPPORT
Mr. Chairman, we also ask that the Subcommittee provide full
funding for tribal contract support costs in both IHS and BIA. With
regard to the Indian Health Service, many tribes, including ourselves,
have found that the profound difficulties of health care provided by
the Indian Health Service can be somewhat eased by directly assuming
responsibility for operating their health programs. While the
professionals of the IHS are struggling to do their best with very
limited resources, they are also caught up in the coils of their own
bureaucracy, and the IHS itself is further ensnared in the larger
bureaucracy of HRSA and the Department of HHS. By our taking over the
health program for our Tribe, 638 allows some flexibility that enables
us to operate the program more effectively and in a manner that better
suits our Tribe's needs.
But we are being penalized for taking this initiative. To the
extent we are not provided full recovery of our contract support costs,
the unavoidable administrative costs associated with our operating the
program are drawn out of direct program funding, diminishing service
levels. The same goes for BIA programs over which we have assumed
operational responsibility. If the spirit and true meaning of Indian
Self-Determination are to be fully realized, the tribes should not be
required to bear this burden. Full contract support funding is only
fair.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
With regard to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, again we have only had
a brief opportunity to examine the Administration's fiscal year 2002
proposal, but in addition to our foregoing comments on contract
support, we offer these observations.
First, Tribal Priority Allocation funding seriously needs an
overall increase. It has not had any increase beyond mandatory cost of
living adjustments for many years. Meanwhile, the costs of goods and
services have significantly increased, and the Native American service
population has grown. The Federal government's obligations must be met.
Holding the BIA TPA budget basically flat steadily erodes the Bureau's
local services and capabilities until the shortage finally manifests
itself in a ``crisis'' like that in trust funds management, with its
high profile publicity and accusations, and its sudden ``emergency''
requirement for tens of millions of new dollars. But while Congress and
the Administration are desperately trying to patch up trust funds
management, woefully insufficient funding is surely breeding crises in
other Bureau functions. Like law enforcement. Like BIA administrative
capability. Like whatever other steady and grinding deficiency will
suddenly be ``discovered'' in some future study or news story. We
recently saw a newspaper article showing an independent evaluation of
several federal agencies, in which the BIA was given a ``D'' grade.
That didn't surprise those of us who live day to day with the Bureau's
consistently inadequate budgets. Mr. Chairman, the old English
expression ``penny wise and pound foolish'' is called to mind, and we
urge Congress to do all it can not to embrace it.
Otherwise, we note and question the $2.5 million reduction proposed
for Indian welfare assistance in TPA Human Services. In the rural and
remote communities where most Indian people live, jobs are sparse.
Employment education and training are sparse, and all too often,
economic opportunity is not available. Despite many best efforts,
unemployment and poverty are unfortunately persistent. So we ask that
the Subcommittee carefully evaluate whether such a cut is justified.
ABOUT THE GRAND RONDE TRIBE.
In 1954, members of the Confederated Tribe of the Grand Ronde lost
federal recognition under the Western Oregon Termination Act. This
legislation crippled our Tribal government, took away our remaining
Tribal lands, and brought about numerous socio-economic difficulties
for our Tribal members. In 1983, our 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
devastating impacts of termination. The Tribe's unemployment rate was
23 percent. Among our population aged 19 years or older, 38 percent had
not completed high school. And 34 percent of our households had incomes
below the poverty level. The survey also revealed serious health
concerns, 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 at
Grand Ronde, there is still a great deal of unmet need within our
Tribal community. We have the task of trying to make up for twenty-nine
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 BIA and the IHS. As discussed
earlier in this testimony, Self-Governance allows us some opportunities
and flexibility to pursue Tribal priorities with otherwise limited BIA
and IHS funds.
We are honored to have appeared before your Subcommittee in
previous years, and to submit this testimony today. We are proud of our
Tribe and our heritage, and we are proud to be Oregonians and citizens
of the United States. We look forward to continuing our government-to-
government efforts to build a strong and harmonious relationship with
the U.S. Congress.
Thank you. That concludes my testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe
My name is William Kindle and I am President of the Rosebud Sioux
Tribe in South Dakota. Our reservation covers one entire county in
South Dakota, and many of our members reside in the nearby adjoining
counties within our health service area. We have a modern health
facility on our reservation. The health delivery service at Rosebud
Sioux Reservation suffers from problems that plague many if not most of
the IHS health systems throughout the United States, most of which is
traceable to inadequate funding across the board. As noted in more
detail below, we are requesting increased funding in the IHS
appropriation for the Tribe of $480,000 in Emergency Medical Services
and funding of the Contract Health Services program at 100 percent of
need on the Rosebud reservation.
Despite the moral and legal responsibility of the United States to
provide health services to Indian people, the provision of health
services remain dependent on discretionary funding. Due to the nature
of discretionary funding, the level of health care services varies
greatly and the Indian Health Service budget is drastically
underfunded. We join with all other tribes in this country seeking an
equitable funding level for the Indian Health Service and its multiple
programs. My focus today is on two specific issues which are a
particularly serious problem at Rosebud--(1) Contract Health Service
Funds and (2) Emergency Medical Services Funding.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FUNDING
Funding for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is a major concern for
all involved in pre-hospital care. For every violent crime needing law
enforcement there is a victim (sometimes more than one) needing
attention. Heart attack victims, pregnancies, alcohol related
accidents, and domestic violence, all needing emergency assistance, the
need for a progressive, well grounded EMS system in health care
delivery is essential.
In 1996 the Highway Safety Act established an EMS program within
the Department of Transportation. Six years later, in 1973, the
Emergency Medical Services System Act provided general guidelines and
funding for the development of regional EMS systems. In 1973 the
Emergency Medical Services System Act provided federal guidelines and
funding for the development of regional EMS systems and established 15
costly components for EMS systems. In 1981 the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act consolidated EMS funding into State Preventive
Health Service Block Grants and eliminated funding under the EMMSS Act
of 1973.
Currently EMS does not have authorizing appropriations legislation,
creating an enormous problem as there is not any actual funding
specifically available for EMS, especially within the Indian Health
Service. EMS has never been a separate program, function, or service of
the Indian Health Service, but under the original Public Law 93-638
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, the
Indian Health Service used the agency's authority to contract EMS to
tribes. When they recognized the need for EMS and assumed this
authority, Tribes accepted the idea the Service would also have the
responsibility for maintaining this contracted access to emergency
health service. Throughout Indian country, especially in the Aberdeen
Area and specifically on the Rosebud reservation, the ambulance service
is funded at 47 percent of need. Many tribal services are considering
rescinding their contracts with IHS as they are running out of funds
long before the contract is due to end. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe expects
to exhaust the funding provided to the Tribe through its 638 contract
by May of this year for a shortfall of about $480,000.
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe contract provides for 24 hour ambulance
service, with 37 employees, including four paramedics, with the highest
call volume in the State of South Dakota, an average of 425 calls per
month (greater than the State's metropolitan areas of Sioux Falls and
Rapid City) with a minimum of at least three transfers per day to a
medical center. The average distance is 180 to 250 miles one way. The
local Indian Health Service Unit does not have a fully functioning
obstetrical or surgical unit, and for the last four years all high risk
pregnancies and surgeries must be transferred to a private sector
hospital, 180 to 260 miles away. Our trauma case load exceeds any in
the State. We pay our employees at an average rate of $8.15 per hour,
without overtime. Due to lack of adequate funds this program will
forced to cease it's operations at the end of May unless funds can be
found elsewhere. The local Indian Health Service Unit has stated they
do not have any available funds to supplement this contract.
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe seeks assistance in obtaining additional
emergency funds in the amount of $480,000 to continue the operation of
the Tribe's ambulance service. We also encourage you to support special
appropriations for Emergency Medical Services in the fiscal year 2002
appropriations act, as well as making permanent funding available for
this essential service by making it a Presidential line item with
appropriate funding.
LEVEL OF NEED FUNDING
In review of the recent Level of Need Funding (LNF) study, the
Rosebud Sioux Tribe believes this study is useful to a point, but
should not be considered for a budget formula for the following
reasons. Part one of the Study provides a very elementary baseline of
costs associated with the provision of health care to Indian people.
The researchers selected the lowest possible benchmark, and all other
calculations are based on this figure. Indian Health Service user
population does not consider tribal programs service populations (these
are usually larger than IHS user populations). The user population data
is out of date. The use of old surveys to provide data for the health
adjustment assumes that the rates of disease between the two
populations have remained constant, and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe knows
the incidence of diabetes, cancer, and teen pregnancy has dramatically
increased during the last decade. The geographic location adjustment
assumes that rural health care costs are lower, when in fact rural
hospitals can not always provide the care needed and therefore many
patients must be transferred to major medical centers resulting in high
health care costs.
CONTRACT HEALTH SERVICE FUNDS
The Contract Health Service Program is severely underfunded
creating many problems for tribal members. Funds at the Local level are
frequently exhausted six to eight months into the fiscal year. As a
result the medical needs of many tribal members do not get addressed
due to the fact that the local IHS tribal facilities cannot make a
commitment for payment.
Due to oversight on the federal government's part, the Rosebud
Reservation has members who do not live on or near the reservation as
defined in the service delivery area definition. The live in a county
that does not border a reservation boundary, and are betrween service
units. (Rosebud and Wagner). This oversight means tribal members
usually seen in Wagner, (due to distance), cannot receive contract
health care services from either Rosebud or Wagner. They are literally
left out of the system, causing extreme hardship on families not able
to pay for medical care. Family credit ratings are being revoked due to
non-payment for medical services needed but not provided within the IHS
system. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe has sent fortyh a proposal to change
the Contract Health Service Delivery Ara (CHSDA) but has not received
approval at this time.
The IHS open door policy allows a tribal members automatic aces to
Contract Health Services of another reservation or service area
provided the Priority System is followed. The problem created by this
policy is tribal members from other reservations or urban areas are
allowed immediate access to Contract Health Services. This puts a
financial burden on the facility which is supposed to serve the local
resident members of a reservation or service area without the benefit
of census or enrollment data.
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe recommends the following:
--The Contract Health Service program be funded at 100 percent of
need based on last years figures. Because IHS is not capable of
providing the level of care needed, they must refer patients to
larger facilities with more expertise.
--Tribes need to be allowed to adopt and implement a residency policy
according to local conditions that will adequately address the
eligibility and access problems of the program.
--Preventive and rehabilitation services need to be defined and moved
up to a Priority 1 status. There are many types of preventive
services that could be done which would be relatively
inexpensive and would help increase the health status of the
Tribe while saving Contract Health Service Funds for situations
of a more catastrophic nature.
______
Prepared Statement of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
This testimony addresses the fiscal year 2002 budget request for
the Indian Health Service, and the Administration's proposed
$23,241,000 million in fiscal year 2002 to complete construction of the
new Winnebago hospital.
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 3,991 enrolled
members, of who about 1,290 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 tobacco outlet shop in Omaha, 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.
Comprehensive Health Care Facility.--In August 2000, the Winnebago
Tribe had a groundbreaking ceremony for the new 97,200 square foot
Comprehensive Health Care Facility.
In the village of Winnebago the Public Health Service Hospital
serves the basic health care needs for the area. Critical and
specialist care is available in Sioux City, IA and Omaha, NE. Currently
the hospital has 30 general beds and 3 Pediatric beds. It has a staff
of 102, 4 whom are Doctors and 20 of whom are RN's.
The new hospital, presently under construction, will contain an
additional 27 new beds (DDU), 40 regular ward beds and 10 IC units. A
dental and optometry section is also scheduled. Staff employees will
increase by 45 with 21 in Tribal health.
Of the current staff, 20 (19.6 percent) are from Iowa, 67 (65.6
percent) are from Nebraska, 27 (26.4 percent) live on the reservation,
and 7 (.06 percent) are from South Dakota. Last fall, site preparations
were completed, and actual construction of the new hospital began on
October 5, 2001. Construction is expected to be completed June 2004.
The Winnebago Tribe received funds in fiscal year 1999 through the
Indian Health Service to complete the Architecture and Engineering
phase of our hospital in the amount of $950,000. In fiscal year 2000,
we received $9,714,000 for phase one construction, and in fiscal year
2001, $12.3 million for phase two construction.
We are very pleased that the Administration's fiscal year 2002
includes funding within the Indian Health Facilities account to fund
the balance of construction costs for the new Health Care Facility. We
urge Congress to support this request and provide these needed funds in
fiscal year 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe
Chairman Burns and honorable members of the subcommittee, thank you
for this opportunity to offer testimony in support of the need for
increased funding for the Indian Health Service in fiscal year 2002,
especially for Health Facility Construction, inflation, population
growth, and Contract Health Services. Nationwide, Tribes have
identified a need for a $4.2 billion increase in the Indian Health
Service budget to begin addressing the tremendous unmet needs and
disparities in health status that exists between First Americans and
other citizens of this Nation. Minimally, a $263 million increase is
required, just to keep pace with inflation and population growth.
The Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe's top priority need in fiscal
year 2002 is for $2.33 million to plan and design a new ambulatory
health center, which will replace the current facility that was
constructed in 1936. The President's Budget requests $38 million for
Health Facility Construction, a $48 million (or 56 percent) decrease
from the amount that was appropriated in fiscal year 2001. The budget
proposal includes only enough funding to complete construction of two
Indian Health Service Hospitals (Ft. Defiance, AZ and Winnebago, NE).
There is no provision for outpatient projects at all, although there
are five locations that are awaiting appropriations to construct
outpatient health centers that have already been (or are currently
being) designed.
This matter is of grave concern to the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux
Tribe, who has been dangling on one health facilities construction
priority list or another for three decades. At present, the Sisseton-
Wahpeton Sioux Tribe is next in line for planning and design funds for
a replacement health facility that should have been constructed in the
1970's (but was not, due to changes in construction planning policies
and methodologies). The total estimated cost for the Tribe's new health
center is $24 million; but funding for construction and then to make it
operational would be requested from Congress over a span of four
consecutive years. The new facility will address the Sisseton Indian
Health Service's critical need for space in which to carry out state-
of-the art health services. The operating budget will provide for over
twice the number of staff, modern equipment, and a more adequate
allowance for medicine and supplies.
The Indian Health Service has no means other than new construction
and the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund to adjust for inequities in
funding between Tribes. The Sisseton Service Unit is among the most
severely underfunded Indian Health Service facilities in the Nation,
falling in the lower twenty-fifth percentile according to the I.H.S.
``Level of Need Funded'' (LNF) methodology. Agency-wide, the average
level of need funded for the Indian Health Service is 60 percent, but
our Service Unit was funded at only 43 percent of need in fiscal year
2000. Nowhere is the need for a new facility and the improved operating
budget that comes with it any more desperate. The quality of health
care available to Tribal members has deteriorated. As a result, patient
care on the Lake Traverse Reservation is compromised, and the Tribal
members are suffering.
Second, we would like to comment on the need for increased funding
to offset the cost of inflation and population growth. To meet
mandatory cost increases, the Indian Health Service will need $184
million ($59 million to cover pay costs, $64 million for inflation, and
$18 million for medical inflation). Nation-wide, the healthcare
industry is projecting double-digit growth in costs again this year and
estimates an increase of 13 percent over Year 2000 costs. As an
example, the cost of pharmaceuticals at the Sisseton Indian Health
Service went up 161.5 percent since 1996. Another good example is the
Sisseton Indian Health Service Dental Clinic, which has a six-month
waiting list for a dental appointment. Because the Service Unit has not
had sufficient funding to recruit a second dentist, the backlog in this
department has increased astronomically. Many go without dental
services, to the sad detriment of their oral health, nutrition,
appearance, and self-esteem. Because appropriations have not kept pace
with these costs, the Service Unit has been forced to absorb this and
other inflationary-type expenses, or patients have went without
services. Any increase less than $263 million (or approximately 10
percent) will not address the mandatory-type of increases the Agency
will otherwise have to absorb. In contrast, the President's budget
proposal requests a $78 million increase in actual appropriations,
which represents a mere 2.69 percent increase over the fiscal year 2001
level.
At this juncture, we would like to point out that collection of
third party dollars, as authorized by the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, by Law are not to supplant Federal appropriations to
the Indian Health Service. Title IV, Sec. 401 and 402(b) of Public Law
94-437 expressly states that payments received for services provided
under title XIX of the Social Security Act shall not be considered in
determining appropriations for the provision of health care and
services to Indians. Yet, the President's budget proposal does shift
$29 million of it's proposed $107 million increase for I.H.S. to
projected third party collection increases. One hundred seven ($107)
million would be an amount consistent with the 4 percent increase the
Bush Administration has indicated it is requesting across-the-board for
domestic discretionary funding. However, for the Indian Health Service,
approximately one-fourth (25 percent) of the Bush Administration's
proposed increase is to come from third party payments, in direct
violation of Federal Law!
It is important to keep in mind that escalating health care costs
decrease the buying power of Contract Health Service appropriations.
(Contract health care funds are used to purchase services not available
at the I.H.S. facility, such as emergency medical services, mobile
mammography and CT scans, and specialty services.) The ``CHS dollar''
appropriated by Congress has lost 50 percent of it's purchasing power
in the past eight years, according to information provided by the
Aberdeen Area I.H.S. Office.
At the same time, the I.H.S. eligible population has grown.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of American Indian,
Eskimo and Aleuts grew by more than 300,000 between April, 1990 and
July, 1999 to 2.4 million people. Our Native population has grown more
rapidly than the nation's population as a whole in the 1990's--16
percent versus 9.7 percent. Indian Country is experiencing exponential
growth. On the Lake Traverse Reservation, for example, about half of
our population is less than 18 years of age. Yet, the resources of the
Indian Health Service have not kept pace with the increased demand for
services, or with the changing needs of the population. At the Sisseton
I.H.S., for example, maternal and child health services are quite
fragmented, because the resources and capacity to provide the services
``inhouse'' are not there. Maternity patients are required to apply for
State-assisted programs in order to give birth and obtain care outside
the I.H.S. Lack in continuity of care and late access to prenatal care
are directly reflected in the appalling infant mortality rates
occurring in the Aberdeen Area (14.0 per 1,000, compared to 9.3 for
Indians nationwide and to 7.6 per 1,000 for U.S. All Races (1994-96
data). Please note that the infant mortality rate for Indian babies is
22 percent higher than for other Americans; for the Aberdeen Area, the
rate is 86 percent higher! It is significant, too, that birth rates in
the Aberdeen Area were 29.4 per 1,000 population, versus 14.9 per 1,000
for U.S. All Races. The level of appropriations must be adjusted to
address this change in the population served.
It must also be pointed out that Indian Country is now seeing an
emerging elderly population. Although the life-expectancy rate for an
Indian person in the Aberdeen Area is still eleven (11) years less than
for other Americans (65.2 compared to 75.8), elders comprise a
significant and venerable portion of Tribal communities. According to
the U.S. Census Bureau, there were an estimated 161,000 Indian elderly
aged 65 and over, and 20,000 aged 85 and over, residing in the United
States as of July, 1999. Projections indicate these numbers will double
by 2020. The Indian Health Service must deal with this change by
developing programs and services to handle the specialized needs and
morbidity of this emerging population. Long-term care is a need in
Indian Country, which for South Dakota, at least, is viewed as a
Federal obligation, not the State's. The State is willing to pass-
through 100 percent Federal funding to health care programs that are
Federally licensed, but they have been consistently resistant to the
notion of using any funds that have been Federally matched.
Finally, we would like to speak to the need for improved Contract
Health Service appropriations. With the poor health status in Indian
Country, many needs for specialty services go unmet because they do not
present a threat to life or limb, which is all the Indian Health
Service has funding to pay for. For example, during the past three
years, thirty-seven (37) catastrophic cases consumed twenty-five
percent (25 percent) of the Sisseton Indian Health Service's meager
Contract Health Service budget (this was $1.5 Million of the $6 Million
allocated to the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe for referral services
for this three-year period). In fiscal year 1999, Sisseton I.H.S.
expended $1,004,713 for only 15 patients. According to the data
provided by the Sisseton Indian Health Service at the request of the
Tribe, the Contract Health Service Program is funded at only $445.82
per user of the I.H.S. The average amount spent per catastrophic case,
in comparison, was $40,540.54 during the three-year period studied.
Only six, or sixteen percent (16 percent), of these cases accessed the
Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF) administered by I.H.S.
Headquarters.
Appropriations for the CHEF has most definitely not kept pace with
inflation and population growth, so the Fund is depleted well before
the end of the fiscal year (requiring the costs to be absorbed by the
local Service Units). As a result, the only patients with access to
specialty care and treatment provided in private, tertiary facilities,
such as Meritcare in Fargo, are those with conditions deemed to be
``life or limb threatening''. This means that patients with chronic
medical problems, who may be suffering pain and a reduced quality of
life, do not get treated by a specialist in a timely manner. Symptoms
get treated, not the disease itself. Too often, the condition is left
untreated or is not treated until it worsens to the point of becoming
``life or limb threatening''. Example: one visit to a rheumatologist
would be more cost effective than the ongoing cost of prescriptions to
treat the symptoms--without the toxic effects of drugs such as Motrin
(which damages the kidneys). Another example is chronic gall bladder
problems (treating the pain for months until it ruptures). A third
example is that by the time a patient's lupus-induced tumor was
removed, secondary problems and complications had developed that were
costly to treat. Also, the severity of a condition progressed from one
requiring relatively minor treatment to one requiring COSTLY major,
life-threatening surgery. Followup visits to ophthalmologists and
cardiologists for patients with diagnosed disorders and conditions
(like diabetes and heart disease), surgeries for conditions that are
chronic and debilitating but not acute at the exact moment the I.H.S.
doctor sees the patient, hernia repair, psychiatric treatment, cleft
lip surgery, removal of bunions and spurs of the foot . . . the list
goes on and on . . . are deferred, because the patient does not have
the personal finances to pay for the services out-of-pocket.
Increased appropriations for Contract Health Services, population
growth, inflation, and Health Facility Construction, then, are
essential to achieving the goal of Congress, as stated in the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act: ``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 to provide all resources necessary to affect that policy''. At
this time, we request your support for the fiscal year 2002 Indian
Health Service budget and for the budget amendment which has been
proposed by Senators Daschle and Domenici that will bring the Indian
Health Service budget up to $6 billion (an increase of $4.2 billion).
Thank you for this opportunity to express our needs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Joslin Diabetes Center
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present a status
report on the funds the IHS Subcommittee provided for the past two
fiscal years, and to request $6 million to continue the Indian Health
Service/Joslin Diabetes Center telemedicine work in fiscal year 2002.
BACKGROUND
The IHS Subcommittee recommended that the Indian Health Service
develop in fiscal year 2000 a $1,000,000 cooperative relationship with
the Joslin Diabetes Center/Joslin Vision Network (JVN) to address
diabetes issues within the Indian Health Service and among the Native
American patient population by integrating the JVN and Joslin Diabetes
Eye Health Care Model into the care of the Native American population.
The Joslin Diabetes Center JVN is a telemedicine initiative
designed to screen for diabetes and to access all diabetic patients
into cost-effective, quality diabetes and eye care programs across
geographic and cultural boundaries at reduced cost.
In the fiscal year 2001 Budget, the IHS requested $1,000,000 to
continue this project. The request was approved by the Conference
Committee and enacted into law. Joslin Diabetes Center welcomes this
opportunity to work collaboratively with IHS through the sharing of
technology and training in a clinical setting.
Joslin is currently developing a Comprehensive Diabetes Management
Plan that will be incorporated within the health care systems of the
Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Indian
Health Service. This telemedicine platform will allow seamless
migration among these three systems.
FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 STATUS REPORT
The IHS for the initial pilot site of cooperation with the Joslin
JVN selected Phoenix Indian Medical Center (PIMC). Following the
successful implementation at PIMC of the first pilot IHS/JVN
telemedicine diabetes detection, prevention and treatment initiative,
Sells, Arizona was selected as the second site. The plans for
disbursement of remaining funds for fiscal year 2000-2001 include
deployment at two additional sites, refinement of the IHS/JVN
telemedicine protocol, and integrating Native-American outreach and
education programs.
FISCAL YEAR 2002
The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Act of 2000 increased IHS's
annual diabetes funding from $30 million to $100 million through fiscal
year 2003. The increase in resources has permitted IHS some discretion
in choice of diabetes clinical care.
Joslin was approached by IHS to work cooperatively at 30 additional
sites for fiscal year 2002. The importance of quality care must be the
first consideration for any new endeavor. Joslin does not have the
personnel resources to support 30 additional IHS sites in fiscal year
2002 and provide at the same time the full support and quality care
that IHS patients and infrastructure should be accorded. The IHS and
Joslin have reached an agreement of 15 new sites in fiscal year 2002,
which Joslin officials believe is the appropriate and manageable number
of new sites that Joslin can support without diminishing quality or
necessary training and time.
The deployment of the 15 new sites in fiscal year 2002 will be
determined by the needs of the IHS with the intent that one site will
include an inter-agency cooperation with the Department of Veterans
Affairs in Anchorage, Alaska, as a first step toward seamless
telemedicine migration of the IHS, VA and DOD Health Care systems.
We respectfully request fiscal year 2002 funding of $6 million to
provide for deployment of 15 new sites, to staff and operate 19 IHS/JVN
sites, to continue application enhancements and refinements for
adaptive patient use and reduced cost, and to begin planning for a JVN
comprehensive disease management program for the IHS, DOD and VA.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for this opportunity to present this fiscal year 2001
status report and this request of fiscal year 2002 funding of $6
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.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Abraham, Hon. Spencer, Secretary of Energy, Office of the
Secretary, Department of Energy................................ 187
Prepared statement........................................... 194
Summary statement............................................ 191
Acid Drainage Technology Initiative Metal Mining Sector, prepared
statement...................................................... 413
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., prepared statement............. 497
Alachua County, FL, prepared statement........................... 344
Alamo-Navajo School Board, Inc., prepared statement.............. 274
Alaska:
Inter-Tribal Council, prepared statement..................... 368
Native Health Board, prepared statement...................... 538
American:
Association of Museums, prepared statements................436, 457
Council on Education, prepared statement..................... 455
Farm Bureau Federation, prepared statement................... 492
Hiking Society, prepared statement........................... 371
Museum of Natural History, prepared statement................ 462
Public Power Association, prepared statement................. 532
Rivers, prepared statement................................... 303
Society of Civil Engineers, prepared statement............... 383
Society of Mechanical Engineers International, prepared
statement.................................................. 504
Society of Plant Physiologists, prepared statement........... 492
Soybean Association, prepared statement...................... 492
Appalachian Partnership for Eastern Forests, prepared statement.. 481
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation,
prepared statement............................................. 347
Association of American Universities, prepared statements......436, 455
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah, opening
statement...................................................... 140
Biomass Energy Research Association, prepared statement.......... 488
Black Mesa Community School, prepared statement.................. 270
Blackwell, Hon. M. Sharon, Deputy Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior........... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Summary statement............................................ 12
Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., prepared statement.............. 499
Bosworth, Dale N., Chief, Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 137
Prepared statement........................................... 148
Summary statement............................................ 143
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
Opening statements..................................1, 45, 137, 187
Prepared statements.........................................46, 138
Questions submitted by.............................33, 83, 164, 217
Burton, John L., president pro tempore, California Senate,
prepared statement............................................. 412
Business Council for Sustainable Energy, prepared statement...... 527
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia:
Opening statements.....................................47, 139, 188
Questions submitted by.....................................121, 180
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, prepared statement........................... 486
California Industry and Government Coalition, prepared statement. 277
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
Opening statements.......................................2, 47, 189
Questions submitted by............................39, 116, 180, 230
Center for Marine Conservation, prepared statement............... 365
Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska,
prepared statement............................................. 305
Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation, prepared
state-
ment........................................................... 292
Choctaw Indian Nation, prepared statement........................ 241
City of:
Fairfield, CA, prepared statement............................ 285
Folsom, CA, prepared statement............................... 286
Miami Beach, FL, prepared statement.......................... 460
Newark, NJ, prepared statement............................... 341
Roseville, CA, prepared statement............................ 286
Coal Utilization Research Council, prepared statement............ 483
Coalition for Indian Housing and Development, prepared statement. 536
Coalition of Northeastern Governors, prepared statements.......239, 493
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, questions
submitted by.................................................115, 236
Colorado:
River Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement....... 434
River Board of California, prepared statements........255, 276, 419
River Commission of Nevada, prepared statement............... 432
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, prepared statement.. 373
Confederated:
Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, prepared statement.... 313
Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, prepared
statement.................................................. 540
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, prepared
statement.................................................. 398
Coquille Indian Tribe, prepared statement........................ 280
County of Marion, OR, prepared statement......................... 286
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho, opening statement. 141
Crownpoint Institute of Technology, prepared statement........... 244
Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statement........................ 395
Dibe Yazhi Habitiin Olta, Inc.--Borrego Pass School, prepared
statement...................................................... 362
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico, questions
submitted by................................................... 233
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota:
Opening statement............................................ 190
Questions submitted by.....................................183, 226
Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas, prepared statement. 522
Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council, prepared statement.... 404
Florida State University, prepared statement..................... 346
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement... 385
Frontera Audubon Society, prepared statement..................... 418
Fuel Cell Power Association, prepared statement.................. 509
Gas Turbine Association, prepared statement...................... 512
Gasification Technologies Council, prepared statement............ 494
General Electric Power Systems, prepared statement............... 501
Georgia:
Appalachian Trail Club, prepared statement................... 479
Forestwatch, prepared statement.............................. 307
Golden Gate Audubon Society, prepared statement.................. 413
Greasewood Springs Community School, Inc., prepared statement.... 253
Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, prepared statement 351
Hollings, Hon., Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina,
questions submitted by......................................... 234
Hoopa Valley Tribe of California, prepared statement............. 324
Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement.......... 415
Intertribal Timber Council, prepared statement................... 401
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement.................... 300
Jicarilla Apache Nation, prepared statement...................... 262
Joslin Diabetes Center, prepared statement....................... 547
Kashdan, Hank, Director, Program and Budget Analysis, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 137
Kayenta Community School, Inc., prepared statement............... 452
Klee, Ann R., Counselor to the Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Department of the Interior.......................... 45
Knik Tribal Council, prepared statement.......................... 279
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared
statement...................................................... 349
Lamb, Hon. Robert J., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget and
Finance, Department of the Interior............................ 1
Summary statement............................................ 20
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont:
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Questions submitted by....................................... 126
Lower Colorado River Basin States (Arizona, California, and
Nevada), prepared statements.................................240, 422
Lugar, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from Indiana, questions
submitted by................................................... 184
Lukachukai Community School, Inc., prepared statement............ 267
Lummi Indian Nation, prepared statement.......................... 319
Metlakatla Indian Community, prepared statement.................. 450
Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut, prepared statement...... 355
Myers, Chuck, Forest Supervisor, Monongahela National Forest,
West Virginia, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture....... 137
National American Indian:
Court Judges Association, prepared statement................. 250
Housing Council, prepared statement.......................... 536
National Association of:
Conservation Districts, prepared statement................... 468
Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges, prepared
statement.................................................. 471
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, prepared
statement.................................................. 455
Wheat Growers, prepared statement............................ 492
National:
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, prepared
statement.................................................. 287
Corn Growers Association, prepared statement................. 492
Indian Education Association, prepared statement............. 442
Indian Gaming Commission, prepared statement................. 359
Institutes for Water Resources, prepared statement........... 381
Mining Association, prepared statement....................... 517
Parks Conservation Association, prepared statement........... 391
Research Center for Coal and Energy, West Virginia
University, prepared statement............................. 529
Trust for Historic Preservation, prepared statement.......... 389
Native American:
Fish & Wildlife Society, prepared statement.................. 447
Rights Fund, prepared statement.............................. 436
Navajo Mountain School Board, prepared statement................. 427
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement...... 243
Nez Perce Tribe, prepared statement.............................. 289
NFFE Local 1957, prepared statement.............................. 336
Northern Forest Alliance, prepared statement..................... 465
Northwest:
Indian Fisheries Commission, prepared statement.............. 453
Tribal Court Judges Association, prepared statement.......... 376
Norton, Hon. Gale A., Secretary of the Interior, Office of the
Secretary, Department of the Interior.......................... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Summary statement............................................ 49
Nuclear Energy Institute, prepared statement..................... 524
Oglala Sioux Nation, prepared statement.......................... 247
Ohio State University, prepared statement........................ 495
Oregon Water Resources Congress, prepared statement.............. 421
Partnership for the National Trails System, prepared statement... 327
Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation, prepared statement....... 353
Phillips, Randle, Deputy Chief, Programs and Legislation, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 137
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement.................. 322
Preservation Action, prepared statement.......................... 439
Puyallup Tribe of Indians, prepared statement.................... 309
Quinault Indian Nation, prepared statement....................... 342
Rains, Michael T., Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry,
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture...................... 137
Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., prepared statement.............. 429
Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, prepared statement............ 294
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada:
Opening statement............................................ 48
Prepared statement........................................... 160
Questions submitted by.....................................129, 182
Rock Point School Board, prepared statement...................... 272
Rosebud Sioux Tribe, prepared statement.......................... 542
San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, prepared statement.............. 265
Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, prepared statement................... 257
Save San Francisco Bay Association, prepared statement........... 265
Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement.................... 379
Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., prepared statement............. 507
Sierra Club, prepared statement.................................. 316
Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, prepared statement................ 545
Slonaker, Hon. Thomas N., Special Trustee for American Indians,
Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, Department
of the Interior................................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Summary statement............................................ 4
Society for:
American Archaeology, prepared statement..................... 436
Animal Protective Legislation, prepared statement............ 440
Historical Archaeology, prepared statement................... 436
Southern:
Appalachian Forest Coalition, prepared statement............. 477
Environmental Law Center, prepared statement................. 474
Nevada Water Authority, prepared statement................... 445
Squaxin Island Tribe, prepared statement......................... 297
State Teachers' Retirement System, State of California, prepared
statement...................................................... 534
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, questions submitted
by............................................................. 178
Tice, R. Dean, executive director, National Recreation and Park
Association, letter from....................................... 338
Timbisha Shosone Tribe, prepared statement....................... 337
Tohono O'odham Nation, prepared statement........................ 392
Trezise, John D., Director of Budget, Office of the Secretary,
Department of the Interior..................................... 45
Tribal Law and Policy Institute, prepared statement.............. 424
United Tribes Technical College, prepared statement.............. 260
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, prepared statement.............. 515
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 283
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, prepared
statement...................................................... 356
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, prepared
statement...................................................... 520
Weston Observatory of Boston College, prepared statement......... 407
Wide Ruins Community School Board, Inc., prepared statement...... 281
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, prepared statement.................. 544
Wyoming State Engineer's Office, prepared statement.............. 446
Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association, prepared statement... 312
Yurok Tribe, prepared statement.................................. 410
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Accountability.................................................146, 150
Additional committee questions................................... 163
Aging workforce.................................................. 145
Anti-Deficiency Act violation.................................... 182
Categorical exclusion............................................ 168
Consultation analysis............................................ 161
Controversial rulemakings........................................ 169
Financial accountability......................................... 170
Fire:
Assistance................................................... 180
Deficiency................................................... 171
Effects of, on other programs................................ 167
Management................................................... 152
Program--budget issues....................................... 164
Strategy, long-term.......................................... 165
Training and hiring of locals................................ 168
Forest:
Products...................................................146, 153
Service overall maintenance backlog.......................... 181
Funding, off the top...........................................145, 163
Ground work, on the.............................................. 144
Hardwood:
Court case................................................... 155
Tree Improvement and Regeneration Center..................... 184
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosytem Management Project (ICBEMP)..... 175
Lake Tahoe land acquisitions..................................... 183
Law enforcement.................................................. 159
Leadership....................................................... 144
Monongahela National Forest...................................... 155
Maintenance backlog on....................................... 156
National:
Fire Plan.............................................145, 149, 181
Impact of, on forest products............................ 154
Forests, drug problem in the................................. 159
NEPA Analysis.................................................... 161
Oversight......................................................145, 153
Planning......................................................... 174
Priorities....................................................... 144
Short-term................................................... 148
Range allotments................................................. 147
Recreation....................................................... 147
Research......................................................... 176
Road stabilization and watershed restoration..................... 156
Roadless ban..................................................... 180
Salvage.......................................................... 166
Timber....................................................... 161
Sierra Nevada framework.......................................... 178
Small diameter and lower value research.......................... 158
Southeast Alaska intertie........................................ 179
Stewardship......................................................
Contracts..................................................147, 165
Cooperative.................................................. 147
Suburban-wildland interface communities.......................... 164
Survey/manage.................................................... 174
Timber:
Program...................................................... 166
Questions.................................................... 172
Sales........................................................ 182
Washington office................................................ 162
Initiatives.................................................. 168
Wood:
Education Resource Center.................................... 157
In transportation............................................ 180
Yakutat:
Lodge........................................................ 179
Man (Tongass NF), criminal charges against................... 179
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
Additional committee questions................................... 217
Budget:
Amendment and PNGV Program................................... 219
Choices...................................................... 192
DOE, request................................................. 192
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation request.......... 195
Overall energy efficiency request............................ 200
Overall fossil energy research and development............... 196
Principles guiding the fiscal year 2002 Department of Energy. 195
Carat & Gate Programs............................................ 222
Clean coal:
Initiative................................................... 233
Power initiative............................................. 226
Climate change mitigation........................................ 230
Cooperative research............................................. 226
Distributed generation........................................... 222
Earmarks......................................................... 202
Economic regulation.............................................. 201
Energy:
Conservation priorities...................................... 199
Information administration.................................201, 218
Environmental Management Program................................. 230
Federal Energy Management Program..............................220, 233
Fossil energy:
Cooperative research......................................... 223
Fuel cells................................................... 223
Research................................................. 213
Import/Export Program........................................ 224
Priorities................................................... 196
R&D budget................................................... 204
Fuel cells....................................................... 234
Technology................................................... 205
Gas hydrate stability zone....................................... 237
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 221
Incentives, private industry..................................... 214
Industries of the future:
Black liquor gasification.................................... 222
General...................................................... 221
National energy technology laboratory............................ 215
Natural gas...................................................... 236
New generation of vehicles, partnership for a.................... 193
North American energy cooperation................................ 208
Oil and gas research............................................. 233
Petroleum reserves............................................... 198
Power:
Plant improvement initiative................................. 225
Systems...................................................... 206
Renewables and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)....... 232
Rocky Flats...................................................... 230
GAO report on................................................ 231
Savannah River Site (SRS)........................................ 234
Turbines......................................................... 207
Vice President's National Energy Policy Development Group........ 225
Weatherization assistance program................................ 193
Weatherization vs. Research & Development........................ 217
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program............................... 61
Additional committee questions................................... 83
Administration's environmental policies.......................... 72
American Indians, keeping our commitments to..................... 55
AML fund......................................................... 91
Grant, fiscal year 2002...................................... 92
Reduction.................................................... 61
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.................................. 76
Drilling in.................................................. 80
Biscayne Bay campsite leases..................................... 123
Bison Management................................................. 108
Black Canyon:
Of the Gunnison.............................................. 64
Water rights................................................. 116
Budget overview.................................................. 52
Building conservation partnerships............................... 53
Bureau of:
Indian Affairs' education increases.......................... 87
Land Management.............................................94, 132
Cat Island....................................................... 115
Compact negotiations............................................. 113
Conservation:
Balancing use with........................................... 57
Consultation, communication and collaboration in the service
of......................................................... 52
Research center in Front Royal, VA........................... 87
Construction..................................................... 110
Court monitor.................................................... 66
Departmental management.......................................... 113
Destin dome...................................................... 101
Endangered species listing...................................58, 60, 90
Enewetak......................................................... 115
Everglades restoration..........................................58, 101
Fiber optic:
Lease rates.................................................. 77
Right of way fees............................................ 95
Fire suppression................................................. 116
Fish and Wildlife Service........................................ 129
Endangered species........................................... 123
Law enforcement.............................................. 123
Geothermal Energy................................................ 134
Global:
Climate change...............................................74, 76
Warming treaty............................................... 80
Good government.................................................. 59
Grand Canyon Transportation System............................... 109
Gulf of Mexico................................................... 100
Historic Preservation Fund....................................... 106
Indian:
Affairs issues..............................................69, 118
Education................................................51, 71, 81
Law enforcement.............................................. 66
Trust reform................................................. 51
Water rights................................................. 65
Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resource Office................. 127
Land acquisitions................................................ 118
Land and water conservation fund............................50, 69, 124
Federal Side................................................. 86
Stateside.................................................... 83
Land use:
Backlog...................................................... 102
In parks................................................. 116
Conservation balance......................................... 51
Maintenance.................................................. 124
Planning..................................................... 95
Managing fire.................................................... 57
Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historic Park................ 128
Minerals Management Service...................................... 97
Montana specific (Undaunted Stewardship and MSU Weed Center)..... 96
National:
Conservation Training Center................................. 121
Park Service maintenance backlog.............................50, 65
Snowmobiles.............................................. 134
Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Public Lands, operation
of......................................................... 58
Parks, preserving our........................................ 54
Zoo Conservation and Research Center......................... 125
Natural Resource Challenge....................................... 104
Nevada:
Biodiversity initiative...................................... 67
LWCF funding................................................. 68
Office of:
Inspector General (OIG)...................................... 111
Insular Affairs.............................................. 113
The Solicitor................................................ 111
Offsetting receipts.............................................. 98
Payment in lieu of taxes...............................60, 94, 118, 124
Refuge Revenue Sharing Funds (RRFS).......................... 126
Prior Service Benefits Trust Fund................................ 115
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program............................. 107
Reduction in AML funding......................................... 61
Reengineering.................................................... 99
Restoring the Everglades......................................... 58
Royalty-in-kind..................................................79, 97
San Carlos Irrigation Project.................................... 87
Silvio O. Conte Education Center................................. 128
Staff cuts....................................................... 122
State:
Minimum funding.............................................. 93
Regulatory programs.......................................... 92
Streamlining..................................................... 121
Tobacco settlement............................................... 114
Treaty, 1992..................................................... 74
Tribal:
Colleges..................................................... 70
Contracting.................................................. 81
Trust Reform--Cobell............................................. 93
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Invasive alien species control............................... 88
Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund.................. 90
U.S. Geological Survey:
Funding reductions...........................................78, 82
Mission of the Agency........................................ 91
Proposed reductions.......................................... 91
Water resources research institutes.......................... 126
Valuation........................................................ 98
Wild Horse and Burro Program....................................94, 133
Wildlife Program, partners for................................... 127
Wildland fire management......................................... 51
Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians
Account Balances and the ``Sampling v. Modeling'' debate......... 42
Additional committee questions................................... 33
Address updates.................................................. 23
BIA projects..................................................... 17
Closing observations............................................. 31
Cobell litigation:
Document production.......................................... 22
Potential for settlement..................................... 6
Crow agency...................................................... 24
Data cleanup.................................................14, 24, 32
Direct pay lease payments........................................ 30
Fractionation.................................................... 15
High Level Implementation Plan................................... 39
IIM accounts..................................................... 23
Indian:
Land Consolidation Program................................... 15
Trust management reform to date.............................. 9
Litigation effects............................................... 31
Management authority and measuring progress...................... 41
National Academy for Public Adminstration Study.................. 21
Nessi memo....................................................... 5, 26
Next steps....................................................... 10
Private sector................................................... 29
Project timeline................................................. 27
Regulations...................................................... 13
Scope of DOI trust asset management responsibility............... 11
Statistical sampling............................................. 6, 26
Timeframe and costs.......................................... 27
TAAMS............................................................ 30
Interfaces................................................... 15
Modules...................................................... 14
Progress..................................................... 20
Timelines........................................................ 15
Tribal:
Consultation................................................. 27
Federal relations............................................ 19
Withdrawal and management of funds under the 1994 Act........ 44
Trust:
Fund accounting system....................................... 29
Records...................................................... 6 23
Reform:
Authority................................................ 25
Efforts.................................................. 4, 21
Institutionalizing....................................... 19
Youpee........................................................... 13
-