    [Senate Hearing 107-816]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                         S. Hrg. 107-816

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2003
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 5093/S. 2708

      AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
    RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2003, AND FOR
                                 OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                            Department of Agriculture
                             Department of Energy
                           Department of the Interior
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

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

                                     ______

                               U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    78-477                         WASHINGTON : 2003
    ___________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area
    (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             TED STEVENS, Alaska
    ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina   THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    HARRY REID, Nevada                   MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 CONRAD BURNS, Montana
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
                      Terrence E. Sauvain, Staff Director
                     Charles Kieffer, Deputy Staff Director
                   Steven J. Cortese, Minority Staff Director
                Lisa Sutherland, Minority Deputy Staff Director
                                     ------

        Subcommittee on Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

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

                               Professional Staff

                                Peter Kiefhaber
                               Brooke Livingston
                                  Ginny James
                                Leif Fonnesbeck
                             Bruce Evans (Minority)
                             Ryan Thomas (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                               Jennifer Storipan
                           Larissa Sommer (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, March 7, 2002

                                                                       Page

    Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary....................     1

                            Thursday, April 25, 2002

    Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................    79

                             Thursday, June 6, 2002

    Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................   113

                             Tuesday, June 13, 2002

    Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary..............   133
    Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   247

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:09 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert C. Byrd (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Byrd, Burns, Cochran, and Domenici.

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER ABRAHAM, SECRETARY OF ENERGY

                  opening statement of senator robert c. byrd

        Senator Byrd. The committee will come to order.
        Mr. Secretary, I am very delighted to have you appear
    before this subcommittee. My first question, getting right to
    the point, is: How is that third baby in the Abraham family
    getting along?
        Secretary Abraham. He is doing well, sir. And you will note
    that, while his first name is Spencer, his middle name is
    Robert.
        Senator Byrd. That is very important.
        Well, he is already on first base.
        Secretary Abraham. I think so.
        Senator Byrd. You said on September 6, 1996, that you and
    your lovely wife have twin daughters who were 3 years old,
    Betsy and Judy. How are they getting along?
        Secretary Abraham. If they did not have their younger
    brother tormenting them much of the time, I think they would
    report they are getting along very well. But they have learned
    that boys are a little different than girls. So we have quite a
    good family.
        Senator Byrd. Tell those lovely children that they have
    been a great help to their father----
        Secretary Abraham. I will.
        Senator Byrd [continuing]. This morning already.
        On behalf of the Interior and Related Agencies
    Subcommittee, I welcome you here this morning. We appreciate
    you coming to formally present and discuss the administration's
    fiscal year 2003 budget request for the Office of Fossil
    Energy, the Office of Energy Efficiency, the Energy Information
    Administration, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
        Last May, when you first testified before this
    subcommittee, you had been Energy Secretary for only 3 months.
    The President's National Energy Policy, which was to guide the
    development of your Department's agency, had not been finalized
    or released. Nor had the catastrophic events of September 11
    forced us to all reevaluate our national priorities with
    respect to energy.
        But it is different this year. You have had adequate time
    in which to gain control of your department. The National
    Energy Policy, which you, as Secretary of Energy, have
    fashioned, has been presented to the Nation and has spurred
    what I consider to be an important debate. And 6 months after
    the devastating attacks of September 11, Americans understand
    just how vulnerable we are and why it is integral to our
    Nation's security that we increase our energy independence.
        And yet, as I look at the Department's budget request, I am
    puzzled and somewhat dismayed. Rather than respond to the
    challenges we face by increasing our research and development
    activities as a way of securing our Nation's energy
    independence, this administration has instead chosen to
    retreat.
        In energy conservation, for example, research and
    development activities that reduce the energy we use are cut by
    8 percent. Under this budget proposal, the fossil energy
    research and development account is cut 16 percent from current
    levels. Coal research outside of the clean coal technology
    program is cut 9 percent. All research goes down by 37 percent
    overall, while programs specifically geared toward boosting
    exploration and production are slashed 49 percent. And the
    budget simply guts natural gas research, cutting those
    activities by 51 percent.
        I appreciate the many demands, Mr. Secretary, that are
    placed upon you and your Department. You must address the
    safety of our Nation's nuclear stockpile. You have
    responsibilities for environmental cleanup. And the Energy
    Department, like all departments, has been called on to support
    the Office of Homeland Defense. But now is not the time to walk
    away from the kind of research that will secure our Nation's
    energy independence. As President Bush has said, ``For the sake
    of national security, we must find more oil and gas at home.''
        Mr. Secretary, I will not, before you have had an
    opportunity to speak, belabor these points. I look forward to
    the question-and-answer period so that these and other issues
    can be discussed in greater detail. I also look forward to
    working with you and the subcommittee's distinguished ranking
    member, Senator Burns, in making sure that the Energy
    Department has the resources that it needs to carry out its
    duties. Your mission is an important one, and it should not be
    left behind.
        Now I turn to my counterpart, my distinguished colleague,
    the ranking member of this subcommittee, Mr. Burns.

                   opening statement of senator conrad burns

        Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And what a difference a year makes. Last year at this time,
    Mr. Secretary, you appeared before the subcommittee in a time
    of relative peace in the world. At home, however, we were in
    the midst of an intractable energy crisis that began in
    California and infected the entire West. Gasoline prices in
    parts of the country were heading towards $2 a gallon. There
    was great concern that a cold winter ahead could drive heating
    prices through the roof.
        A year later, gasoline prices have settled considerably.
    The energy crisis in the West has seemingly abated. And the
    winter has nearly passed without showing its wicked teeth. Our
    troops are at war around the globe; and Senator Byrd is holding
    my gavel.
        What a difference a year makes. As you know, Mr. Secretary,
    the apparent change in our energy fortunes will be fleeting, at
    best, unless we take some positive actions now. While
    additional generation capacity is being constructed in
    California and throughout the West, and especially my State of
    Montana, it will likely not be enough if we have even a modest
    hot spell this summer, and demand for electricity goes up, or
    if we cannot eliminate some transmission bottlenecks we are
    experiencing across the country.
        While gasoline prices have moderated somewhat, domestic oil
    production continues to decline and prices remain increasingly
    subject to the production decisions of others, most of those
    decisions being made offshore. And while last year people in
    the West demonstrated an ability to reduce their demand for
    electricity, those demand reductions will be totally
    overwhelmed if our economy rebounds, as we all trust that it
    will. In fact, the imbalance between energy supply and demand
    lurks as a tremendous threat to a sustained economic recovery
    in this country.
        Nobody, Mr. Secretary, can afford to be complacent about
    our energy future. I know the President shares this view. He
    has taken the first step by putting forward a balanced energy
    policy. But a policy is worth very little if it is not
    implemented. And that is one of the reasons I am glad to see
    you here today.
        The energy programs under this subcommittee's jurisdiction
    are an important part of our energy policy. We need you to
    explain how this budget proposal relates to the President's
    policy. I must admit that I share many of the chairman's
    concerns about the budget request and whether it is adequate in
    some areas to support that policy. I hope that today you will
    connect the dots and explain how the one document relates to
    the other.
        Last year you dutifully appeared before this subcommittee
    to defend a budget request over which you had very little
    control. That request was also produced without the benefit of
    the President's energy policy. That is not the case this year,
    however; so the bar for your testimony is set just a little bit
    higher. But knowing you, as I do, Mr. Secretary, I am confident
    you will clear that bar, even if we do not ultimately agree on
    every detail of this budget proposal.
        We look forward to hearing your testimony. And I look
    forward to working with the chairman of this subcommittee. I do
    not know of a working relationship on any appropriations
    committee that is any better than our relationship here; and we
    want to continue that. I thank you for coming today.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Senator Burns. And thank you for
    referring to the working relationship that you and I enjoy on
    this committee. It is certainly bipartisan. And we will work
    together as we have worked together in the past.
        Mr. Secretary, why do you not proceed with your statement,
    please?

                   summary statement of hon. spencer abraham

        Secretary Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the
    ranking member. I express my appreciation for the opportunity
    today to present our budget in a little more detail.
        I think we have submitted a fairly lengthy official
    testimony, so I am going to dispense with going through all of
    that and make just a shorter statement.
        Senator Byrd. Without objection, your entire statement will
    be included in the record as though read.
        Secretary Abraham. Thank you.
        As both of you acknowledged, what we have been through over
    the last 12 months has been considerable. We have had a severe
    energy crisis in California, fears that it could have well
    spread to other parts of the country. We have seen heating oil,
    natural gas, and gasoline price spikes. And then, of course,
    the attacks of 9/11 and the events in the energy market since
    then. This has been a year for the record books.
        I just want to say up front that the folks at the
    Department of Energy, the men and women who worked in this
    Department--and I have come to know a lot of them--have
    performed, in my judgment, superbly during this very difficult
    time. I think sometimes those of us in the appointed jobs or
    the elected jobs get most of the focus, of course. But the
    folks who work day-to-day in this Department have done a great
    job.
        And I think that it is often the case that the people in a
    bureaucracy are the targets of criticism, often unjust. This
    Department has had more than its share. But during some pretty
    tough times, the men and women of the Department have done a
    spectacular job, I think, of rising to some fairly serious
    challenges.
        I think we have accomplished a lot during this past year.
    Obviously the Department played an active role in the
    development of a national energy policy that the President
    announced last year. The Minister of Atomic Energy in Russia,
    in the Russian Federation, Alexander Rumyanstev, and I had a
    chance in September, right after the 9/11 attacks, and again in
    November, to meet and agree on an expanded and accelerated
    program for nuclear non-proliferation activities, particularly
    in the securing of materials in Russia. And we have already
    moved rather quickly to begin initiating that.
        We launched, I think, an exciting new program in the area
    of transportation, long-term transportation efficiency, the
    FreedomCAR Program we call it, a program designed to develop
    new emission-free automobiles and other motor vehicles. After
    24 years of study, as you know, we made a recommendation in
    February to the President for a permanent high-level nuclear
    waste, disposal site. And that process is now moving forward.
        We launched a new initiative to maintain, improve, and
    expand the use of nuclear energy. We have also done some things
    to try to address some of the specific problems we had,
    including launching what will now be, I think, a successful
    program to improve the transmission of electricity within the
    State of California, breaking down one of the most infamous
    bottlenecks in the country called Path 15.
        So we, I think, have made some progress. We have also
    worked to try to address some comprehensive management
    challenges, which we have had at the agency. And we have taken
    steps, I think, to bring clarity to the Department's mission.
    We clarified back in October our over-arching mission is
    national security and the need to have energy security is a key
    cornerstone of that. This over-arching mission of the
    Department gives our team the kind of direction they need. We
    also made it clear that advanced basic science is central to
    that mission.
        We performed a no-holds-barred review of our environmental
    management program and have proposed ways to both accelerate
    and reduce risk to communities in which our environmental
    clean-up sites exist. We performed an equally thorough review
    of our energy efficiency and renewables program, part of which
    is reflected in this budget, as well as in the energy and water
    budget, where we identified areas of great promise and guided
    the budget request this year, I think, in a more
    straightforward fashion.
        What we discovered was that some areas, frankly, deserve
    greater investment than had been the case. Other areas had
    reached the point of maturity where the technology could be
    moved to the market. And in other areas we need to change and
    improve direction. And I think we are doing that.
        Each of these policy and management reviews, I think, is
    shaped and will continue to shape the budget this year and in
    future ones. And now we intend to conduct similar comprehensive
    reviews of the two areas that we were not able to do for lack
    of having confirmed appointees in the areas of fossil energy
    programs and our comprehensive science programs. Happily, just
    this week Dr. Ray Orbach was confirmed by the Senate to head
    our Office of Science. And so now we have him there to conduct
    a top-to-bottom review of that division of the Department.
        And I think you have met with, and he is here today, our
    brand new Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Carl Michael
    Smith, who comes to us from the role as energy secretary of the
    State of Oklahoma. And I am anxious to work with him. I would
    also acknowledge Bob Kripowicz, who is here today, who has
    performed for the first year of our term here as the Acting
    Assistant Secretary and done a terrific job of helping me to
    surmount a lot of challenges, the ones we talked about here
    earlier. And Assistant Secretary Smith's first task is to
    perform the comprehensive review that I just mentioned.
        Just as we have seen important changes this year in the
    energy efficiency and the environmental management programs as
    a result of the reviews conducted there, I expect comparable
    changes that will shape the budget and policy direction in the
    fossil energy program once this review is completed.

                        fiscal year 2003 budget request

        Let me just provide a few comments on the 2003 request. Our
    budget for the entire Department is $21.9 billion, over $8
    billion of that is for the National Nuclear Security
    Administration, which includes $6 billion for our stockpile
    stewardship and related weapons activities, and the largest
    amount we have ever requested, over $1.1 billion, to build on
    our nuclear non-proliferation progress.
        We are also requesting over $3 billion to fund our cutting
    edge science programs, which, again, are going to be subjected
    to an even more intense review. And I think very favorable
    results will come from that.
        In the area of environmental management, we are proposing
    to significantly expedite the clean-up of these former weapon
    sites, where communities have been told, up until now, they
    would have to wait 70 or 80 years for the clean-up activities
    to finish, at a cost to the taxpayers of some $300 billion.
        We believe that by moving more swiftly, putting more money
    into those programs on the front end, we can get that
    accomplished sooner. And that will, in the long-term, both save
    money, but also give communities--more importantly--give
    communities the security of knowing that the high-level risks
    that they have confronted have been ameliorated. We are
    requesting $816 million for the fossil energy programs in
    fiscal year 2003. Included in the budget is funding for
    advanced research and development, Clean Coal Technology,
    Petroleum Reserves, and other similar programs. Specifically,
    we are requesting over $188 million for the Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve and the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. This
    request supports our intention to fill the Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve to capacity in the next 3 years.
        And we are funding at a level of $8 million our home
    heating oil reserve program, which we use, of course, to
    protect the most vulnerable consumers in the Northeast in the
    event of shortages of supply of the sort which we fortunately
    avoided this year but, as Senator Burns, indicated could be a
    challenge in the future. That reserve is now fully stocked and
    ready for emergency use.
        The President's Coal Research Initiative accounts for
    $325.6 million of the request for Fossil Energy Research and
    Development. The President recognized the value of U.S. coal to
    this Nation's energy security when he proposed a new vision for
    clean coal technology and pledged an investment of $2 billion
    over the next 10 years to build on the significant
    technological progress made in recent years. We remain firmly
    committed to reaching that goal.
        Just this week, the Department released a solicitation
    offering $330 million in Federal matching funds for industry-
    proposed clean coal initiatives. We want to begin a new
    partnership with the private sector to enhance energy supplies
    through clean coal technology. This technology, in our view,
    can help us preserve the environment while it strengthens
    energy security.
        Just a few years ago, just the idea of a pollution-free
    coal plant seemed farfetched. Today that view has changed. It
    now appears likely that if the current pace of R&D can be
    sustained, a new type of fossil fuel energy plant can be
    introduced by the year 2015 that will have virtually no
    negative environmental effects. In fiscal year 2003, we are
    requesting over $63 million to develop the technology base for
    this power plant of the future.
        As a result of our top-to-bottom reviews on energy
    efficiency, we are requesting a significant investment, over
    $1.3 billion in energy efficiency and renewables, to develop
    diverse sources of energy that are abundant, affordable, and
    clean. For programs under the jurisdiction of this
    subcommittee, we request $904 million. Last January, as I said,
    we announced our FreedomCAR initiative, a proposed partnership
    with private industry to develop clean, efficient fuel cell
    vehicles and the infrastructure needed to support them.
        We are requesting $150 million in support of FreedomCAR, an
    important component of our long-term effort to reduce American
    dependence on foreign oil.
        We will continue to invest in these programs that assist
    our families, particularly those related to our Weatherization
    Program. The budget includes $277 million to continue the
    President's $2 billion commitment to weatherize over 1 million
    homes over the next decade. Mr. Chairman, I have seen that
    program first hand. Recently I joined officials in this area to
    highlight its benefits in a home in Arlington, Virginia. The
    savings truly are remarkable. So that is a quick summary.
        I look forward to both trying to address questions here
    today, but I want to just echo the comments made both by you,
    Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member. Having served together,
    we, I think, have a very successful track record of working on
    challenges together.

                               prepared statement

        I look forward, both during this budget process, and later
    with regard to the implementation of these programs, to work
    closely with the subcommittee to both accomplish the goals
    which we have outlined here in the short term, but in a long-
    term sense as well.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Spencer Abraham
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here
    today to discuss the fiscal year 2003 budget submission for the
    Department of Energy (DOE). This year we are proposing the largest
    budget in the Department's history. On September 11th our Nation
    changed, as did our national security challenges. The Department of
    Energy's $21.9 billion budget, that includes $1.8 billion for programs
    within this Subcommittee's jurisdiction, responds to that change in our
    focus as an agency and in the way we do business. This budget meets
    these challenges through investment in our national defense and in an
    important component of that, our Nation's energy security.
                refocusing our missions and national priorities
        Shortly after the September 11th attacks, I spoke to Department of
    Energy managers and laid out new priorities for the agency. These
    priorities center on our main overarching mission national security.
        I outlined a plan to review DOE's programs to bring our national
    security priorities back into focus. They include:
      --certifying the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile;
      --ensuring that R&D and production plans support the Administration's
            nuclear strategy;
      --resolving the threat of weapons of mass destruction;
      --providing safe, efficient and effective nuclear propulsion for the
            Navy;
      --implementing the President's National Energy Policy;
      --directing R&D budgets to innovative new ideas while ensuring
            application of mature technologies;
      --exploring new energy sources with dramatic environmental benefits;
            and
      --supporting Homeland Defense through a focus on the threat of
            weapons of mass destruction posed by terrorist groups or nation
            states.
        National security concerns clearly drive the programs of the
    National Nuclear Security Administration and Other Defense programs,
    but it is also a key component of our energy, science and environmental
    programs. Energy security is national security. Failure to meet
    increasing energy demand with increased energy supplies, and
    vulnerability to disruptions from natural or malevolent causes, could
    threaten our Nation's economic prosperity, alter the way we live our
    lives, and threaten our national security. Energy programs will
    establish their highest research priorities to focus on the
    Department's overarching mission. They will direct research and
    development of new ideas that need encouragement; ensure greater
    application of mature energy technologies; and implement the
    President's National Energy Policy to increase domestic production,
    revolutionize our approach to energy efficiency, and identify a wider
    array of energy sources and types.
        Since the announcement of the President's National Energy policy we
    have:
      --ensured that our Strategic Petroleum Reserve protection is
            maintained in support of national energy security--the
            President directed the Department to add 108 million barrels of
            crude oil to the stockpile. The Department has implemented a
            royalty-in-kind program to fill the reserve to its maximum
            capacity quickly and without draining appropriated funds;
      --set into motion a $300 million project (non-Federal funds) to work
            with the private sector to upgrade California's Path 15 and
            alleviate California's major electric transmission bottleneck.
            To accomplish this, Pacific Gas and Electric will work with 6
            other parties and the Western Power Administration.
      --continued the President's ten-year commitment to increase funding
            for the Weatherization Assistance Program to assist low-income
            families in reducing the cost for heating and cooling their
            homes;
      --proposed an increase of $700 million in the Bonneville Power
            Administration's permanent borrowing authority to make needed
            investments in transmission and other infrastructure in the
            Pacific Northwest; and
      --stocked the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve with 2 million
            barrels of home heating oil for emergency use.
        The fiscal year 2003 budget for energy programs within the
    jurisdiction of this Subcommittee totals $1.8 billion. This request
    focuses Federal investment on future energy solutions and on R&D where
    our investment will make the most difference. To this end, this budget
    pilots a major DOE and OMB initiative to be expanded ultimately to all
    other Departments and agencies--to evaluate applied R&D programs and
    projects against empirical, objective criteria to ensure that, in
    additional to their scientific merits, these programs and projects are
    appropriate activities for the Federal government, are in accord with
    the principles of the National Energy Policy, and hold the most promise
    for delivering a product that will benefit the American people.
        As a result of these evaluations, some projects were terminated,
    and some resources were redirected to maximize delivery of public
    benefits and provide long-term energy solutions. For example, the
    reduction in the Natural Gas Technologies budget request for fiscal
    year 2003 reflects the decision to target funding to those areas where
    industry clearly is not funding major development efforts on its own,
    or where a small amount of federal support can complete high-payoff,
    multi-year development efforts, or where federal cost-sharing can lead
    to technologies that can keep gas flowing from domestic wells that
    otherwise would be shut in. Similar to the Natural Gas Technologies
    program, funding in the Oil Technology program would be redirected in
    fiscal year 2003 to those areas where industry is not focusing its
    research attention and where a small amount of federal support could
    return significant dividends in terms of increased domestic oil
    production. Also, this budget features targeted energy investments that
    include FreedomCAR--bringing a long-term hydrogen fuel cell focus to
    transportation research--and the President's Coal Research Initiative
    recognizing the importance of cleaner burning more efficient coal power
    as part of the Nation's future energy supplies.
                        changing the way we do business
        I have also laid out my vision and expectations of the DOE
    workforce. DOE must become a place where employees of other Departments
    wish they worked, and an agency every Cabinet member wish they led.
    Programs would be managed against measurable performance objectives and
    managers would have clear accountability. I asked every manager to:
      --ensure the safety of our employees and the communities surrounding
            our facilities,
      --instill a respect for and adhere to the highest standards of
            security; and
      --build a culture where merit determines hiring and promotion, and
            diversity is viewed as key to recruiting and retaining the best
            people.
        But the challenge is greater. The Department is also addressing
    long-standing criticisms of DOE management and moving toward the
    Administration's model as set forth in the President's Management
    Agenda. With an emphasis on measurable performance objectives and
    accountability, we are holding DOE managers responsible for making
    these changes. We have set priorities, disciplined our focus, and will
    measure everything we do by reference to our missions and priorities.
                 implementing the president's management agenda
        The President has called for an active but limited government, one
    that empowers States, cities, and citizens; ensures results through
    accountability; and promotes innovation through competition. The
    Administration has targeted areas for improvement throughout the
    Federal government. Our work to fully implement these initiatives will
    continue through fiscal year 2004 and beyond, but we have a path
    forward and are making changes now.
    Human capital
        In order to eliminate unnecessary layers of management, direct
    personnel to high-priority missions, address skill imbalances, and
    achieve a 5-10 percent savings in management expenses through
    comprehensive, creative management reform, DOE will accelerate
    workforce planning and work with the Office of Personnel Management to
    conduct complex-wide organizational surveys to analyze and evaluate DOE
    field and headquarters redundancies, fragmentation and duplication of
    effort.
    Competitive sourcing
        We are initiating formal competitive sourcing reviews under the
    provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 on
    approximately 1,000 positions. In addition, line managers are planning
    other reviews that may lead to formal studies. The longer-term goal is
    to conduct reviews on 50 percent of the Department's inventory of
    Federal positions that are not inherently governmental.
    Improved financial management
        We will continue to build on the Department's unqualified audit
    opinion on the consolidated financial statements and work to integrate
    better financial, budget, and program information in order to provide
    cost information related to performance.
    E-Government
        To make better use of computer information systems to improve
    management, promote efficient use of resources, and make our systems
    provide more people-friendly information, the Department will
    strengthen its Information Technology investment portfolio by linking
    investment control processes, using enterprise architecture, and
    improving security policies and capital planning.
    Budget and performance integration
        We have strengthened the Department's ability to measure
    performance by establishing the Program Analysis and Evaluation Office
    and developing a five-year planning, programming, budgeting and
    evaluation process. Building on the integration of performance metrics
    into our fiscal year 2003 budget submission, we are improving the
    performance measures contained in our fiscal year 2003 budget request
    and will continue to improve performance measures and their integration
    into the fiscal year 2004 budget. These improvements will provide
    clear, quantifiable outcomes to support budget requests.
    Applied research and development (R&D) investment criteria
        The President's management initiative on applied R&D calls for
    improved criteria to better focus programs on linkages to Presidential
    priorities, market justification, cost-sharing targets and performance
    outcomes. Our first phase of improvement is reflected in the budget for
    the Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy programs. In fiscal year 2004, all applied R&D activities in the
    Department will make use of these improved criteria.
                             reporting on progress
        Management changes at DOE go beyond the objectives of the
    President's Management Agenda. To clarify roles, responsibilities and
    accountability, I have also revamped the Department's management
    structure.
        I have strengthened the role of the Under Secretary for Energy,
    Science and Environment and given him direct line management
    responsibilities for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Fossil
    Energy programs.
        The Department has made cross-cutting changes to strengthen
    accountability by:
      --modifying the performance evaluation system for the Department's
            Senior Executives, making them more accountable for ensuring
            program success. These modifications will flow down to General
            Schedule employee levels during fiscal year 2002;
      --issuing ``Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of
            Capital Assets'' (DOE Order 413.3), a major comprehensive
            resource to address all aspects of major project and program
            management and improve accountability for project and capital
            asset management.
      --implementing the Project Management Career Development Program to
            enhance employee technical skills as recommended by the
            National Research Council;
      --expanding the ``Chief Operating Officer's Watch List'' to monitor
            all significant construction projects. This useful tool
            provides high visibility and increased management attention to
            projects that exhibit early warning signs of trouble. In
            addition, we are placing much greater emphasis on acquisition
            planning, incorporating better measurements of performance,
            conducting earlier independent reviews, ensuring appropriate
            senior management oversight and providing real-time feedback to
            influence better outcomes; and
      --initiating a process by which the Department's Program Secretarial
            Officers submit their highest priority objectives and related
            performance measures on an annual basis to the Deputy
            Secretary. This information will be tracked throughout the year
            and will be used to identify issues that may impede the
            achievement of these mission objectives.
        We are also improving our financial management. The newly
    consolidated Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation (OMBE) added a
    new function, Program Analysis and Evaluation, to bring rigorous
    analysis and long-term budgeting of program plans and funding
    proposals. These improvements will benefit the Department.
        OMBE will serve as a linchpin to improve the integration of the
    Department's strategic planning, budgeting and project management
    activities through the creation of a multi-year planning, programming,
    budgeting and evaluation capability. The Department will conduct long-
    term planning for all the Department of Energy programs in fiscal year
    2004.
        I would now like to address some of the specifics of our budget
    request.
    the fiscal year 2003 interior and related agencies appropriation budget
                                    request
        In total for fiscal year 2003, we are requesting $1.8 billion. This
    amount is 3 percent, or $55.4 million, less than the current fiscal
    year 2002 level, but $181.1 million more than the fiscal year 2001
    level. By appropriation, we are requesting $494.2 million for Fossil
    Energy Research and Development; $21.1 million for the Naval Petroleum
    and Oil Shales Reserves; $72.0 million for the Elk Hills School Lands
    Fund, which includes a $36.0 million advance appropriation; $904.3
    million for Energy Conservation; $1.6 million for Economic Regulation;
    $188.8 million for the Strategic Petroleum Reserves; $82.8 million for
    the Energy Information Administration; and $40.0 million for Clean Coal
    Technology. One third of our total request, or $610.7 million, supports
    three Presidential Initiatives. They are Coal Research, $325.6 million;
    Weatherization Assistance Program, $277.1 million; and the Northeast
    Home Heating Oil Reserve, $8.0 million.
                            the fossil energy budget
        The good news is that I now have my new Assistant Secretary for
    Fossil Energy on board. I already asked him to conduct a top-to-bottom
    review of the entire Fossil Energy program and report the results to me
    by July 1 of this year. His report will examine the strengths and
    weaknesses of our current program; how well it fits within the
    President's National Energy Policy and our Fossil Energy mission
    statement; and whether we are achieving the maximum benefits for the
    American people.
        We are requesting $816.0 million for Fossil Energy programs in
    fiscal year 2003. Included in this budget are $548.2 million for Fossil
    Energy research and development; $40.0 million from previous
    appropriations for the original Clean Coal Technology program; $188.8
    million for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which includes $8.0
    million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve; and $93 million for
    the Naval Petroleum Reserves, which includes $72.0 million for the Elk
    Hills School Lands Fund ($36.0 million of which is an advance
    appropriation).
                    the president's coal research initiative
        The President's Coal Research Initiative accounts for $325.6
    million of the request for Fossil Energy research and development.
    President Bush recognized the value of U.S. coal to the Nation's energy
    security when he proposed a new vision for clean coal technology and
    pledged an investment of $2 billion over the next 10 years to build on
    the significant technological progress made in recent years. The
    Department's fiscal year 2003 budget proposal includes the second
    installment of funding for this initiative. It also focuses much of the
    undergirding coal research program on the President's longer-term clean
    coal technology goals.
        Funding includes $150.0 million for the Clean Coal Power
    Initiative; $85.0 million for Central Systems; $54.0 million for
    Sequestration R&D; $5.0 million for Clean Fuels R&D; and $31.6 million
    for Advanced Research. These components are described below:
        The Clean Coal Power Initiative.--This will be the initial step in
    carrying out the President's commitment. The Department intends to
    combine the $150.0 million appropriated in fiscal year 2002 with the
    $150.0 million requested for fiscal year 2003 and approximately $30.0
    million of available funding from the Power Plant Improvement
    Initiative into a $330.0 million solicitation for industry-proposed,
    cost-shared demonstration projects. This first solicitation, which is
    scheduled to be issued in March 2002, will focus on rapidly advancing
    technologies that can be accelerated into the power sector through
    government-industry partnership projects. Industry sponsors will be
    required to at least match the federal funding share, and there will be
    a requirement that royalties from commercially successful technologies
    be used to underwrite future clean coal research.
        Central Systems R&D.--Central station power plants remain the
    workhorses of America's power sector; currently, there are more than
    375 coal-fired plants in the United States that generate 100 megawatts
    or more. Even though there is increasing interest in smaller,
    decentralized power systems, central station power generators will
    remain the dominant contributors to the Nation's power supply for well
    into the future. In total for fiscal year 2003, $85.0 million is
    requested for Central Systems R&D. Components of this program include
    the following:
      --Innovations for Existing Plants.--In fiscal year 2003, $21.2
            million is requested for the continued development of a
            scientifically sound base of data and technology to understand
            and reduce air and water pollutants from existing plants.
          Mercury is likely to be one of the next major environmental
            challenges for the coal-fired power industry. To meet the 2008
            deadline for mercury emission controls (EPA must publish a
            final rule by 2004), many of the Nation's coal-fired power
            plants will require new technology. Data collected by the
            Department in the late 1990s showed that no pollution control
            system on the market today reduces mercury emissions uniformly
            across the full range of power plant configurations. Emission
            controls can vary from 90 percent to virtually zero.
          To develop mercury controls that are more reliable, at lower
            cost, and applicable to a wider range of plant types, the
            Department has put into place an aggressive technology
            development program. In 2000, the first near-term projects were
            selected with a goal of cutting mercury emissions by 50 to 70
            percent by 2005 at one-half or less of today's costs.
          In fiscal year 2003, advanced NOx control technologies will
            complete their pilot scale tests. If test results are
            successful, the technologies will be ready for full-scale
            demonstration, and important data will be generated for use in
            future multi-pollutant control strategies.
      --Advanced Systems--the Power Plant of the Future.--Just a few years
            ago, the idea that a coal plant could be pollution free,
            including even carbon emissions, seemed farfetched. Today that
            view has changed. It now appears likely that if the current
            pace of R&D can be sustained, a new type of fossil fueled
            energy plant can be introduced by 2015 that would have
            virtually no negative environmental effects. In fiscal year
            2003, we are requesting $63.8 million to develop the
            technological base for this power plant of the future.
          Core elements of this effort include research on advanced
            concepts for integrated gasification combined cycle ($40.65
            million) and pressurized fluidized bed combustion ($9.10
            million). In fiscal year 2002, the pressurized fluidized bed
            combustion program was recast to focus on new concepts such as
            combustion hybrids that offer higher potential and reduced
            risks for future power plants. In fiscal year 2003, another
            significant refocusing will be underway in the turbine
            technology development program ($14.0 million). With the
            successful completion of the Advanced Turbine Systems
            development effort--which produced two new revolutionary,
            ultra-high efficiency, low-polluting, utility-scale natural gas
            turbines--DOE's turbine research is being redirected toward the
            development of a new generation of zero-emission turbines,
            capable of being fired with coal gas and other gaseous
            feedstocks. Termed HEET--for ``High Efficiency Engines and
            Turbines''--the new program is being defined this year by
            industry input and ongoing studies of market applications,
            public benefits, and technology needs.
      --Sequestration R&D.--Carbon sequestration--the capture and storage
            or recycling of carbon gases--is the fastest growing program in
            the Department's Fossil Energy budget, reflecting President
            Bush's emphasis on developing advanced technologies to reduce
            the buildup of greenhouse gases. In fiscal year 2003, we are
            requesting $54.0 million.
          This year the first of these projects will move into early field
            tests, providing the first ``real life'' data on whether
            various proposals for storing carbon gases are, in fact, worth
            pursuing. For example, in fiscal year 2002 the first full-scale
            project to sequester CO2 in unmineable coal seams
            will take place, along with the first full-scale monitoring and
            verification of CO2 injection into a depleting oil
            reservoir.
          The significant increase in proposed funding for fiscal year 2003
            (a 67 percent increase over the $32.2 million appropriated in
            fiscal year 2002) reflects the necessary costs for moving
            additional, promising concepts from laboratory-scale research
            into the next stage of tests. New field experiments in
            terrestrial sequestration, along with additional field tests in
            geological storage of greenhouse gases, are supported in the
            budget request.
      --Clean Fuels R&D.--The Clean Fuels R&D program is in transition.
            Historically, the program focused largely on methods to convert
            coal to liquid fuels. Three years ago it was reoriented to
            include new efforts in reducing sulfur from petroleum and
            converting natural gas to liquid transportation fuels.
          The reduction in the fiscal year 2003 budget request--to $5.0
            million from $32.2 million in fiscal year 2002--reflects the
            Administration's view that much of the reoriented program was
            directed at research that industry could do on its own. Rather
            than concentrating on ways to remove pollutant-forming
            impurities from gasoline and diesel fuels, the fiscal year 2003
            budget narrows the focus to exploratory research on novel
            concepts for chemically converting fossil fuel feedstocks into
            liquids and the development of a novel ceramic membrane that
            could significantly lower the costs of producing ``syngas'' for
            liquids production. If successful, this new membrane might also
            provide a lower-cost means for producing clean-burning
            hydrogen.
      --Advanced Research.--In fiscal year 2003, we are requesting $31.7
            million for two types of activities: (1) crosscutting and
            applied research that benefits the development of superclean,
            ultra-high-efficiency coal power systems and coal-based clean
            fuel systems with a particular emphasis on new materials,
            sensors and controls, and computational techniques for future
            power plants, and (2) analytical and assessment activities and
            international support that help guide planning and policy
            development for the Fossil Energy program.
                      distributed power generation systems
        For Distributed Power Generation Systems, we are requesting $49.5
    million in fiscal year 2003. Funding includes $47.0 million for Fuel
    Cells and $2.5 million for Novel Distributed Power Generation Systems.
    Components of the programs are:
        Fuel Cells.--The Office of Fossil Energy's Fuel Cell program is on
    the verge of another success. Already, more than 220 ``first
    generation'' phosphoric acid fuel cell mini-power plants are operating
    or on commercial order throughout the world based on technology DOE
    helped develop in the 1980s. Now the more advanced fuel cells that DOE
    helped develop in the 1990s are being introduced into the market.
        Orders for more than a dozen of the higher temperature molten
    carbonate fuel cells have been received by FuelCell Energy Inc., and
    the Connecticut company has broken ground on a 50-megawatt per year
    manufacturing facility. Siemens Westinghouse, DOE's partner in
    developing an even higher temperature, tubular solid oxide fuel cell
    system, has announced plans for its commercial manufacturing complex;
    an initial section of the plant is expected to begin fabricating
    commercial-scale solid oxide fuel cells in the spring of 2003. The
    Department's fiscal year 2003 budget will complete the Federal role in
    the development of these two classes of advanced fuel cell technology.
        Research attention will turn increasingly to the next two major
    challenges confronting fuel cell technology: (1) significant cost
    reductions, and (2) the development of fuel cell-turbine hybrids that
    can push fuel-to-electricity efficiencies to ``breakthrough'' levels of
    70 to 80 percent.
        To help bring about dramatic cost reductions, the Department has
    helped create the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA), a
    group of federal agencies, national laboratories, universities, and
    fuel cell developers. SECA's goal is to produce a core, solid-state
    fuel cell module that could be produced at a cost of no more than $400
    per kilowatt.
        Novel Distributed Generation Concepts.--The Department seeks to
    encourage promising technologies in the power generation field. For
    example, in recent years, the Department has funded the development of
    a new ramjet engine system for electricity generation. The Department
    will issue a competitive solicitation open to technologies that don't
    fit neatly into the more conventional categories described above (such
    as fuel cells, turbines, etc.). In fiscal year 2003, $2.5 million has
    been budgeted for the novel idea(s) that emerge from this solicitation.
                            natural gas technologies
        For Natural Gas Technologies we are requesting $22.6 million.
    Funding includes $15.5 million for Exploration and Production; $4.5
    million for Gas Hydrates; and $2.6 million for Effective Environmental
    Protection.
        Based on the Research and Development Investment Criteria being
    developed as part of the President's Management Agenda, DOE is
    reconsidering where its federal dollars for natural gas research should
    be directed to be most productive. Generally, the reduction in the
    Natural Gas Technologies budget request for fiscal year 2003 reflects
    the decision to target funding to those areas where industry clearly is
    not funding major development efforts on its own, or where a small
    amount of federal support can complete high-payoff, multi-year
    development efforts, or where federal cost-sharing can lead to
    technologies that can keep gas flowing from domestic wells that
    otherwise would be shut in.
        Exploration and Production.--In exploration and production, this
    means that much of the fiscal year 2003 budget ($15.5 million) will be
    directed at completing the final year of development for several
    advanced drilling and diagnostic tools. For example, in fiscal year
    2003, development of a new type of composite drill pipe will be
    completed. Made of carbon resins similar to those used in the shafts of
    golf clubs, the drill pipe will be less than half the weight of its
    steel counterpart, allowing producers to drill greater distances
    laterally from an offshore platform, or to drill in greater water
    depths. Similarly an ultra-lightweight cement will be readied for
    commercial introduction in fiscal year 2003 with the first applications
    likely to be in deep water drilling and production.
        Also in fiscal year 2003, development of a high-pressure, jet-
    assisted coiled tubing drilling system will be completed, providing a
    new tool for industry to use to drill through dense gas-bearing
    formations faster and at less cost. A new diagnostic tool that can
    measure the growth of artificially induced fractures in a gas field in
    real time will also be readied for industry use in fiscal year 2003.
        The Department will also use fiscal year 2003 funding to complete
    its research into ``secondary gas recovery.'' This research has
    provided new tools and methods that operators can use to locate and
    produce natural gas missed by conventional technologies. Federal
    involvement in this technology development effort has helped revitalize
    gas production in areas of south Texas and has led to additional
    commercial production in the Midcontinent and the Gulf of Mexico.
        Gas Hydrates.--In gas hydrates--a potentially huge, but still
    speculative future gas resource--funding is being scaled back. The
    proposed budget level, $4.5 million, is still sufficient to collect
    important data on safety and seafloor stability and the role of
    hydrates in global climate change. Several industry-led field
    activities are underway to drill into and collect samples of naturally
    occurring hydrates from the Alaska permafrost and the Gulf of Mexico.
    With a limited amount of funding, the Department hopes to ``piggyback''
    on several of these projects and collect data that can be useful in
    determining future research needs.
        Gas Infrastructure.--To provide better integration of
    infrastructure research efforts and reduce unnecessary program
    duplication, the Administration proposes to transfer responsibilities
    for all gas infrastructure R&D to the Department of Transportation's
    Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS). Within the last two years, the Fossil
    Energy R&D program has initiated several projects with industry and
    national laboratories to develop new tools for detecting damage and
    improving the integrity and reliability of the nation's aging natural
    gas pipeline system. Similar projects are also conducted by OPS. No
    funding is requested in the Fossil Energy R&D account in fiscal year
    2003 for gas infrastructure projects. Given the nature of OPS's safety
    regulatory mission and related performance goal needs, this critical
    activity is best situated in DOT.
        Emerging Processing Technology.--Also in fiscal year 2003, no
    funding is requested for emerging processing technology. In prior
    years, this budget category has supported research on improved methods
    for extracting fuel-grade natural gas from coal mines. Industry now has
    the technological foundation to proceed on its own. Also DOE will
    conclude its financial support for an international center for
    information on natural gas technologies, which also receives funding
    from the gas industry.
        Effective Environmental Protection.--In fiscal year 2003, $2.6
    million is requested. Activities that can lead to more effective
    environmental protection in gas (and oil) fields are funded at
    essentially the same level as fiscal year 2002. Within this activity,
    however, there is a proposed funding shift to support increased
    technology transfer of practices and processes that can address
    environmental issues that otherwise could limit gas production from
    domestic fields.
                                 oil technology
        In fiscal year 2003, $35.4 million is requested for Oil Technology.
    Funding includes $16.4 million for Exploration and Production; $9.5
    million for Reservoir Management Practices; and $9.5 million for
    Effective Environment Projection.
        Similar to the Natural Gas Technologies program, funding in the Oil
    Technology program would be redirected in fiscal year 2003 to those
    areas where industry is not focusing its research attention and where a
    small amount of federal support could return significant dividends in
    terms of increased domestic oil production. Components of the program
    include the following:
        Exploration and Production.--In fiscal year 2003, we are requesting
    $16.4 million with much of the proposed program focusing on fundamental
    research that can be applied across the entire petroleum industry.
    PRIME--an initiative to support high-risk, fundamental research that
    could produce revolutionary advances in oil technology--will kick off
    in April 2002 with a call for proposals and will continue to be
    supported in fiscal year 2003. General areas likely to be covered under
    PRIME will be remote sensing and surveying, advanced tools for lower-
    cost slimhole drilling, remote downhole wireless monitoring, and
    advanced petroleum recovery technologies.
        Reservoir Management Practices.--In fiscal year 2003, we are
    requesting $9.5 million to develop better reservoir management
    practices for domestic oil fields, especially those operated by smaller
    independent producers. Included is continued support for our PUMP
    initiative. PUMP--for ``Preferred Upstream Management Practices''--is a
    major technology transfer effort, designed to disseminate new
    technologies, more effective production strategies, and other field
    management improvements to the Nation's smaller independent companies.
    In April 2001, the Department announced the first five PUMP projects;
    in September, it added four more projects. In fiscal year 2002, a third
    round of projects will be selected. We also will continue our
    ``Technology Development with Independents'' program, which provides
    cost-shared grants that small companies can use to apply new
    technologies to U.S. fields. Support for the Petroleum Technology
    Transfer Council and other technology transfer efforts will also be
    continued.
        Effective Environmental Protection.--As in the Natural Gas
    Technologies program, funding ($9.5 million) is being requested for
    effective environmental protection activities that relate to oil field
    operations. Work will be scaled back in risk assessment efforts for
    exploration and production activities in favor of increased cooperative
    efforts with state, tribal, and Federal agencies to reduce permitting
    times for environmental regulations and regulatory processes. New
    technologies will also continue to be developed to provide more cost-
    effective environmental compliance options, with a particular emphasis
    on protecting sensitive environments on federal lands.
                            other fossil energy r&d
        In total for fiscal year 2003, we are requesting $115.1 million for
    other Fossil Energy R&D such as:
        Program Direction.--In fiscal year 2003, we are requesting $89.6
    million for Program Direction. This amount includes $14.0 million
    transferred from balances available in the Clean Coal Technology
    Program for program direction. Program Direction includes funding for
    salaries and other expenses for Federal and contract employees at
    Headquarters and at the Morgantown, Pittsburgh, and Tulsa offices of
    the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), including those
    previously funded in the Clean Coal Technology appropriation account.
        Plant and Capital Equipment.--The $2.0 million request provides for
    repairs, improvements and alterations to buildings at the NETL and the
    Albany Research Center (ARC).
        Environmental Restoration.--In fiscal year 2003, $9.7 million is
    requested to continue remediation efforts at several former field test
    sites and to upgrade worker health and safety conditions at NETL and
    ARC. A series of lead and asbestos abatement actions will be completed
    at the sites, and a number of fixes will be made at the Pittsburgh and
    Morgantown facilities to improve indoor air quality.
        Cooperative Research and Development.--In fiscal year 2003, $6.0
    million is requested for projects at the University of North Dakota
    Energy and Environmental Research Center and the Western Research
    Institute. These projects receive at least 50 percent of their funding
    from private sector research organizations.
        Advanced Metallurgical Research.--Our budget also includes $5.3
    million to support advanced metallurgical research at the Albany
    Research Center in Oregon. A major effort in fiscal year 2003 will be
    to complete an analysis of the mechanisms that degrade refractory
    materials that line coal gasifiers. ARC has also emerged as a premier
    installation for research into mineral carbonation--a technique for
    converting CO2 into an environmentally benign solid. In
    fiscal year 2003, the Center will construct and operate a 5-pound-per-
    hour benchscale mineral carbonation test unit.
        Import/Export Authorization.--The budget request also includes $2.5
    million to conduct regulatory functions associated with the import and
    export of electricity and natural gas, an increase of $.1 million from
    fiscal year 2002. The Office of Fossil Energy is responsible for
    authorizing the export of electricity, the issuance of permits for
    electric transmission facilities at the nation's international borders,
    and for authorizing natural gas imports and exports under Section 3 of
    the Natural Gas Act of 1938.
                             clean coal technology
        The budget request transfers all of the projects in this category
    to the Fossil Energy R&D account. These projects are funded with monies
    appropriated in prior years. While the Department intends to honor all
    outstanding project commitments, if surplus funds become available,
    they will be allocated to President Bush's Clean Coal Power Initiative
    described earlier.
        Seven projects remain in various stages of design, construction or
    operation (four others are in the final reporting phase), but only two
    projects the Kentucky Pioneer coal gasification combined cycle project
    and the CPICOR Management Company's advanced iron making/power
    generation project will require new obligations from the existing pool
    of funding.
        the strategic petroleum and northeast home heating oil reserves
        For fiscal year 2003, we are requesting a total of $188.8 million.
    This includes $169.8 million for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR);
    $11.0 million for the SPR Petroleum Account; and $8.0 million for
    Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
        Strategic Petroleum Reserve.--The National Energy Policy has
    identified both the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Northeast Home
    Heating Oil Reserve as key response tools for the President to use in
    protecting Americans from imminent or actual disruptions in energy
    supplies.
        In November 2001, President Bush announced his intent to fill the
    Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its full 700 million barrel capacity. On
    January 22, 2002, the Department began the first stage of the
    President's plan, joining with the Minerals Management Service (MMS) to
    solicit offers from industry to exchange 22 million barrels of royalty
    oil produced from Federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Earlier this
    month, the Department announced a contract with Equiva Trading Company
    to add 18.6 million barrels to the Reserve (the difference in
    quantities reflects adjustments for the cost of transportation costs
    and for crude oil quality).
        As a result of the President's action, the fiscal year 2003 budget
    contains $11.0 million in the SPR Petroleum Account to pay the
    incremental costs of terminalling, transportation, power and third
    party inspections associated with the added fill.
        The budget also includes $15 million in the Storage Facilities
    Development and Management account to continue treating SPR crude oil
    to reduce vapor pressure caused by the migration of gas from
    surrounding salt formations.
        The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.--In fiscal year 2003, $8
    million is requested for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. The
    reserve is fully stocked and ready for emergency use. Commercial
    terminals in New Haven, CT; Woodbridge, NJ; and Providence, RI, are
    under federal lease and currently hold 2 million barrels of home
    heating oil that could be released to the market to counter a sudden
    fuel emergency. Although it now appears likely that the Reserve will
    not be called on during the 2001-02 heating season, the Department has
    in place a new web- based ``real-time'' auction system that prospective
    heating oil buyers would access in the event a drawdown is necessary.
    Development of this system was a key ``e-government'' initiative
    undertaken by the Office of Fossil Energy in response to the
    President's Management Agenda.
                          the naval petroleum reserves
        The fiscal year 2003 budget request of $21.07 million continues to
    carry out the changes that have occurred within the Naval Petroleum and
    Oil Shale Reserves functions and organization since passage of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996.
        Funding is included for the three responsibilities that remain: (1)
    oversight of commercial leases at the Naval Petroleum Reserve #2 in
    California, (2) operation of the Naval Petroleum Reserve #3 stripper
    well field in Wyoming, and (3) management of the Rocky Mountain
    Oilfield Testing Center co-located on the NPR #3 property.
        The fiscal year 2003 budget also includes $72 million for payments
    to the Elk Hills School Lands Fund as a result of a Settlement
    Agreement reached with the State of California on October 11, 1996.
    Under this agreement, which resolved longstanding State claims to two
    parcels of land (``school lands'') within the Elk Hills field, the
    Federal government must pay (subject to appropriation) 9 percent of the
    net proceeds from the Elk Hills sale to the State. The current estimate
    of the net sales proceeds is $324.0 million, of which $298.0 million
    has already been deposited into a contingent fund in the Treasury.
        Through fiscal year 2002, three installments of $36.0 million each
    will have been paid. A fourth installment was advance appropriated in
    fiscal year 2002 to be payable in fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year
    2003 budget request contains $36.0 million for the enacted advanced
    appropriations as well as $36 million for the fifth installment. Once
    all divestment related costs have been paid and the total payment to
    the State has been calculated, the final two installments will be paid
    in equal amounts in years six and seven.
                         the energy conservation budget
        The Energy Efficiency and Renewal Energy (EERE) budget request is
    split, as you know, between the Interior and the Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations Bills. Our overall EERE budget request for
    fiscal year 2003 is $1.31 billion, up $10.3 million over the amount
    appropriated last year. For our Interior programs in fiscal year 2003,
    we request $904.3 million, a slight decrease below fiscal year 2002
    appropriations, but nearly $150 million above last year's request.
        However, more important than how much we propose to spend on these
    programs is the fact that we are working to achieve more from them. As
    we developed this budget we were driven by some very fundamental
    questions. For example, what public benefits do we expect to achieve
    with the expenditure of these taxpayer dollars? How can we better
    measure success in pursuit of those public benefits? How can we
    leverage Federal dollars through partnerships with States, communities
    and the private sector to achieve greater success? We grappled with
    these questions in several ways:
      --First, in response to recommendations in the President's National
            Energy Policy, we undertook a Strategic Program Review to
            review historical performance of EERE programs, and propose
            appropriate funding for those that were performance-based and
            modeled as public-private partnerships. This extensive review
            was accompanied by a series of public meetings held across the
            country. Our review identified activities that should be
            expanded, activities that have come to the end of their useful
            lives and should be terminated, activities that should be
            refocused, and activities that require ``watch list'' scrutiny
            to ensure they advance effectively. This review has driven many
            of the shifts you will see in our fiscal year 2003 budget.
      --Second, we evaluated the results of an external, retrospective
            review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) designed to
            determine whether the benefits of our programs have justified
            the associated public expenditure. The NAS found that our
            Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) programs have
            yielded significant economic and environmental benefits, new
            technological options, and important enhancements to
            engineering and scientific knowledge in a number of fields. The
            NAS also offered recommendations that will improve our methods
            for estimating program benefits. We have taken these
            recommendations seriously and are evaluating how to best
            implement them. To help us assess the recommendations of the
            NAS and the potential for these recommendations to enhance our
            program benefit estimates, we have scheduled a conference
            entitled, ``Estimating the Benefits of Government-Sponsored
            Energy R&D.'' The Conference, which will be held in Crystal
            City on March 4 and 5, 2002, will bring together a range of
            experts in benefits analysis. Mr. Chairman, as a result of this
            conference, I expect that we will identify practical and
            affordable ways to enhance our existing GPRA benefits
            estimates. Additionally, the Department's Offices of Fossil
            Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Science are co-sponsoring this
            Conference in the hope that lessons learned at the Conference
            will enhance the analytical efforts of the entire Energy
            Resources business line, as well as our mutual abilities to
            assess the respective roles of basic and applied research.
      --Third, as part of a pilot effort, we applied new evaluation
            criteria to our research and development programs in accordance
            with the President's Management Agenda. We hope to improve the
            application of these criteria in the evaluation of our programs
            as we move ahead.
      --Finally, recognizing our increasing dependence on energy from areas
            of the world that are periodically unstable, I directed EERE to
            concentrate their efforts on programs that revolutionize how we
            approach conservation and energy efficiency. I challenged them
            to leapfrog the status quo and prepare for a future that, under
            any scenario, requires a revolution in how we find, produce and
            deliver energy.
        The Energy Conservation budget request has been developed with
    these challenges and opportunities in mind. Mr. Chairman, I believe
    that the Energy Conservation budget request I am presenting today will
    move us forward in meeting our program goals and those of the NEP. For
    example:
      --Residential Buildings Integration R&D activities will provide the
            energy technologies/solutions to catalyze a 50 percent increase
            in the energy efficiency of new homes and a 20 percent increase
            in the energy efficiency of existing prototype residential
            buildings by 2008 relative to the Model Energy Code.
      --R&D activities led by our industrial program will deliver energy
            saving technologies/methods leading to reduced energy use in
            the eight energy-intensive ``Industries of the Future'' (IOF).
            These activities will help provide a 24 percent reduction in
            energy intensity in 2010, compared to the 1991 baseline.
      --Fuel Cell R&D activities will reduce the production cost of a 50 kW
            vehicle fuel cell power system from $275/kW in 2002 to $125/kW
            in 2005 to $45/kW in 2010.
      --Distributed Energy Resources (DER) R&D activities will enable new
            DER electricity-generating capacity to be increased from 5
            percent in 2000 to 7 percent in 2005.
      --The Federal Energy Management Program activities will decrease
            energy intensity in standard federal facilities by 30 percent
            by 2005, relative to 1985 levels.
                                   buildings
        EERE's buildings technology R&D programs address efficiency
    opportunities in commercial buildings (e.g., schools, offices,
    hospitals, stores) as well as residential buildings, both in existing
    structures and new construction. The programs also address appliance
    energy use in buildings, such as clothes washing and food
    refrigeration. The fiscal year 2003 budget request in this area is
    $408.8 million, $28.5 million above fiscal year 2002 enacted, a 7.5
    percent increase. We request $316.9 million for the Weatherization
    Assistance and the State Energy Programs, both of which are grants
    programs that provide funding for States to improve energy efficiency
    in homes and communities. The remainder of the requested funding ($92.9
    million) is for energy efficiency R&D (e.g., lighting, windows),
    development of building codes and appliance standards, training
    programs, and the Energy Star program.
        Let me cite a few examples of programmatic accomplishments we
    expect to achieve with this budget, including major program shifts. In
    the Building Equipment and Materials Program, we request an increase
    for lighting R&D and energy standards for lighting and appliances. In
    lighting R&D, revolutionary technologies, such as Light-Emitting Diode
    (LED) and Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) light sources, that can
    potentially double efficiency, are in the early stages of R&D and will
    be ready for the market in the next 5 to10 years. The lighting and
    appliance standards program continues to be an effective way to
    stimulate the market to incorporate energy efficiency gains available
    from today's technology. In addition, we complement our standards work
    with applied R&D. Also within this program, we will be decreasing our
    work in Space Conditioning and Refrigeration, Appliances and Emerging
    Technologies, Building Envelope, and Analysis Tools and Design Studies.
    Currently, the technologies in these areas are well developed and many
    are ready to be ``graduated.'' Emphasis needs to be turned to educating
    consumers and builders about the utility and availability of these
    energy saving technologies. We intend to further these efforts through
    our Energy Star Program.
        In our Weatherization Assistance Program ($277.1 million requested,
    $47.1 million above the fiscal year 2002 level), we will weatherize
    approximately 123,000 low-income homes, saving $2.10 in energy costs
    for every dollar invested over the life of the efficiency improvements.
    Increasing funding for this cost-effective program is a Presidential
    initiative and receives our highest priority. We also propose to expand
    the ENERGY STAR program ($6.2 million requested, $3.2 million above
    fiscal year 2002), as recommended in the NEP.
                                    industry
        The Industrial Technologies program partners with key, energy
    intensive industries to develop and apply advanced technologies and
    practices that reduce energy consumption and improve environmental
    performance. In fiscal year 2003, we are requesting $71.6 million, a
    $1.0 million decrease from fiscal year 2002 enacted levels, for the
    Industries of the Future (IOF) Specific program. The Specific Vision
    Industries (Steel, Metal Casting, Mining, Agriculture, Forest Products,
    Glass, Aluminum, and Chemicals) R&D activities all received essentially
    level funding with two exceptions. We request no funding for the
    Petroleum Vision, based on the successful completion of the petroleum
    vision and roadmap and an acknowledgement that the petroleum industry
    should be able to fund R&D for this purpose. The other exception is a
    requested increase of $1.0 million for the Agricultural Vision. The
    requested funding will expand the Agriculture IOF Education Initiative
    supporting the establishment of a graduate curriculum on biobased
    products and bioenergy.
        In fiscal year 2003, we are requesting $57.1 million, a $3.8
    million decrease from fiscal year 2002, for the IOF Crosscutting
    program, which includes: Industrial Materials for the Future (IMF);
    Combustion, Sensors & Controls; National Industrial Competitiveness
    through Energy, Environment, and Economics (NICE3), Inventions and
    Innovation (I&I), and Industrial Technical Assistance (Best Practices
    and Industrial Assessment Centers). The IMF program was decreased $1
    million through anticipated savings from re-engineering the program. We
    have reduced funding for Combustion activities by $2.8 million due to
    the delay of the final negotiations of the third biomass gasification
    project. We have also reduced funding for the I&I program by $2.0
    million because we believe these funds could be put to better use in
    other EERE programs. The requested funding for I&I will meet existing
    mortgages.
                                 federal sector
        The Federal government is the Nation's largest single energy
    consumer. In 1999 alone, the Federal government spent almost $8 billion
    to provide energy to its buildings, vehicles, and operations. Simply by
    using existing energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies and
    techniques, the Federal government can begin to lead the Nation toward
    becoming a cleaner, more efficient energy consumer.
        In fiscal year 2003, we are requesting $27.9 million for the
    Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), an increase of $4.5 million
    above fiscal year 2002. We will attract between $80 and $120 million in
    private sector investment through Super Energy Savings Performance
    Contracts (ESPCs) and expand Super ESPC projects in the areas of
    biomass, geothermal, and solar energy. In addition, FEMP will increase
    assistance to agencies to meet energy use reduction goals. These
    activities include 70 technical and design assistance projects, 10 of
    which will be innovative distributed energy resources (DER) and
    combined heat and power (CHP) projects. The DER initiative provides an
    increased degree of energy security for federal sites and CHP projects
    contribute to increased energy efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas
    production.
                                     power
        The Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Program leads a national
    effort to develop a flexible, smart, and secure energy system by
    integrating clean, efficient, reliable, and affordable distributed
    energy technologies; documenting the energy, economic, and
    environmental benefits of the expanded use of distributed energy
    resources; and supporting the development of regional or state energy
    strategies, including distributed generation deployment, as it relates
    to energy security and reliability.
        By producing electricity where it is used, distributed energy
    technologies can reduce the need for developing a costly, new
    centralized infrastructure to deliver energy to distant customers that
    can suffer from some of the same disadvantages as the current system
    (e.g., transmission loss, vulnerability). Also, because distributed
    generators are located near the point of use, they allow for the
    capture of the waste heat produced by fuel combustion or fuel cells
    through combined heat and power systems (CHP) systems.
        In fiscal year 2003, we are requesting $63.9 million, level
    funding. We will continue to focus on development of improved
    performance and fuel flexible gas turbines, microturbines,
    reciprocating engines and stationary fuel cells as distributed energy
    choices for end-use customers. Increased activities will be undertaken
    for integration and end-use applications of distributed energy systems,
    including the development of combined heat and power packages, controls
    and sensors, analysis tools and design studies.
                                 transportation
        Oil imports, about 53 percent of our petroleum consumption in 2000,
    are at an all-time high and currently add an estimated $109 billion per
    year to our balance of payments deficit. At the present time, the
    United States consumes 26 percent of the world's oil while producing
    only 12 percent of the total global supply. In terms of distribution of
    world oil reserves, OPEC is projected to continue to have the vast
    majority of oil reserves and as such, will have great influence over
    the price of oil.
        The Administration has established a goal to achieve freedom from
    dependence on foreign oil. FreedomCAR (CAR stands for Cooperative
    Automotive Research) is a new partnership to develop technologies that
    will ultimately result in vehicles requiring no oil, and that emit no
    harmful pollutants or greenhouse gases. The long-term results of this
    cooperative effort will be cars and trucks that are more efficient,
    affordable, pollution-free and competitive. FreedomCAR will support R&D
    on hydrogen and fuel cells and will continue to support R&D for
    petroleum- related technologies that have the potential to dramatically
    reduce oil consumption and environmental impacts in the interim. Many
    of the programs described below will contribute to FreedomCAR's goals.
    In fiscal year 2003, we request $150.3 million, which includes $25.8
    million from Energy and Water Development appropriations, for
    FreedomCAR that will be used to undertake many of the activities
    described below.
        Vehicle Technologies R&D supports R&D that will produce dramatic
    improvements in fuel economy for automobiles, sport utility vehicles
    (SUVs), and light and heavy trucks, without sacrificing safety,
    environmental performance, and affordability. The activity comprises
    six areas of research: Hybrid Systems R&D, Fuel Cell R&D, Advanced
    Combustion Engine R&D, Electric Vehicle R&D, Heavy Vehicle Systems R&D,
    and programs for small businesses and universities called CARAT
    (Cooperative Automotive Research for Advanced Technologies) and GATE
    (Graduate Automotive Technology Education). In fiscal year 2003, we are
    requesting $149.2 million, a decrease of $5.8 million below the fiscal
    year 2002 level.
        Let me cite a few examples of programmatic activities we expect to
    achieve from our request, including major budget shifts.
        In Fuel Cell R&D ($50.0 million requested, $8.0 million above
    fiscal year 2002 enacted), we will develop technologies and fabrication
    processes to reduce the cost and accelerate the manufacturing
    capability for polymer-electrolyte membrane fuel cells. We will also
    develop critical balance of plant components such as compressors, and
    demonstrate advanced on-board hydrogen storage technologies. In
    Advanced Combustion Engine R&D ($40.7 million requested, $8.4 million
    below fiscal year 2002 enacted), we will continue supporting R&D so
    that passenger cars and light trucks can utilize fuel-efficient
    compression-ignition, direct-injection (CIDI) engines. We will also
    complete testing prototype diesel engines to demonstrate a 35 percent
    increase in fuel efficiency and meet Tier 2 emissions requirements for
    light trucks. Related to Hybrid Systems R&D ($42.6 million requested,
    $4.0 million below fiscal year 2002), we will continue development of
    advanced power electronics and storage devices while reducing support
    for the Digital Functional Vehicle, battery thermal management, and
    ``predicting emissions from advanced simulation'' models. These
    activities are less critical to quickly achieving competitive hybrid
    vehicles.
        In the Fuels Utilization R&D Program ($18.5 million requested, $7.4
    million below fiscal year 2002), we will complete existing contract
    obligations but terminate activities relevant to heavy-duty natural gas
    vehicles and infrastructure R&D because competitive natural gas engines
    and related systems are commercially available. In the Materials
    Technologies Program ($29.8 million requested, $10.5 million below
    fiscal year 2002), we will conclude our work on aluminum and advanced
    high-strength steels in order to focus our efforts on reducing costs
    and improving performance of carbon fiber materials.
                         integrated biomass r&d program
        Biomass is a priority for the Administration as reflected in the
    NEP, and, Mr. Chairman, over the past few months we have rebuilt the
    program across-the-board in biofuels, biopower and biobased products.
    In working to rebuild the program, we found that our biomass program
    needed better focus, and we have worked to set integrated priorities
    across our sectors.
        We are driven by our vision of the widespread operation of an
    integrated industrial biorefinery and our goal to reduce America's
    dependence on foreign oil. We can already see the results of our
    efforts: we have ended over 100 projects since fiscal year 2001; we are
    de-emphasizing biomass co-firing with coal and the lignin route to
    ethanol, and we are moving away from our work on plant sciences and
    feedstock production. We are concentrating our overall funding instead
    on cellulosic ethanol, gasification, and biobased chemicals.
        In fiscal year 2003, we are requesting $110.5 million for this
    restructured activity, with $26 million from Interior appropriations
    and the remainder from the Energy and Water Development appropriations.
    Funding for relevant activities of our biomass efforts in Interior
    appropriations are: $8.3 million for the Agriculture Vision; $2.6
    million from the total of $11.8 million from the Forest Products
    Vision; and our Black Liquor Gasification work at $13.6 million. The $1
    million increase in the Agriculture Vision will likely be used to seed
    an expanded multidisciplinary biomass education initiative.
                             policy and management
        The corporate management, information, analysis, oversight and
    leadership required for the efficient and effective implementation of
    the EERE portfolio face several institutional challenges that make
    management and integration at the corporate level very complex. Policy
    and Management funds support the staffing, resources, and management
    support for all EERE sector offices at Headquarters; the field office
    in Golden, Colorado; and EERE's six Regional Offices (ROs). In fiscal
    year 2003, we are requesting $42.7 million for these activities, a $3.7
    million decrease from the fiscal year 2002 level, reflecting expected
    administrative efficiencies.
                         the economic regulation budget
        DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals continues work related to
    previous enforcement activities of the Department to equitably
    terminate the regulatory program implementing the Emergency Petroleum
    Allocation Act of 1973. The fiscal year 2003 budget of $1.6 million
    would finance the phase-out of remaining oil overcharge activities. The
    fiscal year 2003 request is a 28 percent reduction from fiscal year
    2002 levels and initiates a three-year phase-out of the Economic
    Regulation activities consistent with language in last year's House
    Appropriation Committee Report.
                  the energy information administration budget
        For the Energy Information Administration (EIA), we are requesting
    $82.8 million. The requested funding will be used for ongoing data and
    analysis activities and critical data quality enhancements, so EIA can
    continue to disseminate accurate and reliable energy information and
    analyses to inform energy policy-makers. 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 through the National Energy Information
    Center; 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 2003, EIA will focus on continuing three multi-year
    initiatives:
      --updating its natural gas, petroleum, and electricity surveys and
            data systems to reflect changes in these restructured energy
            industries;
      --working on improving data quality regarding these industries to
            assure that EIA's information products accurately reflect the
            state of the respective energy industry, its markets and
            supply; and
      --realigning the energy consumption surveys with the 2000 census
            information to maintain production of the most comprehensive
            information on this Nation's energy usage, with particular
            focus on the digital economy and its impact on this Nation's
            electricity supply. The collection and analysis of accurate
            energy data facilitate production and dissemination of reliable
            energy information, which enables the Administration and
            Congress to make informed energy policy decisions.
        Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, that completes my
    prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
    have.

                 TOP-TO-BOTTOM REVIEW OF FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAMS

        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your statement.
        Let me begin by saying that I had the pleasure of recently
    meeting the Department's new Assistant Secretary for Fossil
    Energy, Mr. Smith, to whom you have referred in your statement.
    I know that he has only been on the job for about a month, but
    I believe that he can be a real asset to your Department. And I
    am sure that you are glad to have him on board. The Fossil
    Energy Office is long overdue for an Assistant Secretary who
    would be a strong supporter of fossil energy programs.
        As I understand it, one of the first tasks that you
    assigned to Mr. Smith was that, as of July 1 of this year, he
    was to complete a top-to-bottom review of all fossil energy
    programs and report back to you. The review is supposed to
    address the strengths and weaknesses of all fossil energy
    programs and to determine how those programs fit into the
    President's National Energy Policy.
        Now, given the fact that there are factions in the
    administration who were less friendly to fossil energy, and the
    fact that the administration's fossil energy budget requests
    have been less than robust, what assurances can you give my
    colleagues on this subcommittee that this review will not
    simply turn into a fossil energy bashing event? And will you
    agree to share the results of Mr. Smith's review with the
    subcommittee?
        Secretary Abraham. Well, first of all, we will share the
    results of the review. We have just done a similar review, as I
    mentioned, of our energy efficiency and renewable energy
    programs. And I believe that is just about completed. And when
    it is, that also will be available.
        What we discovered there, I suspect, will be similar to
    what we will find as we go forward with this review. That is
    that we have a number of programs that are under-funded, some
    programs which have perhaps reached the point of maturity and
    can now move to application, and others that may need some
    modification. That is essentially what we discovered in the
    other area. And it resulted in the largest energy efficiency
    and renewable energy submission to Congress in 20 years.
        But I think, just speaking for this Secretary, we recognize
    in our Department, and have very robustly argued the point,
    that energy security depends on maintaining the role of the
    fuels that we currently have providing energy diversity. The
    role coal plays in electricity generation of approximately 50
    percent is critical.
        We cannot afford to have a dramatic reduction in the coal
    component of our electricity generation, particularly, as you
    well know, with 275 years of supply at least available to us.
    But obviously, we also want to make sure that as we use coal,
    we do it in an environmentally friendly way that is consistent
    with current, as well as future, environmental standards. And
    that is the challenge of the Department.
        But the advocacy for these programs will be very strong,
    because we very strongly believe that the role coal plays and
    that fossil fuels play must be maintained. At the same time, in
    our energy efficiency budget here, you see the commitment that
    we are making to research and development of hydrogen fuel
    cells and fuels cells in our fossil energy R&D budget, as well.
    Because we recognize that we need to--we also need to have more
    diversity.
        And so I can promise the subcommittee that, when we are
    done with the review, we will be pushing very hard on advocacy
    of these programs.
        Senator Byrd. And you will share the results of Mr. Smith's
    review with the subcommittee?
        Secretary Abraham. Look forward to doing so, yes.

                             NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

        Senator Byrd. I thank the secretary. Mr. Secretary, the
    President's National Energy Policy, which I know you had a hand
    in writing, says, and I quote: ``America's energy strength lies
    in the abundance and diversity of its energy resources and in
    its technological leadership in developing and efficiently
    using these resources.'' The policy goes on to say, or rather
    also says, and I quote again: ``The challenge for our Nation is
    to use technology to maintain and enhance the diversity of our
    supplies, thus providing a reliable and affordable source of
    energy for Americans.'' And that is the quotation.
        But finally this quotation: ``Technology has been and will
    continue to be a key to achieving our energy, economic, and
    environmental goals.'' That will suffice for my quoting from
    the policy.
        The President, of course, has been more succinct. He
    equates energy security with national security. Now as I
    consider those statements, I am left with the impression that
    at least some of the administration's top policy makers
    understand that there is a direct link between our ability to
    develop and deploy new energy technologies on the one hand, and
    our Nation's energy security on the other.
        And yet, as I look at the Department's budget request, and
    particularly the request for the Office of Fossil Energy, the
    connection then, Mr. Secretary, between rhetoric and reality
    appears to have been lost. The budget request seeks an overall
    cut in fossil energy research of 16 percent from the enacted
    level. It would cut 37 percent from petroleum research, with
    specific programs geared toward boosting oil exploration and
    production being cut 49 percent. And in natural gas research,
    the budget proposes to cut 51 percent. You and I have discussed
    these issues, Mr. Secretary, before.
        So you are not surprised when I say that I am exasperated
    with the administration's request. I would appreciate your
    telling the committee how you square the incongruence between
    the rhetoric we hear coming from the administration and the
    reality of its budgets. I am interested in knowing how we
    increase our domestic energy supplies on the one hand, while at
    the same time we decrease the amount that we are willing to
    spend on the research that will make that happen.
        Would you care to comment?
        Secretary Abraham. I would be happy to comment, although I
    would acknowledge up front that you and I have had a number of
    these discussions. And I look forward to working with the
    subcommittee to try to move these programs forward.
        Let me just talk in--in these terms: The technology
    research-and-development component of the budget of our
    Department is virtually the same, pretty much, between the 2002
    enacted level and what we have submitted. They are both at
    about an $8.3 billion total R&D budget. There have been some
    shifts within that.
        One of the shifts which we see in the energy production
    side has been a movement of dollars in the direction of our
    renewable energy research and development, partly as a result
    of the completion of the review that I mentioned before. And,
    you know, one of the challenges we have is that there is a lot
    of pressure from folks in our Department who work in the
    renewables area and the efficiency area. Everybody has an
    argument that their programs are the most likely to produce
    energy gains.
        I am hopeful that the review that Assistant Secretary Smith
    will be conducting will give the fossil energy programs
    similar, both, advocacy at the end of it, as well as a clarity
    of priorities that, frankly, we have needed to conduct this
    review to be able to ascertain.
        But as I said, the other we have done, though--and I hope
    it would be noted in this budget--is that in addition to our
    commitment to the research and development and technology side,
    we also feel an obligation and a strong commitment to take
    finished technologies and, where appropriate, make them
    available. And one of the parts of this budget that is fairly
    substantially increased is the area of weatherization programs,
    where we have increased from, I think, about a $230 million
    level to, we are proposing, about $277 million.
        That does not mean that research and development is not as
    important as well, but that is another one of the balances that
    we have to do in putting this sort of plan together. And we
    felt that, particularly after last winter, the winter of 2000/
    2001, that moving more of these resources where we know how to
    go into homes and improve considerably the way that they are
    able to conserve energy and thus save money for the home
    owners, for less-advantaged folks, was another priority that is
    addressed.
        And so we have been balancing those. I think when Mr.
    Smith's review is done, it will give the fossil energy programs
    more clarity. And there is one other thing that I think also
    will help to guide us in the future. We have, as you know, also
    been conducting in the administration, a review of issues
    related to climate change and multi-pollutant legislation. On
    February 14, the President announced the results of those, his
    Clear Skies initiative, as well as our Climate Change
    initiative.
        Each of those as they are being implemented have very
    significant impacts on fossil energy production. And now I
    think they too, will give more shape to future budget
    proposals, because now we have a better sense of what the
    targets are. And so I think that will also assist us in the
    future.
        Senator Byrd. Could I--have you finished your----
        Secretary Abraham. Yes, I am.

                            FOSSIL ENERGY PRODUCTION

        Senator Byrd. Yet, Mr. Secretary, the administration wants
    to vastly expand fossil energy production. So it seems a bit
    shortsighted to expand production while cutting back on the
    technologies that helped to utilize those fuels more
    efficiently and more cleanly.
        Secretary Abraham. Well, in the area of coal production,
    for instance, and the clean coal power initiative, the
    reductions in that area are primarily in the coal fuels area.
        We happen to think that putting the emphasis more in the
    power plant program and the actual capacity to generate
    electricity through coal in a fashion that is more
    environmentally safe is the priority. So we have cut that back
    pending Mr. Smith's review, because we were not as convinced
    that the coal fuels program was one that would have as much
    long-term contribution. The review may give us more insight.
        In the area of natural gas----
        Senator Byrd. Excuse me. Is that going to give you, if you
    need to replace some of those cuts----
        Secretary Abraham. Well, I----
        Senator Byrd [continuing]. Is that going to give you time
    to do so? And will you be able to do that?
        Secretary Abraham. Well, we believe that these programs are
    in pause but are not seriously jeopardized, because they are
    very long-term pay off programs. But, again, our focus was on
    what we think is the principal issue with respect to, for
    example, the coal technology programs. And that is to make sure
    that operating coal-generated electricity can meet future
    environmental standards so that coal as a percentage of
    electricity generation does not have to be significantly
    reduced.
        Those were some of the decisions that we tried to make,
    based on priorities. And obviously, those priorities will be
    under scrutiny during the review that is ahead.
        Senator Byrd. I have other questions, but I do not want to
    monopolize the time here. I want to call on our ranking member.
        Before I do so, does it seem to be a little chilly in here?
        Secretary Abraham. Yes.
        Senator Byrd. Why do we not cut this temperature a little
    bit? We are talking about energy. And now is the time to use
    just a little more.
        All right.
        Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, we have been joined by our
    colleague from Mississippi. And I do not know whether he would
    have a statement or----
        Senator Byrd. I would be happy to have the subcommittee
    hear the Senator from Mississippi at this point.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

                             CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I really
    have a question. But I do have a statement that is related to
    the question I am going to ask.
        And it is in this connection: I notice in the submission of
    the budget request by the Department of Energy, there are some
    comments made about congressional earmarks. And there is
    specifically a complaint about the trend to earmark more of the
    funds by provisions in the appropriations bills. These bills
    are prepared by the Appropriations Committee and amended on the
    floor, as everybody knows, i.e., subject to amendment by any
    Senator. If these provisions survive after conference with the
    House, it has been my understanding that the direction to the
    administration to spend the money, according to congressional
    language, is binding on the administration.
        The administration cannot just say: ``We do not like
    earmarks and, therefore, we are not going to release funds that
    have been earmarked by Congress for specific projects.''
        When I first came to Congress, Mr. Chairman, the law was
    such that Presidents were getting away with impounding funds.
    There was a big hue and cry about that. President Johnson did
    it; President Kennedy had done it before him, and President
    Nixon was doing it.
        Particularly aggravating to Congress at that time, as I
    remember, were Federal highway funds that were appropriated to
    be spent to construct Federal highways. If the administration
    thought Congress had called on the administration to spend too
    much, it just would not spend the funds. It would hold them
    back. And this was called impoundment.
        Well, to deal with that, a set of procedures were developed
    in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act that I
    remember being considered and passed by Congress when I was a
    Member of the House of Representatives.
        Senator Byrd. 1974.
        Senator Cochran. 1974. And under that law, if the
    administration disagreed over a particular project or program,
    or if they did not think money should be spent that had been
    appropriated by Congress, they could defer the spending,
    communicate with Congress that they were deferring it. Congress
    would have an opportunity to respond under the procedures of
    the law. Or if they wanted to cancel the funding, they could
    proppse to rescind the money. And if Congress agreed within a
    certain period of time, well, it was rescinded.
        Well, what I am reading here now and what I am told by my
    staff is that in this fiscal year there were funds appropriated
    by the Congress for the Department of Energy. And one project
    in my State, $3 million, was designated--you can call it
    earmarked, whatever--for Mississippi State University and a
    private company to demonstrate the efficacy of a scientific
    process converting wood pulp and sawdust into useable energy. A
    grant, in effect, of $3 million was made for that purpose, for
    what is called the Winona, Mississippi, Project.
        I am told that the funds will not be released, that the
    Department of Energy has made a decision to eliminate the
    funding for that. That is what my staff tells me. They have
    been in contact with the Department and have been told that
    they are not going to release the money.
        Well, my understanding of the law is you cannot do that.
    Now I do not know what our recourse is, except the contempt
    power. I know we have that alternative. I do not know whether
    this fits within the guidelines for the use of the contempt
    power. But I do not think the Department of Energy can make
    these unilateral determinations as to which provisions of a
    bill that Congress passes and is signed into law they will
    respect and which they will not.
        They cannot eliminate, in my view, Mr. Chairman, a
    provision of an appropriations bill in that way. So I want the
    Secretary to look into this, if he will, and get back to us
    about what the official position of the Department of Energy is
    with respect to that law, and whether or not we are going to
    have to go through the year checking to see if the provisions
    of appropriations bills are respected or not by this
    Department. And if they are not, are you going to follow the
    provisions of the law, or are you just going to eliminate the
    provisions that you do not like?
        So this is a concern I have, Mr. Chairman. And that is the
    statement that I have. And my question is--I guess I have
    already asked it. In due course, after the ranking member gets
    through with his questions, I hope the Secretary can answer my
    question.
        Secretary Abraham. Well, first----
        Senator Byrd. You can respond. I would like to hear the
    answer now, because I think we are all interested in that
    question.
        Secretary Abraham. This subcommittee had regularly
    indicated to me its interest in the Department's fulfillment of
    congressionally directed projects like this. And I committed,
    when I was here 1 year ago, that, as opposed to the kind of
    ongoing battles which had transpired as to previous earmarks,
    that we would fund congressionally-directed projects.
        My understanding--and that is my view of this. That does
    not mean we would include in the next year's budget the same
    project or a similar project, those we have to deal with year
    in and year out. But as to this project, here is my
    understanding of the situation. And that is that this is a
    demonstration project, which requires a 50-50 cost-share
    arrangement. And it is my understanding that the language in
    the appropriation bill had indicated that, somehow, the current
    investment in the plan would suffice to meet that cost-share
    standard.
        It is a $3 million earmark. And so presumably the argument
    would be that that previous infrastructure investment would
    constitute a fulfillment of the 50-50. I have asked about this
    because your staff's concerns and your concerns, Senator
    Cochran, have been brought to my attention.
        Our position is we are attempting to both, A, verify the
    money amount to see if it fulfills whatever legal commitment we
    have to be able to show our Inspector General or anyone else
    that we, in fact, have fulfilled that 50-50 cost-share, as well
    as just making sure that that meets any kind of legal standards
    we are forced under other statutes to comply with.
        And I will--I assure you we will resolve this. And if there
    are issues that remain as to whether or not this meets our
    General Counsel's interpretation of what we are required to
    require of the partner, I will let you know. I do not know. And
    I have asked them to get me an answer quickly, because I know
    it is important to the committee. Congressman Wicker has
    likewise brought this to our attention.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the assurance
    of the Secretary. And I look forward to working with you to be
    sure that we have not violated any laws, and particularly the
    one that we are talking about, the appropriations bill, which
    is a law, too.
        Secretary Abraham. Right. And again, our concern is whether
    or not, if it is possible to just designate pre-existing
    infrastructure as the cost-share, we want to make sure we can.
    We will work with you to do that.
        Senator Cochran. Well, the Congress said that you would. I
    mean, said that it would amount to a compliance with the cost-
    share. And so the presumption is that there have been
    substantial funds invested in this and that those ought to be
    considered.
        Secretary Abraham. Right.
        Senator Cochran. Okay.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Well, thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your response. That is a
    subject that has been the matter of considerable discussion in
    previous years.
        Secretary Abraham. I know.
        Senator Byrd. And especially when your predecessor came
    before this committee and made a statement that infuriated
    somewhat the--I hesitate to refer to it as the combustible
    temper of a member or so of this committee, including the
    chairman. But you have said at the beginning that you were
    going to honor the provisions of bills that were added by
    members. And you are doing, it seems to me, what you can to
    uphold your commitment to that. And so I want to compliment
    you.
        Secretary Abraham. Thank you.
        Senator Byrd. If the Senator from Mississippi is satisfied
    on this question, I am going to ask again Senator Burns to
    proceed.
        Senator Burns. So I can double my time now.
        Senator Byrd. No, no.
        Senator Burns. No, I will not do that.

                 NATURAL GAS AND OIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION

        Mr. Secretary, there are two areas that I think concern me
    most. And basically, they are very parochial. And they refer to
    activities that are going on in my State. I noticed that your
    budget request eliminates the industry partnership program in
    both natural gas and oil exploration and production.
        These accounts have been extremely popular and have helped
    the Department leverage research dollars from an industry that
    is increasingly reliant on smaller, independent firms to meet
    our domestic energy needs.
        Has there been any review to show that these accounts are
    less effective than other DOE research accounts? To my
    knowledge, they are actually some of the most effective and
    popular programs out there right now. And can you provide the
    rationale behind cutting these programs more than others, or
    was it simply a bean-counting exercise, coupled with the desire
    to protect Government employees at the expense of programs that
    support more research and less overhead?
        I say this because we have two developments in our State,
    including the more effective use of smaller producing wells
    and, the emergence of coal-bed methane as a true energy source.
    I would like your response to that.
        Secretary Abraham. Senator, could you, just to make it more
    feasible for me to answer, clarify which budget category we are
    looking at here? Just so I can----
        Senator Burns. It is in oil and natural gas R&D.
        Secretary Abraham. Right. We--the approach that was taken
    within several of these R&D program areas was to hold some
    programs in sort of a pause in order to allow us to evaluate
    them through the process that I outlined here, to give it kind
    of the in-depth approach that I expect Assistant Secretary
    Smith to conduct.
        We tried to focus in on the programs that, at least in the
    Department's specialists' view, were ones that had greater
    potential for production in the immediate period. That was the
    result of the review. It is a situation that will be open for
    consideration as we move ahead here in the next process.

                                   FUEL CELLS

        Senator Burns. Well, I think we are going to have to sit
    down and visit about that--that particular line. And I think we
    can, once your review is complete. There is another area which
    I have been working on since 1993. And it is an area that I
    think has a great future, as far as reducing some of our energy
    shortages. And that is in the area of fuel cells.
        As you know, I have worked very hard on communications
    issues ever since I have been here. And frankly, I regard the
    development of fuel cells, and especially stationary fuel
    cells, as being to the energy industry what wireless is to the
    telephone industry, to be right honest with you. It is one of
    those areas that needs developing. It is being developed in
    conjunction with our friends in Japan. And of course, the
    Europeans have a very active program now to look into the
    molten carbonate hybrid fuel cell demonstration going on now. I
    think those programs should be highlighted and we should move
    forward.
        Last year we took great strides forward by starting two key
    projects in the fossil fuel cell arena. One was the
    demonstration of the hybrid molten carbonate fuel cell that
    combines a gas turbine with a fuel cell, and the other was the
    implementation of the electrochemical engineering program
    designed to address the current materials concerns in fuel cell
    development.
        Mr. Secretary, I would like to have your assurance that
    these two projects will be continued in the 2003 budget and
    that you and your staff will work with me to identify the
    funding levels necessary to continue that important work.
        Secretary Abraham. Senator, with respect to the
    electrochemical initiative, that is an ongoing program, as I
    understand it, that has been sort of institutionalized in the
    Department. And we do have in the budget a continuation of that
    program, although I know that there has been a change in the
    funding level. And we will work with you in terms of trying to
    determine within the fuel cell arena whether its priority has
    fulfilled the goal of the program. The other program which you
    mentioned was one that, I think, was added last year.
        Senator Burns. That is right.
        Secretary Abraham. And just as a more over-arching
    statement, I would say that programs that had not yet become
    part of the kind of ongoing effort, whether it was--this is
    throughout both my budget, as well as the rest of the
    administration's--but programs that were not, had not, reached
    that level, have not been funded in the budget submission that
    we have. Obviously, we are only part of that process.
        And members first can participate, obviously, in giving
    some input to this review process, because that will be one of
    the topics we look at, but also obviously can----
        Senator Burns. Can you give me any idea on the review of
    that program, when we might take a look at it to see what it
    has done and the challenges that it has run into?
        Secretary Abraham. Well, let me--yes. Let me tell you, just
    to talk about the fuel cell program a little bit--and I do not
    mean to divert from your specific interest.
        Senator Burns. Yes.

                                   FUEL CELLS

        Secretary Abraham. This budget, if you take--our total fuel
    cell investment is approximately the same in the 2003
    submission as the enacted and a significantly higher level that
    Congress enacted, too, in the 2002 budget. What we do have is a
    shifting of resources from stationary to transportation fuel
    cell investment. And there is a principal reason for that,
    which is that in the area of transportation, under Assistant
    Secretary David Garman, who has been on our team now for the
    better part of the year, we moved ahead. We developed the
    FreedomCAR program, and we moved more resources into those fuel
    cell programs, because we had a clear-cut set of priorities
    there.

                             STATIONARY FUEL CELLS

        In the area of the stationary fuel cells, which fall under
    the fossil energy budget, we have not done that yet. And our
    goal is to move that fairly quickly. As I think I said already,
    but just to reiterate, this review is not one we expect, that
    we intend to drag on. The full process will be done by the end
    of June. We would like your advice and counsel, if you would
    wish to give it, as soon as possible, so that we can look at
    the considerations you want to bring to our attention.
        Senator Burns. Well, I think that review is going to be
    very important and at least would give us, Congress, some idea
    on the progress that is being made and whether it is feasible.
    We would like to work with you in making the decision whether
    the program should move forward. In other words, I know we run
    into some challenges that just cannot be met. And that does
    give cause for a shift in dollars where we should put more
    emphasis.
        Also, I look forward in working with you on carbon
    sequestration. I think that is very important. It is very
    important from our standpoint, because this allows us to do
    more things with the fuel that we have a lot of, and that is
    coal. And our R&D there, I congratulate you. You have increased
    your dollars there in that area. So I am very happy about that.
        Overall, though, I think we can work our way through these
    funding levels and working with the chairman. I am sure we will
    come to an agreement of how we will spend this money and get
    the biggest bang for the dollar. I appreciate you coming today.
    Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Senator Burns.
        Senator Domenici, would you have a statement you would like
    to make and/or questions?
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, are we asking questions or
    are we--I would have no statement.
        Senator Byrd. Very well. The Senator may proceed with
    questions.
        Senator Domenici. I thank you very much.
        First, it is good to see you, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Abraham. Senator.
        Senator Domenici. On a personal note, I wonder when you are
    finished here, if I could have a personal conversation with you
    regarding an issue that I think is significant?
        Secretary Abraham. Sure.

                              MINING OF CLEAN COAL

        Senator Domenici. Could I talk a minute with you about the
    mining of clean coal? I think our distinguished chairman would
    be interested in this. I would like you to look into it and see
    if what I have experienced is as meaningful as I think.
        Most of the effort of our country in terms of making clean
    coal more effective has been at cleaning up the coal as you
    turn it into energy, part of the combustion process, clean up
    the exhaust, make sure that what comes out into the air is
    cleaner. We have a young technology company in Northern New
    Mexico, in the City of Raton, where an engineer has invented,
    designed, and now has financing for a machine that cleans the
    coal in the mine, so that the coal that comes out is much
    cleaner and purified through a mechanism of how the coal is
    mined.
        Now frankly, Mr. Chairman, I intended 6 or 8 months ago to
    bring them by your office. But we were waiting to see if they
    could get their machine financed; and it is now financed, so
    people can buy it and there is a bank that finances it.
        What it does, Mr. Secretary and Mr. Chairman, is, as the
    machine picks up coal from the mine, it operates based upon
    what is normally the makeup of the coal in the ground. The
    pollutants are on the top end, not mixed throughout the coal.
        So the machine sets itself, calibrates itself, so that it
    leaves out of the process of mining the coal which has most of
    the pollutant in it, and it mines cleaner coal and leaves the
    other part in the mine.
        Now there are companies buying it, because it is financed
    by one of the major banks. I would like to ask you if we could
    work with your assistant secretary to ensure that there are
    some pre-mining opportunities to achieve the clean coal
    programs that we are so interested in and that you are.
        Secretary Abraham. Right.
        Senator Domenici. Could we do that?
        Secretary Abraham. Mr. Smith is here today.
        Senator Domenici. All right. I would not expect necessarily
    that he would know about it, although it is so revolutionary
    that maybe he might. We will work with him on it.
        Mr. Chairman, I truly believe that this is a breakthrough
    of great significance, with reference to a better use of coal,
    that is not quite as clean as we would like it to be. Next, I
    just wanted to ask you about oil and gas technology
    partnerships.
        I do not know if you are aware of the fact, Mr. Secretary,
    that the oil and gas technology partnership program, as
    utilized in national laboratories for cooperative activities
    regarding our ability to better produce oil and natural gas,
    use the high-performance and computational tools of the
    laboratories to come up with advanced exploration concepts. The
    program has been funded, $7 million; and $6 million last year.
    And now it is zeroed out.
        I have heard many success stories regarding this program. I
    believe that it is essential, if we are going to continue to
    tell our people that we want to drill for oil and gas that we
    are going to do less and less harm to the environment and be
    able to get more and more of the resource out. That is what
    this partnership has produced. With the current recognition of
    the importance of domestic production, could you tell us what
    is the rationale for terminating the program?
        Secretary Abraham. Well, it really comes back to an answer
    I have given on several questions along these lines in this
    area of research. We have basically moved forward with
    programs, where it was the conclusion of the Department of
    Fossil Energy that the programs had the highest yield
    potential. We put other programs on either pause or not funded
    them in this cycle, subject to the review that the new
    Assistant Secretary, who just got confirmed a couple of weeks
    ago, is going to conduct.
        It is kind of similar, Senator, to what we did in the
    energy efficiency and renewables area last year, because we did
    not have guidance on a lot of the research programs. We put
    some into either zeroed out or put them on hold in our budget
    submission. Congress added some back in on a number of those
    fronts, of course. But we then conducted this review.
        And the review as a result of this year in the energy
    efficiency and renewable energy submission, the largest request
    in 20 years, because we now have guidance based on a real
    strong evaluation.
        That is how we got to this point. And that is one of the
    programs that would be evaluated in this review that will be
    going forward.
        Senator Domenici. So if you had a little bit more money,
    you would be taking a second look at programs like this one. Is
    that correct?
        Secretary Abraham. Well, we are going to take a second look
    at all of our programs now that--and I do not mean to criticize
    anybody for this. But Assistant Secretary Smith emerged from
    the Energy Committee for confirmation last October, but he did
    not get confirmed because a lot of things kind of got off
    track. But he did not get confirmed until 3 or 4 weeks ago, so
    we did not have his participation; we did not have any review.
        Now that we are there, we will be looking at all these
    programs and trying to evaluate again what the priorities are
    consistent with----
        Senator Domenici. Well, we understand that, and we expected
    that--and it is very good of you to remind us of it. But
    obviously, we are going to be talking about money.
        Secretary Abraham. Right.
        Senator Domenici. For that new man to reorient and
    reorganize, he is going to have to take money from some and put
    it in others. If we are going to do a program like this one, we
    are going to have to have more resources allocated to this
    subcommittee.
        Let me have one question, Mr. Chairman, and I will submit
    the other ones for the record.

                             NATIONAL LABORATORIES

        Mr. Secretary, I think you know the national laboratories,
    even in particular those that work on nuclear weapons and the
    nuclear weapons program, the NNSA laboratories. They do a lot
    of research and development in areas that are truly beneficial
    to America in very broad and different ways than just
    developing the nuclear weapons program.
        There is a program that has been developed by Los Alamos
    and Sandia because they have the super-computers, which permit
    them to do these kinds of things. They have developed and
    perfected an instrument and a tool called the National
    Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, called NISAC.
        I can say for the record here that I have never witnessed
    anything as dramatic as this breakthrough in terms of
    evaluating all of the infrastructure of the United States and
    being able to correlate what one piece of infrastructure means
    to another. It is absolutely fantastic.
        They can ask the question as to what if somebody took down
    these three dams? What would the effect on our utility system
    be? All they do is talk to the super-computers. It will tell
    you how much energy was lost in America, where the shortcomings
    are because of the loss. It tells all of the pipelines in
    America, all of the dams, dikes, and all of the utility
    companies.
        The chairman was kind enough, in the last appropriation
    bill, to put $20 million, at my request, into making this tool
    available for use. You now have followed suit and asked for its
    continuation but you left it in the Department of Energy.
        It does not matter to me where it is. I am of the opinion
    that it has to become available and used by many people in this
    country. I imagine it already is.
        Companies, businesses, America's defense establishment
    would all be wondering: ``What would happen if, in fact, the
    terrorists took down''--and then you could talk about it and
    that machine will tell you. Now, if it is in the Department of
    Energy, how will it be made available to the Homeland Defense
    people? Could you discuss that? That worries me a lot.
        Secretary Abraham. Well, you know, it is an interesting
    history. When I visited the labs last year before 9/11, this
    was one of the particularly interesting parts of my tour. And,
    of course, we were not thinking about it in the context of a
    terrorist attack on part of infrastructure. We were actually
    looking at it at that time in terms of problems they were
    having in California with electricity generation.
        Senator Domenici. Right.
        Secretary Abraham. They showed us a little simulation of,
    if there was a blackout in a certain part of California, what
    it might do to other infrastructure in that region, how it
    would affect a water program or whatever. After 9/11, we had an
    even greater appreciation of that program. In fact, a couple
    of--about a--I cannot remember the exact date, but subsequent
    to his appointment, Tom Ridge, our Homeland Security Director,
    actually came over to the Department, and we brought that
    capability in as part of a demonstration to him of some of the
    tools that he could call upon, and he has called upon.
        So we are making that available and look forward to doing
    so. Obviously, there are some security limitations that would
    be invoked if the end use was--depending on who the end user
    might be. But we are doing that. And he is both aware of it
    and, I think, very supportive of it, because he recognized
    immediately the benefits it brings.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I want to just close by saying in
    my opinion, subject to some thinking in terms of national
    security, how much of this information should be available? I
    think almost all of it. I believe it ought to become a user
    tool, a tool for users in the United States, and not be
    something that is hidden in some laboratory. It ought to be
    made available to anyone that needs it on some kind of a user
    basis that makes sense. It would be a very dramatic asset for
    America.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Senator.

                               HOMELAND SECURITY

        Mr. Secretary, reference has been made to homeland security
    here. The full committee is going to conduct hearings on
    homeland security and the need for appropriations therefore.
    And you will be invited to appear before the full committee at
    that time. So we will be looking forward to having your advice
    in those connections.
        Secretary Abraham. Thank you.

                        FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAM DIRECTION

        Senator Byrd. Closely related to the issue of cutting
    research dollars is the administration's proposal to cut back
    on the number of scientists, engineers, and support staff who
    conduct that research. Many of those talented, dedicated
    professionals work at the National Energy and Technology
    Laboratory headquartered in Morgantown, West Virginia. And I am
    proud of the long history of quality work produced by the
    Morgantown lab.
        And I know that its existence has brought great benefits to
    the Nation and to my State of West Virginia. Consequently, I am
    concerned when any effort is made to reduce the work force at
    the Morgantown lab and its sister facility in Pittsburgh.
        For the Office of Fossil Energy, the administration has
    proposed $89.5 million in salaries and expenses, referred to as
    program direction funds for fiscal year 2003. That compares to
    an enacted level of $90.3 million. That would appear to be a
    cut of some $800,000. But my concern is that the budget
    includes, within the $89.5 million request, $14 million that
    the Congress has already appropriated for salaries. And these
    are for people who are working in ongoing jobs, that have been
    requiring salaries for a long, long time.
        In short, the $14 million is being double counted. And as a
    result, the actual request is not $800,000 less than the budget
    makes it appear, but $14.8 million less than what was enacted
    in fiscal year 2002. And that translates into a loss of 150
    jobs in Morgantown and Pittsburgh.
        Would you care to comment? You and I have discussed this
    recently, and you know of my concern about it, and also our
    intention to see that the matter is corrected.
        Secretary Abraham. Right. You and I have discussed this.
    You, in fact, drew my attention of the issues as to the
    redirection there and the--you know, we are trying to, within
    the constraints of our budget, provide as much support to these
    programs and program direction as we can. But that is a vital
    area. And we have had to make some tough decisions.
        I was, however, concerned about this one and have asked our
    team to give me an update on the implications of that $14
    million reduction so that I can better assess where we go from
    here.
        Senator Byrd. Yes. Well--where is that document? Just so
    that the record will show--the budget document shows that for
    fiscal year 2002, it shows the figure $90.373 million. For
    fiscal year 2003 it shows $89 million, $89,550,000.
        But the document also in a footnote says, if the CCT
    program direction, meaning Clean Coal Technology Program
    direction, were included in fiscal year 2001, the total would
    be $98,098,000 and would show for fiscal year 2002
    $104,373,000. So this is clearly acknowledged by the document
    itself. So I am going to, working with Senator Burns, I am
    going to see that this account is straightened out and that the
    salary situation is corrected.
        Having discussed this with you, you do recognize what the
    document says. And it clearly reveals that $14 million is, in
    effect, being counted twice.
        Secretary Abraham. You have brought that to my attention,
    Senator, and I acknowledge it.
        Senator Byrd. I thank the Secretary. So Mr. Burns and I
    will see that the account is straightened out, working with
    you, and that the salary situation is corrected. I guess my
    question to you is this: Would you agree that if the chairman
    and ranking member can find additional funding for the Office
    of Fossil Energy, the program direction account is one of the,
    if not highest priorities for where that funding should be, is
    one of the highest, if not the highest priority, for which that
    funding can be put?
        Secretary Abraham. Certainly, it would be, yes.

                     NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY

        Senator Byrd. Last fall the Congress included $11 million
    in the Fiscal Year 2002 Interior Appropriations Act for
    planning and design of various plant and equipment improvements
    at the National Energy Technology Laboratory. The renovation
    project, which is expected to take approximately 7 years, will
    update and improve the research facilities available to the men
    and the women who work at the Nation's premier fossil energy
    lab.
        Along with the funding, the statement of managers, which
    accompanied the conference support, directed the Department to
    include funding for the renovation project in its base budget
    for each of the next 6 years. Despite that additional funding
    for the project--despite that, additional funding for the
    project was not requested in the fiscal year 2003 budget.
        I am aware that the Morgantown facility has some hurdles to
    clear with respect to the purchase of property next to the
    current lab, but those negotiations, I am informed, are ongoing
    and should not slow down the overall project. Aside from that,
    I am concerned that the Department did not seek additional
    funding this year in an effort to keep the project on track. As
    I understand it, Energy Department regulations required that
    all construction funds be in hand before work can go forward.
        Would you please tell the subcommittee, Mr. Secretary, the
    status of the $11 million provided for planning and design in
    the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill?
        Secretary Abraham. My understanding, Senator, is that at
    this point, approximately $3 million has already been expended
    since the 2002 budget was enacted, on-site preparation and
    demolition or relocation of structures. The allocation of the
    $11 million breaks up into a number of categories.
        About $1.5 million of the $11 million will be spent this
    year on design and construction of two new combined office and
    lab buildings, $3.5 million on site preparation, the monies
    that I think have already begun to be employed, $5 million on
    renovation of existing labs.
        The land purchase that you mentioned, we have estimated to
    be approximately a half million dollars, but those negotiations
    seem not to be completed. And then another approximately half
    million of the $11 million is in the category of repairing and
    replacing or relocating existing guard house, walkways, roads,
    and so on. My understanding is that the technology lab is
    projecting that all $11 million will have been spent or
    obligated to contracts this year.
        As far as the construction issue and the requirement of all
    the money being in hand, I have asked, in follow-up to
    conversations that we have had, for a ruling on that. Because
    it did not seem, when it was brought to my attention, to be
    consistent with my understanding of the needs. And so I have
    asked our shop, our budget shop, and legal counsel shop to
    clarify that so I would know whether or not that is a
    prerequisite.
        The issue that you raise with respect to the 2003
    submission, as I have talked to our budget folks, the concern
    and the reason that there was not money included in the
    submission was because, until the--it is my understanding at
    least that until the additional land purchase has been
    accomplished--and apparently there have been some problems--
    that it is--it limits significantly what could be done in 2003,
    in the 2003 fiscal year. But I have asked for an update on that
    as well.
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, I think it is important that
    the money show up in the 2003 bill. Can we count on your
    support, if the Congress were to provide the second installment
    of the renovation funding in the fiscal year 2003
    appropriation?
        Secretary Abraham. Well, if it is--obviously, I cannot
    support the expansion of the overall budget. But obviously, if,
    in the allocations between the committees, there were more
    money in this committee or the subcommittee for this type of
    program, we support the lab. Let me just say we support the
    project. And subject to the concerns that I just mentioned, we
    wish to go forward with you.
        Senator Byrd. Very well. Let me repeat. I am concerned that
    the Department did not seek additional funding this year in an
    effort to keep this project on track. And as I have indicated,
    Energy Department regulations require that all construction
    funding be in hand before work can go forward. That is the
    basis of our concern here. So we will discuss this through our
    staffs further and see where we go from there.

                             CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS

        Have the fossil energy earmarks from the Fiscal Year 2002
    Appropriations Act been released? Now, Senator Cochran touched
    upon this earlier, but I wanted to have this question in the
    record. So if you would respond, please.
        Secretary Abraham. I would be happy to provide for the
    record a detailing of monies released to date. Let me just give
    you kind of a general statement of our approach. I committed to
    the committee last year that we would support and fund the
    congressional earmarks. As the committee knows, there are
    certain prerequisites that have to be established.
        I mean, the one I mentioned with respect to demonstration
    projects, that there is an agreement that there has been the
    appropriate cost share accomplished, things of that sort.
        But my understanding is most of the programs have already
    begun moving forward with funding, even though we are still in
    the first portion of the fiscal year. And we intend working
    with the projects to complete them. We are doing our best to
    accomplish both the goal of fulfilling Congress's interest in
    seeing these projects funded and also being accountable to you
    on the accurate and successful performance of these programs.
    So, one of the things which I have done on an across-the-board
    basis in the Department is to make sure that we monitor the
    progress.
        But that does not mean that the money is not going out. It
    just means that we are also trying to do a better job of
    accounting for the programs themselves. But we will provide you
    with an up-to-date list. I may have one here even today. In the
    amount of material we have been bringing with us to these
    hearings, I cannot find it at this time. But I think that there
    has been a substantial forward progress across the board.
        [The information follows:]
      Status of Fiscal Year 2002 Earmarks--Interior and Related Agencies
                                 Appropriation
        For Fossil Energy, all projects have been awarded and work is
    underway. Following is a list of Office of Fossil Energy earmarks:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    Ramgen Technology novel turbine engine............................   3.0
    Wilsonville Power Systems Development Facility....................   4.0
    La Porte Alternative Fuels Development Unit.......................   3.5
    U of AK, Clean Diesel Fuel Program................................   1.0
    Arctic Energy Technology Center...................................   3.0
    National Energy Technology Laboratory.............................  11.5
    Ceramic Membrane program (w/syngas)...............................   3.7

        For Energy Conservation, work is underway. Following is a list of
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewal Energy earmarks:
      --Thermo-Mechanical Processing Project, $2.0 million (working with
            the recipient to finalize the project's Statement of Work).
      --Northwest Alliance for Transportation Technologies, $4.6 million
            ($3.2 million has been provided to date and additional funding
            will be provided in May 2002).

        Senator Byrd. Very well, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Burns, do you have anything further?
        Senator Burns. I have one question, and then I think that
    just about completes everything. I do have some more, but we
    can submit those in our usual negotiations.

               COORDINATION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Last year, Mr. Secretary, I raised the issue with you of
    the coordination between the Department of Energy and the
    Environmental Protection Agency, as it relates to the ongoing
    R&D performed by the Department. We have, at times, heard
    complaints that the EPA regulations do not adequately factor
    the linkages between different pollutants and emissions, or
    that they do not recognize the path of technology development
    in certain industries. I think there was a little squabble
    going on between the Department and EPA.
        What has the administration done in the last year to ensure
    that EPA acknowledges and factors into the regulatory program
    the results of the DOE research?
        Secretary Abraham. Well----
        Senator Burns. Some of our research was just absolutely
    turned down by the EPA.
        Secretary Abraham. Right. And let me say that I think that,
    contrary to some press reports that would sort of create an
    impression of major conflicts between the agencies, we have
    worked together on a variety of very significant issues from
    climate change issues to issues that relate to the multi-
    pollutant legislation, the Clear Skies Initiative that the
    President offered to the National Energy Plan to an ongoing
    project, which was called for by the National Energy Plan on
    new source review.
        You know we, in some cases, have had, in these discussions,
    two different analyses, the DOE analysis and the EPA analysis.
    And where there have been--in fact, on a number of occasions
    where there has been a disagreement because the analyses are
    different, the projections are different, we have actually had
    meetings where we have brought both the experts who produced
    the analysis and, in some cases, senior members of each, the
    Department and the agency, to present them to the larger groups
    that we were working with.
        And I think it has worked pretty well. That does not mean
    we always agree with each other's analysis. But I think that
    the Department of Energy's analysis is getting a fair hearing
    in those meetings.
        Senator Burns. Well, peer review is very important. And I
    also sit on the other appropriations subcommittee that has to
    do with EPA. And I plan to ask them the same question, by the
    way. We just need to--we can disagree and we all get to a
    different answer when it comes to bottom line. But just to
    disregard the work that is being done by the DOE out of hand
    was concerning to me. And so I aim to pursue that, along with
    the EPA, whenever they come before our subcommittee.
        And I thank you for coming today. These are things that
    hold up R&D. And I just think we are in a time when R&D becomes
    very, very important. And I thank the chairman for his
    patience.
        Senator Byrd. I thank the distinguished Senator.
        Mr. Secretary, I think we have had a good hearing. On
    behalf of the subcommittee, I commend you for the work you are
    doing and thank you for your responses to the subcommittee's
    inquiries and for our continuing cooperation through our
    staffs.
        I want to thank the staffs on both sides of the aisle up
    here.
        And also, I want to express my gratitude to the
    distinguished ranking member for his many courtesies, his
    always cooperative attitude, and for the other traits for which
    he is so well known. I am sure----
        Senator Burns. That cannot be discussed at this hearing.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Byrd. 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 Robert C. Byrd
                            clean coal solicitation
        Question. The Department of Energy recently issued a request for
    proposal (RFP) inviting industry to submit clean coal technology
    applications for the Clean Coal Power Initiative. If Congress approves
    the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request, a total of $330
    million will be made available by the Department of Energy to cost-
    share in the selected clean coal projects to be proposed by industry.
    Prior to issuance of the DOE's solicitation on March 4, 2002, a draft
    solicitation document was issued and industry's comments requested. The
    draft solicitation proposed that industry repay the government's entire
    contribution to a selected clean coal project if the government is
    requested to provide fifty percent of the costs of the clean coal
    project. If industry requested a government contribution of twenty-five
    percent or less, then no repayment of the government share would be
    required by industry. Also, the DOE originally proposed that some
    portion of the government's cost share would need to be repaid when
    that contribution was greater than 25 percent but less than 50 percent.
    Industry widely endorsed this proposed repayment scheme. Congress
    anticipated the need for a flexible repayment requirement by giving the
    Department the authority to require less than full repayment of the
    government's contribution. Notwithstanding recognition by the Congress
    that repayment is not necessary in all instances, and even though the
    Department originally proposed a flexible repayment plan, the final RFP
    issued by the DOE on March 4 requires that the government's
    contribution, no matter what the amount, must be repaid. Under the
    original proposal, there was a built in mechanism for an applicant to
    seek the minimum amount of cost sharing. Minimizing cost-sharing from
    the government maximizes industry's commitment, increases industry's
    burden to insure that the project is successful, and increases the
    amount of government funds available for more projects. Why, Mr.
    Secretary, did the Department reverse itself?
        Answer. In all approaches considered by the Department, repayment
    of the Federal investment and a minimum of fifty percent cost sharing
    was always mandatory. The Department did consider alternative repayment
    approaches before finalizing the approach contained in the Clean Coal
    Power Initiative (CCPI) solicitation, which is consistent with the
    repayment strategy pursued in the Power Plant Improvement Initiative
    (PPII) and the original Clean Coal Technology Demonstration program.
                   clean energy technology exports initiative
        Question. Mr. Secretary, the United States is an international
    leader in the development of a wide range of clean energy technologies.
    I have been very interested in exploring ways for the United States to
    take the technologies developed in our laboratories and export them to
    other countries. The clean energy policies and technologies that are
    adopted today will have a profound influence on the shape of global
    energy system for many decades to come. This is a tremendous
    opportunity that cannot and should not be ignored. Therefore, over a
    year ago, I initiated the Clean Energy Technology Exports Initiative,
    an effort to open and expand international energy markets and increase
    U.S. clean energy technology exports to countries around the world.
    This commonsense approach can simultaneously improve economic and job
    opportunities at home, while providing developing and transitional
    countries with much-needed technologies, infrastructure, and other
    assistance to address their energy, environment, and climate change
    challenges. Is this something that the Administration supports?
        Answer. The Administration is supportive of efforts to increase
    exports of clean energy technologies developed in the United States.
    This support has been expressed in the National Energy Policy Document
    and in the supporting documentation on the President's June 11 speech
    on Climate Change before his initial visit with European leaders. Once
    the CETE Working Group is formally established and CETE projects are
    identified, it will be possible to better focus our activities directed
    toward the initiative.
        Question. If so, how are you working to make it a reality?
        Answer. Currently, the 5-year strategic plan of the CETE Initiative
    is nearing completion with eight of the nine participating agencies
    having concurred in the document. Release of the strategic plan is
    expected after final clearance by the Executive Office of the
    President. Once the strategic plan is completed, the CETE working group
    will be established at a political level on an interagency basis. This
    group will approve CETE program activities, approve the framework for
    assessing program performance, commit agency resources in support of
    CETE, coordinate agency budget requests and uses, and submit the
    required annual report to Congress.
                              gas hydrates program
        Question. Mr. Secretary, you have been quoted as saying that
    ``Science programs will emphasize the most significant national
    priorities--to find sources of energy.'' Well, it seems to me that
    Fossil Energy's Gas Hydrates Program fits the bill--the program is a
    perfect example of long-term, high-risk very high payoff R&D that
    industry won't undertake entirely on its own. If only 1 percent of the
    gas located in hydrates could be produced, the United States would more
    than double its natural gas resource base. Why have you chosen to
    decrease the funding for this potentially major source of energy by 54
    percent ?
        Answer. The Department had some very difficult decisions to make
    when considering the fiscal year 2003 budget request. Several areas
    required funding to address urgent needs causing some other programs to
    receive less than full support. The Office of Fossil Energy is
    undergoing a review, which will hold programs in place pending final
    review.
        The methane hydrate program is a unique program with unprecedented
    cooperation between multiple federal agencies including DOE, MMS, NOAA,
    NSF, USGS, and the Naval Research Lab (NRL). DOE's program is targeting
    hydrate issues such as resource characterization and safety and
    seafloor stability that significantly impact hydrates in the Gulf of
    Mexico and Alaska. The safety and seafloor stability issue in the Gulf
    of Mexico is related to access of conventional oil and gas resources
    that occur below or around hydrate deposits. The momentum gained over
    the past two years will be significantly reduced at the requested
    funding level. We maintain our enthusiasm for the program and feel that
    this research is of the utmost importance for the long-term security of
    domestic natural gas supply.
        Question. What criteria and methodology did you use to come to that
    reduction?
        Answer. Methane hydrates pose a potentially significant risk to
    conventional oil and gas recovery operations in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Tools are needed to better locate hydrate deposits and to deal with
    them during conventional production. The gas found in methane hydrates
    is potentially the largest source of hydrocarbon in the world.
        A nationally coordinated program, complete with an industry/
    academia advisory panel and an interagency task force was commended in
    fiscal year 2001. Continuation of this collaborative program will
    require substantial resources. A Joint Industry Program has been formed
    to look at safety and seafloor stability issues in the Gulf of Mexico.
    In addition, two projects in Alaska will further characterize the
    resource and determine if hydrate deposits in the Arctic are sufficient
    to yield economically producible natural gas. The collaboration in the
    hydrates program between multiple federal agencies, national labs,
    industry, and academia is unprecedented. Some projects will be delayed
    pending Fossil Energy review.
       natural gas infrastructure program transfer to the department of
                                 transportation
        Question. The Natural Gas Infrastructure Program, managed by Fossil
    Energy, was transferred to the Department of Transportation's Office of
    Pipeline Safety. At a hearing before the House Interior Subcommittee on
    February 28, your Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy stated,
    ``Similar projects are also conducted by OPS. Given the nature of OPS'
    safety regulatory mission and related performance goal needs, this
    critical activity is best situated at DOT.'' Mr. Secretary: As you
    know, OPS focuses on safety and regulatory oversight of the interstate
    liquid and natural gas pipeline system. And they have no experience
    with R&D for natural gas storage technologies. By way of contrast, your
    own Fossil Energy program is experienced in conducting all manner of
    natural gas R&D, just last year received its first funding for
    infrastructure R&D, and is currently managing 31 cost-shared R&D
    projects with industry. Mr. Secretary, why are you allowing the Natural
    Gas Infrastructure Program to be transferred from the Energy Department
    to the Department of Transportation?
        Answer. As you note, this funding first allocated to Department of
    Energy (DOE) last year, yet the Department of Transportation's Office
    of Pipeline Safety (OPS) has been engaged in this activity for over a
    decade. OPS and DOE have both been pursuing new methods of damage
    prevention and leak detection. OPS safety research program is funded
    from industry user fees while the DOE natural gas infrastructure
    reliability research program is funded by the taxpayer. In order to
    lower spending, improve the efficiency of government, and avoid
    duplication of R&D activity, the transfer of the DOE natural gas
    infrastructure reliability research program to the Department of
    Transportation is recommended.
        Question. How does the public benefit from the transfer of this
    research program from a research to a regulatory agency?
        Answer. The Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety
    (OPS) has a safety and regulatory oversight mission and regulates
    approximately 2.2 million miles of interstate liquid and natural gas
    pipeline systems. Since 1990, OPS has been sponsoring safety research
    funded from industry user fees. The Administration believes that the
    public is better served from research funded from user fees than from
    research subsidized by taxpayers through Congressional appropriations.
                                   fuel cells
        Question. I understand that you have announced a new program called
    the Freedom CAR to develop hydrogen fueled fuel cells for automobiles
    and that the executives of Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler
    helped announce this new cooperative automotive research partnership. I
    also understand that President Bush recently met with the President of
    UTC Fuel Cells and espoused the advantages of fuel cells. Given that
    Fossil Energy has long had a very successful fuel cell program--and
    that UTC Fuel Cells was a result of their efforts--and that hydrogen is
    likely to come from fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, what
    role will the Fossil Energy Program play in the FreedomCAR initiative?
        Answer. Fossil Energy will not be directly involved in the
    FreedomCAR initiative. However, we expect considerable synergy, and the
    fuel cell activities within DOE will continue to be very closely
    coordinated. We agree that, at least initially, hydrogen is likely to
    come from fossil fuels and we expect that the Solid State Energy
    Alliance (SECA) Fuel Cell Program could provide a bridge, beginning
    with stationary applications, to a hydrogen economy. The SECA Program
    will provide a common platform that permits the use of the same core
    module for multiple applications in stationary, transportation
    (auxiliary power), and military sectors. Through mass customization,
    multiple markets can be reached simultaneously, increasing the
    production volume necessary for lower costs and wide application of the
    fuel cell technology. This simultaneous production is the way around
    the high cost impasse that fuel cells currently face. Stationary
    applications are expected to lead the market introduction of fuel cells
    and lower the costs, facilitating very low capital cost transportation
    applications. We also expect that early transportation applications
    will help lower costs for some stationary applications.
        Question. Given the fact that fuel cells have been given so much
    emphasis, and that the initial application of fuel cells is likely to
    be for stationary power, why did you reduce Fossil Energy's fiscal year
    2003 funding for fuel cells by almost 20 percent?
        Answer. We share your view regarding the importance and value of
    fuel cells and we are in the process of shifting resources to place
    more emphasis on the fuel cell program that is expected to achieve our
    goals for affordable fuel cells. The $47 million funding requested for
    fiscal year 2003 is a slight increase from our request last year. The
    reduced funding for near-term molten carbonate and solid oxide systems
    is adequate to allow the timely completion of those programs in fiscal
    year 2003. The funding request for the SECA program, which builds on
    advancements in core fuel cell R&D conducted over the past 20 years, is
    $22.5 million for fiscal year 2003. This will allow work to proceed on
    schedule for two industrial teams and the associated core technology
    development. We believe this is reasonable given Fossil Energy's
    program priorities and fiscal constraints.
        Question. Why is the FreedomCAR initiative not considered
    ``corporate welfare'' when the fiscal year 2003 budget request seems to
    cast all Fossil Energy Programs as ``corporate welfare''?
        Answer. The Department has structured the FreedomCAR Partnership to
    ensure that federal funds are spent appropriately. In fact, our
    FreedomCAR partners, the automakers, will receive very little
    government funding. In the last year of the previous effort (The
    Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles--PNGV), less than 1
    percent of Federal funding went to the automakers. In reality, the
    industry partners' spending on technologies of joint interest has
    greatly exceeded government spending. We certainly expect that this
    will continue to be the case. We recognize that PNGV's vehicle-based
    performance metrics gave the impression that the government was
    subsidizing product development. The FreedomCAR Partnership will have a
    clearly defined ``technology'' focus and this, coupled with limited
    funding to the automakers, should alleviate any concerns regarding
    corporate welfare.
                                   freedomcar
        Question. The Administration has proposed a new research and
    development program to produce an advanced, ultra-clean vehicle in the
    future, FreedomCAR. The previous program, the Partnership for a New
    Generation of Vehicles, invested much effort in the development of a
    broad range of component technologies, including making stronger,
    lighter weight materials from steel. The Administration has proposed
    $150 million for the FreedomCAR program but has also reduced funding by
    over $6 million for lightweight materials technology research and
    development, a 38 percent cut. Will steel and other industries have
    continued opportunity to participate in this program or will their
    involvement be phased out to concentrate on the development of the fuel
    cell platform?
        Answer. Lower priority has been assigned to continued support for
    R&D on metals (i.e., steels, aluminum), primarily because prior R&D has
    helped bring many lightweight metals technologies to the point of being
    commercially competitive. There is a strong constituency in industry to
    carry these results forward toward use in production vehicles.
    FreedomCAR will continue significant lightweight materials R&D, but
    will shift resources towards longer range, groundbreaking technologies
    such as carbon fiber materials and more exotic metals such as titanium
    and magnesium.
                                 weatherization
        Question. Please provide information, for the record, on
    weatherization activities in West Virginia, including the number of
    weatherized homes to date and the schedule for releasing fiscal year
    2002 money.
        Answer. Through Program Year 2000, the State of West Virginia has
    been awarded more than $56 million in DOE funds and together with
    leveraged funds, has weatherized more than 58,000 low-income homes. The
    State of West Virginia's grant for Program Year 2002 is $3,251,749
    which will weatherize approximately 1,200 low-income homes. The West
    Virginia Weatherization State Plan for Program Year 2002 was submitted
    to the DOE Philadelphia Regional Office on January 17, 2002 for review.
    The review was conducted and the plan approved by the Regional Office
    on Feb 10, 2002. As of this writing, the West Virginia award is
    imminent.
        Question. In addition, please provide an update about the progress
    of spending fiscal year 2002 funds nationwide.
        Answer. The Weatherization Assistance Program Year 2002 will begin
    for 31 States on April 1, 2002, the remaining 19 States on July 1,
    2002, and the District of Columbia on September 1, 2002. Eleven States
    have submitted applications to DOE for approval to begin their programs
    prior to the start of their regular program year in order to ramp up to
    meet this year's goals. DOE is in the process of reviewing and
    approving State plans for Program Year 2002. The production of units
    and the expenditure of funds are reported to DOE on a quarterly basis.
    An update on the progress of spending fiscal year 2002 funds for all
    States will not be available until October 2002 at the earliest. DOE
    will conduct a careful review of States' progress on meeting the
    production goals stated in the fiscal year 2002 Budget and the
    expenditure of the additional $77 million appropriated for fiscal year
    2002.
                      energy efficiency science initiative
        Question. The Committee directed the Department of Energy to make
    50 percent of the funds available for the Energy Efficiency Science
    Initiative to the Fossil Energy R&D account in fiscal year 2002 and all
    future years. Since the Administration proposes to eliminate the Energy
    Efficiency Science Initiative, what effect will this have on ongoing
    programs within fossil energy?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2002, Congress appropriated $12 million for
    the Energy Efficiency Science Initiative. Further, it directed that of
    this amount, 50 percent ($6 million) was to be made available to Fossil
    Energy Research and Development (FE R&D) and 50 percent ($6 million) to
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE).
        Presently, a joint FE/EE solicitation, which is being coordinated
    with the Office of Science, is being prepared. It is planned to be
    issued in late fiscal year 2002. It will seek proposals covering
    fundamental research topics that are of interest to both FE and EE.
        The funds will support research projects that are in addition to
    those currently being pursued under the present FE R&D Program.
    Therefore, elimination of this initiative should not adversely affect
    ongoing R&D activities.
      energy conservation r&d budget cuts--contracts reduced or terminated
        Question. The Administration proposes a $52 million decrease for
    R&D programs within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy for energy conservation. Please provide a list of R&D contracts
    that will be reduced or terminated as a result of this cut.
        Answer. Within Energy Efficiency's proposed fiscal year 2003
    budget, we are aware of 49 individual R&D contracts that would receive
    reduced funding as a result of budget reductions relative to fiscal
    year 2002. About half of those contracts would be ended in fiscal year
    2002. These reductions reflect an assessment against the R&D Investment
    Criteria of research activities in areas such as building equipment,
    materials and tools, micro-turbines, electric vehicles, petroleum
    refining processes, and vehicle materials. For example, some R&D
    activities are ready to be ``graduated'' industry, and some cannot make
    a strong case that a Federal role is appropriate, regardless of the
    stage of development.
        The table below, and on the following three pages, provides the
    details of the projects that will be affected:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                     Reduction                  Contract to
                Sub-program                    Primary cont.          Title/subject of         Contract number        from FY      Contract      end in FY
                                                                          contract                                   2002 ($K)   ended (Y/N)?   2002 (Y/N)?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Buildings:
        Equip.Materials, & Tools......  PNN L.....................  Appliances and        22475/RL01830............       $150  N............  N
                                                                     Emerging
                                                                     Technologies R&D--
                                                                     Expand subCFL.
        Equip.Materials,& Tools.......  ORNL......................  Appliances and        OR22725..................        179  N............  N
                                                                     Emerging Technology
                                                                     R&D--HPWH national
                                                                     demonstration.
        Equip.Materials,& Tools.......  LBNL......................  Analysis Tools and    4746/SF00098.............        100  Y............  N
                                                                     Design Strategies--
                                                                     Building Design
                                                                     Advisor.
        Equip. Materials, & Tools.....  NIST......................  Analysis Tools and    IAA......................         50  Y............  N
                                                                     Design Strategies--
                                                                     EnergyPlus/CONTAMW
                                                                     Link.
        Equip. Materials, & Tools.....  NETL......................  Analysis Tools and    na.......................        100  Y............  N
                                                                     Design Strategies--
                                                                     EnergyPlus: New
                                                                     module development.
        Equip. Materials, & Tools.....  LBNL......................  Analysis Tools and    4746/SF00098.............        250  Y............  N
                                                                     Design Strategies--
                                                                     SPARK Development.
        Equip. Materials, & Tools.....  NETL......................  Field Testing,        na.......................      1,229  Y............  N
                                                                     ASHRAE co-funding,
                                                                     ARTI co-funding,
                                                                     duct testing, space
                                                                     conditioning
                                                                     existing buildings.
        Equip. Materials, & Tools.....  ORNL......................  Refrigeration--Comme  OR22725..................      1,471  Y............  N
                                                                     rcial refrigeration
                                                                     R&D.
        Technology Road Maps &          NETL......................  Competitive R&D       TBD......................      6,000  Y............  N
         Competitive R&D.                                            Solicitation.
        Equip. Materials, & Tools.....  ASE.......................  Energy Efficient      na.......................        135  N............  N
                                                                     Window
                                                                     Collaborative.
        Equip. Materials, & Tools.....  NETL......................  Market                na.......................        128  N............  N
                                                                     Characterization,
                                                                     Planning and
                                                                     Analysis.
        Equip. Materials, & Tools.....  U. of Minn................  Windows and           GO1 0225.................        110  N............  N
                                                                     Glazings--Commercia
                                                                     l building
                                                                     guidelines &
                                                                     research; and 2nd
                                                                     edition Residential
                                                                     window.
        Equip.Materials,& Tools.......  NFR C.....................  Windows and           SF19011..................        150  N............  N
                                                                     Glazings--Develop
                                                                     and implement EPACT
                                                                     window and rating
                                                                     program.
        Equip. Materials, & Tools.....  FSEC......................  Windows and           GO10225..................         80  N............  N
                                                                     Glazings--Develop
                                                                     and implement EPACT
                                                                     window and rating
                                                                     program.
        Equip. Materials, & Tools.....  NREL......................  Windows and           0910541/GO10337..........        110  N............  N
                                                                     Glazings--Electroch
                                                                     romic durability
                                                                     research, test &
                                                                     evaluation, and
                                                                     standards..
        Equip. Materials, & Tools.....  PNNL......................  Windows and           RL01830..................         20  N............  N
                                                                     Glazings--Harmoniza
                                                                     tion of performance
                                                                     standards;
                                                                     technical
                                                                     cooperation.
        Equip, Materials, & Tools.....  U. of Mass................  Windows and           CH10604..................         55  N............  N
                                                                     Glazings--Thermal
                                                                     performance
                                                                     advanced research--
                                                                     3D FEA; ISO/NFRC
                                                                     coordination.
        Equip, Materials, & Tools.....  ORNL......................  Windows and           OR2 2725.................         60  N............  N
                                                                     Glazings--Thermal
                                                                     testing research--
                                                                     support NFRC/
                                                                     industry rating
                                                                     programs; ISO
                                                                     harmon.
        Equip, Materials, & Tools.....  ORNL......................  Crosscuting Research  OR22725..................        130  N............  N
        Equip, Materials, & Tools.....  LBNL......................  Windows and Glazings  SF00098..................      1,622  N............  N
                                                                     Research--Lead Lab.
        Equip, Materials, & Tools.....  ORNL......................  Building America      CEEW314/OR22725..........        314  Y............  N
                                                                     Support.
        Equip, Materials, & Tools.....  ORNL......................  Non HCFC Closed Cell  CEE W214.................        150  Y............  N
                                                                     Foam Insulation.
        Equip, Materials, & Tools.....  NETL......................  Competitive           TBD......................      2,000  Y............  N
                                                                     Solicitation.
        Equip, Materials, & Tools.....  ORNL......................  Commercial Roofing    CEEW314/OR22725..........        150  Y............  N
                                                                     Systems.
        Equip, Materials, & Tools.....  ORNL......................  Industry              CEEW314/OR22725..........        986  Y............  N
                                                                     Partnerships,
                                                                     Subambient Piping
                                                                     System, Insulation
                                                                     Systems, Tech
                                                                     Transfer, Roadmaps.
        Equip, Materials, & Tools.....  NIST......................  Wind Control for      IAA......................        100  Y............  N
                                                                     Energy Efficiency.
                                                                                                                    -----------
          Subtotal Buildings..........    ........................    ..................    .......................     15,829    ...........
                                                                                                                    ===========
    Power Technologies:
        Microturbines.................  Ingersoll Rand............  Advanced              CH11059..................        400  N............  N
                                                                     Microturbine System
                                                                     Development.
        Microturbines.................  Solar Turbines Inc........  Advanced              CH11062..................        500  Y............  N
                                                                     Microturbine System
                                                                     Development.
        Microturbines.................  GE Corporate R&D..........  Advanced              CH11063..................        600  N............  N
                                                                     Microturbine System
                                                                     Development.
        Microturbines.................  Capstone Turbine Corp.....  Advanced              CH11058..................      1,000  N............  N
                                                                     Microturbine System
                                                                     Development.
        Microturbines.................  United Technologies         Advanced              CH11060..................      1,000  N............  N
                                         Research Ctr.               Microturbine System
                                                                     Development.
        Microturbines.................  Honeywell Power Systems...  Advanced              CH11061..................        500  Y............  N
                                                                     Microturbine System
                                                                     Development.
        Reciprocating Engines.........  Cummins Engine Co. Inc....  Advanced              CH11078..................        200  N............  N
                                                                     Reciprocating
                                                                     Engine System
                                                                     Development.
        Reciprocating Engines.........  Caterpillar Inc...........  Advanced              CH11079..................        200  N............  N
                                                                     Reciprocating
                                                                     Engine System
                                                                     Development.
        Reciprocating Engines.........  Waukesha Engine Div.......  Advanced              CH11080..................        200  N............  N
                                                                     Reciprocating
                                                                     Engine System.
        Reciprocating Engines.........  NETL......................  Advanced              300......................          N  N............
                                                                     Reciprocating
                                                                     Engine System
                                                                     Support.
                                                                                                                    -----------
          Subtotal Power Technologies.    ........................    ..................    .......................      4,900    ...........
                                                                                                                    ===========
    Industry:
        Petroleum.....................  Davidson..................  Global On-Stream      DE-FC07-01ID13997........        353  Y............  N
                                                                     Inspection.
        Petroleum.....................  Colorado Sch. of Mines....  Energy Savings        DE-FC07-01ID13998........        275  Y............  N
                                                                     Separations.
        Petroleum.....................  Onix......................  Micro-GC Controller.  FC07-01ID13999...........         50  Y............  N
        Petroleum.....................  Sandia Labs...............  Hydrocarbon Leak      M0ID280..................        185  Y............  Y
                                                                     Detector.
                                                                                                                    -----------
          Subtotal Industry...........    ........................    ..................    .......................        863    ...........
                                                                                                                    ===========
    Transportation:
        Advanced Pwr. Elect...........  Semikron..................  Automotive            EE50602..................        500  N............  N
                                                                     Integrated Power
                                                                     Module Development.
        Propulsion Materials            ORNL-sub to Industrial      Microwave             .........................        350  N............  N
         Technology.                     Ceramics Solutions.         Regenerated Diesel
                                                                     Exhaust Particulate
                                                                     Filter.
        Combustion and Emission         Detroit Diesel Corp.......  Emission Control      EE50575..................      2,000  Y............  N
         Control.                                                    Subsystem
                                                                     Development.
        Lightweight Materials           USAMP Cooperative           Strain Rate           OR22910..................      1,912  Y............  N
         Technology.                     Agreement.                  Characterization of
                                                                     Steels; High-
                                                                     Strength Steels
                                                                     Stamping Project;
                                                                     Sheet Steel Joining
                                                                     Tech; Sheet Steel
                                                                     Fatigue
                                                                     Characteristics;
                                                                     Active Flexible
                                                                     Binder Control
                                                                     System for Robust
                                                                     Stamping; Warm
                                                                     Forming Of
                                                                     Aluminum;
                                                                     Hydroforming of
                                                                     Aluminum Tubes.
        Electric Vehicles R&D.........  Moltech...................  Development of        .........................        600  Y............  N
                                                                     Lithium Sulfur
                                                                     Battery Technology.
        Electric Vehicles R&D.........  PolyPlus..................  Development of        .........................      1,200  Y............  N
                                                                     Lithium Sulfur
                                                                     Battery Technology.
        Electric Vehicles R&D.........  Saft......................  Development of        .........................      1,500  N............  N
                                                                     Lithium Ion Battery
                                                                     Technology.
                                                                                                                    -----------
          Subtotal Transportation.....    ........................    ..................    .......................      8,062    ...........
                                                                                                                    ===========
          Total energy conservation...    ........................    ..................    .......................     29,654    ...........
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      cooperative program with the states
        Question. The Cooperative Program with the States is eliminated
    except for $2 million requested in the Industry Sector. Please provide
    the rationale behind continuing the program in Industry but not in the
    Buildings or Transportation sectors.
        Answer. The Industry Sector believes that the Cooperative States
    RD&D program is providing some value to its portfolio, while the other
    Sectors do not. In light of the refocused program priorities
    established by the President's National Energy Plan (NEP), President's
    Management Agenda, EERE Strategic Program Review, and the new EERE
    Strategic Plan; the Building and Transportation Sector programs have
    refocused to meet these priorities.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
                    strategic program review--fossil energy
        Question. The President's Energy Policy recommended that the
    Department conduct a strategic program review of its research and
    development programs. How was this review conducted for Fossil Energy?
        Answer. During the last week of February 2002, Fossil Energy's
    newly confirmed Assistant Secretary Mike Smith initiated the strategic
    review of Fossil Energy programs. The review will examine, in depth,
    each of the program areas within Fossil Energy; the Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve, the Oil and Gas program, the Coal and Power Systems program,
    and the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). The review is due
    to be completed by July 1, 2002.
        The review will use the principles outlined in the President's
    Management Agenda to examine the Fossil Energy programs, to look for
    ways to improve performance and streamline operations. Programs and
    projects will be examined to see how they perform when measured against
    the following performance criteria:
        1. Alignment with the National Energy Policy goals:
          --Increasing domestic energy supplies
          --Protecting America's environment
          --Ensuring a comprehensive delivery system
          --Enhancing national security
        2. Business Performance:
          --Investment strategies
          --Investment criteria
          --Policy implementation
          --Communication
          --Accountability
        3. Technical Performance:
          --Procurement process
          --Technical accomplishments
          --Lab-to-Market successes
        4. Public Benefits:
          --Environmental benefits
          --Energy security benefits
          --Economic benefits
        5. Conclusions:
          --Closures and Completions
          --Redirections
          --Missing programs
          --Strengthened programs
        Question. Can you provide us with some examples of Fossil Energy
    funded programs that were recommended for termination or reductions,
    and the reasons behind those recommendations?
        Answer. At this time, no recommendations have been made, as the
    review process was just initiated (latter part of February 2002). The
    review is scheduled to be completed by July 1, 2002.
        Question. Can you provide us with some examples of Fossil Energy
    programs that the strategic review deemed to be successes, and the
    rationale behind those determinations?
        Answer. No. Once the review is complete, we will be happy to
    provide you with examples of Fossil Energy programs to be successes and
    the rationale. The review will examine, in depth, each of the program
    areas within Fossil Energy; the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Oil
    and Gas program, the Coal and Power Systems program, and the National
    Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). The review is due to be completed
    by July 1, 2002.
        Question. Was the Strategic Review completed in time to be fully
    considered in the development of the fiscal year 2003 Fossil Energy
    budget request?
        Answer. As mentioned previously, during the latter part of February
    2002, Fossil Energy's newly confirmed Assistant Secretary Mike Smith
    initiated the strategic review of Fossil Energy research and
    development programs. The review is due to be completed by July 1,
    2002.
        Question. If not, what elements remain to be completed and when
    will they be completed?
        Answer. The complete review process has begun and is due to be
    finished by July 1, 2002.
                 strategic program review--energy conservation
        Question. The President's Energy Policy recommended that the
    Department conduct a strategic program review of its research and
    development programs. How was this review conducted for Energy
    Conservation?
        Answer. Carrying out the direction of the Secretary of Energy, in
    June 2001 the Assistant Secretary initiated the Strategic Program
    Review (SPR), involving senior staff within the Office of the Assistant
    Secretary, and the Office of Planning, Budget and Management working
    with EERE's Deputy Assistant Secretaries, program managers, and staff.
    The review had both public comment and internal review components.
        A public comment period, including seven public meetings, was
    coordinated by EERE's Outreach office. As a part of the public comment
    process, the EERE Regional Offices hosted a series of EERE town
    meetings in Boston, Denver, Seattle, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago,
    and Washington, D.C. These meetings, along with e-mail and postal mail
    responses, accounted for 4,279 public comments. EERE completed a report
    summarizing these comments on August 31, 2001.
        The internal review examined four programmatic elements: alignment
    with energy policy and markets; technical performance; resulting
    benefits; and, business performance.
        The examination of these programmatic elements included reviews of
    information and data on such issues as:
      --current legislative and regulatory requirements;
      --existing external and peer reviews from such peer organizations as
            the National Research Council and the President's Committee of
            Advisors on Science and Technology;
      --specific barriers to developing EERE technologies;
      --strategies used to address these barriers and how such strategies
            have evolved over time;
      --program activities and technical results--including successes and
            failures; and
      --program benefits--including impacts on energy supply and use,
            economic costs and benefits, reductions in environmental
            emissions, and security benefits such as reducing oil use.
        Following the interview phase by the Review Team, the DASs for each
    end-use sector (buildings, industry, transportation, power, and
    federal) and their program personnel presented and explained a summary
    of their program performance information to the Assistant Secretary for
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Principal Deputy Assistant
    Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the Deputy
    Assistant Secretary for Planning, Budget and Management.
        The Strategic Program Review is available on the EERE Home Page at
    www.EREN.gov.
        Question. Can you provide us with some examples of Energy
    Conservation funded programs that were recommended for termination or
    reductions, and the reasons behind those recommendations?
        Answer. The following materials provide four examples of activities
    recommended for termination.
        Wettable Ceramic-Based Drained Cathode Technology.--Alcoa will
    integrate the technology advances for the cathode with EERE-supported
    work on the advanced anode to significantly reduce the energy intensity
    of the electrolytic cell, which is used for the smelting process. Alcoa
    has acquired the intellectual property rights for this technology and
    can continue without DOE support.
        Hybrid Direct Injection R&D.--The Hybrid Direct Injection Engine
    R&D program focused on developing technology for direct injection
    gasoline engines (i.e. Spark Ignition Direct Injection (SIDI)). This
    engine technology has the potential to improve the fuel economy of
    conventional passenger cars by 10 to 15 percent. Most of the obstacles
    to commercialization of this technology are related to meeting future
    tailpipe emission standards and reducing the cost of the high-pressure
    fuel injection systems. Considerable progress was made on both fronts
    during the term (1999-2001) of the program. The technology is now
    believed to be close enough to commercial feasibility that the auto
    companies should undertake the remaining development work without
    Government support. The Program should be discontinued and all
    activities funded through this budget line cease.
        Direct Production of Silicones from Sand.--The direct conversion of
    silicon dioxide (sand or quartz) into silicone polymers would eliminate
    the energy-intensive silicon manufacturing step required in the
    conventional process. A team of researchers (including GE, Molecular
    Simulation, Inc., and OM Group Inc.) used advanced combinatorial
    chemistry technology to survey hundreds of catalysts that might enable
    direct or one-step conversion. Although the team did identify several
    inexpensive materials that appear to be suitable, closer study revealed
    that the direct synthetic route was not chemically feasible. Thus, this
    work can be closed out. Nonetheless, this work significantly advanced
    the fundamental understanding of making silicone and several patents
    will be filed.
        Residential Refrigerator Research.--Past research and regulatory
    efforts have reduced the energy use of new refrigerators by nearly a
    factor of four since 1975. Continuing research in areas such as
    improved insulation, more efficient motors, and general refrigerator
    cycle efficiency research is important for non-residential
    applications, but research specifically focused on conventional vapor-
    cycle residential refrigerators now has lower potential returns than
    work in other areas and should be discontinued.
        Question. Can you provide us with some examples of Energy
    Conservation programs that the strategic review deemed to be successes,
    and the rationale behind those determinations?
        Answer. EERE has supported the development of a number of highly
    successful technologies. The National Academy of Sciences' National
    Research Council conducted a detailed review of about $1.6 billion
    worth of EERE research last year, producing the report, ``Federal
    Energy R&D: Was It Worth It?'', National Academy Press, 2001. The NRC
    review found that the energy conservation portfolio produced a return
    of 20 to 1 on the $1.6 billion portfolio they examined. In addition,
    the NRC found that these technologies generated net realized
    environmental benefits valued at $3-20 billion. The NRC also noted,
    however, that ``most of the realized economic benefits to date are
    attributable to three relatively modest projects in the building sector
    carried out in the late 1970s and 1980s and continuing into the
    1990s.'' (These projects are low-emissivity window coatings, electronic
    ballasts, and efficient refrigerator compressors.) Also, NAS only
    assessed 20 percent of the EERE portfolio, which was not selected
    randomly.
        Other projects successful at producing benefits included Oxy-Fueled
    Glass Furnaces--now installed on 30 percent of U.S. glass furnaces; and
    Advanced Lost Foam technology--providing energy savings of 25-30
    percent plus overall production cost reductions of 45-50 percent on
    complex castings. The NRC also identified as successes research such as
    DOE-2 building energy modeling, Indoor Air Quality, Advanced Turbine
    Systems (efficiencies improved from 29 percent to 38 percent and
    scheduled for commercial introduction in 2003), and others. The NRC
    also found significant options and knowledge benefits stemming from
    EERE-supported research.
        The Strategic Program Review identified more than a dozen
    additional technologies beyond those examined by the NRC that were
    developed with EERE support and appear to provide substantial benefits.
    These include refrigerator technologies which reduced average
    consumption of electricity by U.S. refrigerators by nearly a factor of
    four over the past 25 years; advanced alloys that enable use of high
    efficiency natural gas furnaces--now accounting for a quarter of the
    market; advanced ceramic coatings used in diesel engines; advanced wind
    turbines; and improved drill bits for geothermal development, but now
    used widely in the oil and gas industry.
        The total net realized economic savings identified by the NRC of
    $30 billion is more than the entire expenditure by EERE over its
    history. Inclusion of the other technologies identified by the SPR will
    increase these realized benefits significantly.
        Question. Was the Strategic Review completed in time to be fully
    considered in the development of the fiscal year 2003 Energy
    Conservation budget request?
        Answer. Many of the elements of the Strategic Program Review were
    ncorporated in the fiscal year 2003 budget request. Other
    recommendations of the SPR, such as calling for analytical work to
    determine the future course of technology work in particular areas or
    calling for the implementation of best practices in various aspects of
    program management, are activities that will influence future budget
    requests.
        Question. If not, what Energy Conservation elements remain to be
    completed and when will they be completed?
        Answer. In addition to recommended closures, the Strategic Program
    Review identified activities for redirection, for close monitoring--the
    ``watch list'', for expansion--including areas where further analysis
    is required to determine how best to proceed, and for implementation of
    ``best practices'' in program management. These will require ongoing
    attention. In particular, the implementation of best practices, for
    example, is a longer-term effort to improve overall program management.
        Question. The Justification indicates that the strategic review
    recommended that 20 activities within the Energy Efficiency program be
    terminated. Please provide a list of these 20 Energy Conservation
    activities for the record, along with the relevant funding levels for
    fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002.
        Answer. The activities recommended for closure are listed below,
    together with fiscal year 2001 funding levels. Fiscal year 2001 funding
    is provided because that was the year during which this funding was
    examined during the SPR and some of those activities have already been
    changed in response to the SPR during fiscal year 2002. Fiscal year
    2003 funding that might have gone to these activities has generally
    been shifted to other activities that were identified as potentially
    having greater public benefit and that match up well against the R&D
    investment criteria developed as part of the President's Management
    Agenda.
        A longer description of the activity is provided below to better
    indicate the specific technology in question.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Fiscal year
                                Activity                             -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       2001 funding    2002 funding    2003 funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wettable Ceramic-Based Drained Cathode Technology...............        $120,000  ..............  ..............
    Committee on Energy Efficiency Commerce and Trade (COEECT)......       1,000,000  ..............  ..............
    SIDI-Hybrid Direct Injection R&D................................       5,800,000  ..............  ..............
    Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites................           \1\ 0  ..............  ..............
    Lighting technology development projects........................         973,500  ..............  ..............
    Light Source Basic Research Projects............................       1,107,800        $165,200  ..............
    Advanced Gas Water Heaters......................................         301,000  ..............  ..............
    Dehumidification Characterization Research......................           \2\ 0  ..............  ..............
    Develop an Integrated Window/Wall system........................         400,000         399,755  ..............
    Sensor for Verification of Gas Fill Integrity of Windows........         140,000         199,000  ..............
    Whole Building Diagnostician....................................           \3\ 0  ..............  ..............
    Natural Gas Vehicle Engine R&D..................................       6,400,000       9,852,000  \4\ $2,300,000
    Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Program Troughs.................       2,278,000           2,070  ..............
    Resource Energy Managers (REMs).................................         381,320           \5\ 0           \5\ 0
    FRESA, WATERGY and Integrated Screening Software................         156,000          40,000          40,000
    Continuous Fiber Ceramic Composites.............................       1,740,800         540,000  ..............
    Methane de-NOX Reburning for Wastewood, Sludge, and Biomass              200,000         283,000  ..............
     Fired Stoker Boilers...........................................
    Direct Production of Silicones from Sand........................         600,000          10,000  ..............
    Residential Refrigerator Research...............................         110,000  ..............  ..............
    Automotive Aluminum Casting.....................................         620,000  ..............  ..............
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Fiscal year 2000 was last funding for project.
    \2\ Carryover from prior years funding ($219K) used.
    \3\ $200K Carryover used.
    \4\ Requested.
    \5\ Carryover funds not included.

        1. Wettable Ceramic-Based Drained Cathode Technology.--Alcoa will
    integrate the technology advances for the cathode with EERE-supported
    work on the advanced anode to significantly reduce the energy intensity
    of the electrolytic cell, which is used for the smelting process. Alcoa
    has acquired the intellectual property rights and can continue without
    DOE support.
        2. Committee on Energy Efficiency Commerce and Trade.--The
    Committee on Energy Efficiency Commerce and Trade (COEECT) is a 15
    member Federal working group established in 1993 whose function is to
    coordinate Federal export assistance to the U.S. energy efficiency
    industries. The Department had contracted with the Export Council for
    Energy Efficiency (ECEE) to provide industry input and identify market
    needs on behalf of COEECT. COEECT should now be closed and the Clean
    Energy Technology Exports initiative, currently in development under
    the NEP, should consider which COEECT activities may be worthy of
    future support.
        3. Hybrid Direct Injection R&D.--The Hybrid Direct Injection Engine
    R&D program focused on developing technology for direct injection
    gasoline engines (i.e. Spark Ignition Direct Injection (SIDI)). This
    engine technology has the potential to improve the fuel economy of
    conventional passenger cars by 10 to 15 percent. Most of the obstacles
    to commercialization of this technology are related to meeting future
    tailpipe emission standards and reducing the cost of the high-pressure
    fuel injection systems. Considerable progress was made on both fronts
    during the term (1999-2001) of the program. The technology is now
    believed to be close enough to commercial feasibility that the auto
    companies should undertake the remaining development work without
    Government support. The Program should be discontinued and all
    activities funded through this budget line cease.
        4. Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites.--Glass-fiber-
    reinforced polymer-matrix composites (PMCs) activities of the
    Automotive Lightweight Materials program demonstrated that large
    automotive structures probably could be manufactured out of fiber-
    reinforced PMCs in minutes at costs typical of the high-volume
    automotive industry, instead of the days and weeks typical of the
    aerospace, small-boat, and sporting goods industries. This activity is
    ripe for commercialization and should now end.
        5. Lighting technology development projects.--Developed under cost-
    shared competitive solici-tations, the development of solid-state
    ceramic lighting for ``signage'' will be completed during 2002 and be
    transferred to industry for further development and commercialization.
        6. Light Source Basic Research Projects.--Basic materials
    development on coatings for incandescent filaments and new phosphors
    for fluorescent fixtures is being completed during 2002 and the next
    phase of work is subject to private sector interest.
        7. Advanced Gas Water Heaters.--Research on condensing heat
    exchangers and absorption heat pumps to demonstrate the next discrete
    efficiency jumps available for gas water heating is being completed
    during 2002 and results transferred to industry for further development
    and commercialization. Continued low gas prices reduce likelihood of
    immediate development activity in private sector.
        8. Dehumidification Characterization Research.--Research to develop
    more accurate understanding of the energy performance implications of
    various dehumidification processes is being completed during 2002 and
    results transferred to industry, DOE and standards organizations for
    R&D planning and standards development purposes.
        9. Integrated Window/Wall Systems Development.--Through competitive
    solicitation, this heavily cost-shared project focuses on the
    development and evaluation of specific combinations of advanced windows
    and wall materials that could lead to energy efficient product
    offerings in residential construction. Work is being completed in 2002
    and transferred to industry for further development and
    commercialization.
        10. Sensor for Verification of Gas Fill Integrity in Insulated
    Windows.--Development work is being completed in 2002 and results
    transferred to industry and to market deployment efforts. Research on
    further improvements in technology is not viewed as critical to
    success.
        11. Whole Building Diagnostician.--A research project for a
    building operations optimization system is being completed in 2002 and
    has successfully demonstrated value in several research studies of
    buildings. Results will be made available for commercialization by
    private sector.
        12. Natural Gas Vehicle Engine R&D.--DOE and industry cost-shared
    partnerships over the last 8 years have resulted in over 20 certified
    heavy-duty engines that set new standards for low emissions and high
    performance using natural gas. There has not been, however, much
    success in the marketplace due to barriers to adoption of natural gas
    engine technologies and lack of refueling infrastructure. Given the
    limited technical opportunities for further performance improvements
    and significant market constraints, technology R&D should be
    terminated.
        13. Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Program.--CSP troughs were
    commercialized in the late 1980s in California and 354 MW of installed
    capacity have been operating since that time with ongoing technical
    assistance on issues such as improved O&M techniques. A recent NRC
    Report concluded that CSP troughs were not likely to be cost
    competitive in the United States in the foreseeable future. Based on
    this, the specific trough activity should be closed.
        14. Resource Energy Managers (REMs).--FEMP provided seed funding
    that resulted in successful REM programs in Washington and California.
    Since a number of Federal agencies are embracing this concept and will
    support this function directly, FEMP funding can be phased out.
        15. FRESA, WATERGY and Integrated Screening Software Tools.--FEMP
    will phase out support of these tools, as they did not rise high enough
    relative to other priorities to warrant further support.
        16. Continuous Fiber Ceramic Composites.--This program has been
    ongoing for ten years. Several applications have been commercialized,
    and materials codes and standards will be completed and adopted.
    Applications are limited by the relative costs of these materials
    compared to most metal applications, however. The program should be
    closed out with the remaining funds.
        17. Methane de-NOX Reburning Process for Wastewood,
    Sludge, and Biomass Fired Stoker Boilers.--Demonstrations of methane
    de-NOx technology in three paper mill biomass boilers have successfully
    proven that the technology will increase thermal efficiency and the use
    of biomass fuel while reducing emissions and natural gas consumption.
    This work can now be closed out.
        18. Direct Production of Silicones from Sand.--The direct
    conversion of silicon dioxide (sand or quartz) into silicone polymers
    would eliminate the energy-intensive silicon manufacturing step
    required in the conventional process. A team of researchers (including
    GE, Molecular Simulation, Inc., and OM Group Inc.) used advanced
    combinatorial chemistry technology to survey hundreds of catalysts that
    might enable direct or one-step conversion. Although the team did
    identify several inexpensive materials that appear to be suitable,
    closer study revealed that the direct synthetic route was not
    chemically feasible. Thus, this work can be closed out. Nonetheless,
    the fundamental understanding of making silicone was significantly
    advanced. Several patents will be filed.
        19. Residential Refrigerator Research.--Past research and
    regulatory efforts have reduced the energy use of new refrigerators by
    nearly a factor of four since 1975. Continuing research in areas such
    as improved insulation, more efficient motors, and general refrigerator
    cycle efficiency research is important for non-residential
    applications, but research specifically focused on conventional vapor-
    cycle residential refrigerators now has lower potential returns than
    work in other areas and should be discontinued.
        20. Automotive Aluminum Casting.--Aluminum casting activities of
    the Automotive Materials Technologies program have developed technology
    that, if implemented by industry, should be able to produce aluminum
    components that perform as well or better, cost the same or less, but
    weigh 40 percent less than steel components. These activities are
    drawing to a successful conclusion and can be stopped at the end of
    fiscal year 2002.
        An early focus of the ALM sub-program was development and
    validation of technologies to enable cost-effective casting of aluminum
    structures for automobiles. Major ALM aluminum-casting projects
    ``Design and Product Optimization for Cast Light Metals,'' ``Die
    Casting Die Life Extension'' and ``Rapid Prototyping of Casting Dies''
    concluded on or before fiscal year 2001, as did major projects ``Metal-
    Compression Forming'' and ``Ultra-Large Caster'' funded by the Office
    of Heavy Vehicle Technology's High Strength Weight Reduction program.
    The program is shifting to support longer term, higher risk work on
    issues of casting magnesium and metal-matrix composites. Major projects
    on casting of magnesium and of aluminum-matrix composites reinforced
    with ceramics were begun during or before fiscal year 2001 and have now
    been increased in fiscal year 2002.
                       president's management initiative
        Question. The President's Management Initiative directs agencies to
    review their personnel requirements with an eye towards reducing the
    inventory of Federal positions that are not inherently governmental.
    DOE has initiated a review of some 1,000 positions as part of this
    initiative, and is planning other reviews. However, several past
    studies of DOE programs have found that the Department requires greater
    in-house capability to manage the many contracts on which it already
    relies to execute its programs. How do you reconcile these two
    recommendations/directives?
        Answer. The competitive sourcing studies being undertaken by the
    Department are focused on administrative functions that are not
    directly associated with the oversight of contractors executing mission
    programs. Becoming more efficient in these administrative services will
    improve, rather than detract from, the Department's efforts to
    strengthen project and contract management capabilities of the Federal
    workforce. In our development of the FAIR Act inventory for 2002, we
    will provide guidance to DOE organizations on the need to reflect
    program, project, and contract management needs in decisions on which
    positions should be considered in planning any future studies.
                                recent successes
        Question. Can you provide us with a few examples of some of the
    successes that have come out of your Fossil Energy R&D programs in the
    last year? If possible, give us examples from a variety of areas.
        Answer. In the last year, the Fossil Energy program continued to
    add to its track record of producing technological advances that are
    helping to provide cleaner air, potential ``breakthroughs'' in
    greenhouse gas controls, new distributed energy options, and more
    energy from domestic sources. Some of the examples include:
      --A ``Solid'' Solution for Global Warming?--One of the possible
            ``breakthrough'' ideas for reducing the atmospheric buildup of
            carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is to capture the gas and
            sequester it. One way to store the gas could be to convert it
            into an environmentally safe solid form--a process called
            ``mineral carbonation.'' The basic chemical procedure is well
            known, but the major obstacle has been to reduce the time
            required for the solid carbonate to form (in nature, the
            process can take thousands of years). In 2001-2002, scientists
            at DOE's Albany Research Center made a major advance by
            reducing processing times from six days to just over 30
            minutes--a length of time that makes the process reasonable for
            an industrial operation. The next step is to reduce the energy
            requirements to make the carbonation process economically
            feasible.
      --Using CO2 to ``Wash'' Landfill Gas.--Americans dispose
            of more than 100 million tons of garbage in landfills each
            year. As the garbage decomposes, it releases gases such as
            methane and carbon dioxide that can contribute to the
            greenhouse effect. In late 2001, a DOE-sponsored project showed
            how the carbon dioxide can be captured and used to ``wash''
            pollutant-forming impurities from the methane. The result is
            clean landfill natural gas that can be used as a fuel, along
            with a concentrated stream of carbon dioxide that can be used
            for such commercial applications as making dry ice, carbonating
            beverages, or stimulating plant growth in commercial
            greenhouses. Acrion Technologies Inc., a small business,
            developed the process with DOE support, and in December 2001,
            the company showcased the technology at the New Jersey
            EcoComplex.
      --The Fuel Cell that ``Keeps on Ticking''.--An all-solid-state fuel
            cell developed in DOE's stationary power fuel cell program
            achieved a world record for operations in 2001. The fuel cell--
            a 100-kilowatt solid oxide fuel cell developed by Siemens
            Westinghouse Power Corporation--first started up in 1997 at a
            power plant in the Netherlands. Three years later, the unit had
            accumulated 16,612 hours of operation--proving that the
            revolutionary concept of an all-ceramic fuel cell will be
            rugged and reliable enough for future commercial power
            generation. In August 2001, Siemens Westinghouse moved the fuel
            cell to a power plant in Essen, Germany and restarted it. The
            unit came back to life with no problems and continues to
            generate power and valuable data on the longevity of advanced
            solid oxide fuel cells.
        Question. Can you provide us with a few examples of some of the
    successes that have come out of your Energy Conservation R&D programs
    in the last year? If possible, give us examples from a variety of
    areas.
        Answer. The Interior-funded programs within EERE have realized a
    number of successes in the past year, including:
        Advanced Turbine Systems.--This research began in 1992 and has led
    to the successful demonstration of a gas turbine, the 4 MW Mercury 50,
    with an efficiency of about 38 percent and with low NOX
    emissions (<10 ppm). This is substantially higher performance than the
    original goal set for this program of about 33 percent efficiency at 22
    ppm NOX, and a dramatic improvement from the previous
    industry best of 29 percent efficiency at 25+ppm NOX. This
    turbine is in final test and commercial units are expected next year.
    This work also resulted in the development of advanced ceramic-
    combustor liners, and other advances.
        Hybrid Vehicles Based on DOE-Supported Research.--All three U.S.
    automakers have announced plans to produce hybrid vehicles in the 2003-
    2005 timeframe that incorporate and draw upon Office of Advanced
    Automotive Technologies-funded research. The DaimlerChrysler Durango,
    Ford Escape, and General Motors Silverado will have hybrid models
    available in the 2003-2005 timeframe. These models draw on DOE-funded
    research. For example, the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium research
    has increased the life of lithium ion batteries from 2 to 7 years for
    hybrid-electric vehicle drives. Successful integration of advanced
    lithium-based batteries into hybrid and electric vehicles is critical
    to transforming prototypes into production vehicles. If the battery
    cannot consistently meet minimum performance standards by delivering
    sufficient energy and power, the vehicle will not perform well in
    acceleration or range tests. The battery also must be able to be
    produced in large volumes.
        Graphic Foam/Advanced Materials.--The Oak Ridge National Laboratory
    developed and patented a novel high-thermal-conductivity graphite foam.
    This technique produces a lightweight foam with high bulk thermal
    conductivity up to 180 W/mK (watts per meter Kelvin) and an open porous
    structure. The cell walls are made of oriented graphitic planes and
    exhibit thermal conductivity of greater than 1700 W/mK (copper conducts
    400 W/mK). This material shows promise for improving energy efficiency
    while reducing weight in applications ranging from heat sinks and
    radiators for automotive applications to leading edges for aerospace
    vehicles, and for thermal signature and other heat management solutions
    for the Department of Defense.
        DOE-Supported Materials Research Appear in New Models and
    Prototypes.--Aluminum for door, deck and hood panels for Cadillac,
    Oldsmobile, and Chevrolet vehicles utilize a production process
    developed through research supported by DOE. The 2001 Chevrolet
    Silverado pickup has a 50 pounds lighter composite pickup truck box. In
    2001, the Jeep Wrangler had a new, lighter, recyclable thermoplastic
    hardtop. The aluminum body structure on the Prodigy is 53 percent
    lighter than a conventional steel design, and the process used on the
    Prodigy is applicable to high volume production. In DaimlerChrysler's
    prototype ESX3 vehicle, the unique thermoplastic injection molded body
    system is estimated to reduce weight by 46 percent and cost by 15
    percent versus conventional steel structures.
        Removing Particulate Matter from Diesel Emissions.--Oak Ridge
    National Laboratory, Microwave Materials Technologies, Inc., and
    Industrial Ceramic Solutions developed and demonstrated under simulated
    driving conditions a special silicon-carbide fiber that can be formed
    to trap particulate matter (PM) and efficiently convert microwave
    energy to heat energy for regeneration. This microwave-regenerated
    filter system will permit vehicles to meet the Environmental Protection
    Agency 2007 Tier 2 standards for diesel engine PM emissions.
        In another research project, DOE-funded researchers demonstrated
    that, under certain conditions, advanced diesel fuel formulations can
    achieve PM emission reductions of up to 35 percent without compromising
    fuel efficiency or raising oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
    emissions.
        Federal Energy Management Program.--In the last year, the Federal
    Energy Management program began implementation of the President's May
    3, 2001 directive to agencies to conserve energy by publishing
    published a recommended action plan for agencies, collecting proposed
    actions from all agencies and producing a report for the President
    summarizing these actions. FEMP created ALERT teams to assess the peak
    load situation of some of the largest Federal facilities in constrained
    areas--most notably, California. These teams recommended a variety of
    low or no cost actions that could reduce the Federal peak load.
        FEMP's Super Energy Savings Performance Contracting (Super ESPC)
    program achieved over $120 million in delivery orders in fiscal year
    2001, achieving the program goal and almost doubling the prior year's
    delivery order volume. All ESPC delivery orders have a positive net
    present value. That is, appropriately discounted, the net cash flow to
    the government (energy cost savings minus payment to the contractor
    over the life of the delivery orders) is positive. In addition to being
    cost-effective investments, ESPCs save energy.
    (a) Total federal ESPC project investment awarded through fiscal year
            2001
        Approximately $1 billion dollars ($1.0093 billion), all of which is
    a net benefit to the government since these federal building
    improvements come at no up front cost.
    (b) Guaranteed annual energy-related cost savings associated with (a)
            above
        Approximately $125 million per year ($125.2 million estimated),
    essentially all of which is paid out to the contractor during the term
    of the contract for debt service and services such as maintenance,
    repair and replacement of equipment.
    (c) Site Btu per year savings associated with (a) above
        Approximately 7.1 trillion site Btu saved per year (equivalent to
    27 percent of the site energy consumed by the Department of Veterans
    Affairs in fiscal year 1999, or enough energy to supply the annual
    requirements of 68,000 U.S. households).
                                  energy bill
        Question. The Senate is currently debating a rather considerable
    energy bill. Based on what you know about the Senate bill, are there
    things in it that would dramatically alter the focus or direction of
    the Energy Efficiency or Fossil research programs?
        Answer. While the Senate energy bill includes provisions that would
    affect the Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy research programs,
    nothing in the bill would dramatically change the focus or direction of
    these programs or dramatically expand or constrain existing authority.
    In the case of the Energy Efficiency (EE) research program, the Senate
    energy bill does not change the authority EE has pursuant to Energy
    Policy Act of 1992 to engage in a broad and diverse portfolio of R&D
    activities related to energy efficiency and renewable energy. In the
    case of the Fossil Energy (FE) research program, Congress has
    appropriated funds that are used to implement the President's National
    Energy Policy goals concerning domestic natural resources. Although the
    Senate energy bill could determine boundaries for FE activities on a
    geographic scale (e.g., ANWR) or within a regulatory mandate (e.g.,
    emissions control), it would not alter the general focus of FE
    programs. FE programs will continue to enhance U.S. economic and energy
    security by (1) managing and performing energy-related research; (2)
    ensuring that FE technology is utilized in the market; (3) operating
    our nation's petroleum reserves; and (4) supporting the development of
    information and policy options that benefit the American public.
                          building technology research
        Question. The request for Technology Roadmaps and Competitive R&D
    is $2.357 million, a large reduction from the $6.857 million
    appropriated in fiscal year 2002. The budget justification further
    indicates that 9 new projects were initiated in fiscal year 2001 and 6
    new projects were initiated in fiscal year 2002, and that ``[fiscal
    year 2003] funding will allow follow-through on the expectations of
    several hundred industry partner-participants in BTS road maps''. What
    will be the impact of the proposed reductions on the 6 new projects
    initiated in fiscal year 2002?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2003 funding request level for Technology
    Roadmaps and Competitive R&D will have no impact on the new projects
    initiated in fiscal year 2002. These projects will be fully funded from
    fiscal year 2002 appropriations and will not require any fiscal year
    2003 funds.
        The fiscal year 2003 budget request will support the roadmapping
    process from the development phase to implementation within the Federal
    research programs. This will mean maintaining the roadmaps in a
    dialogue with industry partners and sharpening the focus of the Federal
    role as was done in fiscal year 2002 to clarify the research needs for
    lighting technology and specifically address the potential for solid
    state lighting. The Department and its research partners and
    participants expect that such a continuing dialogue will facilitate
    effective implementation of buildings-related research priorities. DOE
    will determine participation in this roadmap by applying the
    Administration's Research and Development Investment Criteria,
    emphasizing the Federal role of conducting pre-competitive research
    that broadly benefits an entire industry and clearly supports the
    National Energy Policy and Administration priorities.
        Question. On other previously initiated projects?
        Answer. Under Technology Roadmaps and Competitive R&D, a total of
    29 projects were initiated from fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year
    2001. Sixteen of these projects have been completed or are being
    completed in fiscal year 2002 and thus need no fiscal year 2003
    funding. The funds requested in fiscal year 2003 will be used to
    support the remaining 13 previously initiated projects, as warranted
    based on their on-going performance.
        Question. Does this truly meet the expectations of the ``partner-
    participants''?
        Answer. These road maps provide a broad guide to future public and
    private sector research in the buildings area. DOE's partners and
    participants expect DOE to work from these partnership road maps in
    designing the public aspects of research in these priority areas. DOE's
    partners and participants also expect DOE to conduct the R&D program
    using open competition and peer review.
        DOE has responded, not only by conducting broad solicitations under
    Technology Roadmaps and Competitive R&D for three years, but also by
    increasing the level of competition in the end-use targeted R&D
    programs in Buildings Research and Standards. In 2003, DOE will
    emphasize the revising and updating of the roadmaps, in cooperation
    with industry, to better target its R&D programs in future
    competitions. At the same time, DOE will focus its competitive efforts
    within the road map in targeted end-use areas, rather than through
    broad solicitations covering all building technologies.
        DOE will determine participation in this roadmap by applying the
    Administration's Research and Development Investment Criteria,
    emphasizing the Federal role of conducting pre-competitive research
    that broadly benefits an entire industry and clearly supports the
    National Energy Policy and Administration priorities.
        Question. What funding level would be required to continue ongoing
    projects in the manner originally envisioned?
        Answer. There are 13 previously initiated projects within
    Technology Roadmaps and Competitive R&D which could be continued into
    fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year 2003 request level will fully support
    those projects that warrant continuation and that will return the most
    public benefit for the taxpayers investment.
        Question. Is the funding level requested sufficient to closeout
    these projects in an orderly fashion while extracting some benefit for
    the Federal investment to date?
        Answer. All projects initiated under Technology Roadmaps and
    Competitive R&D longer than 18 months duration are subdivided into
    phases. DOE commits funding for only one phase at a time. At the end of
    each phase, DOE conducts an intensive, formal project review to decide
    on funding the next phase. Phases are designed so that a useful product
    is available at the end of each phase. This arrangement insures that
    projects can be closed out in an orderly fashion without any closeout
    costs and that useful results are produced by every project to the
    greatest extent.
                               lighting research
        Question. The request includes an increase of $1.5 million for
    lighting R&D, with an increased focus on solid-state lighting.
    Approximately how much of the request would be devoted to solid-state
    lighting efforts?
        Answer. $2.45 million (35 percent of the Lighting R&D budget) will
    be devoted to solid state lighting.
        Question. Would funds be used for a new solicitation or
    competition? Used in-house? Used to support ongoing work?
        Answer. Over one-half of the portfolio of projects is
    competitively-selected and cost-shared with large and small entities
    from industry, academia, and research institutions. Additional funds
    would be placed on these ongoing projects in the research areas of
    light sources (conventional and solid state), distribution, and
    controls. A continuing level of core research will continue at Lawrence
    Berkeley National Laboratory, but we intend to award as many contracts
    as possible via competitive solicitation, in alignment with the
    Administration's R&D Investment Criteria.
        Question. The current draft of the Senate energy bill authorizes a
    highly ambitious solid-state lighting research program. What is DOE's
    long-term program plan for these research efforts? What size research
    program might this become in future years? What are the barriers to
    market entry faced by this technology?
        Answer. DOE has held five workshops which included the general
    lighting industry, compound semi-conductor industry, universities,
    research institutions, and national labs. The workshops produced a
    solid state lighting research agenda that includes both light emitting
    diodes (LEDs) and organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs). The workshop
    results point to research needs in areas such as substrate materials,
    light extraction, and photon conversion materials. This research could
    provide the scientific knowledge which would form the foundation for
    the development of solid state lighting products. As the technology is
    constantly evolving, further workshops for LEDs and OLEDs are planned
    this year to update the research plan, and to discuss the appropriate
    Federal role and the process for undertaking future cooperative
    research.
        When the fiscal year 2003 budget was developed, the planning for
    the solid state lighting initiative was in progress; thus the
    initiative details were not sufficiently developed in time for the
    initiative to be considered for the fiscal year 2003 budget. The
    Department is currently funding three competitively selected solid-
    state lighting research projects. We do not know the level of funds
    needed to fully develop this technology. DOE will determine its
    participation in this initiative by applying the Administration's
    Research and Development Investment Criteria, emphasizing R&D
    activities that have a clear Federal role (pre-competitive research
    that broadly benefits an entire industry, clear public benefits), and
    are performing well and making progress toward milestones, and clearly
    support the National Energy Policy and Administration priorities.
                    space conditioning and refrigeration r&d
        Question. The justification describes a $2.7 million reduction for
    space conditioning and refrigeration R&D programs, but notes that there
    will be a new solicitation for space conditioning technology. What
    ongoing activities will be completed, terminated or reduced due to this
    reduction?
        Answer. As in the envelope area, many of the technologies in these
    areas are well developed and several are ready to be ``graduated'' to
    the private sector. For example, we are in the process of field testing
    a prototype heat pump water heater and pursuing a procurement project
    for an efficient roof top air conditioner. In these cases, we are able
    to focus more limited resources on providing research results to
    consumers and builders.
        We are also balancing our R&D activities with our standards
    activities. In the area of space conditioning, for example, we have
    recently completed the standards for residential central air
    conditioners, which will raise the minimum efficiency of units in the
    market place. We are also beginning to work on standards for commercial
    unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (roof top air conditioners).
        The fiscal year 2003 budget request does not continue the American
    Refrigeration Technology Institute (ARTI) research, which has not
    resulted in the development of technologies that significantly improve
    energy efficiency of space cooling and refrigeration products and
    industry cost sharing has been below expectations.
        Question. How much will be devoted to the new solicitation
    described in the justification?
        Answer. Funds available for a new solicitation will be determined
    following review of the status of the technical progress and potential
    contribution of ongoing, competitively awarded projects. Distribution
    systems and improved system integration offer the largest opportunities
    for additional energy savings and would likely be a significant part of
    a competitive solicitation in fiscal year 2003.
                             building envelope r&d
        Question. A significant reduction is requested in Building Envelope
    R&D. Will the reduction hamper or scale back the projects selected in
    the competitive solicitations issued in fiscal year 2001 or fiscal year
    2002?
        Answer. No.
        Question. What amount of funding would be required to continue
    these projects as originally contemplated?
        Answer. Under Building Envelope R&D, a total of 9 projects were
    initiated in fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2001 through broad,
    competitive solicitations. Six of these projects could be continued in
    fiscal year 2003. Assuming that all 6 of these projects show sufficient
    technical progress to warrant continuation, taking them to completion
    as originally scheduled would require fiscal year 2003 appropriations
    for Building Envelope R&D of $1.2 million, equivalent to our budget
    request.
                          lighting appliance standards
        Question. Please provide for the record a timeline for the various
    rulemakings completed in fiscal year 2002, currently underway, or
    proposed to be initiated in fiscal year 2003.
        Answer. DOE has four current standard rulemakings underway:
    Residential Central Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps, Residential
    Furnace and Boilers, Commercial Unitary Air Conditioning and Heat
    Pumps, and Distribution Transformers. DOE is undergoing a
    prioritization process to identify additional products which have
    substantial energy savings potential and might be good candidates for
    inclusion in the existing appliance standards program and/or voluntary
    programs. DOE will consider beginning in fiscal year 2002 or fiscal
    year 2003 rulemakings for product(s) identified in this prioritization
    process. DOE also has rulemakings underway for test procedures for
    Dishwashers (sensors), Distribution Transformers, Residential Central
    Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps, and Commercial HVAC and Water Heater
    Equipment. The Test Procedure for Dishwashers (non-sensing) was
    published in fiscal year 2002. See the table below.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                                                           -------------------------
                Standards rulemaking                               Status                    Initiation    Planned
                                                                                                year      completion
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Res. CAC/HP.................................  Developing Final Rule...................         1999         2002
    Res. Furn./Boiler...........................  Preparing ANOPR.........................         2001         2004
    Comm. Unit. AC/HP...........................  Preparing ANOPR.........................         2002         2004
    Dist. Transformers..........................  Preparing ANOPR.........................         2001         2004
    Identifying Potential New Products            Reviewing Analysis......................      ( \1\ )     ( \1\ )
     (Prioritization Proc.).
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ To be determined.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                                                           -------------------------
             Test procedures rulemaking                            Status                    Initiation    Planned
                                                                                                year      completion
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dishwasher (nonsensing).....................  Final Rule Published....................         1999         2002
    Dishwasher (sens.)..........................  Publishing NOPR.........................         1999         2002
    Dist. Transformers..........................  Reopening Comment Period................         1999         2002
    Res. CAC/HP.................................  Drafting Final Rule.....................         2001         2002
    Comm. HVAC..................................  Reopening Comment Period................         2000         2002
    Comm Wtr. Htr...............................  Reopening Comment Period................         2000         2002
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               equipment, materials and tools--management support
        Question. The justification indicates an increase of $1 million for
    technical/program management support but provides little information as
    to why this increase is being requested. Why is this increase
    necessary?
        Answer. Although it is intended to provide technical expertise to
    enable all the program in Equipment, Materials and Tools, the
    Technical/Program Management element almost entirely supports the
    Appliance Standards program by providing resources for essential
    technical analyses supporting the appliance standards rulemaking
    process. These analyses are needed to ensure that standards are
    technically feasible and economically justified. As shown on page 206
    of the budget request, the fiscal year 2003 request for Appliance
    Standards ($9,197,000) and Technical/Program Management ($2,200,000),
    which totals $11,397,000, is linked to the level of work anticipated to
    meet the expectations of the National Energy Policy, such as rulemaking
    and test procedures. The needed level of effort is comparable to the
    fiscal year 2001 overall program level for Appliance Standards
    ($9,195,000) and Technical/Program Management ($2,265,000) which
    totaled $11,430,000.
                    weatherization and state energy programs
        Question. The President's campaign materials stated that he would
    ``Reform and double the funding for the Weatherization Program and
    State Energy Program.'' While the request includes a substantial
    increase for Weatherization, the amount requested for the State Energy
    Program is a reduction of $6.2 million. Has the Administration's view
    of the State Energy Program changed due to more detailed evaluation of
    the program or broader budget circumstances? Or should the original
    campaign commitment be read to endorse a doubling of WAP and SECP
    collectively?
        Answer. The President's campaign materials commit to ``increase
    spending for Weatherization programs by $1.4 billion over 10 years,''
    which will approximately double funding for that program. The
    commitment to the State Energy Program is to reform it. DOE is
    currently working with the states on SEP reform.
        The Administration considers both programs important and
    appreciates their ability to leverage federal funds and transfer energy
    efficiency technologies to the State and local level. The request for
    the State Energy Program in fiscal year 2003 represents an increase of
    $0.8 million over our fiscal year 2002 request of $38 million. We are
    seeking to develop our relationships with states so they become true
    partners and not just grant recipients.
        Question. With regard to ``reform'' of the Weatherization
    Assistance Program, has the Administration considered whether a cost-
    share requirement of some sort would be appropriate in order to
    leverage the Federal commitment to WAP?
        Answer. Overall, the Weatherization network leverages more than 25
    percent cost sharing. In 2000, States leveraged almost $75M in non-
    Federal resources, and DOE estimates that local agencies leveraged an
    additional $55M. States continue to leverage funds through a variety of
    sources, including utility restructuring and systems benefits funds, to
    supplement their weatherization programs. For instance, in
    Massachusetts combined funding for electric and gas utility programs
    was about $20 million for 2000. The recent energy crisis has escalated
    States leveraging efforts to identify non-Federal resources to help
    provide weatherization services to more low-income households.
    Currently, more than $100 million is leveraged voluntarily in 43
    states, representing leverage of more than 70 percent of current
    appropriations levels. The current leveraging gains have required no
    State or Federal administrative or any additional reporting
    requirements for private funds. A cost share requirement may involve
    onerous reporting and accounting by the States and local agencies.
    Moreover, some States would not be able to afford to participate.
        DOE is constantly working with both State and local agencies to
    attract and secure non-Federal resources. In 2002, DOE is committed to
    pursuing opportunities to leverage by targeting rapid-growth States
    that have traditionally had few or no partnerships with utilities or
    other non-Federal sources with their weatherization programs.
        Question. Is the Administration supportive of this concept? What
    would be the impacts of a cost-share requirement on program delivery?
        Answer. The Department does not support a cost share or match
    requirement for the Weatherization Assistance Program because there
    would be some States that would not be able to participate and
    therefore the Program would lose its status as a national program. The
    concern is a cost share that is required of each State. Some States
    have had great success in obtaining non-Federal resources to supplement
    their programs, while other States have had little or no success. The
    variance is from one State to another and in certain instances from one
    year to the next, depending on the agreement between the contributor
    and the availability of funds. In some States, there is only the
    availability of DOE funds to administer the Program.
        A 25 percent State cost share requirement is inequitable. Many
    States have appropriated funds and/or have leveraged funds from private
    sources. However, a number of states, particularly those with large
    low-income populations, have enjoyed little success in leveraging non-
    Federal resources into their programs that could be used as a cost
    share, and would be the most likely to not qualify for Federal funds. A
    formal cost share requirement for States may result in a net loss of
    funds for weatherization as a number of States and native American
    Indian Tribes who receive direct funding from DOE, would not qualify
    for the program. Those States unable to meet a full cost share would
    receive fewer DOE funds which could result in withdrawal of voluntary
    contributions by states, utilities, and other private sources.
        In sum, a cost share requirement would have a deleterious effect on
    program delivery in many States, leaving some States unable to
    weatherize any homes at all, and others having to reduce the number of
    homes served. This would of course mean lay-offs of weatherization
    workers in those States. Furthermore, because the availability of
    matching funds could vary dramatically from year to year, the network
    of weatherization agencies would suffer from unstable funding, and the
    maintenance of a skilled weatherization workforce would be jeopardized.
        Question. The Committee approved an fiscal year 2002 reprogramming
    for national and regional training and technical assistance. Does the
    Department feel that its request of $4.095 million for this purposes in
    fiscal year 2003 is still appropriate based on the overall level
    requested for WAP?
        Answer. The Energy Conservation in Existing Buildings Act of 1976,
    42 U.S.C. 6861 et. seq., enacted as Title IV, Part A, of the Energy
    Conservation and Production Act, Public Law 94-385, Section 416,
    permits DOE to use an amount not to exceed 10 percent of the annual
    appropriations to conduct training and technical assistance activities
    to ensure program effectiveness and assist States' ability to deliver
    services to low-income persons.
        Historically, DOE has allocated approximately 8.5 percent to the
    States, to conduct training and technical activities supporting their
    weatherization programs locally. DOE has used the other 1.5 percent to
    fund numerous national and regional training and technical assistance
    activities which help support the States and can be done more cost-
    effectively by DOE. States look to DOE to augment their efforts to
    provide expanded project support, services and other deliverables that
    States require to assist them to attain their program goals to deliver
    more cost-effective, energy efficiency services to low-income
    Americans.
        The $4.095 million requested, which is about 1.5 percent of the
    total fiscal year 2003 request, is the appropriate amount for DOE to
    use for national and regional activities supporting State
    weatherization work in fiscal year 2003.
        Question. Between the State Energy Program and the SEP Special
    Projects, the Department performs a great deal of cooperative work with
    states. To what extent does the Department also perform cooperative
    work on a regional basis in cases where there are common regional
    interests, and where regional efforts might be more efficient? Please
    provide some examples of such work.
        Answer. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    Programs has six Regional Offices that serve to assist States both
    individually and regionally. These Offices serve as a catalyst in
    promoting regional cooperation and regional interests. Through
    regionally hosted meetings, States are able to explore opportunities to
    address regional approaches to common interests. Often these meetings
    and discussions lead to multi-state efforts which lead to joint
    proposals under the SEP Special Projects. Regional Offices are also
    involved in regional initiatives created by other organizations.
        The Denver Regional Office, for example, is actively involved in
    the Western Governors' Association, the Western Interstate Energy Board
    and the Western Regional Air Partnership, collaborating to develop a
    strategy for the regional haze issue. That office also has for years
    supported a regional association of state Weatherization managers, to
    conduct peer exchanges and training. Currently, these services are
    provided by the State of Montana, with DOE funding, on behalf of the
    entire region.
        Another example is a multi-state collaboration known as the Energy
    Services Coalition, currently involving 20 states that are promoting
    the use of performance contracting for energy efficiency work. The
    coalition is funded by Rebuild America.
        Regional efforts relating to the Clean Cities program have also
    produced regionally focused projects such as the promotion of
    alternative fuel vehicles at all of the airports serving the Washington
    D.C. region. Other examples include regional infrastructure development
    along major interstate corridors, and development of a comprehensive
    plan to market renewable resources in the Mid-Atlantic Region.
        Question. Does the structure of relevant DOE programs limit the
    Department's ability to perform work on a regional basis?
        Answer. The Department's six Regional Offices play an integral role
    in promoting regional approaches, coordination of common State goals,
    and working with a number of programs in the Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE).
        While the Regional Offices are an invaluable resources in
    coordinating and facilitating regional efforts, adjustments within the
    structure of efficiency and renewable programs could likely also
    improve the Department's ability to perform work on a regional basis.
    Improved coordination of grants functions, for instance, could
    streamline federal assistance in these areas.
        Question. Do relevant regulations or statutes limit such activities
    in any way?
        Answer. Although existing regulations and statutes emphasize States
    and provide funding specifically for the States, there are no
    prohibitions relating to regional approaches to common objectives, and
    States may utilize available funding to conduct regional approaches.
        Question. Please provide for the record a table showing the amount
    of SEP funds received by each state for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal
    year 2002, and the projected amount based on the fiscal year 2003
    request.
        Answer. See the table below.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------
                        State/Territory                                                             2003 SEP formula
                                                              2001 SEP formula   2002 SEP formula      allocation
                                                                distribution       distribution       (estimated)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama................................................           $604,000           $726,000           $616,000
    Alaska.................................................            292,000            353,000            298,000
    Arizona................................................            537,000            651,000            554,000
    Arkansas...............................................            462,000            558,000            479,000
    California.............................................          2,496,000          3,024,000          2,570,000
    Colorado...............................................            581,000            683,000            594,000
    Connecticut............................................            553,000            641,000            564,000
    Delaware...............................................            260,000            313,000            266,000
    District of Columbia...................................            246,000            295,000            252,000
    Florida................................................          1,283,000          1,552,000          1,324,000
    Georgia................................................            833,000          1,012,000            861,000
    Hawaii.................................................            271,000            326,000            277,000
    Idaho..................................................            303,000            366,000            310,000
    Illinois...............................................          1,570,000          1,796,000          1,590,000
    Indiana................................................            907,000          1,060,000            924,000
    Iowa...................................................            537,000            625,000            545,000
    Kansas.................................................            484,000            570,000            492,000
    Kentucky...............................................            620,000            735,000            632,000
    Louisiana..............................................            760,000            897,000            754,000
    Maine..................................................            346,000            407,000            351,000
    Maryland...............................................            694,000            808,000            706,000
    Massachusetts..........................................            847,000            974,000            861,000
    Michigan...............................................          1,332,000          1,525,000          1,347,000
    Minnesota..............................................            800,000            916,000            811,000
    Mississippi............................................            441,000            535,000            454,000
    Missouri...............................................            747,000            872,000            760,000
    Montana................................................            284,000            342,000            292,000
    Nebraska...............................................            370,000            437,000            376,000
    Nevada.................................................            321,000            394,000            331,000
    New Hampshire..........................................            320,000            379,000            327,000
    New Jersey.............................................          1,088,000          1,253,000          1,104,000
    New Mexico.............................................            345,000            414,000            352,000
    New York...............................................          2,151,000          2,448,000          2,191,000
    North Carolina.........................................            854,000          1,016,000            873,000
    North Dakota...........................................            270,000            324,000            276,000
    Ohio...................................................          1,491,000          1,728,000          1,517,000
    Oklahoma...............................................            535,000            632,000            544,000
    Oregon.................................................            496,000            587,000            504,000
    Pennsylvania...........................................          1,508,000          1,722,000          1,521,000
    Rhode Island...........................................            297,000            352,000            304,000
    South Carolina.........................................            534,000            640,000            545,000
    South Dakota...........................................            262,000            314,000            268,000
    Tennessee..............................................            720,000            851,000            733,000
    Texas..................................................          2,182,000          2,653,000          2,233,000
    Utah...................................................            376,000            450,000            384,000
    Vermont................................................            261,000            309,000            266,000
    Virginia...............................................            837,000            988,000            856,000
    Washington.............................................            689,000            830,000            706,000
    West Virginia..........................................            420,000            489,000            424,000
    Wisconsin..............................................            834,000            956,000            844,000
    Wyoming................................................            253,000            307,000            259,000
    American Samoa.........................................            189,000            230,000            194,000
    Guam...................................................            197,000            239,000            202,000
    Northern Marianas......................................            188,000            229,000            193,000
    Puerto Rico............................................            467,000            547,000            474,000
    Virgin Islands.........................................            205,000            255,000            213,000
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------
          Total............................................         37,750,000         44,535,000         38,498,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        federal energy management--femp
        Question. The FEMP program has an impressive track record of
    enabling reductions in Federal energy usage, with preliminary data
    showing that the 20 percent square footage reduction set in EPACT for
    the year 2000 will be exceeded. Can the Department say how much of this
    reduction is due to efficiency improvements in occupied Federal space
    as opposed to improvements owing to abandonment or sale of Federally
    owned or leased space in favor of more energy-efficient space? In other
    words, how much of what once was energy-inefficient Federal building
    stock is still in use, but under non-Federal ownership or occupancy?
        Answer. The 23.6 percent annual reduction in BTUs/Gross Square Foot
    by Federal buildings from 1985 to 2000 was affected by turnover in
    building stock, energy efficiency projects, acquisition of energy
    efficiency products, weather patterns, fuel mix, and other factors. We
    do not collect data on the 500,000 buildings that have gone in and out
    of the Federal Government's building inventory over the last 15 years,
    but we do have information on energy consumption. While gross square
    footage has increased slightly from 3,034.9 to 3,061.7 million square
    feet, energy consumption has declined from 139 to 106 trillion BTUs/
    Gross Square Foot annually. We estimate that one-fourth (27 trillion
    BTUs annually) of the 23.6 percent reduction resulted from the $3,829
    million investment in Federal energy projects between 1985 and 2000).

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Gross square
                                                                        feet (GSF)     BTUs Per Year
                                                                         (million     (in trillions)     BTUs/GSF
                                                                       square feet)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1985............................................................         3,034.9           422.3           139.1
    2000............................................................         3,061.7           325.4           106.3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Page 291 and 292 of the Department's budget justification
    indicate identical totals for recoveries from other Federal agencies
    for FYs 2001, 2002 and 2003. Are these entries redundant, or should the
    two totals be added to calculate total recoveries for the FEMP program
    (i.e. $1.6 million for fiscal year 2003)?
        Answer. These entries are redundant.
        Question. How many limited appointment personnel are currently
    being supported from recovered funds? Of the total funds collected to
    date, how much has been obligated?
        Answer. Currently, FEMP is supporting one limited appointment
    position in DOE's Golden Field Office with recovered funds. FEMP is in
    the process of hiring five limited appointment personnel to work on
    regional alternative financing issues. To date, $1.5 million of total
    collected funds have been obligated.
                       industries of the future--specific
        Question. The Administration has requested substantial resources
    for bioenergy initiatives, but the investments are predominantly in the
    biofuels and biopower area rather than bioproducts. What is the
    rationale for this funding allocation?
        Answer. Biofuels and biopower represent the most direct and the
    largest opportunities for biomass technologies to reduce U.S.
    dependence on foreign sources of energy and increase domestic energy
    supply. Simultaneously, development of these technologies will help to
    boost economic development in domestic industries and rural areas of
    the United States. Demand for ethanol has increased substantially in
    recent years in response to Clean Air Act requirements. Demand is
    expected to increase at an even greater pace as California, New York
    and Connecticut phase out MTBE. Research in biofuels will help develop
    the conversion and distribution systems to meet future demand.
        The DOE fiscal year 2003 request is aligned with the goals
    identified in the President's National Energy Policy. The NEP
    recognizes the tremendous potential for ethanol as an alternative
    transportation fuel. It also recognizes the opportunities for biomass-
    generated electric power. The Strategic Program Review identifies the
    opportunity for the redirection of funds from various terminations and
    formerly earmarked projects to biobased products in the biomass program
    portfolio. It is understood that such R&D can create high value
    products that will support development of other components of an
    integrated biomass industry.
        In addition to research in biofuels and biopower, DOE is continuing
    to support high impact cost shared research in the area of bioproducts.
    The Agriculture IOF Biobased Products program is relatively new with
    initial funding in 1999. It is focused on replacing the predominantly
    petroleum based feedstocks used in the chemical industry with renewable
    biomass feedstocks utilizing advanced technology with more energy
    efficient processing. We believe the current balance is adequate
    considering the maturity of this program and the ability to leverage
    enabling biobased technology development in the EWD bioenergy and
    biorefinery programs. It should be noted that funding for bioproducts
    is also requested through the Interior Appropriations.
        Question. Is the $8.3 million requested for the Agriculture Vision
    sufficient to run an R&D solicitation, or will the funding only be used
    for educational grants?
        Answer. The current budget request is sufficient to run the
    excellent portfolio of Agriculture IOF program R&D projects. There will
    be an R&D solicitation issued very shortly, utilizing funding from E&W
    that will encompass some research on biobased products, in conjunction
    with biorefineries, to produce some combination of fuels, power and
    bioproducts. This should further enhance DOE's portfolio of research on
    biobased products. There will not be a separate research solicitation
    specifically addressing the Agriculture IOF Vision and Roadmap issued
    by OIT in fiscal year 2003. OIT will issue a solicitation to expand the
    Agriculture IOF Education Initiative targeted at catalyzing multi-
    disciplinary graduate school curriculum and accompanying research in
    biobased products and bioenergy.
        Question. Is the funding requested sufficient to finance projects
    already selected?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2003 budget request is sufficient to fund
    all of the current active multi-year Agriculture R&D projects. As
    always, project performance and achievement of milestones will effect
    project schedules down selection.
        Question. What would the Department require to implement an R&D
    solicitation in fiscal year 2003?
        Answer. We believe the current funding is sufficient to meet the
    objectives of the Agriculture IOF Vision and Roadmap. A change in
    priorities would be required to implement an R & D solicitation in
    fiscal year 2003.
        Question. $1.2 million is requested for Sustainable Forestry
    activities within the Forest Products program. What distinguishes the
    type of research conducted within this activity from work being done by
    the Forest Service or within the Department of Agriculture?
        Answer. The sustainable forestry area of the forest and paper
    vision program focuses on modifying wood fibers to improve the
    efficiency of the manufacturing process thus reducing the energy usage
    specifically in the pulping and paper making processes. Fibers can be
    modified through biotechnology, tree physiology and sustainable soil
    productivity; DOE plans to support R&D in each area with its Forest
    Products program. In biotechnology, the focus is on understanding the
    genetic and molecular processes that control wood formation and
    properties. In tree physiology, the focus is on how wood formation and
    wood properties are affected by plant growth regulators such as light,
    water, and nutrients. In sustainable soil productivity the focus is to
    better understand the effects of intensive forest management on wood
    properties in the manufacture of solid wood, pulp and paper products.
    This supports the DOE mission to develop and deploy advanced energy
    efficient technologies that lead to the reduction of energy use in the
    industrial sector. The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to achieve
    quality land management under the sustainable multi-use management
    concept to meet the diverse needs of people. The land management focus
    is on Federal Lands.
        Question. There are relatively few changes in the sector-specific
    portion of the Industry program. Is the Department confident that the
    request for each sector is in-line with the benefits projected to be
    realized from the individual sector programs?
        Answer. The Department is confident that the request for each
    sector is in-line with the benefits projected from the individual
    sector programs. At the requested budget level and continued level
    funding, our GPRA analysis projects that we are on pace to deliver 1.4
    quads in annual energy savings in 2010 through investments we make in
    partnership with industry. These industries are expected to reduce
    their energy consumption by 2.9 quads through normal modernization
    investments. The additional 1.5 quads are the stretch component of our
    national goal of 25 percent reduction in energy intensity. We believe
    the IOF R&D Visions, Roadmaps, technologies, partnerships, and their
    effects on markets will catalyze and enable policy and investment
    changes that will attract the industry investment needed to become more
    efficient, competitive, and achieve the stretch goal. See the table
    below.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Energy benefit    Fiscal year
                   IOF sector                 (Btu     2003 budget
                                                  1,012)          request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aluminum................................              76          $8,103
    Chemicals...............................             233          14,458
    Forest Products.........................              80          11,827
    Glass...................................              31           4,572
    Metal Casting...........................              35           5,357
    Steel...................................              71          10,329
    Mining..................................              76           5,119
    Agriculture.............................             189           8,259
    Petroleum Refining......................              36  ..............
    Industrial Materials for the Future.....              74          12,698
    Sensors & Controls......................               9           3,774
    Combustion Systems......................             141          15,600
    Industrial Assessment Center............              40           7,694
    Inventions & Innovations................             112           2,372
    NICE3...................................              45           2,736
    Best Practices..........................             169           8,235
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................           1,417         121,133
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. For each industry sector program (with the exception of
    petroleum), are the funds requested sufficient to finance existing
    projects and mortgages as planned? If not, what additional funds would
    be required in each sector?
        Answer. There is sufficient funding being requested for existing
    projects in each industry sector in fiscal year 2003. Potential funding
    mortgages needed to bring those projects to a successful conclusion
    will be considered as progress of each project is assessed against
    milestones.
                     industries of the future-crosscutting
        Question. $13.6 million is requested for industrial gasification.
    What is the program plan for fiscal year 2003 and beyond for black
    liquor gasification demonstration projects?
        Answer. We monitor the costs and funding needs of these projects on
    an on-going basis, with the objective of sufficient project funding for
    planned project continuity, while minimizing end-of-year uncosted
    obligations. We believe that the budget request for fiscal year 2003
    meets this objective for the three demonstration projects.
        Question. Are the funds requested in fiscal year 2003 fully
    sufficient to support the plan?
        Answer. Based on our current assessment, the funding request for
    the biomass gasification is sufficient to support the plan.
        Question. If additional funds were available, how could such funds
    be used and what amounts would be appropriate?
        Answer. We believe the current funding meets the needs of the
    program through fiscal year 2003.
        Question. An increase of nearly $2 million is requested for
    Industrial Assessment Centers. At the same time, OMB review criteria
    for DOE research programs clearly place a premium on supporting efforts
    that would not be performed by the private sector. Why are industrial
    energy assessments not performed by private sector energy service
    companies?
        Answer. Unlike energy service companies, a major objective of the
    IAC program is to train engineering students in industrial efficiency.
    Since its inception in 1976, the program has successfully provided over
    1,700 university students with hands-on training in industrial energy
    management. This program has produced a cadre of experienced energy
    experts, a good number of whom have continued working in the energy
    management field, often for energy service companies. The small- and
    medium-sized manufacturers who are receiving industrial assessment
    services from the program often have neither the in-house expertise nor
    the means to seek private sector energy expertise. Another important
    distinction between the IAC program and private sector companies is
    that the IACs only make assessment recommendations. On average, half of
    the recommendations made by IACs are implemented by the manufacturing
    client, often with the help of private sector energy service companies.
    Based on IAC recommendations, the savings potential for the average
    industrial client is $55,000 per year.
        Question. What inherent capabilities does the Department have that
    energy service companies do not?
        Answer. As mentioned above, the principal differences are that the
    IAC program's provides university-level engineering students with
    hands-on industrial training as an integral part of their overall
    engineering curriculum, creating a cadre of knowledgeable and
    experienced energy efficiency experts for the industry's
    infrastructure; and, the recommendations the IAC's provide are made
    without a direct financial interest in the outcome, minimally providing
    a validating second opinion or stimulating the customer to pursuing the
    potential savings.
        Question. Does the Department's presence in this area inhibit
    private sector involvement?
        Answer. No, rather than inhibit, the program supports private
    sector involvement in two ways. As mentioned above, the implementation
    phase of any recommended work is not done by IACs and is totally
    handled by the private sector, creating new business for them. Also,
    the program has produced engineers whose practical experience in
    industrial efficiency has been sought by the private sector. In this
    way, the program has helped to successfully increase the pool of
    qualified candidates with energy systems knowledge and experience
    entering the private sector industrial community.
        Question. Does the Department's presence effectively subsidize the
    energy service industry by effectively performing market research that
    the companies would otherwise do themselves?
        Answer. No, the program does not conduct any market research.
                                   freedomcar
        Question. The Administration has refashioned its automotive
    research program under the name FreedomCAR. Can you described in more
    detail the distinction between FreedomCAR and its predecessor, the
    Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)?
        Answer. The major differences between the PNGV and FreedomCAR are
    described below in terms of vision, government involvement, technology
    emphasis, and R&D scope.
        Different vision.--While the focus of PNGV was on demonstration of
    high fuel efficiency, pre-production family sedans by 2004,
    FreedomCAR's ultimate long range vision is petroleum free, emissions
    free transportation, with emphasis on hydrogen fuel cells.
        Streamlined government leadership.--FreedomCAR is a collaboration
    between USCAR and the Department of Energy. PNGV was a collaboration of
    seven agencies, led by the Department of Commerce, with USCAR.
        Different technology emphasis.--FreedomCAR is focused on hydrogen
    and fuel cells, and the necessary hybrid enabling technologies, with
    transitional efficiency gains from advanced combustion and fuel cells
    using fuel processors. PNGV emphasized compression ignition direct
    injection (diesel) hybrids.Different R&D scope:
        FreedomCAR's focus is R&D at the component level with equal
    emphasis on light trucks and cars. PNGV emphasized development and
    demonstration of pre-production mid-sized family sedans, with the hope
    that the technologies would be scalable.
        Question. Can you describe some of the concrete benefits that have
    come from DOE-supported automotive research done to date?
        Answer. In its annual reviews of the Partnership for a New
    Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), the National Research Council (NRC)
    noted ``the substantial accomplishments already gained in pursuing the
    program so far'' (seventh report--2001) and observed that the
    partnership has enhanced cooperation at all levels and has achieved
    results more rapidly than would have been the case in the absence of
    partnership'' (sixth report--2000). However, the NRC reported that PNGV
    had achieved zero net economic benefit as of 2000 (Energy Research at
    DOE: Was It Worth It?, 2001), Nevertheless, some technologies developed
    under PNGV are now being commercialized, and benefits will begin to
    accrue as market penetration begins. Selected concrete examples of
    technological achievements are listed below.
    Enabling research
        Increased the life of lithium ion batteries from 2 years to 7 years
    for hybrid-electric vehicle drives.
        Demonstrated that under certain conditions, advanced diesel fuel
    formulations can achieve particulate matter (PM) emission reductions of
    up to 35 percent without compromising fuel efficiency or raising oxides
    of nitrogen (NOx) emissions.
    Vehicle integration
        The aluminum body structure on the Ford's Prodigy concept vehicle
    is 53 percent lighter than a conventional steel design, and the process
    used on the Prodigy is applicable to high volume production.
        In DaimlerChrysler's ESX3 concept vehicle, the unique thermoplastic
    injection molded body system is estimated to reduce weight by 46
    percent and cost by 15 percent versus conventional steel structures.
        General Motors' Precept concept vehicle proved the technical
    feasibility of achieving 80 miles per gallon, however, high cost
    remained as a major barrier toward commercialization.
    PNGV Research successes migrating into production
        Cadillac, Oldsmobile, and Chevrolet vehicles incorporate aluminum
    door, deck, and hood panels by utilizing a PNGV developed production
    processes.
        The 2001 Chevrolet Silverado uses a 50-pounds lighter composite
    pickup truck box. The 2001 Jeep Wrangler utilizes a new, lighter,
    recyclable thermoplastic hardtop.
    Announced production plans
        All three automakers have announced plans to produce hybrid
    vehicles in the 2003-2005 timeframe. (DaimlerChrysler Durango, Ford
    Escape, General Motors Silverado)
        Question. What can we expect from Detroit in the next few years in
    terms of advanced technology coming to market?
        Answer. All three automakers have announced plans to produce hybrid
    vehicles. These vehicles will be produced on standard assembly lines.
    The existing vehicle models have been redesigned to accommodate both
    conventional and hybrid powertrain systems.
        DaimlerChrysler.--The 2003 Dodge Durango will be offered with a
    hybrid powertrain. This version of the Durango will achieve 18.6 miles
    per gallon (mpg) combined city/highway (20 percent improvement),
    compared with 15.5 mpg for the conventional V-8 Durango. A hybrid-
    electric version of the Dodge Ram pickup, the Contractor Special, is
    expected to be introduced in 2004. On-the-road, this vehicle will
    achieve 15 percent better fuel efficiency, lower emissions and better
    performance than the conventional Ram. Off-the-road, the vehicle can be
    utilized as a stationary electrical generator to deliver up to 20
    kilowatts (kW) of ac power to run power tools.
        Ford.--In 2003, the Escape Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) will offer a
    hybrid electric powertrain using a 4-cylinder engine. Customers will
    get an estimated 40 mpg on the urban driving cycle, which is nearly
    double the V6 fuel economy while maintaining V6 performance. Also, a
    next generation vehicle platform has been announced that will utilize a
    42-volt electric system and an integrated starter generator (ISG),
    although the date of introduction is uncertain.
        General Motors.--The Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra full-size
    pickup truck line will feature a hybrid propulsion system that will be
    available in 2004. The ParadiGM hybrid propulsion system, which is
    being designed for use on a global mid-sized platform, is also
    scheduled to debut in 2004. It is expected that the first vehicle to
    incorporate the ParadiGM system will get about 20 percent better fuel
    economy than the non-hybrid version of the vehicle and is targeted to
    achieve lower tailpipe emissions.
        Question. Where are we with regard to determining the optimal fuel
    source for transportation fuel cells?
        Answer. Hydrogen is the optimal fuel for transportation fuel cells;
    however, hydrogen is not found in nature and must be produced from an
    energy source or feedstock. Therefore, it is an energy ``carrier,''
    much like electricity. In the long-term, hydrogen produced from a
    diverse mix of domestic energy sources is the strategy that provides
    the best energy security by lessening our dependence on foreign oil.
    These domestic sources potentially include natural gas, coal, nuclear
    and renewables. Once affordable, renewables will provide the best
    option since they are sustainable (i.e., never run out) and have the
    least environmental impact.
        Natural gas provides a good interim or ``start-up'' strategy to
    produce hydrogen since natural gas distribution infrastructure exists.
    With significant demand for natural gas in other energy sectors (e.g.,
    power generation, residential, etc.), total reliance on natural gas for
    the transportation sector would likely require significant imports and
    not relieve our dependence on foreign sources to meet our
    transportation energy needs.
        The lack of widespread hydrogen refueling infrastructure (from any
    source) and the absence of an acceptable on-board hydrogen storage
    system have prompted research to develop on-board fuel processors that
    could generate hydrogen from gasoline and other fuels. With little
    infrastructure investment required, this interim approach is expected
    to be able to provide significant energy efficiency and environmental
    benefit if the cost of vehicles using this technology can be lowered
    and market demand generated.
        Question. Do we have any idea whether it makes more sense to
    generate hydrogen on-board or off-board?
        Answer. It makes more sense to generate hydrogen off-board the
    vehicle at a retail station or other distributed location and to store
    the hydrogen fuel in the vehicle. From a vehicle perspective, it is a
    simpler and more cost effective approach. This approach requires more
    research to develop a safe and efficient vehicle hydrogen storage
    system that stores enough hydrogen to provide an acceptable range
    (i.e., 350 miles) without taking up passenger or trunk space. However,
    off-board hydrogen generation would still involve significant
    infrastructure investment and development in off-board fuel processing,
    hydrogen purification, off-board storage, and dispensing technologies.
    Since no market presently exists, government assistance may be
    necessary to encourage energy providers to begin making hydrogen
    available at retail stations and to help resolve codes and standards
    issues related to hydrogen utilization.
        On the other hand, using a fuel processor to generate hydrogen on-
    board the vehicle from conventional fuels requires little or no
    infrastructure investment. EERE and the private sector are continuing
    R&D efforts to overcome considerable cost, reliability, and start-up
    challenges associated with this approach. Depending on progress with
    the on-board approach, as well as technological advances and regulatory
    developments concerning the off-board approach, EERE may eventually
    discontinue R&D supporting the on-board approach.
        Question. In terms of on-board generation, do we know whether
    methanol, ethanol, natural gas or petroleum is the most sensible
    choice, or will it be multiple fuel types? When do you think we'll have
    this information?
        Answer. If reliable, fast-starting fuel processors can be developed
    for light-duty vehicles, a petroleum-based fuel is the most sensible
    choice because we could use our existing distribution and refueling
    infrastructure. Alternatives such as methanol, ethanol, and natural
    gas-derived Fischer-Tropsch fuels would provide significant petroleum
    displacement benefits if used as components in petroleum blends. The
    chemical composition of these alternative fuels used as blending agents
    make the fuel processing reaction easier and would require
    infrastructure investment similar to oxygenates in gasoline.
        For heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., buses, etc.), the use of alternative
    fuels such as ethanol, methanol, and natural gas-derived Fischer-
    Tropsch fuels has greater potential because the vehicles tend to be
    centrally refueled. National compatibility for distribution and
    refueling infrastructure would not be required. Regional fuels (i.e.,
    ethanol in the Midwest) may provide energy, economic, and environmental
    benefits. Also, natural gas may be more viable on heavier vehicles
    where more room is available for fuel storage.
        Given the potential for alternative fuels blended in petroleum for
    light- and heavy-duty vehicles, we believe the on-board fuel processor
    technology under development needs to be ``fuel flexible,'' which means
    that the technical approach taken must not eliminate these viable
    alternatives.
        Question. One of the reasons you've refocused the goals of the
    transportation research program is that PNGV was geared to produce a
    type of vehicle consumers wouldn't buy. That said, your budget would
    continue much of the ongoing work begun under PNGV. Where are we with
    regard to the performance of hybrid vehicles?
        Answer. There are several ways to evaluate the performance of
    hybrid vehicles. Hybrid vehicles that are currently on the market
    provide a 10 to 50 percent increase in fuel efficiency compared to
    conventional platforms and add an estimated 10 to 20 percent increase
    to the vehicle cost. These hybrids compete in a small vehicle segment
    and are primarily aimed at urban driving. In terms of vehicle driving
    performance, current hybrids are considered to be comparable to the
    conventional drivetrains that they replace for the targeted market
    segment. However, in order for hybrid vehicles to be more competitive
    in a broader market segment with conventional vehicles, additional
    advances in power electronics, electric motors, and batteries are
    needed to increase the power, improve the efficiency, improve the
    reliability, reduce the weight, and reduce the present high cost of the
    system.
        FreedomCAR is structured to build on the technical progress
    achieved from work conducted under the Partnership for a New Generation
    of Vehicles (PNGV), including much of the work on hybrid systems. The
    fiscal year 2003 budget request would fund the highest priority hybrid
    research (high power energy storage, power electronics, and electric
    motors) at 93 percent of the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of 19
    percent more than our fiscal year 2002 request. One of the fundamental
    differences between FreedomCAR and PNGV is that the new Partnership
    aims to apply its R&D to all vehicle types, not just mid-size sedans as
    was the focus of PNGV. This shift is a response to changing consumer
    preferences that favor light trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs).
    Many of the technologies pursued under the PNGV can be applicable to
    light trucks and SUVs.
        Question. Are we close to having hybrid vehicles that are large
    enough and perform well enough to meet consumer demand in places other
    than urban settings?
        Answer. The hybrid vehicles currently on the market and announced
    for the near term are designed to take advantage of the stop-and-go
    driving found in urban settings. However, in public forums, automotive
    manufacturers have indicated that products offering towing capability
    and intercity travel over mountainous terrain are under development. In
    addition, the automakers have announced several hybrid vehicles in the
    large passenger vehicle and full-size pickup truck categories. For
    example, the Dodge Ram Contractor Special, referenced in question 52,
    is designed for both on- and off-road travel and, while parked,
    functions as a stationary generator. Also, the Dodge Durago hybrid
    sport utility vehicle (SUV) and Ford Escape hybrid SUV are expected to
    be available in 2003. Performance for all these vehicles is promised to
    be equivalent or better than their conventional counterparts while
    offering varying fuel economy improvements. It remains to be seen to
    what extent consumers will adopt these vehicles. Technologies being
    developed in the Department of Energy programs, in partnership with
    industry, will enable application of competitive hybrid propulsion to a
    broad range of vehicle platforms and usage.
        The Department of Energy, together with industry partners, will
    begin the technology demonstration phase of heavy hybrid propulsion
    vehicles in 2003. Two 40-foot hybrid transit buses will be delivered
    for a six-month revenue service test. Subsequently, the industry team
    developing this heavy hybrid propulsion system expects to deliver (in
    2004) their technology in Class 8 trucks for long-haul operation. These
    initial products are not expected to be fully cost-effective in the
    marketplace and additional development efforts will be required to
    optimize the technology and reduce costs to marketplace requirements.
                           transportation fuel cells
        Question. Within the Fossil Energy R&D account, funding for fuel
    cell work under the Solid-state Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) has
    been reduced significantly. Though the specific focus of SECA is
    different than the transportation fuel cell program, are there basic
    technologies that might be developed under SECA that could be in used
    in transportation applications?
        Answer. The fuel cell work under the Solid-State Energy Conversion
    Alliance (SECA) is concentrated on the development of relatively high
    temperature, planar solid oxide fuel cells. This planar technology has
    the potential to be much more compact than the tubular technology
    developed by Siemens-Westinghouse for stationary applications. Because
    of much higher operating temperature and longer start-up times compared
    to polymer electrolyte fuel cells which are being developed for light-
    duty vehicles, solid oxide technology is not as viable for these
    applications. Rather, solid oxide technology, which is rapidly
    progressing, is best suited for stationary applications where quick
    start-up is not a stringent requirement and where co-generation of high
    quality heat can be an additional benefit.
        The solid oxide technology under SECA may have applications in
    heavy-duty vehicles where fast start-up is not required and vehicles
    tend to be operated for extended duration (i.e., Class 8 trucks,
    locomotives, etc.). Another potential application in heavy-duty
    vehicles could be as auxiliary power units (APUs) where a small solid
    oxide fuel cell would potentially provide electrical power for cargo
    refrigeration, cabin cooling, accessory loads, etc., more efficiently
    than a mechanically driven alternator. The APU could also replace
    extended hours of truck idling necessary to provide electrical power
    during rest and holdover periods which would result in significant
    energy and environmental benefits.
        The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Office of
    Transportation Technologies (OTT) is currently sponsoring a study to
    determine the best vehicle applications for APUs and the corresponding
    energy and environmental benefits. Diesel fuel processing development
    for heavy-duty vehicles and for remote stationary power is the basic
    technology area that SECA and OTT share and are already collaborating
    to minimize redundant research efforts. Since diesel reforming requires
    higher temperatures (to prevent coking), it is more compatible with the
    solid oxide operating temperature. As a result of the close
    collaboration between OTT and SECA, OTT is sponsoring an effort at the
    National Energy Technology Laboratory to develop diesel fuel processing
    technology. Also, under OTT's Cooperative Automotive Research for
    Advanced Technology (CARAT) program, proposals related to diesel
    reforming and APUs have been competitively solicited. Potential
    awardees will carry out their work in close coordination with SECA.
        Question. The justification indicates that the Department will
    establish a Fuel Cell National Resource Center at Los Alamos National
    Laboratory to provide a national user facility for research,
    development and testing. Why has Los Alamos been selected to host this
    center?
        Answer. The Department of Energy selected Los Alamos National
    Laboratory as the site to host the National Fuel Cell Resource Center
    because LANL is where the most capable fuel cell scientists reside.
    Scientists at Los Alamos obtained the original breakthroughs and
    patents responsible for making the polymer electrolyte fuel cell viable
    for transportation applications. Today, the staff at Los Alamos have
    the best fundamental and basic understanding of fuel cell-related
    electrochemistry and materials necessary to resolve remaining issues
    with the technology. Researchers at Los Alamos have a long track record
    of working with industry (General Motors, Motorola, Honeywell, etc.) to
    transfer knowledge and solve specific fuel cell problems.
        Question. Was this result of a competitive process?
        Answer. No.
        Question. Does establishment of this center have the support of
    manufacturers and other stakeholders?
        Answer. Yes, we have received strong letters of support from
    General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and fuel cell
    developers. Other national laboratories (e.g., Argonne National
    Laboratory, etc.) will be part of the center.
                        heavy duty truck vehicle systems
        Question. With respect to Vehicle System Optimization, the request
    includes a noticeable increase in funding from $9.3 million in fiscal
    year 2002 to $10.3 million in fiscal year 2003. How has the Department
    developed a relationship with the Truck OEM's to ensure that research
    dollars are appropriately allocated to meet our nation's energy
    challenges?
        Answer. The truck original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have
    participated in workshops held specifically to elicit their input in
    defining R&D needs and opportunities for R&D collaboration between
    industry and government. These workshops have resulted in technology
    roadmaps and multi-year program plans in several areas that would lead
    to the overall vehicle system energy efficiency improvement, including
    reduction in aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance, and reduction in
    truck accessory loads. These plans have been peer reviewed and used as
    the basis for solicitations for cost-shared industry/government R&D.
                    hybrid vehicle research and development
        Question. Of the $41 million dedicated to hybrid technology in DOE
    for fiscal year 2003, only $4 million is identified for application to
    Heavy-Duty Vehicles. This appears somewhat inconsistent with Assistant
    Secretary Garman's testimony to the House Science Committee that
    referenced our nation's ever increasing fuel consumption created by
    heavy duty trucks. What efforts are underway to ensure that the light-
    duty hybrid investment provides maximum relevance and benefit to the
    heavy-duty hybrid technology suppliers, engine manufacturers, and their
    truck OEM customers in the 21st Century Truck Partnership?
        Answer. The $4 million requested in fiscal year 2003 for heavy
    hybrid vehicles will provide for technology development by industry
    teams of hybrid propulsion technologies for heavy-duty trucks and
    buses. The Department believes the requested $4 million for heavy
    hybrid technologies is an appropriate request. As a result of previous
    Department of Energy and industry cooperative developments, one
    industry team will commercialize a hybrid propulsion 40-foot transit
    bus for revenue service in 2003. The funding requested in fiscal year
    2003 will continue to advance the heavy hybrid program by means of a
    fiscal year 2003 solicitation to enlist additional industry partners in
    this technology area. The industry partners include technology
    suppliers, engine manufacturers, truck original equipment manufacturers
    (OEMs) and 21st Century Truck Partnership participants. The success of
    this program to date is based, in part, on the adaption of several
    critical technologies originally developed for light-duty hybrid
    electric vehicles such as power electronics and battery energy storage
    technologies. Continued adaption of appropriate light-duty hybrid
    technologies to heavy-duty hybrid vehicles is expected.
                   heavy duty engine research and development
        Question. Through the efforts of Congress, the Heavy Truck Engine
    line item was increased from $6 million $9.4 million for fiscal year
    2002. In doing so, Congress acknowledged the importance activity in
    achieving our national goals of energy efficiency and emissions
    reductions. However, the Department's fiscal year 2003 budget request
    for this activity is only $7 million, a reduction of more than $2
    million from the fiscal year 2002 level. Does your work with the engine
    industry on this project indicate that this reduced funding level is
    adequate to meet the demands for fuel efficiency and emissions
    reduction facing the industry in 2007?
        Answer. The President's request for the Heavy Truck Engine R&D
    activity in fiscal year 2003 ($7.0M) is an increase of $1.1M relative
    to the fiscal year 2002 request ($5.9M). The Department feels the
    request of $7 million is adequate to meet fuel efficiency and emissions
    reduction goals facing the industry in 2007.
                           locomotive engine research
        Question. In coordination with the rail sector, the Department
    recently issued a 119-page ``roadmap'' for improving railroad
    locomotive fuel efficiency. However, the Department's fiscal year 2003
    budget request for such off-highway vehicle research, including
    locomotives, is just $500,000.
        Answer. The Department feels that the request of $500,000 with
    equal cost-share from industry is adequate to engage industry interest.
        Question. Why did the Department go to the trouble of developing a
    detailed work plan if the agency did not intend to request sufficient
    funds to implement it?
        Answer. The Department has developed a draft 119-page roadmap for
    improving railroad locomotive fuel efficiency. The draft plan
    represents a compilation of stakeholder input that will be used to
    identify industry R&D needs and opportunities for Government and
    industry collaboration. The document reflects an early phase of
    information gathering and should not be considered a detailed work
    plan. Once a final draft of the ``roadmap'' document is completed, it
    will undergo full government and industry peer review and final
    approval for release by the combined government/industry team working
    on it. The peer reviewed, final ``roadmap'' will be the basis for
    developing a detailed Multi-Year Program Plan that will lay out the
    prioritized R&D over several years. The Department feels that the
    request of $500,000, with equal cost-share from industry, is adequate
    to engage industry interest, and complete a detailed Multi-Year Program
    Plan. Of course, as with all R&D programs, the future proposed R&D
    activities will be assessed annually against the R&D Investment
    Criteria developed as part of the President's Management Agenda;
    funding levels will be requested accordingly.
        Question. What were the results of the strategic program review
    with regard to the relative merits of off-highway vehicle R&D (esp.
    locomotive research)?
        Answer. The off-highway vehicle R&D planning was not complete when
    the strategic program review took place and was not discussed
        Question. The Department's fiscal year 2003 budget requests some
    $70 million to improve the fuel efficiency and emissions
    characteristics of heavy-duty trucks. How do the heavy truck sector and
    off-highway vehicle sector compare in terms of fuel use, emissions,
    etc.?
        Answer. The table below compares the fuel use (in quadrillion Btus,
    Quads) of heavy trucks, off-highway (construction and agriculture), and
    rail transport (locomotives) in 1999 and 2000 as well as projected for
    the out years (2010, 2015, and 2020).

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Energy Use (quadrillion Btus)
         Heavy vehicle category      ---------------------------------------
                                       1999    2000    2010    2015    2020
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Heavy Trucks....................     4.6     4.8     6.2     6.9     7.4
    Off-highway.....................     0.7     0.7     0.8     0.8     0.8
    Rail (Locomotives)..............     0.6     0.7     0.7     0.7    0.7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: The 1999 values are from Transportation Energy Data Book:
      Edition 21--2001, ORNL-6966, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, September
      2001. The 2000 values and projections are from the U.S. DOE Energy
      Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2002, DOE EIA-
      0383(2002), December 2001.

        In 1999, the relative emissions contributions of heavy trucks, off-
    highway, and rail vehicles are shown in the table on the next page.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Emissions                              Heavy trucks     Off-highway      Railroads
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOX, million short tons.........................................             4.1             4.3             1.2
    VOCs, million short tons........................................             0.6             2.2            0.05
    PM2.5, million short tons.......................................             0.2             0.3           0.03
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 21--2001, obtained from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      National Emission Inventory Air Pollutant Emission Trends.

        Question. What are the potential benefits from R&D in each sector
    in terms of reduction in fuel use and emissions?
        Answer. The fleet average fuel economy of line-haul, tractor-
    trailer heavy trucks is 6.6 miles per gallon (mpg). The fuel economy of
    current, best technology tractor-trailers is between 7.25 to 8 miles
    per gallon. If all the technologies leading to an improved heavy truck
    fuel economy of 10 miles per gallon are commercialized, there will be
    an improvement from 25 percent (over the current best technology truck)
    to 52 percent (over the fleet average truck). The total fuel savings
    would be dependent on the penetration of the 10 mpg technologies into
    the heavy truck fleet. Carbon dioxide emissions reduction will be
    achieved in direct proportion to the reduction in fuel use. In
    addition, a heavy truck payload increase resulting from vehicle weight
    reduction would mean fewer numbers of heavy trucks on the road to
    deliver the same ton-miles of freight. Fewer trucks on the highways
    result in lower total emissions of criteria pollutants (NOx and
    particulates) assuming that each individual truck is criteria emissions
    compliant.
        For the off-highway sector (e.g., construction equipment, rail or
    locomotives, and farm equipment), it is estimated that compliance with
    the future more stringent emissions standards would mean an energy
    efficiency penalty of as much 5 to 10 percent. In addition, it has not
    been established that the durability and the current life of off-
    highway vehicles used in farming and construction could be maintained
    if emissions control technologies such as exhaust gas recirculation
    (EGR) were implemented. One of the major challenges on the off-highway
    engine R&D will be to reduce the inherently higher emissions of NOx
    from off-highway diesel engines while maintaining and ultimately
    improving fuel economy. It is anticipated that improvements will need
    to be made in the fuel quality of off-highway diesel fuel as well as
    advances in combustion, engine, and emissions control technology in
    order to achieve the goals of the program.
        Question. What about for locomotive engines specifically?
        Answer. Currently, locomotives dissipate their braking energy as
    heat as they slow down when going downhill or around curves. Estimates
    indicate that braking energy recovery could improve the overall
    locomotive energy efficiency by 10 to 14 percent. In addition, advanced
    powerplants (engines) could potentially improve energy efficiency by an
    additional 6 to 10 percent. One of the major challenges on the
    locomotive R&D will be to reduce the inherently higher emissions of
    NOX from locomotive engines while maintaining and ultimately
    improving fuel economy. It is anticipated that improvements will need
    to be made in the fuel quality of locomotive diesel fuel as well as
    advances in combustion, engine, and emissions control technology in
    order to achieve the goals of the program.
                           natural gas infrastructure
        Question. Mr. Secretary, we have met previously to discuss the
    problems with the Fossil Energy portion of your budget as it has been
    proposed. Obviously, I am a proponent of increasing domestic energy
    supplies, but am also extremely interested in making sure that our
    energy infrastructure is reliable, and more importantly, safe. The
    Department is suggesting that we zero out the Natural Gas
    Infrastructure account. I know there is a proposal to send some of the
    activity to the Department of Transportation, but I am not sure that
    there has been adequate planning to do so. Does the DOT budget increase
    by an amount similar to the $10 million reduction in our budget and
    have you personally taken the time to ensure that this transition would
    benefit the safety and reliability of our natural gas infrastructure?
        Answer. The Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of Pipeline
    Safety (OPS) budget does not increase by an amount similar to the $10
    million reduction in the DOE's natural gas infrastructure program. The
    DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety fiscal year 2003 research budget,
    funded from industry user fees, increases by $4 million, from $4.7
    million in fiscal year 2002 to $8.7 million in fiscal year 2003.
    Although DOE has not yet discussed with DOT how we would transition the
    DOE infrastructure reliability technology research program, implemented
    by the National Energy Technology Laboratory, to OPS, we plan to do
    everything to ensure that this transition will benefit the safety and
    reliability of our natural gas infrastructure. It is our understanding
    that up to twenty percent of the OPS fiscal year 2003 safety research
    program may be in the same focused area as the DOE natural gas pipeline
    technology activity, e.g. damage prevention and leak detection.
                                clean fuels r&d
        Question. Mr. Secretary, your request severely decreases the
    funding available for Fuels research in the Fossil Accounts. The
    reductions bring activity in this area down from over $30 million in
    fiscal year 2002 to $5 million in your request. Knowing that fuels
    development, especially clean fuels development, is extremely important
    to allow us to continue utilizing fossil fuels, I am confused as to why
    we would reduce these accounts by such extreme levels. What do
    mortgages of such quick downturns of activity leave us with, and is DOE
    left holding uncompleted contracts in this or other accounts if
    Congress agrees to abandon these programs?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2003 Budget request includes reduced
    funding for the high priority innovative development of an Ionic
    Transport Membrane (ITM) for the conversion of air and natural gas to
    produce synthesis gas with a projected saving of up to 20 percent over
    current technology. Funding is also provided for supporting research
    and advanced physical conversion technology. All Fossil Energy programs
    are presently undergoing a top to bottom review. Upon completion, the
    program will be restructured to comply with the results of the review.
        The refocusing of the Fuels program will necessitate either
    stretch-out, restructuring or discontinuance of several contracts.
    There are no large mortgages in the sense of financial liabilities
    associated with the termination of contracts, but there are several
    existing contracts which include planned activities which would not
    receive Federal funding.
        Question. Especially worrisome is the Ultra Clean Fuels Program
    that went from funding under the petroleum account at a level of just
    under $10 million in fiscal year 2001 to over $16.5 million in fiscal
    year 2002, to a requested level of zero in fiscal year 2003. How can
    basic R&D activity weather such extreme swings of funding, and isn't it
    wasteful to throw money into ramping up research and walking away
    without reasonable review?
        Answer. The development of technologies to produce ultra-clean
    transportation fuels to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier
    II vehicle emission and diesel fuel standards is being pursued by
    industry. The time frame for the introduction of these fuels is too
    short for the government to have an impact on their methods of
    production.
        Question. Do you feel the Ultra Clean Fuels program will be
    completed in this year? As I understand it, clean diesel programs are
    essential to meeting EPA's upcoming restrictions on particulate and
    emissions.
        Answer. The development of technologies to produce ultra-clean
    transportation fuels to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier
    II vehicle emission and diesel fuel standards is being pursued by
    industry. The time frame for the introduction of these fuels is too
    short for the government to have an impact on their methods of
    production. The current ultra-clean transportation fuels projects would
    not be completed this fiscal year.
        Industry efforts are expected to result in the successful
    development of technologies to produce ultra-clean transportation fuels
    to meet EPA's upcoming restrictions on particulate and emissions,
    although the cost of this technology is expected to be higher than
    could be achieved through the use of technology being developed under
    the Department's Ultra Clean Fuels program.
                      fossil energy--carbon sequestration
        Question. Mr. Secretary, I notice that your budget request
    increases Carbon Sequestration R&D from $32 million to $54 million. I
    understand that we must take a closer look at carbon sequestration due
    to the reality that fossil fuels will remain a large portion of our
    energy portfolio over the upcoming decades. In the context of the
    overall hit that the Fossil R&D account has taken, including our
    willingness to walk away from clean fuels research and other
    environmentally friendly programs, what do we gain from this additional
    $20 million in Sequestration research?
        Answer. The simple answer is that the additional $20 million of
    sequestration research allows us to stay on our program plan to deliver
    practical, effective, low cost sequestration options in another 13
    years. It allows the Department to be responsive to the President's
    June 2001 Climate Change Technology Initiative, and his February 2002
    Climate Change announcement. Both of these cited carbon sequestration
    as a key element of the technology package needed to address climate
    change concerns.
        The full answer is somewhat more complex. If one posits that there
    is reasonable possibility we are facing climate change impacts from
    current levels of fossil fuels use, then we clearly need options for
    mitigating such impacts. It is my opinion that relatively low cost
    sequestration can enable our society to continue to enjoy the economic
    and energy security benefits which flow from keeping coal and other
    fossil fuels in our energy mix. In this context carbon sequestration
    research provides a low cost insurance policy against both adverse
    impacts from climate change and adverse economic impacts from more
    costly approaches to mitigation.
        Viewed from a different perspective, I believe that without a
    demonstrated option for addressing greenhouse gas emissions from coal
    use, programs such as those you are advocating will face suffocating
    opposition could increase to include even present uses of coal. The
    sooner we can demonstrate that sequestration can address those
    concerns, the sooner we can gain the critical popular support needed to
    pursue additional technologies to expand the role of coal in meeting
    the Nation's energy needs.
        Question. Can you honestly argue that this increase of activity in
    a fairly new program is more worthwhile and will help us gain tangible
    results more quickly than research in the accounts that I have
    highlighted today?
        Answer. Our first priority in designing an R&D portfolio is to
    identify any issues that could eliminate the use of fossil fuel. The
    only such issue for fossil energy is global climate change. Carbon
    Sequestration may be an effective alternative to discontinuing the use
    of fossil energy, or accepting substantial environmental damage, if
    strong evidence of damage is demonstrated. Unfortunately, we cannot
    wait until all the information is available on climate change, before
    developing additional options. We must begin now. Quickly developing
    effective, low cost sequestration options is viewed as the most
    critical R&D need within the Fossil Energy program, and that is the
    reason for the rapid scale up in the sequestration budget.
                               windows technology
        Question. The justification indicates that $6.228 million was
    allocated for windows technology research in fiscal year 2002, a
    substantial increase over the fiscal year 2002 budget request. How are
    these funds being allocated? Please be specific about amounts,
    recipients, purpose of funds, new vs. ongoing work, etc.
        Answer. The fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations Bill
    Conference Committee Report designated ``$3,000,000 is for windows
    research (including electrochromics)'' over the fiscal year 2002 budget
    request of $3.228 million. The total amount appropriated in fiscal year
    2002 ($6.228 million) is approximately equal to the fiscal year 2001
    appropriation ($6.714 million). The table below represents work
    underway or currently planned beyond the funding level of the fiscal
    year 2002 budget request.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fiscal year
                                         ---------------------------                OMB
                  Performer                  2002                       Year    allocation   Description of Activity
                                            budget         2002      initiated     number
                                            request   appropriation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    University of Massachusetts.........    $180,000      $245,000        2001    \1\ 1452  Advanced thermal
                                                                                             performance research;
                                                                                             develop technical basis
                                                                                             for product rating and
                                                                                             design of complex and
                                                                                             emerging window
                                                                                             technologies (supports
                                                                                             future NFRC advanced
                                                                                             procedures).
    University of Minnesota.............     190,000       300,000        1997    \1\ 1452  Knowledge base and
                                                                                             tools, including
                                                                                             handbook on windows and
                                                                                             glazings for high
                                                                                             performance commercial
                                                                                             buildings.
    National Fenestration Rating Council     110,000       260,000        2001    \1\ 1452  Performance rating,
                                                                                             including rating
                                                                                             procedures for retrofit
                                                                                             films and storm
                                                                                             windows; initiate new
                                                                                             database program for
                                                                                             certified products.
    Alliance to Save Energy.............     100,000       270,000        2000    \1\ 1452  Support Efficient Window
                                                                                             Collaborative (EWC);
                                                                                             provide technical
                                                                                             assistance to
                                                                                             practitioners for
                                                                                             design, specification,
                                                                                             and implementation in
                                                                                             retrofit and new
                                                                                             construction.
    Florida Solar Energy Center.........      60,000       140,000        2001    \1\ 1452  Advanced solar and
                                                                                             optical performance
                                                                                             research.
    Arthur D. Little, Inc...............  ..........       200,000        2002    \1\ 1452  Analysis for window/wall
                                                                                             technologies.
    Los Alamos National Laboratory......  ..........       300,000        2002    \2\ 1453  Electrotint Windows
                                                                                             Using Ionic Liquids.
    Pacific Northwest National                15,000        35,000        1992    \2\ 1453  Harmonization of
     Laboratory.                                                                             National Fenestration
                                                                                             Rating Council/
                                                                                             International Standards
                                                                                             Organization standards.
    Lawrence Berkeley National             2,253,000     3,698,000        1990    \2\ 1453  Systems, materials and
     Laboratory.                                                                             process research;
                                                                                             performance and
                                                                                             applications research;
                                                                                             retrofit windows and
                                                                                             glazings; Develop of
                                                                                             advanced electrochromic
                                                                                             and solar control
                                                                                             technologies; technical
                                                                                             support to
                                                                                             electrochromic
                                                                                             industry; Development
                                                                                             and validation of
                                                                                             simulation tools for
                                                                                             design and rating:
                                                                                             technical basis for
                                                                                             NFRC and Energy Star
                                                                                             Windows.
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory.......      60,000       130,000        1997    \2\ 1453  Thermal testing research
                                                                                             to support NFRC/
                                                                                             industry rating
                                                                                             programs
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory     260,000       650,000        1979    \2\ 1453  Electrochromic
                                                                                             durability research,
                                                                                             test & evaluation, and
                                                                                             durability standards)--
                                                                                             expanded testing
                                                                                             support to industry
                                                                                             (SAGE, Eclipse, etc.).
                                         ---------------------------
          Total.........................   3,228,000    6,228,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Inherently unique research.
    \2\ Merit-reviewed research with limited competition.

                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
                           lignite 21 vision project
        Question. Lignite coal is an abundant resource in North Dakota that
    provides a low-cost, reliable energy source for more than 2 million
    people in the upper Midwest. On several occasions, I have written you
    requesting that lignite coal projects be funded through the Power Plant
    Improvement Initiative that this Subcommittee included in previous
    appropriations bills or some other clean power initiative. I want you
    to know of my continued 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 making sure that this project
    encourages the development of clean coal projects using North Dakota
    lignite. The Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP)--which includes
    Minnesota, the two Dakotas and the eastern half of Montana--estimates
    it will be short 5000 megawatts of electricity 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 included in the fiscal year
    2003 budget, I see from your testimony that you expect to put
    together--with a $150 M appropriation in fiscal year 2003--a $330 M
    solicitation for industry-proposed, cost-shared demonstration projects.
    Can you provide me any details about what is going to be in this
    solicitation and comment on whether the information I have sent you
    about the Lignite 21Vision Project in ND would qualify for this kind of
    a program?
        Answer. Lignite coal-based projects are both eligible and
    encouraged under the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) solicitation.
    The Lignite Visions 21 Project being planned in North Dakota, as I
    understand it, is focused on the development of a very clean and
    efficient lignite coal power plant that will employ cutting-edge
    technology beyond current commercial capability. As such, it is
    certainly eligible to be bid and competitively evaluated under the CCPI
    solicitation that was issued on March 4, 2002. The solicitation is
    available for review on the DOE website at www.netl.doe.gov.
                       future energy efficiency programs
        Question. Mr. Secretary, does the Department have plans with
    respect to energy efficiency programs for 30 or 50 years from now?
        Answer. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
    is currently preparing a Strategic Plan that will address important
    energy-related challenges and opportunities facing our country. This
    plan identifies the goals and strategies EERE will pursue in the years
    ahead to address these programs. In developing this plan, EERE is
    paying greater attention to long-term impacts, specifically using a
    longer time horizon, extending from 1973 through to 2050. The plan will
    address quantitative results for the next 30 years and will look ahead
    50 years at structured energy markets. The Strategic Plan is explicitly
    tied to the vision and recommendations of the National Energy Plan,
    containing a sharper delineation of EERE's role and objectives.
        Question. Can we expect such a plan in the future?
        Answer. I expect that the Strategic Plan will be available by the
    end of May, 2002.
            strategic review of energy efficiency and renewal energy
        Question. Mr. Secretary, along these lines, I understand that the
    Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency office conducted a strategic
    review of its programs last year, and that this review is being held up
    and has not been released to Congress. Can you enlighten me as to the
    status of this review, and why it has not yet been released?
        Answer. This report has gone through extensive review within the
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and with the Office of
    Management and Budget. It is essentially complete and is expected to be
    released momentarily.
        Question. If this review is used for the RE/EE Office to develop
    its budget proposal, how are we supposed to evaluate that proposal and
    the rationale for some of the budget cuts we are seeing, without the
    benefit of having seen this review document, in its original form?
        Answer. The report is essentially complete and is expected to be
    released momentarily.
        Question. When can we expect to see this important document?
        Answer. The report is essentially complete and is expected to be
    released shortly.
                               green tags program
        Question. Mr. Secretary, I have contacted you and your Department
    on several occasions about the status of a proposed Green Tags program,
    which wouldn't necessarily come under this Subcommittee's jurisdiction,
    but I wanted to take this opportunity to ask about the status of this
    project, since the program has not yet been launched after nearly 1.5
    years. Most recently, I spoke with Assistant Secretary Garman about
    this at a wind energy conference that I recently held in ND. He said
    the mechanisms for this program are still being worked out. Can you
    provide any further information regarding the status of this project,
    and when we might see this program launched?
        Answer. The Department is continuing to examine a number of
    elements related to renewable energy purchases, of which the use of
    renewable energy credits is an option. Upon completion of our review, I
    will ask Assistant Secretary Garman to share our plans with you.
                         energy efficiency budget cuts
        Question. Why are the energy efficiency R&D programs being cut when
    the Administration is saying that technologies, like fuel cell cars,
    are the answer to our energy future?
        Answer. Reductions were taken in selected areas of EERE's R&D
    portfolio. We have made strategic decisions that balance our portfolio
    with regard to technological risk, benefits accrual, and demographics.
    Key technologies, such as the fuel-cell vehicles that you cite, are
    well supported.
        For instance, although funding for our transportation programs in
    total is reduced in the fiscal year 2003 request, we have requested
    increases for the key technologies that need public support, such as
    fuel cells and hydrogen research, while reducing funding in areas that
    our Strategic Program Review indicated were ready to be ``graduated''
    to industry development, such as some materials and combustion engine
    development, or that did not have good prospects for making a
    significant impact on our energy economy, such as dedicated electric
    vehicles.
        Following the President's priorities, we have shifted to a greater
    emphasis on delivering energy efficiency technology to the marketplace
    and promoting adoption by American consumers. For example, we have
    increased the Energy Star program, which enhances consumer choice by
    telling consumers which appliances are most energy efficient, by over
    100 percent. In addition, we have increased the Weatherization
    Assistance program, which provides grants to make low-income homes more
    energy efficient, by $47 million, a 20 percent increase from our fiscal
    year 2002 appropriation.
        We have also refocused our efforts on long-term, fundamental
    technology R&D, efforts that are in our nation's interest but are too
    risky or long-term to be conducted by the private sector. Indicative of
    this longer-range vision is our recently announced new cooperative
    public/private research partnership, entitled FreedomCAR [CAR stands
    for Cooperative Automotive Research], with the U.S. Council for
    Automotive Research (USCAR). The new partnership supercedes and builds
    upon the successes of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
    (PNGV) that began in 1993. It is, however, different in scope and
    breadth. FreedomCAR shifts government research to more fundamental,
    higher risk (and higher payoff) activities, with applicability to
    multiple passenger vehicle models and special emphasis on development
    of fuel cells and hydrogen fuel infrastructure.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
             major hydrogen and/or fuel cell demonstration programs
        Question. What are the Fossil Energy's major hydrogen and/or fuel
    cell demonstration activities proposed for fiscal year 2003?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2003, synthesis gas production research will
    continue to develop advanced ceramic transport membranes and modules to
    the process development unit scale (24,000 cubic feet per day) to
    produce synthesis gas for further processing to achieve lower cost
    hydrogen and other valuable fuel products from natural and synthesis
    gas.
        Fossil Energy's major fuel cell demonstration activities include:
      --Field tests of a 220 Kw hybrid solid oxide fuel cell and gas
            turbine system operating at the National Fuel Cells Research
            Center in Irvine, California.
      --Field tests of a 250 Kw solid oxide fuel cell system under
            construction in Toronto, Canada.
      --Field tests of a 300 Kw hybrid solid oxide fuel cell and gas
            turbine hybrid system under construction in Essen, Germany.
      --Field tests of a 250 Kw hybrid molten carbonate fuel cell system
            operating in Danbury, Connecticut.
        Question. What are the Energy Conservation's major hydrogen and/or
    fuel cell demonstration activities proposed for fiscal year 2003?
        Answer. The Hydrogen Program (funded by Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations) intends to support, jointly with the Office
    of Transportation Technologies (funded by Interior Appropriations),
    several activities that were awarded through competitive solicitations.
    These include the demonstration of a power park that co-produces
    hydrogen and electricity for an industrial complex, several residential
    power parks that demonstrate hydrogen production and use with advanced
    storage systems and fuel cells, and electrolysis systems that produce
    more than 10,000 standard cubic feet per day of hydrogen from water to
    fuel hydrogen vehicles. The following table summarizes these
    collaborative projects.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year
                 Recipient                      Objective            2003
                                                                   funding
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Air Products and Chemicals.........  Develop and install a      $175,000
                                          50 kilowatt fuel cell
                                          and hydrogen
                                          production system.
    Air Products.......................  Develop and install         800,000
                                          next generation
                                          refueling station
                                          concept.
    General Electric...................  Develop and install         400,000
                                          next generation
                                          refueling station
                                          concept.
    Gas Technology Institute...........  Develop and install         400,000
                                          alternative refueling
                                          station concept.
    Solicitation.......................  Through the State         1,000,000
                                          Energy Programs, fund
                                          the development of
                                          several power park
                                          projects.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In addition, the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations Bill
    (H.R. 2217) directed DOE to ``report to the House and Senate Committees
    on Appropriations, within twelve months of the date of enactment of
    this Act, on the technical and economic barriers to the use of fuel
    cells in transportation, portable power, stationary, and distributed
    generation applications. The report should include recommendations on
    program adjustments based on an assessment of the technical, economic,
    and infrastructure requirements needed for the commercial use of fuel
    cells for stationary and transportation applications by 2012.'' DOE was
    also directed to provide an interim assessment that describes
    preliminary findings about the need for public and private cooperative
    programs to demonstrate the use of fuel cells in commercial scale
    applications. In response to these tasks, the Department is developing
    the required reports, and we expect to include the description of a
    phased demonstration program that could involve up to 5,000 hydrogen
    fueled vehicles over approximately 10 years and that would include the
    required refueling infrastructure.
        Question. Given that the University of Hawaii was designated in
    1996 as a Center of Excellence in Hydrogen Research and Education by
    the DOE, is Hawaii being considered as a location for these fossil
    energy demonstration activities--especially as they relate to renewable
    energy resources?
        Answer. The Office of Fossil Energy is responsible for developing
    advanced, lower cost technology for the production of synthesis gas
    from domestic fossil resources (coal, natural gas) and its separation
    into hydrogen. FE is looking for innovative technology approaches for
    hydrogen production such as by biological concepts, innovative
    technology for separation such as ceramic transport membranes, and
    hydrogen storage such as use of carbon nano-tubes. If these innovative
    technologies prove feasible and there is a subsequent program
    justification for larger scale effort, procurement for these activities
    would be conducted on a competitive basis. The University of Hawaii is
    welcome to participate. However, there is no major demonstrations
    planned at this time.
        Question. Given that the University of Hawaii was designated in
    1996 as a Center of Excellence in Hydrogen Research and Education by
    the DOE, is Hawaii being considered as a location for these Energy
    Conservation demonstration activities B especially as they relate to
    renewable energy resources?
        Answer. Funding for the demonstrations identified in Mr. Inouye's
    prior question on proposed demonstration activities for fiscal year
    2003 is being awarded through a competitive peer reviewed process. The
    University of Hawaii was notified of these solicitations and encouraged
    to submit proposals for additional activities. Since this new
    solicitation has recently closed (3/15/02), at this time we do not
    definitively know which institutions have submitted proposals. However,
    it is our understanding that the University of Hawaii was preparing,
    and did intend to submit, a proposal for this solicitation.
                                   freedomcar
        Question. The DOE has announced plans to replace the Partnership
    for a New Generation Vehicle (PNGV) with the FreedomCAR partnership.
    How much of the FreedomCar budget will be for university research
    programs?
        Answer. Historically about 3 percent of the Department's automotive
    research budget has funded university R&D. FreedomCAR activities will
    continue this trend. With FreedomCAR's emphasis on longer-range, high-
    risk technologies, and with a focus on individual component research,
    there will likely be increased opportunities for universities to
    participate in the coming years. In addition, we have efforts designed
    to make the entire program more accessible to universities. The CARAT
    (Cooperative Automotive Research for Advanced Technologies) program is
    restricted to universities and small businesses. The GATE (Graduate
    Automotive Technology Education) program provides assistance to
    graduate institutions to set up interdisciplinary curricula related to
    advanced vehicle development and provides support for a limited number
    of graduate students. We also have had solicitations restricted to
    university participation. One such effort (a university consortium) is
    focused on basic research into one type of advanced combustion that may
    solve some of the emissions problems that are a current barrier to
    using internal combustion engines. Under the current budget request
    just these three examples (CARAT, GATE, and the consortium) would total
    about $2.5 million.
        Question. Given the DOE's commitment to hydrogen and fuel cell
    technologies in the FreedomCAR, what is the Department's priority of
    hydrogen as an alternative energy source with respect to the 2003
    budget request?
        Answer. Much of the Department's ongoing transportation fuel cell
    technology activities (which total $50,000,000 in the fiscal year 2003
    budget request) focus on hydrogen as an alternative energy resource. To
    emphasize hydrogen-related work, the Department's fiscal year 2003
    budget request for Fuel Cell R&D, Fuel Processor/Storage increased by
    $2,800,000 or approximately 13 percent from the amount appropriated in
    fiscal year 2002. This increase would fund research into on-board
    hydrogen storage and associated off-board hydrogen fuel processing,
    purification, storage, and dispensing technologies. In addition, Field
    Evaluations, a new program element requesting $3,000,000, was added to
    conduct field evaluations of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and associated
    hydrogen fuel technologies. In addition, the Components program element
    is requesting a 16 percent increase for R&D efforts that include
    research into air compression technologies necessary for hydrogen fuel
    cell vehicles. FreedomCAR also includes a portion of the hydrogen
    program funded by the Energy and Water Development appropriation; that
    program request for fiscal year 2003 is over 50 percent higher than the
    fiscal year 2002 appropriation.
        Question. Are there testing standards promulgated by the DOE or
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding fuel
    cells to ensure that claims of energy production and efficiency by
    demonstration or pilot programs can be verified?
        Answer. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), through its Fuel
    Cell Standards Committee, is developing the necessary fuel cell vehicle
    testing standards for on-board energy production and efficiency. The
    Committee's working groups are developing testing standards for fuel
    cell power system performance, reliability, fuel economy, emissions,
    and safety. In addition, SAE is working to coordinate and integrate its
    fuel cell testing standards work with those of international standards
    organizations. The Department participates in these SAE activities
    through representation in the working groups.
        The Department is also developing testing standards to evaluate and
    validate technologies in the area of on-board hydrogen storage. This
    activity includes developing test protocols, procedures, and baseline
    testing of low pressure hydrogen storage materials and systems
    including metal hydrides, chemical hydrides, and carbon-based
    approaches.
                         energy security and assurance
        Question. The Department is requesting a 683 percent increase in
    energy security and assurance. How will this increase be spent?
        Answer. In November of 2001, I directed the Office of Emergency
    Operations to facilitate the protection of the National Energy
    Infrastructure as part of its core mission. They began an immediate and
    intensive outreach program to ascertain what had been done to protect
    the energy infrastructure and to identify what activities the
    Department needed to undertake to assist industry, as well as state and
    local governments. The energy infrastructure is comprised of 157,810
    miles of transmission lines, 5000 power plants generating a capacity of
    800,000 Megawatts, two million miles of oil pipelines, refineries,
    ports, storage facilities, and a natural gas distribution system moving
    23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in additional pipelines. The
    Department and the federal government have a tremendous amount of
    unique capabilities to offer and DOE is working to make those
    capabilities available through training, exercises and staff
    assistance.
        The fiscal year 2003 request is divided into two parts, $4.1
    million for Energy Security and Assurance activities, and $19.3 million
    for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC).
    The $4.1 million requested for Energy Security and Assurance will
    support refocused critical infrastructure protection activities and
    expand on them. This is a $1.2 million increase from the fiscal year
    2002 program in critical infrastructure protection. The fiscal year
    2003 request will support the following:
        State Visits.--As of today, teams have visited 42 states to
    identify what specific Energy Security and Assurance needs exist and
    put in place plans to support each state. The remaining states will be
    visited by mid-April. With this initial outreach effort complete, the
    Office of Energy Assurance will develop a long-term state engagement
    plan that will ensure active communications and support for each state,
    as well as regional and national strategies.
        Industry Vulnerability Survey Assistance.--We have begun an initial
    assessment of the 25 top critical energy assets throughout the country
    to provide a baseline analysis of the security of the energy
    infrastructure at a cost of $1.8M. Fourteen sites have been completed
    to date and the remainder will be complete by the end of March. In
    addition, the Department is conducting cyber vulnerability analyses of
    energy facilities to ensure the Supervisory Control and Data
    Acquisition systems (SCADA) are protected. A total of 174 critical
    energy assets have been identified.
        Development of National Security Standards.--We are in the process
    of developing national security standards/guidelines that will assist
    industry in developing security plans and procedures to better protect
    the national energy infrastructure. These standards are being developed
    cooperatively with industry and our interagency partners and will
    establish a baseline for developing voluntary national training
    standards for industry personnel.
        Technology Development and Sharing.--We conducted a technology expo
    in Washington, D.C. that allowed industry and government
    representatives to view first hand the technologies available in the
    national laboratories.
        Training Support and Outreach.--Utilizing the expertise of the DOE
    Emergency Operations Training Academy, we have conducted a review of
    training already available within the federal system that would be
    beneficial to industry and we are in the process of providing
    specialized training in weapons of mass destruction preparedness and
    response. Two sets of customized weapons of mass destruction emergency
    response interactive-training CDs are being distributed to states this
    week. We have completed the development of a Vulnerability Assessment
    two-day course, which has been made available through distance learning
    and we are in the process of completing a detailed five-day course that
    will be available to states and industry.
        The majority of the increase in fiscal year 2002, $19.3 million, is
    to support the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center
    (NISAC), a public/private technical partnership led by Los Alamos and
    Sandia National Laboratories. NISAC will provide a fundamentally new
    technical planning and decision support environment for the analysis of
    critical infrastructures, their interdependencies, vulnerabilities, and
    complexities for policy analysis and emergency planning. Analysis of
    critical infrastructure interdependencies in the electric power, oil
    and gas sectors is an essential component of a national energy security
    strategy. NISAC modeling, simulation, and analysis will support
    preparation of mitigation strategies, reconstruction planning, and real
    time crisis support. NISAC will use distributed information systems
    architectures to provide virtual analysis capabilities that will
    accommodate a large number of providers and a large number of users.
        The initiatives detailed above are the beginning of a long overdue
    program to share the resources of the Federal government and lead the
    way to a more secure and assured energy infrastructure. We require the
    budget increase to continue these and similar activities.
        Question. How will the Department assure the energy supply of an
    isolated state like Hawaii not be disrupted or made unaffordable by
    terrorist attacks?
        Answer. The Federal government cannot ensure that the energy supply
    of any state is not disrupted by a terrorist attack. What we can do is
    what we began in the wake of the September 11th attacks. That is to
    reach out to the State and local governments and the energy industry
    and listen to their answer when we ask ``What do you need? How can we
    help?'' We will have visited every one of the fifty states by mid-
    April.
        They are telling us they need training. We have responded by
    customizing three sets of interactive training CDs. We have developed a
    Vulnerability Assessment two-day course, which has been made available
    through distance learning and we are in the process of completing a
    detailed five-day course that will be available to states and industry
    later this month. This training and the associated training aids
    addresses the many facets of physical and cyber vulnerabilities and
    appropriate response action. While we are conducting baseline
    assessments of the nation's most critical energy infrastructure nodes,
    the training institutionalizes the skills to allow state, local and
    industry officials to assess their own entire infrastructure.
        We are sharing the technical resources of the Department such as
    providing mapping capabilities of their energy infrastructure. We are
    also making plume modeling technology available to State and local
    emergency officials so that, in the event of an attack, local officials
    can make the very time critical decisions needed to minimize exposure.
    We hosted a technology exposition in February 2002 that showcased
    technologies developed by the National Laboratories that may be of
    benefit to the energy infrastructure. We plan to host a similar one
    next year.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Byrd. Thank you very much, that concludes the
    hearing. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 2 p.m.,
    Thursday, April 25, when we will meet in room SD-192 to hear
    from Dale Bosworth, Chief, Forest Service, Department of
    Agriculture.
        [Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., Thursday, March 7, the subcom-
    mittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Thursday, April
    25.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:11 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert C. Byrd (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Byrd, Murray, Burns, Bennett, Stevens,
    Domenici, and Campbell.

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

    STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH, CHIEF
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
            HANK KASHDAN, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM AND BUDGET ANALYSIS

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

        Senator Byrd. The subcommittee will come to order.
        The subcommittee is pleased to welcome the Chief of the
    Forest Service, Dale Bosworth. Accompanying Chief Bosworth for
    this afternoon's hearing is Mark Rey, Under Secretary for
    Natural Resources and the Environment at the Department of
    Agriculture.
        Chief, now, when you appeared before the subcommittee, you
    had barely been on the job 2 weeks. Consequently, the decisions
    pertaining to the Forest Service budget request for fiscal year
    2002 had been made without your input. You have been Chief,
    now, a year. I think it is fair to conclude that you have a
    strong role in establishing the priorities of your agency for
    fiscal year 2003.
        Some of the proposals in your budget appear to be quite
    troubling. For example, the Forest Service proposes to
    eliminate the Economic Action Program, which is funded through
    the State and Private Forestry appropriation. This program is
    designed to assist rural communities by stimulating economic
    development through forestry and has funded important
    facilities in West Virginia, such as the Wood in Transportation
    Center in Morgantown.
        The idea of eliminating programs which are instrumental to
    rural communities, particularly those that are suffering
    economically, gives the subcommittee considerable pause.
        The administration's proposal to redirect $36 million
    within the Research account gives rise to some concern. As I
    understand it, these funds would be taken away from ongoing
    forest research programs and placed in other programs more to
    the administration's liking. Such a move would bring about the
    closing of 12 research laboratories and the reassignment or
    termination of as many as 275 employees.
        In West Virginia, we have three labs; one in Morgantown,
    one in Parsons, one in Princeton. And these are very fine
    forestry laboratories. And the subcommittee would be interested
    in knowing how the administration's proposal will impact the
    labs in West Virginia and how it will impact the talented West
    Virginians who work in those labs.

                         FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS

        I am interested in knowing, also, what progress you have
    made with respect to the chronic financial management problems
    that have plagued the Forest Service. For the past few years,
    the agency has told this subcommittee that it is putting in
    place improved management systems that will lead to greater
    accountability of the taxpayers' dollars, but the agency has
    yet to obtain a clean audit opinion, as required by statute,
    and remains on the General Accounting Office's list of agencies
    at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        As I indicated last year, Members of Congress and the
    American people whom we represent expect nothing less than a
    full accountability when it comes to the spending of tax
    dollars. This subcommittee is eager to hear what you have done
    to address these fiscal management problems and what your plans
    are for the future.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Senator Robert C. Byrd
        The subcommittee is pleased to welcome the Chief of the Forest
    Service, Dale Bosworth. Accompanying Chief Bosworth for this
    afternoon's hearing is Mark Rey, Undersecretary for Natural Resources
    and the Environment at the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Rey, we are
    glad you could join us as well.
        Chief, when you appeared before this subcommittee last year, you
    had barely been on the job two weeks. Consequently, all of the
    decisions pertaining to the Forest Service budget request for fiscal
    year 2002 had been made without your input. Having now been Chief for a
    year, I think it's fair to conclude that you have had a strong role in
    establishing the priorities of your agency for the fiscal year 2003
    budget. Unfortunately, I must tell you that I find some of the
    proposals in your budget quite troubling.
        For example, the Forest Service proposes to eliminate the Economic
    Action Program, which is funded through the State and Private Forestry
    appropriation. This program is designed to assist rural communities by
    stimulating economic development through forestry, and it has funded
    important facilities in my state such as the Wood In Transportation
    center in Morgantown. Chief, the idea of eliminating programs which are
    instrumental to rural communities, particularly those that are
    suffering economically, gives me great pause.
        I am also concerned with the administration's proposal to redirect
    $36 million within the Research account. As I understand it, these
    funds would be taken away from ongoing forest research programs and
    placed in other programs more to the administration's liking. Such a
    move would bring about the closing of 12 research laboratories and the
    reassignment or termination of as many as 275 employees. In West
    Virginia, we have three research labs; one in Morgantown, one in
    Parsons, and one in Princeton. These are some of the finest forestry
    laboratories in the world and so I will be interested in knowing how
    the administration's proposal will impact the labs in my state and the
    talented West Virginians who work in those labs.
        Finally, I am interested in knowing what progress you have made
    with respect to the chronic financial management problems that have
    plagued the Forest Service. For the past few years, the agency has told
    this committee that it is putting in place improved management systems
    that will lead to greater accountability of the taxpayers dollars.
    However, the agency has yet to obtain a clean audit opinion as required
    by statute, and it remains on the General Accounting Office's list of
    agencies at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse. Chief, as I said last
    year, Members of Congress, and, indeed, the American people, expect
    nothing less than a full accountability when it comes to the spending
    of tax dollars. This subcommittee is very anxious to hear what you have
    done to address these fiscal management problems and what your plans
    are for the future.
        Before hearing from our witnesses today, though, let me first turn
    to our distinguished Ranking Minority Member, Senator Burns, for any
    opening statement he may wish to make.

        Senator Byrd. Before hearing our witnesses today, let me
    turn to my colleague, here, and distinguished ranking member,
    Senator Burns, for any opening statement he may wish to make.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

        Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And thank
    you for calling this hearing today, as we start the
    appropriations process.
        I want to especially welcome the Chief, Dale Bosworth. We
    had the opportunity of working together when he was Region 1
    Supervisor in Missoula, Montana. And I will say that he has not
    had the luxury of support from all groups going into this job,
    but nonetheless, I think he has handled it with a great deal of
    integrity and good judgment. And so, I welcome him here today.
    And we know that we have challenges any time that you deal with
    public lands, and everybody has an opinion on how they should
    be managed.
        A task that is facing the Forest Service today is a
    daunting task; forest health concerns and hazardous fuel
    buildup face tens of millions of acres in our country.
    Recreational visits to our forests are at an all-time high. And
    a wave of Federal and State laws creates a cobweb of
    bureaucracy that is extremely hard to navigate.
        And I want to, right now, state publicly, that this Chief
    has worked very hard in this problem of analysis paralysis. And
    he is trying to break some of that, so that we can make
    decisions and common sense decisions on how we should manage
    our public lands.

                             CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES

        A few of my concerns must be underscored before we move
    into questions, though. I am deeply concerned that we are
    heading into what may become yet another catastrophic wildfire
    season. We are still not getting rain or snowfall in some of
    our better areas. And, of course, fires in New Mexico and
    Colorado have already reminded us that this drought that
    plagues the country and fuel loads that remain at extremely
    high levels across the West is not working in our favor.
        I believe we must continue the focus on our National Fire
    Plan to save communities who are at risk, to protect our
    natural resource base. And it is often ignored that the
    greatest threat to clean air and water in much of the country
    is catastrophic wildfire and its aftermath.
        So, we have had a rocky start at implementing the National
    Fire Plan. Funding levels will be hard to hold at a static
    level. Suppression costs will continue to vary from year to
    year. Despite this, I believe we are gaining ground again to
    prepare to deal with impacts that are left over from fire.

                                HAZARDOUS FUELS

        So, the greatest opportunity for a lasting impact, though,
    is a reduction of hazardous fuels. We have repeatedly cited and
    discussed reports that identify areas with significantly
    hazardous fuel loads and the risk involved in leaving these
    fuels unaddressed. As a result, Congress has appropriated
    hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few fiscal years,
    in an aggressive program to remove those fuels.
        My concern is that the geographic distribution of hazardous
    fuel reduction funding does not necessarily coincide with the
    prior research identifying the areas that are of the highest
    risk for catastrophic fire. And I hope the Chief will address
    this concern.
        I will make my statement a part of the record, Mr.
    Chairman.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Again, I wanted to thank you for holding these hearings,
    and as we start this process of funding what I think is a very,
    very important part of the Department of Agriculture.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
        I first wish to thank the Chairman for holding today's hearing. Due
    to the number of pressing issues facing Congress scheduling has proven
    to be a difficult exercise, but I am pleased we have been able to set
    aside this time to discuss the Forest Service's budget request for
    fiscal year 2003.
        I welcome Dale Bosworth, Chief of the Forest Service, and thank him
    for joining us today. I will attempt to keep my comments brief as I
    would prefer to spend as much time as possible allowing members to
    discuss the budget proposal with Chief Bosworth.
        As many of you know, I had the pleasure of working with Dale when
    he was Regional Forester for Region One and held responsibility for the
    management of National Forest lands in my home state of Montana. We
    share many of the same concerns regarding the stewardship of our forest
    lands. I am pleased to see initiatives under his leadership include an
    emphasis on breaking what he has termed ``Analysis Paralysis'' while
    attempting to work closely with local communities, focusing more
    attention on forest health concerns, and working to implement elements
    of the National Fire Plan.
        I don't believe any Forest Service Chief has been granted the
    luxury of unanimous support among all groups claiming a stake in forest
    management. However, I believe Chief Bosworth has garnered the respect
    of all sides to a greater extent than other Chiefs in recent memory. He
    has shown an ability to combine an extraordinary level of field
    experience with sharp mediating skills and decisiveness. This blend has
    proven essential in the effort to reform the Forest Service and
    reinvigorate its capability to accomplish on-the-ground improvements
    benefiting both forest health and local communities.
        The tasks currently facing the Forest Service are daunting. Forest
    health concerns and hazardous fuel build up face tens of millions of
    acres across the country. Recreational visits to our forests are at an
    all time high, and a web of federal and state laws creates a cobweb of
    bureaucracy that is extremely hard to navigate.
        A few of my concerns must be underscored before we move on to
    questions. First, I am deeply concerned we are heading into what may
    become yet another catastrophic wildfire season. Fires in New Mexico
    and Colorado have reminded us all that drought plagues much of the
    country and fuel loads remain at extremely high levels across the West.
    I believe we must continue to focus on the National Fire Plan to save
    communities at risk, and to protect our natural resource base. It is
    often ignored that the greatest threat to clean air and water in much
    of the country is catastrophic wildfire and its aftermath.
        We have had a rocky start in implementing the National Fire Plan.
    Funding levels will be hard to hold at a static level, and suppression
    costs will continue to vary from year to year. Despite this, I believe
    we are gaining ground in our efforts to prepare for fire and its
    impacts.
        The greatest opportunity for lasting impact is through the
    reduction of hazardous fuels. We have repeatedly cited and discussed
    reports that identify areas with significant hazardous fuel loads, and
    the risk involved with leaving these fuels unaddressed. As a result,
    Congress has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars over the past
    few fiscal years in an aggressive program to remove fuels. My concern
    is that the geographic distribution of hazardous fuel reduction funding
    does not necessarily coincide with prior research identifying the areas
    at highest risk for catastrophic fire. I hope the Chief will address
    this concern.
        Many of my constituents have been expressing ongoing concern
    regarding increasing access restrictions on our National Forest lands.
    Despite decades of land closures that have crippled economies and
    communities, and in the face of rebounding populations of endangered
    species, the Forest Service continues to increase restrictions based
    upon little, or knowingly tainted, scientific evidence. I hope the
    Chief will explain how current efforts to update forest plans coupled
    with outreach efforts to local communities will address this problem.
        Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, I find the questions posed
    during these hearings and the subsequent dialog to be the most
    educational portion of the proceedings. As a result, I will wrap up my
    comments by thanking the Chief for his hard work and for joining us
    today.

        Senator Byrd. Senator?
        Senator Campbell. May I have the opportunity to make a
    short statement?
        Senator Byrd. Go ahead.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL

        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I would also like to welcome Chief Bosworth and thank
    him for taking the time to come and speak to us. And I
    appreciate you coming here since sections of the Forest
    Service's budget have a direct impact on my State, as it does
    on many of us westerners from public land States.
        Many of the land issues affect my State, since Colorado has
    almost 14 million acres of national forest land and another 8.3
    million of BLM land within its boundaries.
        The President's budget for the Forest Service in fiscal
    year 2003 totals $4.9 billion, which is $220 million--$227
    million less than fiscal year 2002.
        The Forest Service's mission is caring for the land and
    serving the people. The priorities of the President's budget
    reflect this or certainly ought to reflect it. And I just
    wanted to make a comment to associate myself with the comments
    of Senator Burns as it deals with fires.

                               NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

        The National Fire Plan, which was implemented through this
    subcommittee, is a joint program between the USDA and the
    Department of Interior. It was developed 2 years ago, in
    response to the major wildfires that swept across the West,
    including my home State of Colorado, causing millions of
    dollars of damage.
        The National Fire Plan's request for 2003 is over $2.1
    billion, but $159 million less than fiscal year 2002. The
    Forest Service's portion of that request is $1.45 billion, $134
    million less than fiscal year 2002.
        The State and Volunteer Assistance Programs are also being
    requested at lower levels than fiscal year 2002. And I have to
    tell you, not only that it disappoints me, but I think it is
    downright foolhardy and dangerous.
        Right now, if you watched this morning on CNN, there is a
    raging fire west of Denver. Yesterday it consumed 1,250 acres;
    threatened 2,000 people, who were evacuated, 1,000 homes. And
    within 24 hours that fire has doubled. It is 2,500 acres as of
    today. And it is still going on and it is still growing this
    afternoon, it is my understanding.
        That is simply unacceptable, reducing the amount of money
    in both fire suppression and firefighting at a time when we
    know that they are going to be worse this summer.
        I happen to live in a very dry area of southwest Colorado,
    Mr. Chairman. We have got about one-tenth of the normal
    moisture that we get. And I think that is throughout the West;
    in Wyoming, Montana, all of the States. About one-tenth of what
    we normally get.
        Those of us who use irrigated water, for instance, on
    ranches, normally do not have the water turned off from
    irrigation lakes until about September. They tell us it is
    going to be turned off, now, by June or July, which means not
    only is it going to affect the income of a lot of ranchers, but
    there is going to be an absolute tinderbox of country, I think,
    all the way from the Rockies to the Sierras. And I am just
    absolutely sure that we are going to face one of the worst fire
    times in the history of our country, because of that drought we
    are facing in the West.
        And so, I wanted to get that on the record early on, Mr.
    Chairman, that this budget that the President sent over,
    frankly, from the standpoint of what it is going to do in the
    West, it could be just devastating.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will have a couple of questions
    to ask as we get into that part of the afternoon.
        Senator Byrd. Senator, please proceed.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to welcome the Under Secretary, Mr. Mark Rey, and
    the Chief of the Forest Service, Dale Bosworth.
        As most of my colleagues know, Mr. Bosworth spent part of
    his early career in Ogden, Utah. And we are proud to claim him
    as one of our own. No matter how long he lives outside the
    State, we are going to continue to do that. And we appreciate
    you being here.
        We had a good relationship with Jack Blackwell, when he was
    the Regional Forester. And we are very pleased with the choice
    of Jack Troyer, recently chosen to be the Regional Forester. We
    have good people.

                                WINTER OLYMPICS

        Now, I want to formally thank the Forest Service for their
    outstanding support during the Winter Olympics. We had a lot of
    history building up to the Olympics, with the Forest Service.
    And it all paid off in a fabulous way.
        The Forest Service--one of the most exciting venues of the
    games, the downhill, men's and women's downhill and Super G,
    were done at Snow Basin. And Snow Basin would not have happened
    if we had not had the full cooperation of the Forest Service.
    It happened, mainly, in the previous administration, but the
    present administration carried forward in the same fashion.
        So, on behalf of the people of Utah and the Olympic
    Committee, neither of which--with the people of Utah, I have an
    obvious official relationship, but the Olympic Committee, I
    have no official relationship with, but I want to offer formal
    thanks to the Forest Service and all of your personnel for the
    tremendous job they did to assist us there.

                                    GRIDLOCK

        Now, the Chief points out in his testimony that gridlock
    and analysis paralysis are major problems in the Forest
    Service. And he says the solution is collaboration and common
    ground. And I agree with that, but it only works if the parties
    involved want to collaborate and seek common ground.
        And, unfortunately, in my State, we have a polarized
    atmosphere. And I am not sure if we can find common ground. It
    may be the only way we deal with this is through some changes
    in law and regulation. And this is manifested in the statement
    by Mr. John Horning of the Forest Guardians, who said, in the
    April 23 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune, ``It is our long-
    term goal to end commercial sales in the national forests.''
        So, I will be asking whether that is good for the health of
    the national forests. I have the feeling that it would not be
    environmentally sound to have the end of commercial sales in
    the national forests. It would give the environmental groups a
    temporary warm feeling that they have done something
    worthwhile, and then the feeling would get significantly warmer
    as the forest fires begin to rage in areas that could otherwise
    have been more intelligently managed.
        So, these are difficult problems. I think we have good
    leadership, and I welcome you here today.
        Thank you.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Murray, we have heard from everybody
    else. Would you like to say something at this point?

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

        Senator Murray. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
    opportunity. I do have to be over on the floor to offer an
    amendment. So, I will just have an opening statement and submit
    my questions for the record, if you do not mind.
        Senator Byrd. Very well.
        Senator Murray. I did just want to mention that Mr.
    Bosworth's testimony mentions the 30 mile fire that happened
    last year in Washington State, where we lost four of our young
    firefighters. It was a real tragedy, and I hope we learned from
    that tragedy to prevent future losses.
        My question, for the record, will really focus on the cut
    in funding and staff for the Preparedness Program that was
    proposed by the administration and on the current status of the
    new Fire Shelter Development.
        I just do not understand how the administration proposes to
    protect our young firefighters by cutting funding for training.
        I also want to raise the issue of the Forest Service
    research budget. The entire range of interested parties have
    told me they do not oppose the directed research in the
    administration's budget, but they do object to cutting current
    research programs in order to pay for those new initiatives,
    and I hope to work with my colleagues to meet those objectives.
        And, finally, just quickly, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring
    to everybody's attention the recently released GAO study on
    fish passage obstruction on Forest Service and on BLM lands
    that is caused by culverts. The study was undertaken at the
    request of my colleague, Congressman Norm Dicks, and it clearly
    recognizes the significance and enormous scope of this problem.
    Poorly designed and maintained culverts appear to be the single
    largest obstacle for salmon and steelhead reaching high quality
    habitat.
        Right now, we are asking a lot from private landowners in
    our effort to recover ESA listed species. This report by GAO
    shows that we are not complying with the law in the management
    of our own Federal lands, and we need to do better.
        So, I hope to work with the subcommittee and the
    administration to address those issues.
        And, again, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not being able to
    stay for the hearing, but I would like to submit my questions
    for the record.
        Senator Byrd. That will be done, without objection.

                       SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH

        All right. Chief, you may proceed with your statement.
        Mr. Bosworth. Thank you, Chairman Byrd and members of the
    subcommittee. I do appreciate the opportunity to be here today
    to talk about the President's fiscal year 2003 budget for the
    Forest Service.
        And it is a real privilege to be here. I have been in this
    job, now, for about a year. And I want to say that I have
    really been encouraged by the level of interest across the
    country in the management of the Nation's forests and
    grasslands. And I particularly appreciate the interest in this
    subcommittee, as well.
        Before I came into this job, I had a very--I guess I had a
    deep appreciation for the work that Forest Service folks do out
    on the ground. And I have to say, after having been in this job
    now for a year and having a chance to look clear across the
    country, it has even deepened my appreciation for the work that
    those folks are doing.
        And I would have to agree that I was very, very proud of
    the work the Forest Service folks did in Utah to help with the
    Olympics. I had the opportunity to attend part of that and to
    meet with our many folks that we have there. And they were just
    doing a great job, and they were enthusiastic. And the
    partnerships that were built between the Forest Service and the
    communities were great. And it just made me proud, as a Forest
    Service person and as an American, to be able to see the kind
    of work that was done there. So, I appreciate your comments,
    Senator Bennett.
        The fiscal year 2003 President's budget requests, for the
    Forest Service, almost $4.9 billion. And with this level of
    funding, we are going to be emphasizing protecting the public,
    employees, property, and resources; providing benefits to
    communities; improving forest and rangeland health; and meeting
    the growing recreation demands for goods and services and
    amenities by the public.
        I intend to focus a great deal of attention, though, on re-
    establishing a bias in favor of accomplishing the work on the
    ground of the agency. I am very concerned about the analysis
    paralysis or the gridlock that we are in; the fact that it
    takes so much time and money to do planning and to work through
    paper pushing and process kinds of things, and that so little
    of the money actually ends up doing the work on the ground.
        The work that we are trying to accomplish on the ground are
    things that I think will protect communities from catastrophic
    wildfire; to provide communities a sustainable flow of forest
    products; to put field employees in the field when they need to
    be. And the gridlock that we are in is preventing that. And I
    intend to continue to work on that.
        I intend to continue to look for solutions and to work with
    you, in hopes that we can find some answers to some of those
    problems that I think have accumulated over a long, long period
    of time.

                               NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

        The National Fire Plan will continue to be a top priority
    for the Fire Service. We are going to concentrate on the
    restoration of ecosystems to fire-adapted conditions.
        There are several parts to the National Fire Plan, but the
    one part that I think, in the long-term, that is so, so
    important is dealing with those fuels that have accumulated
    over a long period of time.
        And that is the part of the National Fire Plan that does
    not achieve immediate objectives or immediate consequences.
    What it does is it takes time. It is going to take 10 years, 15
    years of treating those fuels before we really start seeing a
    difference in terms of being able to protect communities, as
    well as, hopefully, be able to see reductions in some of our
    fire suppression costs.
        In the end, if we can reduce the number of communities that
    are at risk from wildland fire, I think we will have been
    successful.
        The other aspect of the National Fire Plan that I see as
    extremely important is our relationship with the Department of
    Interior and with the State organizations, because we have to
    do this in a way that is a partnership between all Federal
    wildland fire organizations, as well as the States. And we have
    to work very, very closely with the communities as we move
    forward.

                         MAINTAINING COMMUNITY BENEFITS

        The Forest Service, I believe, plays a key role in
    maintaining benefits to communities. And there are many--we
    have many opportunities to work with communities to help
    sustain community vitality. The way that we can do that--there
    are a number of different ways. By working with folks, in terms
    of--like the National Fire Plan, in terms of being able to do
    work on the national forests and allowing people to have a
    priority for contracting. There are collaborative groups within
    the communities to help figure out how they want to see their
    national forests managed.
        I think there are a number of things that we can do, but in
    the end, I believe that we really need to have a close
    relationship, as good neighbors, with the communities and to
    those people that are most affected by the management of the
    national forests.

                                INVASIVE SPECIES

        One of the problems that I am concerned about, that I think
    is coming down the road and we will be seeing more and more of
    in the future, has to do with invasive species. And I intend to
    focus on the invasive species problem more and more in the
    coming months. And I believe that sometime in the future it is
    going to become one of the agency's major efforts.
        It strikes me that it cries out for a solution similar to
    the National Fire Plan. As you see the insects, the diseases
    and pathogens, the noxious weeds that are infesting a good part
    of the West, aquatic invasives--when you start seeing the
    magnitude of that problem, I think we are going to have a
    deeper and deeper problem, if we do not come up with a solution
    on how to deal with that. And so, I am going to continue to
    look for some answers and to work with you on that.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So, that concludes my opening remarks. And I will submit
    the entire testimony for the record. And I would be happy to
    answer any questions you might have.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Dale Bosworth
        Chairman Byrd and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    invitation to discuss President's fiscal year 2003 Budget for the
    Forest Service. I am honored to be here today.
        In my first year as Chief, I am encouraged by the level of interest
    in management of the Nation's forests and rangelands shared by so many,
    as well as this Subcommittee. I have deepened my appreciation for the
    job being performed on the ground by our employees, as well as for the
    many individuals and groups that actively engage in the agency's work.
    Although I have worked on many wildland fires during my 36-year career,
    I appear before you today with a renewed appreciation of what it means
    to be on the ``hot seat.''
        Before focusing on any specific program areas, I want to emphasize
    that the safety of agency employees and the public is one of the
    highest priorities for the Forest Service. In particular, the agency
    must take all action possible to prevent tragedies such as the
    Thirtymile incident last summer where four firefighters died. The
    Forest Service will ensure that proposed changes in management,
    policies, training, and operations are made to improve safety for the
    public and all employees, especially with respect to firefighter
    safety. The agency must also work to reduce risks to life, property,
    and ecosystems from high-intensity wildland fires within and adjacent
    to communities.
        Under Secretary Rey and I intend to focus a great deal of attention
    on reestablishing a bias for accomplishing the work of the agency. What
    is commonly referred to as ``gridlock'' or ``analysis paralysis'' is
    directly affecting the ability of the agency to protect communities
    from catastrophic wildfire, provide communities a sustainable flow of
    forest products, and directly serve the public that uses and enjoys
    national forest lands.
        The National Academy of Public Administrators reported two years
    ago that up to 40 percent of the work done on National Forests goes
    into the planning and analysis process. In addition, indirect expenses
    take an additional share of the budget (around 20 percent). Too little
    value is returned to the public. To move beyond gridlock, our approach
    is to rely on local knowledge and local participation as tools to
    achieve national goals; we will focus on local solutions to national
    issues. Local groups can help the agency find common ground to restore
    forest and ecosystem health. Conversely, this commitment to local
    decision-making cannot cloud our need to employ rigorous standards and
    consistent processes that assure financial integrity is paramount. I
    want to confirm that the renewed emphasis on local decision-making will
    not impede the reforms necessary for assuring public trust to ensure in
    the fiscal integrity or scientific reliability of the agency.
        The Forest Service Preparedness Program, in cooperation with the
    Department of the Interior's (DOI) program and those of state agencies
    and local volunteer fire departments, will provide the resources and
    planning needed to protect communities and ecosystems from wildland
    fire. The Hazardous Fuel Program, in conjunction with DOI's program,
    will collaborate with State and local communities, tribal governments,
    and other partners to focus treatments in areas of greatest need of
    community protection and ecosystem restoration. The fiscal year 2003
    Budget requests $235 million for the Hazardous Fuels program, an
    increase in the program of about $26 million. Seventy percent of these
    funds are targeted for the wildland-urban interface. Funding for
    rehabilitation and restoration, along with Burned Area Emergency, will
    protect communities and watersheds from post-fire damage, and help
    burned areas recover from fire damage. The Forest Service Research and
    Development Staff, along with the DOI-Forest Service Joint Fire Science
    Program, are focusing efforts on fuels reduction opportunities,
    including: (1) prioritizing areas for treatment; (2) determining
    impacts of treatments on wildlife, fish, and riparian areas; and (3)
    developing new uses for forest undergrowth and small diameter trees.
    The Budget provides resources to State and local communities to
    establish a truly comprehensive wildland fire management policy across
    all ownership boundaries. It provides the resources to increase the
    firefighting capability and planning of State and local fire agencies,
    and to reduce hazardous fuel on non-Federal land. Finally, the
    fireplain easements program will enable the Forest Service to work with
    States to identify alternatives in areas where potential fire
    suppression expenditures exceed the estimated value of private
    property.
        The USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior are in
    the second year of implementing the National Fire Plan. Significant
    headway was made in fiscal year 2001 and continues in fiscal year 2002
    to enhance tracking and reporting mechanisms to provide accountability
    as accomplishments are made in firefighting, rehabilitation and
    restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance and
    research.
        The fiscal year 2003 Budget provides an increase of $10 million
    within the Forest Stewardship program to foster enhanced management and
    use of small diameter and underutilized wood biomass on private lands.
    Funds are also included for research on the use of small diameter trees
    for biobased products and bioenergy.
        Keeping watersheds in good condition and restoring them where
    necessary are fundamental to the stewardship of the land and natural
    resources. The agency will focus efforts and move ahead on watershed
    restoration consistent with the agency's national goal to improve and
    protect watershed conditions to provide the water quality and quantity
    necessary to support ecological functions and beneficial water uses.
        In each of these areas, research is the key to sustaining our
    forest and rangeland productivity and health while addressing natural
    resource needs.
        The Budget also includes $15 million to transfer to the Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
    to help expedite Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation.
    The $15 million is roughly enough to have one FWS or NMFS person per
    forest available to respond to ongoing agency projects. This will
    promote both available personnel to review project proposals under ESA
    Section 7, as well as ensure increased familiarity and understanding on
    the part of the FWS and NMFS staff as a consequence of their continuing
    involvement with USDA projects.
        I was honored to represent the Forest Service this year at the
    Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Two Olympic Winter Games signature
    events--the downhill and super G--took place at the Snowbasin Ski
    Resort, which is located on the Ogden Ranger District of the Wasatch-
    Cache National Forest. The USDA Forest Service's main goal for the 2002
    Olympic Winter Games was to help ensure that Olympic-related activities
    on the National Forests were safe and environmentally responsible. Due
    to the dedication of many Forest Service employees, cooperators, and
    visitors, I am pleased to inform the Subcommittee that this goal was
    achieved.
        Recreation is the fastest growing use on the national forests and
    grasslands and how most Americans come into contact with the Forest
    Service. The agency's recreation framework is being implemented through
    five primary activities: (1) operating developed sites; (2) managing
    general forest areas; (3) protecting cultural resources and wilderness;
    (4) providing interpretation and education; and (5) administering
    recreation special use authorizations. The agency will focus on a
    measurable improvement in customer satisfaction and an increase in
    documented contributions to community economies, primarily through
    strategic business delivery partnerships. The Budget calls for $264
    million for recreation in fiscal year 2003.
        The Forest Service recognizes it cannot provide credible natural
    resource management without effective financial and performance
    management. The agency continues its emphasis on improving the quality
    of its financial systems and performance reporting processes. A key
    aspect of improved performance accountability involves providing field
    units with the opportunity to influence the budgets they receive. The
    Forest Service formulated input to the fiscal year 2003 President's
    Budget using a new budget formulation process that provided local units
    the opportunity to develop budget requests at the local level.
        The Forest Service has operated a fully compliant financial system
    for more than two years, and continues to implement actions that
    improve financial accountability. The Department is working closely
    with the Forest Service to promote agency efforts to provide high
    quality accounting information. In addition, the Department of
    Agriculture and the Forest Service continue to move forward in efforts
    to obtain a ``clean audit opinion.'' Essential to this goal are
    effective cash reconciliation and property management programs. The
    Forest Service has improved the agency's accountability by directly
    linking the accuracy of accounting records to reconciliation processes
    and by committing an agency-wide team effort to ensure property records
    are adequate to document the approximately $4 billion inventory of
    assets. I have also ordered the formation of six ``strike teams'' that
    will further develop or modify financial policies and procedures.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the President's fiscal year 2003
    Budget demonstrates the commitment of the Forest Service to
    accountability through results. The Budget includes funding priorities
    for the National Fire Plan and wildland fire management; research as
    the basis of scientifically sound resource decision-making; forest
    health; land acquisition; recreation; and minerals management,
    especially projects related to the National Energy Policy.
        This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
    questions that you may have.

                           NATIONAL FIRE PLAN REPORT

        Senator Byrd. Last year, the Forest Service worked hand-in-
    hand with the Department of the Interior, and State and local
    governments to craft a 10-year strategy to combat forest fires
    and reduce the risk of fire in and around communities. But the
    National Fire Plan did not identify funding requirements for
    the various components.
        I understand that the amount of money needed to fight
    forest fires in any given year is going to fluctuate, based on
    various factors, not the least of which is the weather. I also
    think it is important for the committee to fully understand the
    costs in the National Fire Plan, therefore, to provide the
    necessary resources.
        Consequently, the Forest Service was directed, in fiscal
    year 2002, to--in the appropriation bill of fiscal year 2002,
    to update the National Fire Plan by providing Congress with
    detailed schedules of planned activities and the funding
    required to carry out the plan.
        The report was to be delivered to the House and Senate
    Appropriations Committees by March 15 of this year. To date, we
    have not yet received the report.
        Please tell the subcommittee why the Forest Service has not
    complied with the committee's direction and when you anticipate
    sending the report forward.
        Mr. Bosworth. Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service and the
    Department of Interior have worked closely together to produce
    that report. And currently, it is at OMB for clearance. And
    there is a number of things that we are trying to iron out. One
    of those has to do with how we display future costs. We are
    working with OMB on those. And as soon as we get those issues
    resolved, then we will be able to provide the report.
        And I do apologize for the delay. We want to get the thing
    done and done right. And, hopefully, it will be fairly soon
    when we are able to deliver it.
        Senator Byrd. But when do you anticipate it will be done?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, the report, as I said, has been put
    together and completed by the Forest Service and the Department
    of Interior. And I do not have an answer for how long it will
    take for us to work through the--with OMB, but my guess would
    be that it is going to be within the next, probably, 2 weeks,
    at the most. That would be my expectation.
        Senator Byrd. All right. Give us a progress report. You can
    have someone call the staff here, so we will know what we can
    expect.
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, as I said, I expect it to be done
    within the next couple of weeks. And we will keep your staff up
    to date on how that is coming.
        Senator Byrd. Just do that. And we will just slow down the
    bill until we hear from you. Will that help?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, we would like to get the bill. So, we
    will hurry on the----

                               FIREFIGHTING COSTS

        Senator Byrd. Well, it would be a good idea if you get your
    work done, so we can get ours done.
        If the fire season turns out to be as bad as the last, when
    you spent $690 million, would that mean that the Forest Service
    will need to borrow $370 million to cover this cost, if, as it
    appears, that for the current fiscal year, the Forest Service
    has approximately $321 million on hand for firefighting
    activities?
        Mr. Bosworth. That is correct. We have a maximum of $321
    million available in fire suppression. And under the present
    circumstances, we would expect to transfer a significant amount
    of funds from other appropriations.
        Senator Byrd. From what other appropriations?
        Mr. Bosworth. From other appropriations that we receive
    from you that we have the--when we need to, in an emergency
    situation, we may end up having to transfer some funds.
        Now, of course, we would hope that we are able to get
    through a fire season with our average costs and would be able
    to achieve our firefighting--the firefighting that we need to
    do. But in the event that the costs are over what we have been
    appropriated, then we will be borrowing from some of the other
    accounts.

               BORROWING FUNDS TO FINANCE EMERGENCY FIREFIGHTING

        That is not a good way of doing it. In the past, the way
    that we dealt with that when that occurred is we borrowed from
    our trust funds, like our Knutson-Vandenburg Trust Fund or our
    Salvage Trust Fund. But with the decline in the timber program
    over the years, those funds are--there is not a lot of money
    left in them.
        And so, we are faced, then, if we come along in those years
    and exceed our average, we are faced with pulling firefighters
    off the line or borrowing money from other appropriated
    dollars. And we have a plan for how we would do that, in the
    event that we need to. But this--I believe that this issue does
    cry out for a long-term solution.
        You know, with the fire suppression costs that are steadily
    increasing, and that is partly due to the increasing in fuels,
    I think it is highly probable that without a solution, we are
    going to be continuing to have to disrupt some of those
    programs every year or two or every----
        Senator Byrd. So, what do you do, in the event you have to
    disrupt them? Do you have to get the approval of this
    committee?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, we have the authority, for emergency
    purposes, to be able to use those funds.
        Senator Byrd. To use what funds?
        Mr. Bosworth. To use any--the Salvage Sale Fund, Land
    Acquisition, Construction and Maintenance, Timber Purchase
    Funds, Working Capital Funds.
        Again, if we end up in the situation that we exceed our
    fire suppression dollars, we have the authority, then, to use
    those funds.

                            ANTICIPATED FIRE SEASON

        Senator Byrd. Well, with the extensive drought conditions
    that we are already experiencing, and have for quite some time,
    how ``average'' do you think this fire season will be?
        Mr. Bosworth. At this point, with the most recent modeling
    that we have done, our projection now is that it will be an
    above-average fire season--above-average cost fire season.
        Now, we do not know that until we start trying to develop
    our models in the springtime, based upon the drought indexes
    and other factors, weather patterns and whatnot, but it
    appears, right now, that we have a high probability of having a
    much higher-than-average fire season.
        Senator Byrd. I am going to turn to Senator Burns for any
    questions he may have right now. I have further questions.
        Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As you know, we had a little wrestling match with OMB to
    get your money for rehab and restoration, and to get those
    dollars and get them into the mainstream.
        Could you tell me, Chief, whenever you started--after a
    burned area, just tell this committee what the basic principles
    are and what activities are taking place immediately after the
    fire, when you start rehab and restoration?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, there are a couple of parts to it. The
    first thing is----
        Senator Burns. And I realize all forests are not the same,
    and one size does not fit all.
        Mr. Bosworth. But as a general----
        Senator Burns. Yes.

                      BURNED AREA EMERGENCY REHABILITATION

        Mr. Bosworth. As a general approach, the first thing that
    we do is we send in what we call a BAER Team, a Burned Area
    Emergency Rehabilitation Team. They are there before the smoke
    is even--and the fire is even out. That team does an assessment
    of those kinds of things that have to be done very, very
    quickly, primarily before the spring--before the following
    spring rains. And they will identify the work we--they will
    then apply for emergency dollars, which we can get through very
    quickly and get those dollars to them.
        And those dollars generally go to things like, maybe catch
    basins; maybe putting in straw waddles; maybe laying logs down
    to stop erosion, to stop the mud flows as much as we can. We
    replace culverts with larger culverts, if we need to, to handle
    the increased water flows.
        That is the first thing that is done. And that is the
    emergency work.
        The next thing that happens about that time would be we
    will put together an interdisciplinary team to evaluate the
    area to see what kind of work needs to be done in the longer
    term. And that may include, if we lost facilities, what kind of
    work needs to be done to fix those facilities; if there is
    going to be increased fuel hazard 10 or 15 years from now, from
    the dead trees that are there, that we are going to want to
    remove some of those through a salvage timber sale effort;
    whether there are opportunities for salvage in addition to
    that; whether we need to do longer-term grass seeding with
    native seeds to rehabilitate the area; do we need to do
    reforestation by planting trees?
        And so, that evaluation is done with an interdisciplinary
    team. We go through an Environmental Impact Statement process.
    The whole time, we are working with the public on this. We come
    out with a draft Environmental Impact Statement through public
    comments. We come out with a final Environmental Impact
    Statement.
        If there are threatened or endangered species that are
    anywhere near the area, then we consult with Fish and Wildlife
    Service. If it is--unless there are salmon and steelhead. And
    then we also consult with National Marine Fisheries Service to
    get a biological opinion.
        And, finally, we make a decision.

                                 EA VERSUS EIS

        Senator Burns. In your activities for rehab and
    restoration, do you have to do an EA or an EIS?
        Mr. Bosworth. It depends upon the magnitude of it. If you
    take something like the fires that we had in the year 2000,
    almost all of those are Environmental Impact Statements, which
    generally take an additional period of time, because you come
    out with a draft, go through the comments, and whatnot.
        Senator Burns. It also takes resources, too, does it not?
    Money.
        Mr. Bosworth. It takes money.
        Senator Burns. That we could use in other areas, knowing
    that we are going to have to go in and rehab anyway and restore
    anyway. And I find some of those things that we do wastes a
    little bit of money.

                            HAZARDOUS FUELS BUILD-UP

        Let us talk about hazardous fuels and build-up. Tell me
    your progress. We allocated some money to deal with hazardous
    fuels and to reduce the fuel on the ground in some of our
    forests. Tell me how that is coming along and give me a
    thumbnail sketch.
        Mr. Bosworth. Okay. The first year of the National Fire
    Plan was, to some degree, a start-up year. We took projects
    that were already on the shelf, that we could implement fairly
    quickly, and did both prescribed burning with, in some cases,
    mechanical treatment, so that we could do the prescribed
    burning. And I will have to get the specific numbers here, in
    terms of acres, that we accomplished.
        We have been trying to move on the Wildland-Urban
    Interface. It takes a little bit of time to be able to shift
    gears. And now we are shifting more toward those communities
    that are highest at risk.
        We treated about 1.4 million acres of hazardous fuels, and
    over 600,000 acres treated was in the Wildland-Urban Interface.
        As I said, we are trying to move forward in getting more of
    those acres or, at least, more of the dollars spent around the
    Wildland-Urban Interface.
        But I would also like to say that when we do that work near
    communities, it is much more expensive than it is when you are
    in the back country. And so, as we move toward the Urban
    Interface, then we will experience our costs.

                                 NOXIOUS WEEDS

        Senator Burns. One of these days I am going to visit with
    you, but I have got one big concern, and you mentioned it in
    your opening statement, which I think is very important, and
    that is noxious weeds and invasive species, because I know
    there are growing concerns throughout the Forest--and those
    growths of those stands of invasive or noxious weeds spill over
    into private lands and takes away their value.
        We only had--the budget request increases to address this
    problem, including $12 million in a new Pest and Pathogens
    Fund. Have you visited with some of the folks that,
    biologically, we can take care of some of these invasive
    species?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, I have not had any real recent
    discussion, but I have had a number of discussions with
    researchers, scientists, a couple of years ago, particularly
    when I was in Montana and looking at things like leafy spurge
    and some of the work that we are doing to try to find
    biological approaches toward----
        Senator Burns. Have you visited with Dr. Sands over at
    Bozeman, over at Montana State University?
        Mr. Bosworth. No, I have not.
        Senator Burns. I would suggest that we do that one of these
    days, because there are some exciting things happening in plant
    proteins, of which they are addressing some things around the
    world. And I would suggest that we do that one of these days.
        Mr. Bosworth. I would be very happy to do that. And, again,
    I would like to say that our research organization is critical
    to us. And the research that we are doing in the Forest Service
    is also good research. And it is a critical aspect at getting
    ahead of this problem and really clearly understanding what
    some of the solutions to it might be.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know there are
    other folks that want to have questions.
        Senator Byrd. Very well. Let me call on Senator Stevens.
    Turn your mike on, Ted.

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. There you go. Thank you very much. I am
    glad to have an opportunity to be here. And I thank you for
    your recognition.

                         ALASKA TIMBER INDUSTRY DECLINE

        I am concerned about the continued decline of the timber
    industry in Alaska, as you know. And I had a chart prepared for
    this hearing.
        In 1947, the allowable sale quantity was 1.38 billion board
    feet. In 1971, at the time of the Alaska Native Land Claim
    Settlement Act, that was reduced to 950 million board feet. In
    1980, in what we called ANILCA, the Alaska National Interest
    Land Conservation Act, it was reduced to 450 million board
    feet. And at that time, there was an absolute promise that
    there would be no jobs lost in the forest; that that was the
    bottom line, never to be reduced.
        In 1991, it was reduced to 440 million board feet. In 1993,
    it was reduced to 310 million board feet. In 1997, it was
    reduced to 267 million board feet. In 1999, it was reduced to
    150 million. And in the year 2000, it was limited to 50 million
    board feet from the Tongass.
        In other words, we have had almost a 100 percent loss. Both
    of the pulp mills have closed. All of the timber plants are
    closed.
        Last year, the final wood product facility, the veneer
    plant in Ketchikan, filed for bankruptcy.

                     TIMBER SALES PIPELINE RESTORATION FUND

        Now, this subcommittee has consistently included monies for
    what we call the Timber Pipeline Restoration; monies to
    increase and go back to the commitment level, in order to
    establish a 3-year timber supply. That was the goal; to have a
    3-year timber supply to meet market demand.
        I am here because I do not know what has happened to that
    money. Very clearly, the money we put up was to harvest the
    last set goal of 267 million board feet. That, obviously, was
    the last bottom line. The bottom line before that was 450
    million board feet. But it keeps coming down.
        Now, what I would like to ask is if we can find a way to
    find out how the region spent the monies that this subcommittee
    has made available. I would like to have you give me a detailed
    accounting, for the record, of the monies that have been
    authorized by this committee since the last administrative
    decision in 1993, which was 310 million board feet annual
    supply was to be the goal to meet market demand.
        I would also like to ask you, now, as the person in charge,
    can we get a commitment from you as to what is the current
    bottom line for harvesting timber? This is the largest forest
    in the country. It had 103-year sustained yield cutting cycle
    when it had allocated 950 million board feet a year.
        As I said, in this last year, we cut--it was allocated 50
    million, but they cut 47 million, was my total. Is that what
    you have? The cut was 47 million?
        Mr. Bosworth. I believe that is correct. And I will have to
    check those figures. I will get you the--we can get you the
    information and we will provide that information, the detailed
    accounting you asked for in terms of the pipeline dollars, what
    it was spent for, what was accomplished with that. And we will
    make that available.

                            ALASKA PULP CORPORATION

        Senator Stevens. The second thing is that in 1995, the
    Alaska Pulp Corporation's long-term contract was cancelled and
    there is a lawsuit pending. Can you give us an update on that
    lawsuit? Are you involved in that lawsuit?
        Mr. Bosworth. And I will let Mark give that.
        Mr. Rey. I was just briefed on the status of that lawsuit
    yesterday and the Justice Department and the plaintiffs in that
    suit are involved in the beginnings of discussions to see if we
    can resolve that litigation through a settlement. It is very
    early in the process at this stage.
        Senator Stevens. Well, since that contract was cancelled,
    that--the Pulp Mill has gone out of existence. I do not see
    where there can be any compromise. What is the conference that
    is going--is it going to go to trial?
        Mr. Rey. The case has already gone to trial on the question
    of whether the Government is liable for damages from the
    cancellation of the contract. The court of claims has found
    twice that the Government is liable for damages.
        The issues under discussion now are whether we can arrive
    at a settlement over the amount of damages, or whether the
    court of claims will move to the next phase of the proceeding,
    which is to establish the amount of damages since liability has
    already been established.
        Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your long
    commitment to helping us in Southeastern Alaska to try and meet
    the commitments of the Federal Government, but I think this is
    one of the saddest tales I know of in government, a repeated
    statement to the people of the area as to what the commitment
    was with repeated promises of no job losses. We are now at the
    point where we have had a 96 percent reduction in actual volume
    of timber authorized for harvest, and an 89 percent--no, a 99
    percent job loss as far as the area is concerned.
        It leaves the--it leaves us in the position of not knowing
    exactly what to do. I would like to have the information
    provided to the committee as to what happened to the money. And
    I would like to be able to discuss with the members of the
    subcommittee what we might do for the future.

                           TONGASS TIMBER REFORM ACT

        Clearly--correct me if I am wrong--the last law that was
    passed by the Congress was the Tongass Timber Reform Act of
    1991, is that correct?
        Mr. Bosworth. I believe that is correct.
        Senator Stevens. And are you prepared to review that act to
    see if it is possible to carry out its commitments?
        Mr. Bosworth. I believe that--I understand the frustration
    of people in Alaska regarding what has happened over the last
    10 to 15 years. Currently, this--for fiscal year 2003, we
    intend to offer 138.5 million board feet. We need to start
    looking at how we can increase that, how we can comply with the
    legislation, the Tongass Timber Reform Act, and we are
    reviewing that right now.
        We will--my hope and expectation is that we will be able to
    work with you and with others to figure out how we can start
    getting the pipeline built back up.

                                ROADLESS POLICY

        Senator Stevens. The last comment would be that, with
    regard to the roadless policy, I believe I have a letter from
    the last administration. I know there are repeated statements
    that Tongass would be excluded from the roadless policy
    position that was issued at the last minute by the last
    administration. Unfortunately, it was added at the last minute,
    but it was added for the future. It was not added for current
    impact.
        It is one thing to reverse a rule that was put into effect.
    It is another thing to take a look at the portion of the rule
    that was--one of those forward springing type of operations
    where Tongass will come under the roadless act--or rule at a
    later date. I think it is 2004, is it not? I think it was--or
    2003.
        I would ask that you would review that to see if that is
    consistent with the law, because in the ANILCA law, there was
    what we called the ``no more'' clause. It said no more--no
    withdrawals could be made in excess of 5,000 acres without the
    approval of the Congress. And Congress specifically refused to
    approve putting Tongass under the roadless policy. It was done
    by administrative decision, but--a decision that was not to
    have effect into the future, so I ask you to review that.
        I think that could be easily remedied by just negating the
    decision that was made that was contrary to the law at the
    time. Otherwise, it is just another lawsuit, and I can tell
    you, we will sue on that one, as I think the State as a whole
    will sue on that one, because that was a commitment made to us
    that there would be no additional withdrawals in our State in
    excess of 5,000 acres without approval of Congress.
        I have taken a long time, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
    courtesy.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici, do you have an opening statement? I have
    called on other Senators for opening statements. If you would
    like one now?
        Senator Domenici. Very brief. If I have questions, we will
    come to those later?
        Senator Byrd. Yes, sir, we will.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici. Well, I came to the meeting today because
    I wanted an opportunity to see you again and also----
        Mr. Bosworth. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. To begin a discussion of
    what was happening with all of the resources that we put into
    the Forest Service and BLM for both fire prevention plans, fire
    retardation plans and for improving the status and the life of
    the forest.
        I know there is a lot to do. I know you are relatively new,
    but we have poured the money in when we had those big fires in
    my State and the other States to both--for both the forests
    that you care for and for the BLM forests.
        We should be seeing some results. If we cannot see results
    from the amount of money we put in, we are never going to see
    results.
        I had a summary of this work done of this bill, Mr.
    Chairman, and I am sure you know about this. But I would like
    to just read it for the record: $1.4 billion for wildland fire
    management, which included $625 million for preparedness
    activities; $443 million for fire operations and suppression
    activities; $359 million for other fire operations, and within
    that amount $234 million is requested for hazardous fuel
    reduction activities. Together with the Department of Interior
    funding, a total of $2.1 billion will go to implement the
    National Fire Plan for this next year, the budget
    appropriations you are preparing.
        We are very close to that in the year you are in when the
    emergency money is added to the regular appropriation. And I
    just think we ought to see some results out there in our
    forests, both in cleaning them up and in inhibiting forests,
    and reducing the timber that is standing after the fires. And I
    think sometimes that we keep on trying to help and we go
    further and further backward.
        And I think part of that is because their efforts are
    stymied and are stopped by litigation. In fact, I think it
    would be good, Mr. Chairman, if we got interested in how many
    lawsuits they have that--affecting their attempts to manage the
    forests of the United States. It would be an enormous number
    this year. And it would be an enormous many number of dollars
    that they are spending in that regard.
        We do not seem to make any headway. And I will ask these
    questions and some others when it is my turn. Thank you very
    much.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Campbell.
        Senator Campbell. Those are interesting questions that
    Senator Domenici brought up. I am interested in hearing the
    answers to that, too. Well, let me just say this and maybe ask
    one or two questions, Mr. Chairman.

                            FIRE BUDGET FORECASTING

        We are getting less timber sold every year, which means
    less money coming into the Forest Service. Senator Bennett
    alluded to one group that is trying to stop all timber sales
    and hopes to do it. With that comes an increase of dead timber,
    and an increased probability of dangerous fires with all that
    dead timber that is accumulating.
        We have $159 million less in the 2003 than we did in fiscal
    year 2002 for the National Fire Plan. We have less salvage,
    because of the difficulty of getting permits. I understand that
    four-fifths of the dead timber after the Mount St. Helen's
    eruption was lost to insects by the time they got through the
    permitting process. We just lost the timber to parasites.
        And so you mentioned, Mr. Bosworth, that you--if we kind of
    run out of money because there is $220 million less this year
    in the budget than there was in fiscal year 2002, you would
    have to borrow it, and you mentioned several other accounts
    that you might have to borrow it from.
        Well, what happens to those accounts if you borrow that
    money? Does it get paid back? If it is not paid back, does that
    mean that the Forest Service will be here looking for an
    emergency supplemental to bail the whole thing out if there is
    not enough money at the proper time? Because it is going to be
    a banner year for fires.
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, in the past, it has always been paid
    back thanks to Congress's actions. When we borrowed it from the
    Knutson-Vandenburg fund, some of the trust funds that we had,
    it was paid back. This last year it was paid back when we had
    to borrow against some of the appropriated dollars at the end
    of the last fire season. Then we----
        Senator Campbell. Well, I guess I--my next question would
    be: Why go through that sleight-of-hand business with the
    borrowing to pay back? Why do we not just have a request for a
    budget that is going to reflect the needs that are out there
    right now?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, one of the difficulties is in trying to
    anticipate what the fire season is going to be, and what we are
    using currently is a--has been a 10-year average to help
    calculate what we think might--it might be. Now, the----
        Senator Campbell. You said your model, as I remember it--
    correct me if I am wrong. You said the model is that there is
    going to be a much higher-than-average fire season this year,
    so you already have a pretty good indication it is going to be
    really bad.

                            FIRE SEASON FORECASTING

        Mr. Bosworth. Well, we do not--the model that I was talking
    about is a model that our fire folks put together in the
    springtime, as we start getting an understanding of what has
    taken place in terms of drought, the weather patterns, and--so
    we continuously try to do--or to get better and better
    predictive models to get a better and better idea of what we
    might be able to expect.
        When we are doing the out-year budget requests a couple of
    years out, a year out, we have much less idea of what might--of
    what the fire season might be looking like.
        Again, this--the--I agree completely that this--that we do
    need to come up with a long-term solution for how to predict
    and how to fund the variations in fire seasons, because we can
    end up with some fire seasons that have very low fire costs--or
    relatively low fire costs and frequency, and then others, like
    the year 2000, that just go way beyond anything we had
    experienced before.
        So we try to do the best we can in terms of using averages
    and then, before the fire season starts, trying to use our
    predictive models to understand what is taking place, so that
    we can develop our--get our fire crews in place and pre-
    positioned and to understand what might take place in terms of
    funding.
        Senator Domenici. Would the Senator yield on that
    particular issue?
        Senator Campbell. Yes, certainly.
        Senator Domenici. Senator, I think you are trying to get
    him to talk about: How much does he budget for the year 2003
    for fire preventions?
        Senator Campbell. Based on what we already knows is going
    to happen.
        Senator Domenici. And they must budget something. And then
    if they are off, they ask for emergency money, but they--the
    whole of fire preparedness responses are not all emergencies.
        There is some money in the pipeline because of projects
    that are involved in that and/or predictions. If that is not
    correct, then we are really in trouble, but we have to have an
    emergency supplemental every time we have fires.
        Senator Campbell. We know that out west we are facing a
    100-year drought----
        Senator Domenici. Right.
        Senator Campbell [continuing]. In Colorado, parts of New
    Mexico, Wyoming, and we already know that. We can tell it with
    the amount of moisture that has already come down, very thin;
    and Utah, too.
        And I will tell you, if you want a good model, I would just
    suggest that tomorrow morning you get a few of the people on
    the plane that are doing those models and get them out to
    Bailey, Colorado, where that raging fire is now just eating up
    thousands of acres. I do not know how you can avoid recognizing
    the impending danger that is going to happen this summer.

                             DIFFICULT FIRE SEASON

        Mr. Bosworth. I certainly agree. We do recognize that this
    summer is a--is coming together to be a very difficult fire
    season. That is--we would not have known that a year ago when
    we were--when we were talking about the budget for fiscal year
    2002. But it is starting to--as we start--we started in January
    and February, started looking at these predictive models. We
    had--it is different for the South than it was for the
    Northeast than it was for California, and for the interior
    West.
        For example, if you look at the Northwest this year, it
    does not look so bad. The Northwest is much better than it
    was--much better off than it was last year, but if you go down
    to Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern California, it
    is looking very, very difficult.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the
    floor.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Bennett. Senator Bennett.

                         ENDING COMMERCIAL TIMBER SALES

        Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I made reference
    in my opening statement to the comment of the forest guardians
    that they want to end commercial sales in the national forest.
    Can you comment on whether or not that would, in fact, be good
    for the national forest if all commercial sales ended?
        Mr. Bosworth. My belief is that that would be a huge
    problem. The--60 percent of the timber sales that we sell right
    now are sales that are sold for the purpose of achieving some
    land management objectives such as fuels reduction, such as
    habitat improvement for wildlife or other purposes.
        About 40 percent--approximately 40 percent of the timber
    sales are to provide timber, to provide wood to the American
    people, but particularly for those 60--that 60 percent, we
    would increase with more and more fuel buildup, and it would
    have to be treated one way or the other. Either we would be
    spending dollars trying to suppress fires, or we will be
    spending dollars trying to restore it after the fires went
    through, or we would be spending dollars trying to do fuel
    treatment in some way that brings no return back to the Federal
    Government, so I think it would be a problem.
        Senator Bennett. It is reminiscent of the comment made by
    the infantry captain in Vietnam that said, ``In order to pacify
    the village, we had to destroy it.'' And these people are
    saying in my view, ``In order to guard the forests, we will
    eventually destroy them.''

                            BARK BEETLE INFESTATIONS

        Let us talk about bark beetle. That has--it is the same
    kind of thing in the Dixie Forest in Utah. There are constant
    appeals to prevent logging in the Dixie, and the consequence
    has been that dead trees, trees that have been killed by the
    bark beetle, cannot be taken out and the infestation of the
    beetle has increased and has killed more trees than would have
    been the case.
        Do you see that as a continuing problem not only in the
    Dixie, but in other places?
        Mr. Bosworth. Yes. We have problems across the country in
    terms of insect infestations, bark beetle as being one of
    those. The--to me, the--you know, there are some--in some--with
    some species, it is--there is sort of a natural cycle that
    takes place, but some of the things that are taking place down
    in the Dixie and the Manti-La Sal are, I believe, outside that
    natural cycle.
        Now, I also think that pre-treatment of some of these areas
    ahead of an infestation can sometimes be the best thing. We
    cannot even catch up from behind it often. But if, you know--to
    me, salvaging after beetles have gone through means we are
    already too late, that we should have been doing work before
    the--again, it depends upon the species, upon the area, but in
    many situations, we would have been better off if we could have
    treated ahead of the beetle, maybe put fire back into the
    ecosystem in a prescribed way and try to prevent the spread as
    opposed to running after it, chasing salvage trees after it has
    gone through.

                         COST OF APPEALS AND LITIGATION

        Senator Bennett. The head of the BLM has told me that
    approaching 50 percent of her budget now is spent on dealing
    with legal appeals, so that her budget is being consumed by
    those who are using the courts to frustrate the purpose of the
    agency.
        Mr. Bosworth. That is----
        Senator Bennett. Do you have any sense of how much of your
    financial resources are spent dealing with appeals?
        Mr. Bosworth. We--the only figure I could give you right
    now is that we are figuring and I think that through--a report
    from the National Academy of Public Administrators estimates
    that between 40 and 60 percent of our dollars go to planning
    and appeals and litigation.
        Senator Bennett. Geesh.
        Mr. Bosworth. That is the----
        Senator Bennett. Can you break down the planning from the
    appeals and litigation?
        Mr. Bosworth. I believe we can get some figures for that. I
    do not have them at--I do not have them here, but we can get
    those figures for you for the record.
        Senator Bennett. If you would get those figures for me, I
    would appreciate it. And while you are at it, I would like to
    know the success rate in the courts.

                               FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS

        I am told again at the BLM that BLM wins well over 90
    percent of these cases. They are brought solely for the purpose
    of slowing everything down, not with any validity or they would
    be winning a higher percentage than single digits of the total
    percentage. But we have a circumstance, at least in the BLM,
    where people are consuming up to 50 percent of the BLM's total
    budget with frivolous lawsuits.
        Mr. Chairman, we could do an awful lot with that money if
    indeed it was not constantly being spent defending lawsuits,
    which are always won on behalf of the Government. As I say,
    over 90 percent are won.
        I would think your budget constraints of the various issues
    that the Senators here are talking about would become far, far
    easier to deal with if you did not have to spend up to 40--I am
    picking a number--you said 60--out of a total of appeals and
    planning. So I am picking a number which may not be right, and
    I would appreciate your correcting it for the record.
        But let us say you spend 20 percent of your budget on
    planning, that means you could have a 40 percent budget
    increase if the frivolous lawsuits filed by these various
    groups were to stop. Any information you could give me on that
    would be much appreciated.
        Mr. Bosworth. Yes. We can get you that information and
    also----
        Senator Bennett. Okay.
        Mr. Bosworth [continuing]. Give you some idea of the
    percentage of the lawsuits and appeals that we win.
        My guess is that in terms of administrative appeals, that
    we probably affirm over 90 percent of those. In terms of
    litigation, I would say something less than 90 percent, but
    that is an estimate and we will--we can--I think we can get you
    the figures for that, too.
        Senator Bennett. I appreciate it.

                              LABORATORY CLOSURES

        Now, we come to a final example of how this pinch hits,
    this budget pinch hits. Your budget would close a number of
    forest science labs throughout the country. We are always
    insisting here, I think appropriately, that the best investment
    we can make in the future is in research and science.
        I have one in the State of Utah, the Logan Forestry
    Sciences Lab in Logan, Utah that is close by the Utah State
    University which, as you know, is the State's premiere
    agricultural university. And it has produced some of the best
    research on aspen ecology and bark beetle disturbance available
    in the country. And yet you are going to close it.
        Can you comment about the closing of the lab, whether that
    is entirely a budget issue, or do you have a scientific reason
    for doing that?
        Mr. Bosworth. Every year, our research station directors
    look at the proposed budget and try to evaluate some of the
    ways that that is going to affect their programs. Those are
    done by the research stations. No decisions get made on that
    until I make the decisions on it, and I have not made a
    decision to do that.
        What I want to do is wait until I see what the--closer to
    what the final budget is going to look like and then look and
    see what kinds of consequences. But I guarantee you that if it
    came to something like that, then I would be working with you
    on it and talking with you on it. And my hope is it does not.
        And I think that the Logan Lab is a very good lab and I
    have spent time there. And I know they do a lot of good
    research.
        It could be that that--that would be a possibility, but at
    this point, we are not even near a decision on that.
        Senator Bennett. Well, I am very glad to hear that. And
    just the editorial comment, the decline of the aspen and the
    calamitous impact of the bark beetle in Utah's forests are
    significant issues. And if, indeed, that lab is leading the
    scientific thrust to try to deal with it, I think closing that
    and then paying the price of increased expenditures as those
    problems are not solved ends up being a false economy. Not that
    it would do any good, but I would be more than happy to join
    you in a conversation with some of the brownies at OMB if they
    do not quite understand that cost-benefit analysis.
        I know there are some folks down there now that are much
    more attuned to cost-benefit analysis than was the case
    previously, and I would be happy to help make that argument if
    you think I could be of any help to you.
        Mr. Bosworth. I appreciate that.
        Senator Bennett. I know you cannot testify in opposition to
    what OMB tells you. I have sat at the table where you have sat
    and been under the strictures of OMB on previous occasions
    myself when I was in a previous administration. But I make the
    offer nonetheless, and feel free to come into the sanctity of
    my office and have a private conversation if it is necessary.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Bosworth. Thank you.
        Senator Byrd. That is what the spider said to the fly, is
    it not?
        Senator Bennett, have you completed your questions?
        Senator Bennett. I have.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you.

                               PRINCETON, WV UNIT

        Chief, the Wood Education and Research--Resource Center
    located in Princeton, West Virginia is important to the people
    in my State and to the hardwood industry in general.
        The Forest Service--before it became involved in the
    running of the center, the center had been poorly managed. I
    think the center is doing better. I note that the budget
    request for fiscal year 2003 does not identify a specific
    funding level for the center's operations.
        Your request merely states that the center will receive a
    similar level of funding as it did in fiscal year 2002. What is
    the precise amount that the Forest Service is planning on
    providing the center in the upcoming fiscal year?
        Mr. Bosworth. $2.7 million, which would be the same as last
    year, and I certainly agree with you that it is a valuable
    program. It does make an excellent contribution to natural
    resources management, not just in West Virginia but across the
    country, I think.
        Senator Byrd. What is the status of the Resource Center,
    and what are your plans for it in the future?
        Mr. Bosworth. As far as the Wood Education Resource Center,
    it is functioning well. We expect to continue improving it.
        I think it has built up over the last few years and since
    the Forest Service has taken it over, I think that there has
    been some major--I am proud that there--to believe that there
    has been some good improvements, and we are--I think we have
    been successful in developing more income producing
    opportunities.
        I think we want to continue on that track to try to see if
    there are more opportunities to develop income producing
    conditions. And I guess the other thing would be that we have--
    I think we have the opportunity to provide some more cutting
    edge technology transfer through some distance learning than--
    that is an area that we have not done as much of, and I think
    that we can make some progress there.
        And I think that that particular facility up to this point
    has been used primarily more for the sort of onsite kinds of
    learning, and the distance learning opportunities are huge.
        Senator Byrd. All right.
        Will you supply to the committee a more precise statement
    with respect to the status of the center and what your plans
    for it are in the future?
        Mr. Bosworth. I would be happy to do that, yes.
        Senator Byrd. When might we expect that?
        Mr. Bosworth. We can have that to you in 1 week.
        Senator Byrd. When?
        Mr. Bosworth. 1 week.
        Senator Byrd. Very well. Now, there is a lab there. A
    forest research lab, I believe, has been established for
    perhaps 30 years or longer. How is that lab coming along?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, we----

                                GARDNER, WV LAB

        Senator Byrd. The one at Gardner.
        Mr. Bosworth. All of our labs in West Virginia are doing
    very well.
        Senator Byrd. I am talking about that one in specific. I
    will get to the others.
        Mr. Bosworth. I am trying to remember which one we are
    talking about now. You are talking about the Morgantown
    facility?
        Senator Byrd. The one in Gardner, in Mercer County. It used
    to be called the Forest Research Marketing Lab, I believe.
        Mr. Bosworth. The Morgantown facility, that particular
    facility is----
        Senator Byrd. Not it. I am talking about the one at
    Gardner, near Princeton----
        Mr. Bosworth. Near Princeton.
        Senator Byrd [continuing]. In Mercer County.
        Mr. Bosworth. That lab, our intention for fiscal year 2003
    would be to increase about $250,000 to that lab. And we would
    continue--that would continue that--the work there.
        Senator Byrd. What would that make the total then?

                               PRINCETON, WV LAB

        Mr. Bosworth. About $2.5 million for the Princeton Lab.
        Senator Byrd. What do you call that lab now?
        Mr. Bosworth. I have always referred to it as the Princeton
    Lab. That is why I was not familiar with the Gardner.
        Senator Byrd. The place is called Gardner. It is near
    Princeton. I went to school in a little two-room schoolhouse in
    that county beginning in 1923 when we studied history for
    history, not for social studies, but for real history. Now,
    tell me more about that lab.
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, it depends on what, I guess--well,
    would you like to know the kinds of projects that we are doing
    there? Is that----
        Senator Byrd. Well, whatever. Otherwise, we may have
    another meeting and have you prepared for it.
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, we have--we are--we do a lot of
    research in terms of hardwood processing, hardwood production.
    We do analysis of hardwood markets there. We are doing work in
    terms of competitive kinds of markets to understand better
    what--how this--how people can compete in different markets.
        Primarily, the--that whole area--I mean, that lab and Wood
    Education Center has been focused on wood and on timber and on
    trees. And that is the purpose to both teach people as well as
    to learn through research better use of some of the northern
    forest wood products. There has been--I mentioned economics,
    and there has been a fair amount of economic research that has
    taken place there in terms of timber.
        We used that--some of the expertise from that lab is to try
    to find ways to influence markets on the sustainability of the
    eastern hardwood forests. But, again, most of the research that
    is done there, unlike some of the work that is done in other
    parts, has been focused on the hardwood utilization.

                   NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS AT PRINCETON, WV LAB

        Senator Byrd. What is the total number of scientists you
    have there now?
        Mr. Bosworth. I do not have that number.
        Senator Byrd. Does not someone there have that for you?
        Mr. Bosworth. I do not have the exact number of scientists
    there at that particular lab or of any--frankly, I do not have
    the number of any of the----
        Senator Byrd. What?
        Mr. Bosworth. I do not have the specific number of
    scientists here at--for any of the labs, but I can certainly
    get that information for you.
        Senator Byrd. Well, I have been disappointed in recent
    years by the Forest Service as it has come before this
    committee. It has come before this committee notably unprepared
    for questions. I was hoping we would do better under your
    leadership.
        Mr. Bosworth. I would like to tell you that I spent some
    time in West Virginia visiting the Monongahela National Forest.
    I visited some of the research facilities. I did not get to
    that particular lab.
        I got to the Fernow Experimental Forest and visited each
    one of the ranger districts and the visitor centers on the
    Monongahela, and frankly was very impressed by the work that
    was being done.

                             FOREST PLAN REVISIONS

        Senator Byrd. Your budget states that by fiscal year 2003,
    80 forest plans will be beyond the 15-year time frame required
    under the National Forest Management Act. One of the forests is
    the Monongahela. When will the forest plan revision on the
    Monongahela be completed?
        Mr. Bosworth. The plan right now would be to have the
    forest plan completed in 2006.
        Senator Byrd. Is it possible that activities on the
    Monongahela could be affected because the plan is not being
    completed on time?
        Mr. Bosworth. We have some court cases around the country
    that are pending that have filed suits because we have--we have
    situations where we have lawsuits filed because we have not
    gotten the plans revised. Those are all pending.
        I do not know what the outcome will be. My expectation is--
    well, I can make a--I can speculate. But I do not--my guess
    would be that, in the end, we probably would not shut down all
    activities on national forests, although my--I would also
    expect that the potential is there to shut down some of the
    timber work.
        Senator Byrd. What kinds of activities could be in
    jeopardy?
        Mr. Bosworth. I would say that probably the most probable
    would be timber activities, timber harvest activities. But,
    again, it would depend upon the individual court and what an
    individual judge would decide.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Domenici, you had some questions. I
    understand there is a vote going on right now. Why do you not
    proceed with your questions?
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Bosworth, I have a follow-up question
    that stems from Senator Byrd's inquiries.
        Mr. Bosworth. Okay.

                           VULNERABILITY TO LAWSUITS

        Senator Domenici. Regularly, we get notice of lawsuits
    filed against the Forest Service by conservation and/or
    environmental groups. And more times than not, they are
    alleging that something that the Forest Service was supposed to
    do or was supposed to have done has not been done. This is not
    blaming you. It is just a statement.
        I would think that if I were in your shoes and had so many
    lawsuits that said, ``They are not doing--they do not have
    ready what they are supposed to have ready under the
    substantive law of the Nation,'' I would think I would start a
    process where--of deep inventory to see every and look at every
    single forest and see about, ``What does the law require that
    we have in place, and what have we not done?''
        I mean you just told us that the planning is not going to
    be ready on time. I can tell you that is a huge vulnerability
    in court. You already know that. But also it would seem to me
    that somebody could have laid that before you in the process in
    a manner of saying, ``Let us get them ready.''
        And I am not going to ask you ``Why has that not been
    done?'' I am just going to offer you that as a concern, because
    we--somebody said the BLM wins 90 percent of their lawsuits. I
    would be surprised if the Forest Service wins 90 percent of
    lawsuits that are directed at it with reference to unpropitious
    management or permissive use of the forest. I think you lose 90
    percent of those.
        But anyway, I am just making that a statement, too, because
    it does concern me. We seem to spend too much time on processes
    and not enough time in getting the job done.

                        VALLES CALDERA NATIONAL PRESERVE

        I want to make sure you know about something in New Mexico
    and that you hear it from me. You know, last year--year before
    last, our Federal Government bought the Valles Caldera National
    Preserve. We spent $100 million in buying that property up in
    Northern New Mexico. It is almost 100,000 acres.
        We are experimenting with a new kind of ownership and
    management, in that you do not own the property, the Forest
    Service, nor do you manage it. You are consultants to a board
    of trustees and to whatever the board of trustees sets up as
    their management team.
        They need to ask you to put money in your budget each year
    for their work as they get this management scheme going for
    this very beautiful, clearly preservable piece of property. If
    they do not get the money, then I would say to you, ``We are
    going to prove that this new management system does not work by
    making it die in terms of not having enough money to do its
    job.''
        They have--this year, they have asked for about $3 million.
    And I note in your budget, you have given them about $1.035
    million. We will take care of them. We will take care of them.
    We are not going to let that happen to them because they have
    not had enough time to do their work.
        But I just want to say, as a Senator that was part of
    talking a lot of our friends into purchasing that property and
    experimenting with a new land management scheme, I would think
    it would be a shame if it was permitted to drown because--
    without having sufficient funds each year to try that system.
    So I would ask that you look at that. I do not think you can
    change your budget, but perhaps you can be helpful as we move
    through that process.
        Mr. Bosworth. Yes. Yes, I would--I will look at that. And I
    just, about 2 weeks ago, had lunch with the chairman of the
    board of the trust----
        Senator Domenici. Did you?
        Mr. Bosworth [continuing]. As well as the executive
    director. They also expressed their concern about that. I think
    what we need to do is to engage them earlier in the process
    than what we have, than what we did this last time, and make
    sure that we are working together. And I----
        Senator Domenici. Yes, that----
        Mr. Bosworth [continuing]. Also have been to the Valles
    Caldera facility there, and it is a beautiful place.
        Senator Domenici. I have about seven or eight questions I
    am going to submit.

                            FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

        Mr. Chairman, and ranking member, somehow if you will
    permit me, I would like to formulate a question and get it to
    them perhaps tomorrow as part of this record. I want them to
    tell us what has happened to all of the money that we have put
    in this Department during the last 18 months. And I think we
    should have a spreadsheet showing us what they did with it.
        It was so many hundreds of millions of dollars. We passed
    an amendment----
        Senator Byrd. Yes.
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. Of mine on the floor. We
    called it the ``happy forest'' amendment because it would do
    thinning, and maybe the forest would grow and be happy again.
    That is why we called it that.
        Senator Byrd. Yes.
        Senator Domenici. And that was $280 million, $140 million
    to each. And then the regular appropriation comes right behind
    it, and you loaded that one up to try to get around this lack
    of taking care of the forests. And it would seem to me that we
    would begin to see some material results; maybe not.
        But if I phrase it so that they have to tell us where they
    put the money and what happened, I think it would be helpful,
    if you will give me 24 hours.
        Senator Byrd. Well, we will give you more than that,
    Senator.
        There is a series of votes for the rest of the afternoon,
    it appears. I said a moment ago that over the past several
    years, certainly--I believe ``several'' is identified in the
    dictionary as being more than 2 to 3, or 2 and 3--maybe 2 and
    3, perhaps not more than 4.
        But in any event, for the past few years, I have been
    disappointed in the Forest Service. That is not all to your
    discredit, Chief Bosworth, because you have not been Chief all
    of that time.

                 FOREST SERVICE UNPREPARED FOR SENATE QUESTIONS

        But the Forest Service seems to be notorious in coming up
    here before this committee unprepared to answer questions. Now,
    here today you cannot answer questions on my labs in West
    Virginia. It would seem to me that even a neophyte would
    understand that, in coming before this committee, he ought to
    have the answer to questions that the chairman would probably
    ask with reference to facilities in his home State, and the
    same with respect to other Senators on this committee. So we
    are going to have--we are going to reschedule the hearing.
        Senator Domenici. That is good.
        Senator Byrd. And perhaps you can be better prepared for it
    when we come back. I say again that this is not entirely your
    fault. We could continue a while this afternoon, but we have a
    bunch of these--a bunch of votes and, therefore, we----
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Byrd. Yes?

                     CITY OF SANTA FE WATERSHED AND FOREST

        Senator Domenici. Could we--before you close the meeting,
    could I just say to the Chief, I would like you to look at the
    city of Santa Fe Watershed Forest. It is the source of their
    water. If it burns, the water turns discolored, and they have
    no water for the entire city.
        At the current rate of achievement, it will take 15 to 16
    years to do it. I do not think that that is right, and I think
    somebody ought to look at it and see what you can do. We will
    get you extra money, because the water of the whole city is
    dependent upon a fire not taking the forest into the little
    lake.
        Senator Byrd. Yes.
        Mr. Bosworth. Okay.
        Senator Domenici. So could you do that for us? Could you
    look into it in preparation for another meeting?
        Mr. Bosworth. I will. I will look into it. I believe that,
    currently, it is an appeals and litigation issue, but I will. I
    will look into it and get back to you.
        Senator Domenici. Okay. I do not think so, but anyway,
    thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Okay.
        Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, we have about 4 minutes before
    the conclusion of this first vote.

                            DOI VERSUS FS EFFICIENCY

        I am going to submit a question, Chief, and it has to do
    with: We have come under some criticism when we start comparing
    the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior and on
    their efficiency, on firefighting and conservation, on some
    other areas. I know that is trying to compare apples and
    oranges, because of the different topography generally that you
    oversee and what they oversee, and differences in the trees and
    the plant growth, and it is just a different kind of a country.
        But I want to--we might clear the air, you know, on the
    challenges that you face that are not faced by the Department
    of the Interior on some of these fire activities. So I will
    submit that question, and you can give it some thought and then
    respond to the committee. But I think we ought to make it a
    part of the record so we can quiet some of those critics. And I
    thank you for your attendance today.
        Mr. Bosworth. Thank you.

                        REDIRECTION OF RESEARCH FUNDING

        Senator Byrd. Chief, we will reschedule the hearing, as I
    have indicated, and when we do so, I would like for you to be
    prepared to tell the committee how, with respect to the ongoing
    research--I am talking about the administration's budget
    request for research--there is a request to redirect some $35.9
    million worth of ongoing research to fund other activities
    deemed ``more important'' by the administration. And I would
    like to know what that is. I would like to know what activities
    the administration thinks are more important. So be prepared to
    answer some questions on that.

                 IMPACTS OF R&D FUNDING REDIRECTION ON WV LABS

        I would like to know what, if any, impacts this approach
    would have on the research labs at Princeton, Parsons, and
    Morgantown, West Virginia; also with respect to the Lake
    Sherwood sewage improvements, the Seneca Rocks repairs, gypsy
    moth defoliation in West Virginia, and the elimination of wood
    in transportation programs. That is headquartered in
    Morgantown.
        We may ask some further questions with respect to the
    inequitable distribution of fire funds, why the Northeastern
    research station has only received 1.9 percent of the total
    funds, as I have been advised here.

                   INTEGRITY OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

        The committee also remains concerned with regard to the
    integrity of the financial management systems within the Forest
    Service. Over the past several years, the agency has been
    telling the committee that it is putting in place improved
    management systems that would lead to greater accountability,
    but your agency has yet to obtain a clean audit opinion as
    required by statute. And it remains on the General Accounting
    Office's list of agencies that are at high risk of waste, fraud
    and abuse.
        You might want to be prepared to tell us when you expect
    these problems to be straightened out and when you expect a
    clean audit opinion to be issued.
        So as you can see, this is not necessarily going to be a
    cake walk any longer. So we will be in touch with you and have
    you come back.
        Mr. Bosworth. I will be happy to come back, and I would be
    able to answer those questions for you today, but I will be
    capable of answering them another time.
        Senator Byrd. I bet you will. Thank you.
        We have received the prepared statement of Senator Harry
    Reid and will insert it in the record.
        [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 2003 for the Forest Service.
        As you know, I am personally interested in the Forest
    Service's work on the restoration and stewardship of Lake
    Tahoe.
        Due to decades of damage, Lake Tahoe faces the prospect of
    losing its famed clarity--forever.
        In response to this danger, two years ago 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 product of
    many years of local level cooperation involving environmental,
    business, and governmental interests throughout the Lake Tahoe
    basin.
        Those of us who worked to pass the Lake Tahoe Restoration
    Act know that the only way to rescue this national treasure is
    through bold action.
        Due in part to work we have begun as part of this unique
    local, state, federal partnership, Lake Tahoe is more clear
    this year than it was last year.
        I hope you will continue to work with me to ensure that
    Lake has a brighter, cleaner future.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Byrd. Thank you very much. The subcommittee will
    stand in recess until 10 a.m., Thursday, June 6, when we will
    continue to hear from Dale Bosworth, Chief, Forest Service,
    Department of Agriculture.
        [Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., Thursday, April 25, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    June 6.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron Dorgan presiding.
        Present: Senators Dorgan, Burns, Domenici, and Campbell.

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

    STATEMENT OF DAVE BOSWORTH, CHIEF
    ACCOMPANIED BY: HANK KASHDAN, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM AND BUDGET ANALYSIS

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. We will call the hearing to order. This
    subcommittee convenes this morning to continue its hearing on
    the fiscal year 2003 budget request for the Forest Service.
        We have had a previous hearing that began on April 25. This
    is a continuation of that hearing. That hearing was interrupted
    by a series of votes in the Senate. Before we begin, let me say
    that Senator Byrd has asked me to fill in for him as chairman
    of the subcommittee this morning because of his continuing
    duties associated with the supplemental appropriations bill
    that is now on the floor of the Senate. We have an 11 o'clock
    cloture vote, I believe, on that bill. I am pleased, of course,
    to accommodate Senator Byrd's request.
        I believe we have had opening statements previously at the
    April 25 hearing. I will not make an opening statement.
        Senator Campbell, if you have an opening statement, I would
    be happy to entertain it.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL

        Senator Campbell. Well, maybe a couple of comments, Mr.
    Chairman. When I saw you come in, at first I thought maybe I
    was in the wrong committee.
        We spend so much time together in the Treasury
    Subcommittee.
        Senator Dorgan. We do, indeed.
        Senator Campbell. I was not aware you were chairing this,
    but I am glad you are here.
        Maybe, just a welcome to Chief Bosworth once again. I was
    mentioning, just before you came in, to him the devastating
    fires we have in Colorado. And I wanted to mention that just
    for the record.
        It looks like it is going to be an absolute banner year for
    us. We have had 698 fires in Colorado so far this year, burning
    over 101,000 acres. Last weekend, 55 fires, separate fires,
    burned over 70,000 acres throughout Colorado, just last week.
        One called the Iron Mountain fire near Fremont County,
    which is down below Denver about an hour and a half, over 100
    structures were burned in that one, including 80 homes and one
    store. In fact, when our Governor toured it, he said it looked
    like the moon with trees after that fire. And, with the help of
    some rain, it began to be suppressed.
        But there is absolutely no question that it is going to
    only get worse this year. And certainly the Forest Service
    being responsible, according to the budget statement, for the
    protection of Forest Service lands and inhabitants throughout
    the National Fire Plan and the rangeland and the forest health
    programs, I think this is a very, very important hearing.
        I know we are putting some money back into a supplemental
    that was not in the President's budget for fire suppression,
    but very frankly, I am not even sure that is going to solve the
    problem it looks like we are going to face throughout the West
    this summer.
        With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Campbell, thank you very much.
        Chief Bosworth, welcome. We have had our paths cross
    previously and I have not had a chance to congratulate you, but
    thank you for being with us.
        And you are joined by Hank Kashdan, the director of the
    Office of Budget at the Forest Service.

                            FIRE SUPPRESSION MODELS

        Let me begin by asking you some questions about fire
    suppression, if I might. As Senator Campbell indicated, we have
    seen, especially in the last week, a substantial amount of
    activity across the country in forest fires. And we know that
    fighting those fires costs a great deal of money.
        Traditionally, what has happened is you have had to borrow
    from other accounts in order to pay for that. Let me ask,
    first: What are your models now showing that would tell us what
    kind of costs you may experience in this season? I heard a
    brief report from some newscasters suggesting that this may be
    a pretty devastating season for fires. So what are you
    anticipating? What do your models show?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, the models are
    predicting, the most recent models, that this is going to be a
    very significant fire season. And, of course, you do not have
    to just look at models to tell that. All you have to do is be
    in the middle of Arizona, New Mexico or Colorado to tell that
    it is going to be a very difficult fire season.
        The projection that we had as of April 30 would indicate
    that our total cost would be $587 million. And that is we have
    our--for this fiscal year, we have $321 million available. So
    we would be borrowing from other accounts if that projection is
    accurate.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, you have $321 million available to
    fight fires. You spent $690 million last year?
        Mr. Bosworth. That is correct.
        Senator Dorgan. And what is the basis of the $321 million
    request?
        Mr. Bosworth. We----
        Senator Dorgan. Was the----
        Mr. Bosworth. When we--our request is based on our 10-year
    average.
        Senator Dorgan. Yes.
        Mr. Bosworth. And so our request for fiscal year 2002 would
    have been made in the year 2000 when we were calculating our
    10-year average at that time, which--so that would have been
    from or based upon 1990 through 1999. You take that 10-year
    average, and then, of course, if you are using averages, then
    half the years you are going to be high and half the years you
    are going to be low. And this year and last year we were high.

                           SUPPLEMENTAL FIRE FUNDING

        Senator Dorgan. If your models now show that this could be
    a very costly year for you, did you request any additional
    money in the supplemental?
        Mr. Bosworth. The administration did not request any money
    in the supplemental.
        Senator Dorgan. Did you request of the administration that
    they request money in the supplemental?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, we have indicated to the administration
    what our projections were and what we believed we would need.
        Senator Dorgan. And that went to the Office of Management
    and Budget?
        Mr. Bosworth. That goes through our Department, the
    Department of Agriculture, to the Office of Management and
    Budget.
        Senator Dorgan. Any word that you have on why OMB would not
    have requested some emergency funding if the expectation is
    that we would have a substantial amount of fire activity this
    year?
        Mr. Bosworth. I have not had any indication from them, from
    OMB. I have had some discussions with the boss, with my boss in
    the Department. But I have not had any indication as to why
    that was not requested in the supplemental.
        Senator Dorgan. All right. So you made a request of OMB, is
    that correct?
        Mr. Bosworth. We made our predictions available. We made
    sure that folks knew what our predictions were for it, for this
    fiscal year were.
        Senator Dorgan. All right. I am not trying to hang you up
    on this. I am just trying to understand.
        Mr. Bosworth. Yes.
        Senator Dorgan. We are dealing with this supplemental,
    which really responds to emergency issues, over on the floor of
    the Senate. And if we anticipated a larger requirement for
    funding this year for fire suppression and fire fighting on
    national forest lands, I am just trying to understand. Did that
    get up the line to OMB and get stopped at OMB? Is that what
    happened?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, let me--I am going to have Hank respond
    more specifically.
        Senator Dorgan. All right.
        Mr. Bosworth. But I would like to add something else before
    I do that.
        Senator Dorgan. Sure.

                           BORROWING FROM TRUST FUNDS

        Mr. Bosworth. In the past when we have those kind of years,
    the years where we exceed what we--the amount of money that we
    have, we have had trust funds available through our Knutson-
    Vandenberg fund and salvage dollars that we have had available
    to be able to borrow from and then have that returned. Those
    trust funds are--because we do not cut nearly as much timber
    now, then we do not put the dollars into the trust fund, so we
    do not have those dollars available.
        So we are into a new and different kind of a situation,
    that we really do need to find a solution for, for when we have
    these kind of years. So I will have Hank be more specific about
    exactly what the process was in terms of credit and in terms of
    supplemental funding.
        Mr. Kashdan. Mr. Chairman, we did identify some additional
    needs that we felt, based on projections that we had run as of
    February, that indicated we would need some additional funding.
    We did process a letter through the Department and there was a
    good amount of discussion with Department officials and OMB.
        I cannot tell you exactly whether that letter made it to
    OMB. In the end, the administration did not process a request
    for it, however.

                    SOURCES OF BORROWED FIRE FIGHTING FUNDS

        Senator Dorgan. All right. Might I just ask one additional
    question? Where will you borrow the funds at this point,
    assuming that this is a pretty tough year for you, and the $321
    million is $200 million or $300 million, or $400 million short
    of your need? Where will you borrow the funds at this point?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, we--a couple of months ago, we
    established, in case something like this would have happened, a
    sort of a priority list of where we would have to borrow the
    money from. And we would be taking that from programs that,
    first, that do not--or that are like contracts, large contracts
    that have not been let yet from land acquisition dollars that
    we have that are usually large or fairly large sums.
        We would also go to the amount of money that is available
    in our trust fund account and borrow from those. So those would
    be three of the areas that we would look to first.
        Senator Dorgan. Chief Bosworth, I would like to submit a
    question. I am going to submit a series of questions to you,
    but if you might just respond, before I then call on Senator
    Campbell, on the research cut issue.

                        REDIRECTION OF RESEARCH FUNDING

        The budget request from the administration requests a
    redirection of $35.9 million worth of ongoing research to fund
    five new research initiatives that they deem more worthy. Can
    you just give me a thumbnail sketch of what are those new
    projects, and how are they more worthy than the ongoing
    research?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, first, I would like to say that I
    believe that all the research that we have ongoing is very,
    very important research. And, of course, as times change, then
    we look at some--at the additional kinds of research that we
    think that we might need as we project into the future.
        We have one program that was proposed as a forest
    simulation or developing a forest simulation model. Forest
    inventory and analysis is another program that we have had for
    a long time, but the proposal is to fund it fully. And the
    forest inventory and analysis program is one that the States,
    particularly the State foresters, very much like to have that
    information.
        And basically it is a census of the forests in every State.
    And the purpose of that is to annualize that program so that
    they have a much more up-to-date program, or much more up-to-
    date information. And then bio-based products and bioenergy is
    another program, another area. And the national climate change
    research and national climate change technology, those were the
    five areas.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, you send us information about each of
    those. I will submit a question to you.

                      ECONOMIC ACTION PROGRAM ELIMINATION

        And then, finally, the Forest Service budget justification
    for 2003 lists six program areas that it will emphasize in
    2003. One of the areas is agency programs that benefit
    communities. But the budget request proposes to eliminate
    entirely the Economic Action Program, which many people say has
    the most direct impact on helping communities. Can you tell me
    how you reconcile that?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, the Economic Action Program is a
    program, also, that we like very much, but it is a heavily
    earmarked line item, and the administration, as you know, did
    not use previous years' earmarks, and so that line item was
    eliminated.
        There is a number of places that we can--in many of our
    programs, where we can help communities and work with
    communities and help ensure community vitality. There is
    programs like the Craig-Wyden, came as a State's legislation
    that has certain--some dollars that go to the local projects,
    that we have real collaboration with local communities with
    projects.
        There is opportunities to use some of our fuel dollars in
    private land and around communities, the wildland/urban
    interface, that help. We can do some preference for local
    contracting. There is a number of things that we are using to
    try to help with community vitality. The Economic Action
    Program was one that was zeroed out.
        Senator Dorgan. I am going to reserve some questions, but I
    would say to my colleagues, Senator Domenici and Senator Burns,
    before you came in, I mentioned that Senator Byrd is on the
    floor handling the supplemental. He asked if I would chair the
    remainder of this hearing. This is a continuation of the April
    25 hearing.
        And we have a vote, I believe, scheduled at 11 a.m., so let
    me call on Senator Campbell for questions.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you.
        Mr. Bosworth. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you.
        Well, Chief, I have to tell you, I do not know how in the
    heck you are going to get your job done this year. As I see the
    $227 million less than the budget for the--for your Department,
    including $159 million less than 2000 for the National Fire
    Plan, and these outrageous increases of fires we are having, I
    just do not see how you are going to do it.

                           VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS

        I did a hearing on some of the fires in Colorado a couple
    of weeks ago, and I was very impressed with a number of people
    that are on volunteer fire departments. They are not even
    getting paid. They are helping out in the fires that we have in
    Colorado. But there is also a decrease in the present request
    for State and volunteer fire assistance.
        Are there any plans to--for the Forest Service to further
    aid volunteer fire departments, if you are also--or if you are
    going to decrease the money that you have been sending to them?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, one of the things that we are working
    on right now is there is--is to develop a new readiness model
    for fire that includes the needs of both State and local
    communities as well as----
        Senator Campbell. Yes. I am aware of that.
        Mr. Bosworth [continuing]. The model that we have for the
    national forest lands. And this would be something that would
    work with all the fire--wildland fire fighting and Federal
    agencies that would consider those resources available also,
    and needs from communities.
        When we complete that, I think that will help be more
    specific about the kind of dollars that we need each year. And
    the Farm Bill authorization also, I think, will help in future
    years, because there is some opportunity there to work with
    communities through the Farm bill.

                           HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION

        Senator Campbell. Okay. Thank you. I understand that there
    are about 40 million acres that are considered high risk for
    fire now. You mentioned that there is a reduction of timber
    sales, which just tells me as a layman that there is going to
    be an increase of dead trees out there, which adds to the fire
    hazard. It does not decrease the fire hazard.
        Why are you or why is the Forest Service having such
    difficulty in undertaking a reduction of that, you know,
    reducing the high fuel load? Is it environmental opposition?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, the--I think we are actually doing
    reasonably well in terms of the fuel reduction that we started
    in a big way after the year 2000 fires. But I will also say
    that one of our big difficulties in terms of trying to move
    aggressively on a fuels reduction program, if it means cutting
    some trees, is the ``analysis paralysis'' that we have in our
    organization, the high bar of analysis and the process that we
    have to go through in order to be able to support our decisions
    through court action or through appeals.

                      TIMBER SALVAGE PROCESS STREAMLINING

        Senator Campbell. What if we do not even have to cut--let
    us go back a few years to Mount St. Helens when thousands and
    tens of thousands of trees were blown over in that volcanic
    eruption.
        I understood that about four-fifths of it went to waste
    because there was so much regulation in being able to timber
    those dead trees out of there, that it got bug-infested before
    they could be used, and so we lost them all.
        Is there any way that can be speeded up for those, for
    trees that are already down dead, or do we need to do something
    here legislatively to help speed that up?
        Mr. Bosworth. I think there is a number of things that can
    be done. First, we are looking at what we call categoric
    exclusions for salvage where our process would allow us to move
    forward quicker and not--and for categories of salvage sales,
    for example, that are not very large.
        Senator Campbell. Yes.
        Mr. Bosworth. We would be able to move in without having to
    go through the documentation of an environmental impact
    statement or environmental assessment. We still do the
    analysis, but we do not go through the documentation.
        We are about here--in the next few weeks, we should be able
    to put a rule in the Federal Register to get--or a proposed
    rule in the Federal Register to get public comment. That will
    be helpful.
        Again, it is not for very large areas, but, you know, when
    you get an outbreak of insects or disease, sometimes--you know,
    they usually start small. If you can get on them very quickly,
    then that helps.
        There are things within our own internal regulations that
    we are looking at right now to see whether or not we can make
    some improvement in our own internal regulations. And we are
    working with other agencies like the Fish and Wildlife Service,
    and they have been talking with the Council on Environmental
    Quality, to see if there are some things in other agency
    regulations that can help streamline some of our processes.
        So that is the bottom line, that we need to identify where
    the problems are. And we are in the process of doing that. And
    we need to improve our own internal processes, our own internal
    management of the processes and then work with other agencies
    to try to see if we----

                           AIRCRAFT SECURITY MEASURES

        Senator Campbell. I see. Okay. And a last small question
    that completely stymies me: I understand the only Forest
    Service money that is in the 2002 supplemental is $3.5 million
    for airplane security measures, which I assume is locks on the
    doors in airplanes. Is that correct? What are you--nobody is in
    those planes except the pilots and the staff.
        Mr. Bosworth. Those were through an OIG investigation or
    audit. After September 11, they identified that the Forest
    Service is very weak in terms of securing the aircraft that we
    have or that we have under contract, both our own airplanes,
    those, and also those that are under contract.
        Many of these are in remote areas, as you know, for--they
    are used for retardant or they are used for lead planes. And we
    had a significant problem in terms of having those secured from
    theft.
        Senator Campbell. I see. Okay.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No further questions.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. I have got one question, Chief. I am going
    to help you out with your Economic Action Program, how is that
    for communities?
        Mr. Bosworth. Good.
        Senator Burns. No, I--seriously, this problem has jumped up
    in the last, oh, I think the last year. And let your guy get
    through the book.

                       GRAZING PERMITS/ALLOTMENTS PROCESS

        We have--the previous Chief ordered full EIS and NEPA
    analysis for grazing, before grazing permits would be reissued.
    And I understand that you are--and this is going to take about
    15 years to complete. And I--it is a long-range program. I hear
    you are woefully behind.
        Mr. Bosworth. That is correct.
        Senator Burns. And it is causing some lawsuits. In other
    words, one rancher was told that it would be--here he is, he
    has got the cattle, and it will be 2 years before they ever get
    to him, and he cannot graze until that is done.
        Mr. Bosworth. We have a--we had a lawsuit on the Horseview
    allotment, a question on it, in Montana, west of Yellowstone.
        Senator Burns. Yes.
        Mr. Bosworth. That was a lawsuit----
        Senator Burns. Tell me where we are on that. And how do we
    speed that up? You have got ranchers out there that cannot turn
    out.
        Mr. Bosworth. Basically, the lawsuit was--we lost the
    lawsuit. And so we--but we are not sure exactly yet, or the
    courts have not decided yet on whether or not the rancher will
    be able to turn out. That decision is still yet to be made.
        But the problem is that this will go on with a lot of other
    areas where we have not been able to keep up with our--a lot of
    management plans----
        Senator Burns. What is the problem?
        Mr. Bosworth [continuing]. And the schedule of the--that
    was required under the rescission bill.
        The problem is, back to what I was talking about earlier is
    the amount of analysis, amount of process that we go through
    when we have to use NEPA and ESA for each one, for each
    allotment management plan.
        We have some forests--I mean, we have got a lot of
    allotments on national forest lands and national grasslands.
    And we need to develop allotment management plans for each one
    of those, and they have got to be updated. And we have got to
    go through NEPA, and we have to go through the consultation
    where we have threatened or endangered species, all of which
    are good things to go through. But the process that we have
    burdened ourselves with on some of those takes a lot, an awful
    lot of time, and a lot of money.
        Senator Burns. Well, now, if this was done by
    administrative order, how come we cannot change that order and
    maybe go through an EA or something that would be a shorter
    process to relieve the situation? Is there a way you can do
    that----
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, the----
        Senator Burns [continuing]. Or does this lawsuit now stand
    in the way?
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, the--no, I do not believe--I will have
    to get more information for you on the specifics of the
    lawsuit.
        Senator Burns. Okay. That is fair enough.

        ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS VERSUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS

        Mr. Bosworth. But I do not think that there is a problem
    with doing EAs versus environmental impact statements, because
    it really depends upon the magnitude of the potential effects.
    And if the potential effects from grazing in the allotment
    management plan are greater, then we are required to go through
    an environmental impact statement.
        Often we go through an environmental impact statement
    because we know if we are going to go to court that we can
    defend an environmental impact statement better than we can an
    environmental assessment.
        Senator Burns. Well, we----
        Mr. Bosworth. And so we do more work----
        Senator Burns. Yes.
        Mr. Bosworth [continuing]. So we can do the----
        Senator Burns. Well, here is how wrongheaded we seem to
    look at things. And I realize that everything and everybody is
    well meaning. But if you will look at--we looked at some
    figures out in Montana just this year, with some of my friends,
    and looking at a couple of forests.

                           GRAZING MITIGATION OF FIRE

        Do you realize--here we are talking about $280 million or
    $300 million of shortfall in fire fighting monies that it is
    going to take if we have got fires. Do you realize that where
    you graze you do not have near the fire problem that you have
    anywhere else? And why----
        Mr. Bosworth. In many cases that is correct.
        Senator Burns. You bet it is. And I do not know why we are
    not looking at a commonsense approach to this thing, and here
    we are wanting to fight these stockmen off of their permits or
    take them off of their permits, when basically we could kill
    two birds with one stone. We get the grazing fees and we do not
    have to lay out near as much money in fire money.
        Now, to me it is--maybe I figure different than anybody
    else, but it makes a lot of sense to me that we better either
    accelerate this, or change the way we do it to make it work
    and--from an economic standpoint and also from an environmental
    standpoint. It just makes sense.
        Mr. Bosworth. Well, there are many places where--
    particularly where we are grazing where, as you say, the grass
    is kept down. You do not have the flash fields during a bad
    fire season.
        There is also the problem with places where we have had a
    number of or a lot of trees that have grown up that were not or
    did not used to be there in the more natural condition, places
    where we used to have maybe 20 to 30 to 40 large trees, and now
    we have 500 to 1,000 smaller trees. And, of course, the grazing
    issue there would not be--that would not be a solution for
    places like that.
        Senator Burns. Well, that is right. But if you had been
    grazing, you would not have that many trees either.
        Mr. Bosworth. That is----
        Senator Burns. Okay. Well, those are the issues, I think,
    that I think we have to take--some way or another we have got
    to take a commonsense approach to this. Some way or another
    there has got to be some sense brought into this business
    because the land will take care of itself.
        It is not--they do not take or create all of these, all
    this money that is just to fight fires when we can do some
    things to prevent them. And it happens to be grazing and forest
    management. If you want an example, if you are going through
    your books and talk about a forest that--probably the most--
    and, you know, the forest I am going to talk about, on pine
    beetle. We have got to do something up in that northwest corner
    up in the Yak.
        I am telling you that if we do not, it is just terrible the
    way we are managing the forest. And I know you are familiar
    with that. And I know you are trying to do something about it.
    And we want to help you.
        Mr. Bosworth. And I would be really happy to work with you
    on finding some solutions, because there----
        Senator Burns. It just----
        Mr. Bosworth. We need to simplify it.
        Senator Burns. You bet, because it just looks terrible up
    there.
        And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                       GRAZING PERMITS REISSUANCE BACKLOG

        Let me discuss with you the situation with reference to
    these permits on the Forest Service that are technically
    expired that the Forest Service has not gotten around to
    reissuing new ones because they have a big backlog.
        Mr. Chairman, I think every one of the Senators that are
    sitting here supported an amendment on the floor 2 consecutive
    years with reference to BLM and grazing permits. All of you
    voted for the Domenici amendment that said the rancher is not
    responsible for them not getting the permit out on time and,
    therefore, they pay their fee and you issue them the permit and
    you continue to evaluate. And you can withdraw the permit and
    reissue it subject to conditions that you would find rather
    than the reverse, which is to take the--effectively make it a
    conditional permit when there was no fault on the part of the
    permittee. The collateralization of that grazing permit and all
    are rendered rather valueless if you are waiting around for a
    full permit until they catch up. And there is no incentive to
    catch up.
        We have now submitted that language and it is in the
    President's budget with reference to the sister agency. It is
    not in there on the Forest Service, but it is in there on the
    BLM. And I would ask if it is an issue that is too hot for you
    guys to handle, and perhaps you do not have to do it, but I
    would like to know if there is any real difference in terms of
    that.
        When we did our amendment, there was no big backlog in the
    Forest Service. And what happened is the backlog there has
    grown. While we were trying to alleviate the problem in the
    BLM, it grew up in the Forest Service, who had--the Forest
    Service had started the practice without any law, just started
    the practice of an environmental impact with the issuance of a
    permit.
        Senator Burns. That is exactly right.
        Senator Domenici. It had never been the law until 4 years
    ago when it went into practice. When--so I would ask, for the
    record, if they might give us their reasons. I see no reason.
    If they do not, I will offer the amendment in committee that we
    make it, that we treat them both the same.
        For about a year, the environmentalists in the country made
    it the biggest issue going. We have all seen it work. It is
    perfect; nothing happens. They do not lose any power to mandate
    the permittee to do things they have to do. If they just did
    not get around to checking them out yet, you do not--you
    essentially get a phony permit, because it is your fault for
    not getting it checked out. So I will do that.

                    MULTIPLE LARGE FIRES--ADEQUATE RESOURCES

        Let me just ask with reference to the fires: I continue to
    be amazed at how, together, we are so able to make mistakes
    with reference to the money we have around to fight fires. I
    mean, everybody that knows anything about the West knew that
    the cost of forest fires last year was enormous. This season,
    if I am correct, we have already burned more acreage than we
    had at this point in the year 2000.
        Mr. Bosworth. That is correct.
        Senator Domenici. With the drought conditions that we have
    now, and that is not going to let up according to the weather
    bureaus any time soon, we are going to see that acreage
    increase even further. Do you believe that you have the
    resources available right now to fight multiple large fires all
    at once? And if we do not, how would we expect to get them?
        I mean, we have a supplemental right now that does not have
    anything in it, because the fires are not serious enough yet, I
    guess, maybe. And we cannot put it in now because the bill is
    all entangled.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici, if you would yield on
    that point?
        Senator Domenici. Yes.
        Senator Dorgan. I had previously inquired, and they
    indicated that they had requested money up through, or they
    think through OMB----
        Senator Domenici. Yes.
        Senator Dorgan [continuing]. For emergency fire fighting
    and that it, nonetheless, did not get into the supplemental.
        Senator Domenici. All right. Okay. Well, I think some of us
    have to look to try and protect it some way. I do not know if
    we can do it on this bill. Maybe we can do it in conference on
    this bill, but----
        Mr. Bosworth. Senator?
        Senator Domenici. Yes?
        Mr. Bosworth. Part of your question was: Do we have the
    resources now to fight these fires?
        Senator Domenici. Yes.
        Mr. Bosworth. And the answer to that is: Yes, we do have
    the resources to fight the fires. And we have had not any
    shortages. And one of the things that we are lucky about is
    that the fires are isolated to the geographic area of the
    Southwest and we have not started getting--and Colorado. And we
    have not started getting large fires in the Pacific Northwest
    and the Northern Rockies.
        If it evolved to that, to where you have large fires across
    the West or across the country, you know, we can run into
    shortages of resource. The biggest concern, again, is the--is
    finding the dollars and pulling those from other programs that
    we have in order to pay for the fire suppression, which
    disrupts other programs and makes it extremely inefficient.

                        FIRE FIGHTING BUDGET FORMULATION

        Senator Domenici. Yes. Well, let me just close by saying:
    If you had to do the choosing in terms of what kind of fire
    season we are going to have and you were given all the expert
    advice, you clearly would choose a fire condition that exceeds
    what you would have on hand to take care of fires, would you
    not?
        Mr. Bosworth. At this point, I certainly would. Now, when
    we, you know, when we requested the budget a couple of years
    ago, our request was, again, for the 10-year average.
        Senator Domenici. Yes.
        Mr. Bosworth. Because when we requested the dollars before,
    we did not know what this fire season was going to look like,
    so our approach is to use the 10-year average.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici, thank you.

                      NATIONAL GRASSLANDS MANAGEMENT PLAN

        Let me ask a question about the management of the
    grasslands, and I do not want to go too far into this, but, you
    know, North Dakota ranks, I believe, 50th among the 50 States
    in native forest lands. In other words, we are dead last in
    trees.
        But the Forest Service manages our grasslands. And the
    Chadren plan, which was begun some many years ago to change the
    management system with respect to the grasslands, was an
    attempt to bring all the parties together and create a new
    management system within the Forest Service for the grasslands.
        It will not surprise you, Chief Bosworth, to know that I
    feel that that was a failure. The Chadren plan really did not
    bring people together. Significant parties to these interests
    feel like they were not properly consulted and we have, as you
    know, a Herculean struggle among various interests with respect
    to this management plan.
        I have really tried very hard to understand the new
    management plan. It is hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and
    hundreds of pages of highly technical information. We have
    really good professors, Ph.D.'s who have studied it, who come
    out with a conclusion on this side, and then someone else
    equally capable comes out with a conclusion on this side,
    vastly different conclusions.
        None of us have the foggiest idea of what the ultimate
    consequences of this will be. I recognize these lands are
    multiple use. They are used for grazing, have been for many,
    many years. But they are also lands that belong to the public,
    available for hiking and hunting and a range of things.
        So we--I do not dispute that we want to have an effective
    management plan that represents multiple use, but I must
    confess, Chief Bosworth, that I do not know of anyone who
    understands the plan that was developed or the consequences of
    it.
        Can you tell me what the status is of that plan? The
    comment period is over, I believe. Tell me where the Forest
    Service is with that plan.

                 STATUS OF NATIONAL GRASSLANDS MANAGEMENT PLAN

        Mr. Bosworth. Yes, the comment period is over. We have
    evaluated the comments. We have been working with the
    interests, and trying to come out with a final record of
    decision that will be satisfactory to the ranching community,
    as well as to the environmental community and the--and there is
    also a fair amount of oil and gas, as you know, and we have
    worked closely with the oil and gas industry.
        I believe in the next few weeks we will be able to sign a
    record of decision that will be satisfactory. It will not be
    everything that everybody wants, but I believe that we will be
    or we will strike a balance that will--that people are going to
    be willing to move forward with.
        The most difficult thing has been the differences of
    opinion about what both the economic impacts would be, as well
    as the grazing impacts. And there has been sort of a wider-
    than-any-other-place-I-have-ever-seen divergence of opinion
    about what those effects would be.
        You know, we have gone through our analysis. And, like you
    say, we have tons of information. And we think we know what the
    effects will be, but the ranching community does not trust
    that, or does not believe that, so we are looking for ways to
    work our way through it, develop some allotment plans together
    and see--before we implement that part of it, to see what the
    effects would be.

                           MINERALS AND OIL INTERESTS

        Senator Dorgan. I failed to mention the minerals and oil
    interests. And that is another interest here. And I worked, I
    think, for 3 years with the Forest Service in Meridian and
    other companies so that we could trade out interests that would
    allow them to more orderly develop, and perhaps even develop
    more, but not do it in sensitive or scenic areas that are of
    special interest to us.
        And as a result, the Forest Service--and I appreciated the
    cooperation--traded out interests. We now have protected the
    Kinley Plateau and Bullion Butte, very remarkable and special
    places in--near the Badlands of North Dakota, and we will
    actually see more oil and mineral development in other areas
    where they were able to consolidate their holdings, because of
    those trades.
        But, Chief Bosworth, I am trying to remember, did you come
    to some meetings in North Dakota with me? I think you did.
        Mr. Bosworth. Yes, I did.
        Senator Dorgan. And I recall we had a good many people show
    up and express great angst about these issues early on in the
    process. And you, no doubt, I think, as--if I recall, I think
    we were in Fedora, North Dakota, but Slope County is the county
    south of there. It is the county next to the one that I grew up
    in.
        Slope County is about the size of the State of Rhode
    Island. It has about roughly 700 to 800 citizens. We had seven
    babies born there in a recent year. So it tells you the land
    mass and the sparse population.
        And we have people suggesting that we create wilderness
    areas by laws. And, you know, you do not need laws to do that.
    It has become a wilderness, and the people are moving out, not
    in. Ranchers are quitting, not starting.

                      NATIONAL GRASSLANDS MANAGEMENT PLAN

        And so what we are trying to do with respect to a
    management plan is to be sure that we do not create dramatic
    injury to the economies of these counties out there that are
    struggling very, very hard, and the farmers and ranchers, who
    are struggling to make a living during tough times, and still
    recognize that the management plan offers opportunity for all
    of the others that have a bona fide interest in these lands:
    environmentalists, hunters, hikers, you know, the whole series
    of interests including oil and gas and minerals.
        So I--the reason I ask this question is this is very
    important to western North Dakota. It is a very important
    issue, and I, you know, I graduated from that little high
    school down near Slope County and Hettinger County, a high
    school with 40 kids in 4 grades, 9 in my high school class.
        I did not take the highest math you can take probably in
    school, but nonetheless I went on to get several college
    degrees. And I have really tried hard to understand what this
    management plan does. I do not have the foggiest idea of what
    the impact would be 5 years from now in western North Dakota if
    we fully implement that plan. I wish I did, but I do not.
        And I have consulted with Ph.D.'s on both sides of the
    issues. So that will give you a bit of the frustration of
    ranchers and others. If I cannot understand it and they cannot
    understand it, and none of us understand the future
    consequences, people fear the unknown and should, if they are
    trying to raise a family and make a living in areas where we
    have people moving out and not in, and the economies are
    struggling.
        So I just tell you all of that as a background of why this
    is so very important to us.
        Mr. Bosworth. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. And I just
    want you to know that it is extremely important to me and to
    the rest of the Forest Service as well.

                               ANALYSIS PARALYSIS

        I mentioned a little earlier in answer to one of the
    questions about ``analysis paralysis'' and ``process
    gridlock.'' It just seems foolish to me that it takes us so
    many years to develop a grassland plan to start with.
        You know, when we develop plans to be 10 to 15 years in
    length, and it takes us 5 to 10 years to develop the plan, that
    just simply does not make sense. And it becomes so complex that
    people cannot understand it, including half the Forest Service
    people that, you know, it gets very complex.
        We have to simplify our processes. We have--we need to be
    able to develop a plan in a much shorter period of time. It
    needs to be much less complex, that does much more interaction
    with people and a whole lot less paper and intricate analysis
    on everything when it just is not working for people----
        Senator Dorgan. Yes.
        Mr. Bosworth [continuing]. And we have got to redefine
    that. We are going to be coming out with some proposed
    regulation changes on our planning regs to try to simplify the
    process.
        Senator Dorgan. And most of all, a little common sense. I
    mean, I can tell you of ranchers who wanted to move a water
    tank, and 18 months later they still were not able to get the
    approval to move a water tank. Now, you know, you just say to
    yourself, ``This is a bureaucracy that is big, slow and not
    very capable,'' if you cannot get answers, and commonsense
    answers.
        You know, that is, you have got a lot of good men and women
    working in the Forest Service, but you also know this is a big,
    big bureaucracy. And we need to make it work in a way that
    allows people to say, ``Yes, this agency makes thoughtful and
    correct decisions and uses a lot of common sense.''
        At any rate, having said that, I will follow up with
    another discussion with you at another time on the grasslands.
    I just wanted to alert you that it is a very important issue.

                     ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION

        Let me finish by saying I want to submit some questions for
    the record on behalf of myself and Senator Byrd, and also say
    that my hope would be that in future years--and I believe it
    would be Senator Byrd's hope as well, and other members of the
    subcommittee based on questions--when an agency like yours sees
    a year coming up that is going to require substantial
    additional funds for fire suppression and fighting fires on
    national forest lands, I think we need to have the money
    available to do that.
        You say the resources are available but, in order to get
    there, you are going to have to take them from other accounts.
    Why not a budgeting process from the administration that says,
    ``Look, here is what we need. Congress, please appropriate
    it''? And in my judgment with respect to forest fires and fire
    suppression, Congress would do that.
        We have an emergency supplemental bill we are debating
    right now. We will have a vote, a cloture vote at 11 o'clock,
    and I think it should have had several million dollars in it
    for additional fire suppression monies that you are going to
    need.
        Is it not the case that you are going to need that this
    year, in your judgment?
        Mr. Bosworth. Yes. In my judgment, we will need it. We will
    need additional money. We will borrow from our accounts and,
    that is, from other programs.
        Senator Dorgan. Would you agree with me that it would have
    been or it would be smarter and better and more effective and
    in the public interest to do this right up front?
        Fighting fires is not optional, is it? I mean, you know,
    fire suppression is not optional. You cannot wake up in the
    morning and just say, ``All right. The fires are not an issue
    for us because we do not have sufficient money budgeted. We
    thought it was going to cost us $300 million. It is quite clear
    we have already spent that and it is going to cost a lot more.
    So we will do nothing.'' That's not an option.
        Mr. Bosworth. That is not an option. We are not going to be
    allowing--particularly near communities, we are not going to be
    allowing fires to burn off national forest lands and through
    communities, and----
        Senator Dorgan. So would you agree with me that next year,
    if we get into this situation, that the administration ought to
    put the money in and request the money in a supplemental?

                  LONG-TERM SOLUTION TO FIRE FIGHTING FUNDING

        Mr. Bosworth. Well, I would like for us to find a long-term
    solution to the problem, and there--I think there are some
    different options that we can look at, like an emergency fund,
    a national emergency fund, some way that we can get dollars
    quickly in those years that we underestimated the amount of
    money that it is going to take. But this is just crying out for
    a long-term solution to this problem. And I would be really
    happy to work with you on coming up with some ideas.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, Chief, thank you very much.
        Mr. Bosworth. Thank you.
        Senator Dorgan. And, Mr. Kashdan, thank you very much for
    being here.
        Mr. Kashdan. Thank you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Byrd. 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 Robert C. Byrd
                 failure to provide committee with fire report
        Question. Last year the Forest Service worked hand-in-hand with the
    Department of the Interior and state and local governments to craft a
    ten-year strategy to combat forest fires and reduce the risk of fire in
    an around our communities. However, the National Fire Plan did not
    identify funding requirements for the various components of the Plan. I
    understand that the amount of money needed to fight forest fires in any
    given year is going to fluctuate based on various factors, not the
    least of which is the weather. Nevertheless, I also think it is
    extremely important for this Committee to fully understand the costs of
    the National Fire Plan if we are to provide the necessary resources.
    Consequently, the Forest Service was directed in the fiscal year 2002
    appropriations bill to update the National Fire Plan by providing
    Congress with detailed schedules of planned activities and the funding
    required to carry out the Plan. This report was to be delivered to the
    House and Senate Appropriations Committees by March 15 of this year. To
    date, we have yet to receive this report.
        Chief Bosworth, please tell the Committee why the Forest Service
    has not complied with the Committee's direction, and when you
    anticipate sending this report forward.
        Answer. The agency has prepared the report but the Office of
    Management and Budget has not cleared it for submission to the Hill
    because OMB is reluctant to approve a report that contains budget
    estimates beyond the fiscal year 2003 budget proposal. The agency is
    working with OMB to present the report in a fashion that meets the
    Committee's needs.
                             fire suppression costs
        Question. Last year, the Forest Service spent $690 million putting
    out forest fires. In order to pay these costs, the agency had to borrow
    $200 million from non-fire accounts. This caused disruption in
    administering the programs from which the funds were borrowed and it
    also delayed important projects. In reviewing the agency's budget, it
    appears that for the current fiscal year the Forest Service has
    approximately $321 million on hand for firefighting activities.
        If this fire season turns out to be as bad as the last, when you
    spent $690 million, won't that mean that the Forest Service will need
    to borrow $370 million to cover these costs?
        Answer. Yes, that is correct. But, at this time, we can't know for
    certain what the fire season for this year will be.
                       wood education and resource center
        Question. The Wood Education and Resource Center, located in
    Princeton, West Virginia, is very important to me, to the people of my
    state, and to the hardwood industry in general. Unfortunately, before
    the Forest Service became involved in the running of the Center, it had
    been poorly managed. The Forest Service is to be commended for the
    manner in which it has turned the Center around. I am very pleased and
    encouraged by the Forest Service's management in recent years, and am
    confident that the Center will continue to grow. However, I note that
    the budget request for fiscal year 2003 does not identify a specific
    funding level for the Center's operations. On the contrary, the request
    merely states that the Center will receive a similar level of funding
    as it did in fiscal year 2002.
        What is the precise amount that the Forest Service is planning on
    providing the Center in the upcoming fiscal year?
        Answer. $2.7 million, the same level as last year. [Senator: the
    agency has told us that this is their intention but it is useful to
    have this stated on the record.]
                            monongahela forest plan
        Question. I am very concerned about the failure of the Forest
    Service to complete forest plan revisions in a timely manner. The
    National Forest Management Act requires that each forest plan must be
    revised every 15 years. However, your budget states that by fiscal year
    2003, 80 forest plans will be beyond this 15 year time frame. One of
    these forests is the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia. This
    issue is of particular importance to me as I understand that there is
    litigation against the Forest Service which could potentially lead to a
    shut down of many activities on national forests because the Forest
    Service has not completed a plan revision on a timely basis.
        Chief, when will the forest plan revision on the Monongahela be
    completed?
        Answer. The Monongahela plan will not be completed until 2006, 5
    years beyond the required 15 year revision date.
        Question. Is it possible that activities on the Monongahela could
    be affected because the plan has not been completed on time? If so,
    what kinds of activities could be in jeopardy?
        Answer. The agency will likely say that there are a number of court
    cases pending around the country where this argument is being made,
    i.e., that because a forest plan has not been revised within 15 years
    certain activities must be halted until the plan is revised. This
    litigation is primarily aimed at timber harvesting but other activities
    could be affected depending on the ruling of the courts.
        Question. What are you doing to get a better handle on completing
    forest plans in a timely manner?
        Answer. The complexity of the forest planning process is an
    enormous problem that is a great cost in terms of time and money. We
    are reviewing our planning regulations and will be revising them. We
    believe that revising these regulations may provide a more efficient
    means to address this problem.
                   research cuts and impacts to west virginia
        Question. As I noted in my opening statement, I am very concerned
    with the administration's budget request for Research. Within that
    request is a proposal to redirect some $35.9 million worth of ongoing
    research to fund other activities deemed more important by the
    administration. According to information provided to the Committee by
    the Forest Service, this proposal would mean the reassignment or
    termination of 275 research personnel, and the closing of 12 research
    facilities
        What, if any, impacts will there be to the research labs in
    Princeton, Parsons, and Morgantown West Virginia?
        Answer. No final decisions have been made with respect to the
    closing of certain facilities or cutting staff. These impacts will be
    assessed before any final decisions are made. The agency will work with
    you in making sure that facilities in West Virginia are not harmed by
    redirections proposed in the budget.
             seneca rocks repairs/lake sherwood sewage improvements
        Question. I am concerned with the amount of backlog maintenance
    that needs to be done on our national forests--some $6.8 billion
    according to Forest Service estimates. On the Monongahela National
    Forest, the Lake Sherwood Recreation Area needs a new sewage treatment
    system and the Seneca Rocks Discovery Center needs various repairs to
    address problems with the ventilation system and some cracks in the
    structure. I have not seen either of these important projects mentioned
    in your facilities maintenance lists for fiscal year 2003.
        Am I correct in assuming that these maintenance problems will not
    be addressed under your proposed budget?
        Answer. These projects are not currently planned for under the
    proposed budget. The Chief will say that the enormous backlog of work
    prevents the Forest Service from being able to address all of the
    worthwhile projects that need funding each year.
        Question. If the funds are provided by the Committee can you assure
    me that these projects will be completed on a timely basis?
        Answer. Yes, if funds are provided the agency could contract to
    have these problems addressed very quickly.
                    gypsy moth defoliation in west virginia
        Question. West Virginia has some of the most beautiful forests in
    the country, and is, in fact, one of our nation's most densely forested
    states. That is why I am concerned about the spread of the Gypsy Moth,
    a non-native pest which has defoliated thousands of acres in West
    Virginia. In the last three years, the number of acres of West Virginia
    forests defoliated by the Gypsy Moth has escalated dramatically, rising
    from no acres in 1999 to more than 600,000 acres in 2001.
        What is the Forest Service doing to combat this problem and what
    level of funding is being devoted nationally and in my state of West
    Virginia?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2002 the agency spent $14,842,000 to combat
    Gypsy Moth and the budget is increased only slightly to $15,000,000 in
    fiscal year 2003. For West Virginia, the agency spent $935,000 in
    Fiscal year 2002 and plans to spend $940,000 in fiscal year 2003. Thus,
    the agency is only marginally increasing amounts to combat Gypsy Moth
    even though problem is clearly getting much worse.
        Question. What level of funding could the Forest Service
    effectively spend?
        Answer. The agency could use more dollars for this effort, but it
    has many priorities and their existing budget is an attempt to address
    many competing needs. The Chief will state that invasive species such
    as the Gypsy Moth are a growing problem that the agency will have to
    address over the long term with additional resources. He will work with
    you in trying to ensure that more resources can be applied to this
    important effort.
                 elimination of wood in transportation program
        Question. I am concerned with the budget request for the State and
    Private Forestry program area. A number of important initiatives are
    funded through the State and Private Forestry appropriation. One of
    these is the Wood In Transportation program, headquartered in
    Morgantown, West Virginia. This office provides information and
    technical assistance to the entire nation on the use of timber in
    bridge construction. It has been estimated that 30 percent of the
    nation's 589,000 bridges need repair or replacement. This program helps
    to address that need and it also stimulates economies in rural areas by
    establishing a market for smaller diameter, low value woods. However,
    your budget proposes to eliminate this program in fiscal year 2003.
        Why?
        Answer. The Wood In Transportation program is funded through a
    larger set of programs called Economic Action Programs (EAP). The EAP
    account has been heavily earmarked in previous years, and, in an effort
    to reduce earmarking by Congress, the Administration chose to eliminate
    all Economic Action Programs.
        Question. Last year, your budget emphasized how the Wood In
    Transportation program could help with the National Fire Plan by
    creating a market for much of the low value, smaller diameter material
    that the agency is planning to remove from the national forests as part
    of its hazardous fuels reduction program. Wouldn't you agree then, that
    it is short-sighted to eliminate this program?
        Answer. The Chief should agree that the Wood in Transportation
    program helps to create a market for small diameter material. The
    agency will likely claim that it was the Administration's decision to
    eliminate this program due to the extent of earmarking, but that if
    Congress provided the funds the agency would support this worthwhile
    effort.
                     inequitable distribution of fire funds
        Question. As a result of severe fire seasons the past two years,
    Congress has more than doubled the amounts appropriated to the Forest
    Service for the fire program since fiscal year 2000. This additional
    funding was to support the National Fire Plan, which would implement a
    more integrated approach to fire management. An important part of the
    National Fire Plan is additional funding for research to study fire
    behavior, determine the most effective forms of fuels treatment, and to
    improve firefighter safety. I am very concerned that the Northeastern
    Research Station, which serves thirteen states including West Virginia,
    has not received equitable treatment in the allocation of funds for
    fire research. We have some fine research facilities in Morgantown,
    Parsons, and Princeton, West Virginia. In the past two years, the
    Committee has appropriated $79,789,000 for research under the National
    Fire Plan but the Northeastern Research Station has only received a
    total of $1,450,000, or 1.9 percent of the total funds.
        Chief, why has the Northeast received such a small percentage of
    fire research funds?
        Answer. The Chief is likely to say that in the past the bulk of
    fire research for the Forest Service has been done at facilities in the
    West and that trend continued with the increased funds for the Fire
    Plan. However, the agency should be reminded that this plan is the
    ``National Fire Plan'' and it should be truly national in scope.
    Accordingly, the Northeastern part of the country should get a more
    equitable share of these funds.
        Question. I would hope that you would do something to make a more
    equitable distribution of research funds in future years. While I
    understand that more money will go to Western states for many fire
    activities since the majority of forest system acres are in the west, I
    believe that in the realm of research the Northeast should get more
    than a mere 1.9 percent of funds. We have had an acute drought this
    year and have a vast number of rural communities that could be at risk
    to forest fires.
        How will the $29,427,000 of proposed fire research funds be
    distributed in fiscal year 2003?
        Answer. Chief will likely respond that he will review this matter
    and work with you and staff to ensure that appropriate levels of
    research funds are allocated to the East. West Virginia would be an
    important place where fire research could be conducted.
                            financial accountability
        Question. Chief, this Committee remains deeply concerned with the
    integrity of the financial management systems within the Forest
    Service. For the last several years, the agency has been telling the
    Committee that it is putting in place improved management systems that
    will lead to greater accountability. However, your agency has yet to
    obtain a clean audit opinion as required by statute, and it remains on
    the General Accounting Office's list of agencies at high risk of waste,
    fraud and abuse.
        When do you expect to have these problems straightened out and a
    clean audit opinion issued?
        Answer. The agency's goal is to have a clean audit opinion at
    completion of fiscal year 2002, or 2003. The Forest Service believes
    that it has implemented processes to better account for their real
    property assets and to simplify their accounting system while at the
    same time improving accountability over each dollar spent. These have
    been two major obstacles in obtaining clean audit of their books.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much, that concludes the
    hearing. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 10 a.m.,
    Thursday, June 13, when we will meet in room SD-124 to hear
    from the Secretary, Department of the Interior, Gale A. Norton.
        [Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., Thursday, June 6, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    June 13.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan presiding.
        Present: Senators Leahy, Dorgan, Feinstein, Murray, Burns,
    Stevens, Domenici, Bennett, Campbell, and Johnson.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            P. LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT
                AND BUDGET
            JOHN D. TREZISE, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Senator Byrd has asked that I Chair the subcommittee
    hearing this morning in light of his duties associated with the
    supplemental appropriations bill, and I am pleased to do that.
        The subcommittee today is pleased to welcome the Secretary
    of the Interior, Gale Norton. It is nice to have you back,
    Madam Secretary, and we look forward to hearing your testimony
    this morning.
        My colleagues and I also look forward to having the
    opportunity to ask specific questions concerning policy
    decisions reflected in the budget that is submitted to us. The
    administration has proposed spending approximately $9.4 billion
    for programs under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
    Clearly, that is a significant sum of money, but then the
    responsibilities placed on your Department are many, and I am
    concerned, as I am sure others are, that the resources being
    requested may not be sufficient to meet the demands and the
    needs. We want to make sure that we are doing all we can for
    Indian country especially. We want to make sure that we have
    provided for the backlog of maintenance funding for our parks,
    wildlife refuges, other public lands. And the question is, is
    the level of funding requested for the abandoned mine
    reclamation program sufficient? I hope that we will be able to
    have you address all of those issues and be able to ask
    questions about it during this morning's hearing.

                               prepared statement

        Once again, Madam Secretary, we appreciate your coming
    today. My understanding is that you are accompanied by
    Assistant Secretary P. Lynn Scarlett and the Director of
    Budget, John Trezise. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan
        The subcommittee is pleased to welcome this morning the Secretary
    of the Interior, Gale Norton. It is nice to have you back, Madam
    Secretary, and we look forward to hearing your testimony.
        My colleagues and I also look forward to having the opportunity to
    ask specific questions concerning the policy decisions reflected in
    your department's budget. The administration has proposed spending
    approximately $9.4 billion for programs under the jurisdiction of this
    subcommittee. Clearly, that is a significant sum of money. But the
    responsibilities placed on your department are many, and I am
    concerned, as I am sure others are, that the resources being requested
    may not be sufficient to meet demand. Are you, for example, doing all
    you can for Indian country? Has the department provided adequate
    backlog maintenance funding to our parks, our wildlife refuges and
    other public lands? And isn't the level of funding requested for the
    abandoned mine reclamation program too low? I hope you will address
    these and other questions this morning.
        I am particularly concerned about funding for Indian education,
    housing, justice and other programs. Regrettably, the President's
    budget comes nowhere close to meeting the need for funding that exists
    in Indian country. The budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs receives
    only a $23 million, or 1 percent, increase, despite the desperate needs
    that exist with respect to housing, education, law enforcement, social
    services, and other areas. I am very, very concerned about the funding
    levels proposed by the Administration for Indian programs, and I hope
    that the Congress will be able to do better, despite the more difficult
    funding situation we are facing.
        There are a few specific recommendations for Indian programs made
    in the Department of Interior's budget that concern me greatly. I am
    strongly opposed to the President's recommendation to eliminate $3
    million in BIA funding for United Tribes Technical College in Bismarck,
    and I intend to see that this funding is restored. Since 1981, the
    proposed BIA budget has always recommended funding for UTTC, which I
    think is indicative of the strong support the college has in Indian
    country. It is the only intertribally-controlled postsecondary
    vocational institution in the country, and it serves nearly 500
    students from more than 40 tribes around the country. UTTC is making a
    real difference in the lives of the students and families it serves.
    One student, Anita Green, asked me to help restore the budget cuts to
    UTTC, saying: ``This is home for my family and so many others. For many
    of us, this is maybe our last chance at college and trying to make
    something of ourselves.'' Another student, Walter Runs Above, a
    freshman majoring in Injury Prevention, said, ``If the college is
    closed because of funding cuts, a lot of hearts will be lost.''
        Another area of deep concern is the $2 million cut slated for
    tribal colleges. Last year, I fought, along with Senator Burns, the
    Ranking Member, to increase per student funding for tribal colleges to
    $3,916 for fiscal year 2002. Unfortunately, the President's budget
    would roll-back this progress by decreasing funding by $390 per
    student, to $3,526. Funding for tribal colleges is authorized at $6,000
    per student, and the President's budget would fund tribal colleges at
    only 59 percent of the authorized funding level. I would hope that,
    rather than taking steps backward, we could continue to increase
    funding for tribal colleges in fiscal year 2003.
        I am interested in learning more about the Administration's
    ``Indian School Privatization Initiative,'' for which the budget
    requests $11.9 million. Quite frankly, I have concerns about this
    initiative, at least from what little information the Administration
    provided about it. I strongly support the ability of tribes to operate
    BIA schools if they so choose, and there are already two mechanisms in
    the law--the grant school authority and the contracting authority--that
    enables tribes to do so.
        I am concerned, however, by a program that essentially says to
    tribes, we want you to take over these schools, with inadequate funding
    for the administration of those schools, and if you don't, we are going
    to turn the school over to a private company to run. That doesn't seem
    fair to me. It seems to me that if Congress and the Administration want
    to be serious about encouraging tribes to exercise self-determination,
    then we would provide 100 percent of the cost of tribal administration
    of schools, fully fund student transportation costs, provide adequate
    funding for operations and maintenance, and otherwise provide the
    funding needed to make the running of the schools a fair proposition.
    In that way, many tribes that genuinely would like to take over the
    administration of BIA schools would be able to do so.
        Before turning to the subcommittee's distinguished Ranking Member
    for any opening statement he may wish to make, let me note for the
    record that, given his ongoing duties associated with the supplemental
    appropriations bill, Senator Byrd has asked me to chair this hearing in
    his absence. I am, of course, pleased to accommodate his request.

        Senator Dorgan. Let me call on Senator Burns.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

        Senator Burns. Good Irish names.
        Madam Secretary, thank you for coming this morning and
    thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is time we started holding hearings and doing something
    about appropriations. As you know, it is getting late in the
    year, and having no budget yet, it kind of leaves us out there
    in limbo a little bit. But, nonetheless, we should have these
    hearings and get some of the things ironed out.
        A year ago when you came before this committee, you had a
    budget that you had to defend that you had very little role in
    shaping. But this year is a different thing. We will have some
    questions, and we will just put my opening statement in the
    record and hear from you because I think we want to roll right
    along. We have still got a pretty busy day ahead of us.
        I think the chairman hit the nail on the head. There are
    some things we have to do. I am concerned about parks and our
    ability to take care of the infrastructure, our O&M accounts in
    those parks.
        I am very much concerned about EIS's. It is what is
    required of BLM before we can get a grazing permit. And we are
    way behind, and if that is going to take more resources, let us
    get some resources there. We have heard of some stockmen that
    are not even going to renew their permits until the EIS is
    done. Now, you cannot stand around there with a herd of cattle
    or a flock of sheep and expect to hold them until the EIS is
    done. And that is our responsibility, and if you need more
    resources, why, let us find out if we cannot get more
    resources. But let us accelerate that a little bit. I know you
    have made great progress in the last 360 days, but more has to
    be done.

                               prepared statement

        There again, I would say the chairman was sure right. Let
    us take a look at infrastructure. I know I have got two of the
    crown jewel parks in my State, and we sure need some help in
    some of our maintenance problems that we are having there.
        Thank you for coming today. I look forward to your
    testimony.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome Madam Secretary. I'm glad
    we've finally been able to schedule a time to hear from you, regarding
    both the fiscal year 2003 budget request and whatever else is on your
    mind.
        When you came before this subcommittee a year ago, I believe you
    were the only confirmed appointee in the entire Department. You were
    defending a budget that you had only a modest ability to shape, and had
    very few senior staff to help deal with the many complex problems that
    started landing on your desk on day one.
        A year later things are hopefully a bit more manageable, now that
    you have your Assistant Secretaries and senior staff in place. But
    being landlord for more than one fifth of the United States--over a
    half billion acres--can never be easy.
        In trying to implement your vision of cooperative conservation
    throughout the Department, I know you've met resistance from a
    sometimes cynical and risk-averse bureaucracy.
        In trying to implement the President's energy policy and expand
    domestic energy production in a responsible manner, you've met with
    opposition every step of the way from those who would have our country
    become entirely dependent on foreign energy sources.
        Since September 11th you've had to wrestle with many of the same
    issues we're facing throughout government, such as finding the proper
    balance between security and public access, and reforming your
    organization to properly meet the terrorism threat.
        And through all of this you've been saddled with the thankless task
    of addressing the intractable, expensive, draining, centuries-in-the-
    making problem of Indian trust reform.
        Given these often frustrating challenges, Madam Secretary, I'm just
    glad you're still here.
        But while we're anxious to hear about the progress you're making on
    these fronts, we of course also want to hear from you about the budget
    request. In the context of an overall budget constrained by the war on
    terror and an economic downturn, there are some very positive elements
    in the request. You've dedicated $100 million in new money for a
    Cooperative Conservation Initiative, and provided increases of $84
    million for trust reform, $24 million for planning and permitting on
    BLM lands, and $50 million for refuge operations.
        Regrettably, these increases are offset by some very troublesome
    reductions. You've reduced PILT funding by $45 million, which strikes
    me as a slap in the face of the public land states of the West.
        And you've eliminated over $100 million in specific programs and
    priorities funded by Congress in fiscal year 2002, without any apparent
    analysis of the merits of the individual programs. I assume you had a
    little help from OMB in this regard, but at the end of the day you are
    all on the same team. And if the Administration's budget folks have
    decided that all ideas are bad simply because they were Congress's and
    not their own, then we are going to have real problems. This kind of
    off-handed treatment makes it difficult for us to be receptive to the
    Administration's own proposals and initiatives, though I am striving to
    keep an open mind.
        That said, Madam Secretary, I'm glad to see you here today. We look
    forward to hearing your testimony, and your answers to our questions.

        Senator Dorgan. Senator Johnson.

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

        Senator Johnson. Well, thank you, Chairman Dorgan, and
    thank you in particular for allowing me to sit in on this
    particular subcommittee hearing. Welcome to Secretary Norton,
    and I appreciate the timely hearing to address the President's
    fiscal year 2003 budget request for the Department of the
    Interior.
        The Department of the Interior's agencies and bureaus have
    a significant impact on the citizens of my State from parks to
    grazing to Native American issues. I am very interested in the
    Secretary's testimony and I look forward to some questions that
    can be posed to her as this goes on.
        There is one issue in particular I want to focus on just a
    bit, and that is, as many of my colleagues are aware, the issue
    of trust fund mismanagement illustrates what I believe to be a
    complete breakdown to adequately maintain Indian trusts and
    assets by the Interior Department. This has been going on
    literally for generations and so it is certainly not to single
    out this administration. This has been going on for far too
    long. And this has been going on despite the United States'
    trust responsibility for Indian tribes.
        In light of an array of perplexing circumstances in Indian
    country, and most notably in my State of South Dakota, the
    issue of trust fund mismanagement is beyond shocking. It is
    profoundly unacceptable. Unfortunately, American Indians and
    Alaska Natives in the United States continue to rank at or near
    bottom of every measurable socioeconomic and health indicator
    when compared to other groups of American citizens. The
    problems of trust funds and asset mismanagement have persisted
    literally, again, for generations and continue today. For as
    long as the problem has existed, administrations of both
    political parties have been inadequate in their response, as
    the response has been inadequate from Congress.

                               prepared statement

        The Trust Fund Management Act of 1994 was intended to
    remedy the accounting discrepancy, but unfortunately that has
    not been the case. I do believe that this will not be resolved
    without very close consultation with the tribes and respect for
    the government-to-government relationship that is necessary
    when dealing with the sovereignty of our Native American
    tribes.
        So, I look forward to questions to be submitted to the
    Secretary, and I will submit a much fuller statement for the
    record.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today to
    address the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request for Department
    of the Interior. The Department of the Interior's many agencies and
    bureaus have a major impact on the citizens of South Dakota, so I am
    very interested in the Secretary's testimony and look forward to her
    answering some questions about this Administration's priorities for the
    Department of the Interior.
        One of the issues the Department has had some controversy
    addressing has been the management of Indian trust funds and assets.
    The United States fundamental and legal principle of government-to-
    government relationship with Tribes is to honor the Federal
    Government's trust responsibility and obligations. One of the key
    component's of that trust responsibility is the administration and
    management of trust funds and assets.
        As many of my colleagues are aware, the issue of Trust Fund
    mismanagement illustrate a complete breakdown to adequately maintain
    Indian trusts and assets by the Interior Department, despite the United
    States trust responsibility for Indian tribes. In light of an array of
    perplexing circumstances in Indian country, and most notably in South
    Dakota, the issue of Trust Fund mismanagement is beyond shocking, it is
    profoundly unacceptable. Unfortunately, American Indians and Alaska
    Natives in the United States continue to rank at or near bottom of
    every measurable social, economic, and health indicator, when compared
    to other groups of American citizens.
        The problem of trust funds and assets mismanagement persist
    literally for generations, and continues today. For as long as the
    problem existed, administrations of both political parties have been
    inadequate in their response, included is the level of inadequate
    direction and resources by Congress. The Trust Fund Management Act of
    1994 was intended to remedy the accounting discrepancy. Unfortunately,
    this has not been the case.
        In late November, the Secretary attempted to address this ongoing
    problem by proposing to split off BIA trust assets management
    responsibilities into a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management
    (BITAM). The Secretary released the Department's plan without first
    consulting with the very people who are supposed to benefit from these
    trust account. For that reason, I made my opposition to the Secretary's
    plan very clear, and I asked Chairman Byrd of the Appropriation
    Committee to instruct the Department not to reprogram any funds to
    begin implementing the Department's reorganization efforts. It is my
    sincere hope that the Department and Secretary Norton are continuing to
    abide by that directive and look forward to the Secretary providing a
    commitment to this Committee that the Department will in fact take no
    action to implement her reorganization plan until it has the support of
    Native Americans and Congress.
        We have already benefitted from input of many tribal officials in
    the context of Department consultation meetings, as well as the
    Department's Task Force on Trust Reform. I have had numerous
    discussions and meetings with South Dakota tribal leaders, and I
    greatly appreciate their insights and leadership. I would also like to
    take this opportunity to thank Mr. Mike Jandreau, Chairman of the Lower
    Brule Sioux Tribe, a member of the Interior Department's Task Force on
    Trust Reform, and Tom Ranfranz, President of the Flandreau Santee and
    Chairman of the Great Plans Tribal Chairman's Association for their
    sound advice and counsel as we proceed with trust reform efforts.
        I have also worked closely with my colleagues, Senator John McCain
    and Senator Daschle, as sponsors of the Indian Trust Asset and Trust
    Fund Management and Reform Act of 2002. This legislation is simply an
    ongoing process as we continue to work closely with Tribes to address
    the need for reform of the management of the trust funds and assets
    that have been mismanaged for decades. We are hopeful that our
    legislation can serve to jump start discussions in Congress and with
    tribes all across the country as we try to find a solution to these
    ongoing problems.
        I strongly urge the Secretary to include tribal consultation at
    every phase of the ongoing trust reform efforts, and I further urge the
    Secretary to not implement any reorganization against the wishes of
    tribal leaders around the country and Congress. I encourage the
    Department of Interior to work with Congress to solve this long overdue
    problem.
        There are several other issues I would like to highlight as well,
    including the lack of critically needed funding for the Indian Health
    Service, tribal colleges, BIA school construction, the Bureau of
    Reclamation's rural water projects, the PILT program, the backlog
    facing our National Park System, and the Earth Resources Observation
    Systems Data Center in the United States Geological Survey.
        The Indian Health Service (IHS) is tasked with providing full
    health coverage for American Indians and Alaska Natives. However, per
    capita spending for each IHS beneficiary is only one-third of what is
    spent per capita on health care for the general U.S. population. For
    many years, appropriations for the IHS have not kept pace with medical
    inflation or population growth. As a result, IHS services are so
    underfunded that patients are routinely denied care that most of us
    take for granted and, in many cases, call essential. Treatment is
    deferred unless a patient's condition is life-threatening or they risk
    losing a limb. Because of this ``life or limb'' requirement, many
    patients do not receive care until they have deteriorated
    significantly, when the treatment required is much more costly. Others
    receive no care at all. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I
    was pleased to have worked with Chairman Conrad and Majority Leader
    Daschle to include a $1 billion increase over the Bush Administration's
    IHS budget in the Senate Budget Committee passed fiscal year 2003
    budget resolution.
        Tribal colleges play a vital role in helping Native Americans to
    obtain the skills and knowledge required to succeed in today's world.
    The colleges supply higher education to countless students who live on
    and near our Nation's Indian Reservations. Without these colleges, many
    Native Americans would not be able to advance to higher skilled jobs,
    nor be able to matriculate into mainstream colleges and universities.
    There are much lower drop out rates for Native students who attend
    Tribally Controlled Community Colleges than students who entering
    mainstream higher learning institutions right out of high school. The
    colleges are an integral part of the educational system for Native
    Americans and must be given the proper support and resources.
        However, tribal colleges have been traditionally underfunded.
    Currently, tribal colleges receive funding at just under $4,000 per
    student, but are authorized to be funded at $6,000 per student. Last
    year, we were successful at obtaining approximately $41 million for
    operations for Tribal Colleges. However, this year the President's
    budget reduces funding by $2 million. This funding must be restored and
    hopefully increased. Cutting resources further inhibits the colleges'
    ability to function at the level at which they are capable. Moreover,
    the attendance at tribal colleges is growing to record levels. There
    are five tribal colleges in South Dakota that are providing outreach
    and role model services to the Indian local schools. However, they will
    not be able to meet these goals if they do not receive adequate
    funding.
        The Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center is a
    data management, systems development, and research field center for the
    U.S. Geological Survey's National Mapping Division. Scientists,
    managers, and technical users from around the world, including the
    scientific and technical staff at the EROS use data from its archives
    for a variety of data applications and research programs. Data from our
    archives have been used in studying scientific date and events
    throughout the world, including the eruption of Mount St. Helens,
    flooding on the Missouri River, Hurricane Mitch and Desert Storm. In
    today's environment, the data gathered at EROS is invaluable and can
    help keep our nation safe. It is important that EROS continue to
    receive the proper resources to continue its mission.
        The Bureau of Reclamation provides funding to four critically
    needed drinking water projects in South Dakota, the Mni Wiconi, Mid-
    Dakota, Lewis and Clark, and Perkins County projects. Unfortunately,
    the Administration's request was inadequate for all of four of these
    projects, and I will work to increase the funding levels to help get
    clean drinking water to as many South Dakotans as quickly as possible.
        Almost since its inception, there has been an annual battle over
    the level of funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) is
    designed to provide compensation to local communities that have
    significant amounts of federal land in their counties. Because these
    lands are not subject to local property taxes, PILT funds are critical
    to the budgets of local governments that provide many valuable services
    such law enforcement and sanitation. PILT has been chronically
    underfunded and rural states like South Dakota have difficulty
    providing basic public services on areas of federal land. Congress
    should live up to its commitment and fully fund PILT.
        It is clear that we are going in the wrong direction and must find
    ways to adequately fund PILT, so that the needs of rural areas are met.
    South Dakota has a high level of federal lands and most of the counties
    receive PILT funding. The counties are entitled to this funding by law
    and the federal government has an obligation to meet this requirement.
        To this end, I have cosponsored S. 454 so that we can guarantee
    that the funding gets to the local level where it is most needed. S.
    454 would provide for the full authorized amount to be made annually to
    the Interior Department. This would ensure that counties receive the
    full level of funding to which they are entitled. Counties and local
    governments have important needs to be met. They should not be
    penalized by the inability of the government to meet its obligations.
        It my understanding that the Administration is opposed to S. 454.
    It is my hope that the Administration will join in with the
    government's obligation to fully fund PILT so that we can help our
    local communities.
        The Administration should also work with Congress to help eliminate
    the backlog in the National Park Service operating budget. While the
    National Park Service's operating budget has increased in recent years,
    it has failed to keep pace with the escalating needs of the parks to
    adequately protect the resources and to provide a proper visitor
    experience. My state has several national parks that we are extremely
    proud of, including Mt. Rushmore, Wind Cave, Jewel Cave and the
    Badlands. The parks are national treasures and the jewels of South
    Dakota and must be properly maintained for South Dakota residents and
    the millions of visitors who enjoy them. I am supportive of efforts to
    increase the parks' operating budget by $280 million, $172 million
    above the President's request ,and am hopeful the Administration can
    work with us to support this increase. This is a small price to pay for
    protecting these priceless assets.

        Senator Dorgan. Senator Bennett.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate the opportunity for the hearing.
        I welcome Secretary Norton and must take this public
    opportunity to thank her and the employees of the Interior
    Department for the assistance in the 2002 Winter Olympics. The
    games were successful and a good portion, if not a majority of
    them, were held on BLM land, over which she has stewardship.
    So, the employees of the Interior Department were a critical
    factor in the successful games.
        While I am at it, I want to add two more names to the list
    of people. I hope if I keep commending these people, you will
    keep leaving them in Utah. Al Trout, who is the manager of the
    Bear River National Wildlife Refuge, and Sally Wisely, who is
    the State Director of the BLM. We are delighted with these
    Federal employees. They serve the Department and the people of
    Utah very well, and I would be remiss if I did not make public
    acknowledgement of that.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, I intend in this hearing to spend some
    time talking with Secretary Norton about the costs of
    litigation. We have one lawsuit that has been brought by the
    Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance that has consumed 50 percent
    of the BLM's recreation budget for the entire State of Utah.
    Every action that the BLM takes, no matter how routine, no
    matter how established in precedent, no matter how normal, is
    challenged with a lawsuit. The BLM wins well over 90 percent of
    these lawsuits, but in prosecuting the lawsuits, the BLM budget
    is eaten up in legal costs and thereby accomplishes the goals
    of the so-called friends of the environment in preventing
    things from happening.
        The ultimate irony is that the primary loser of this kind
    of activity on behalf of environmental groups is the
    environment because the BLM and the Department of the Interior
    is robbed of budgetary resources necessary to properly manage
    the land. The money is spent on lawyers winning frivolous
    lawsuits that are dragged out ad infinitum in Federal court.
        I wish to talk about that. The Secretary and I have had
    conversations about that. But since this is a budget hearing, I
    think it appropriate that we highlight this very significant
    budget issue that gets ignored and swept under the table. The
    environmental groups have discovered that what they cannot win
    with their arguments, they can win with frivolous lawsuits. I
    think in a budget committee talking about appropriations, we
    should address that issue.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Campbell.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL

        Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I am a little
    bit late.
        Welcome to my friend and colleague from Colorado, Gale
    Norton. Let me make just a couple of quick comments because I
    have some questions and I am really interested in hearing her
    testimony.
        I understand you were out in Colorado a couple of days ago,
    Madam Secretary, so you know I guess we are on the tip of
    iceberg for fires in the West. Although our State seems to be
    in the news an awful lot, I am sure that we have got fires in
    many other western States. It is almost out of control. They
    say the one southeast of Denver may end up burning itself out
    before it can be brought under control. It is that bad with the
    high winds.
        From our home, when I went home last week--you know I live
    down near Durango--from our porch on our ranch, we could see
    one called the Missionary Ridge fire that is up to about 15,000
    or 18,000 acres. We could see the flames even from the house.
    It is just devastating.
        So, I am interested, when we get in to questions and
    answers, in knowing your take on how we reduce the fire load on
    the public lands and what Interior's role has been.
        I do commend you on your work on trying to bring this mess
    with the trust fund management under control. It is not
    something you caused. You inherited it, but I would mention it.
    Senator Johnson already talked about it for a moment, but I
    understand there is a meeting in Bismarck and I know that Under
    Secretary McCaleb will be up there. I have had a staff member
    at every single one of those trust fund task force groups. I am
    hoping very shortly we are going to have something that we can
    introduce in legislation that is going to bring this to an end.
        I also wanted to say that I commend you on the money that
    is being put into Indian school construction. It is not nearly
    enough. We have many more needs than we have money available
    for that, but knowing the new world we live in after 9/11 and
    the budgetary constraints, I understand the difficulty of doing
    that.
        Lastly, the acquisition of some of the lands for Sand Dunes
    National Park and the money that was not in the budget for an
    ongoing purchase we are trying to make for the Black Canyon
    National Park I would like to ask you a little bit about during
    Q&A too.
        But thank you for being here, and I am looking forward to
    your testimony.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Stevens.

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am a
    little late. Nice to be with you, Madam Secretary.
        I hear my friend from Colorado and I read so much about the
    fires in what we call the south 48. At last count, there are 34
    fires burning in Alaska and each one of them is larger than the
    one in Colorado, as I understand it. So, I hope that we will
    not become myopic about looking at fires and only look south of
    the Canadian border.
        We do appreciate what you are doing and the fact that you
    have been willing to come to our State to see our State and to
    understand it. This is going to be a very interesting period
    for all of us.
        In south central Alaska, some of the lands are under your
    jurisdiction. There are over 1,200,000 acres of beetle kill.
    Those are trees now that have been dead for more than 10 years.
    Last year I witnessed a fire that in about 2 hours burned I
    think somewhere around 19,000 acres. And it is just a matter of
    time.
        So, I join Senator Campbell, and I hope all the Members of
    the Senate, in saying that we want to help you in the
    prevention area as much as the fire fighting area. We do have
    to have more concentration on prevention. Unfortunately, there
    have been a series of organizations that have come to the
    conclusion that since God made the forests and God made Alaska,
    he also--or maybe she--is making the fires and that this is not
    the time for us to interfere with nature. I really believe that
    curtailing fires and preventing damage to so many acres of land
    and also, in south central Alaska, as you know, half of our
    population and half of the investment in our State is in the
    path of that beetle kill if the winds are right and the fire
    starts.
        So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I look forward to
    working with you particularly in the area of fire prevention.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Murray.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank you for being with us this morning, Madam Secretary.
        I understand that you recently met with a friend, Don
    Hunger, from the Student Conservation Association. They are
    working on some great fire prevention programs in three States.
    I know they want to expand it to 11. I think they are really
    doing the right kind of on-the-ground work with protection for
    homeowners and communities, and I hope the Federal agencies
    will respond and work with the SCA and other agencies to expand
    that.
        I just want to mention a couple of issues real quickly and
    then I do have questions, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, I just wanted to bring to your attention
    Willapa Bay where we have a severe problem with the invasive
    species of spartina. It has been an ongoing problem and it
    really is threatening to destroy our bay which is a very
    important shellfish industry and important Fish and Wildlife
    Service refuge. Our State and the shellfish industry have spent
    a great deal on this to try and combat spartina. The University
    of Washington has developed a program to address this that they
    say will cost $1.2 million per year for the next 6 years. But
    the Fish and Wildlife budget for the refuge does not have
    adequate funding, and I hope to work with this committee and
    with you to see if we can address that problem.
        The other issue I wanted to mention is that this
    administration asked this subcommittee to reprogram funds for
    the proposed Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management, BITAM,
    last year. I expressed concerns to both the chairman of this
    committee, Chairman Byrd, and to your agency that tribes and
    tribal organizations had not been adequately consulted. I want
    to just take a moment to again really reiterate how important
    it is that the BIA, the Department of the Interior, and all of
    our Federal agencies continue to consult with tribes at the
    highest levels. I appreciate the time and effort you and your
    staff have invested in working with the Tribal Leaders Task
    Force to develop alternatives to BITAM, and I hope you will
    continue to make tribal consultation a priority.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I will have several questions for
    the Secretary after she makes her statement.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, first thank you for coming to New Mexico.
    If it takes Santa Fe to get our cabinet to come and visit New
    Mexico, I am glad Santa Fe is in New Mexico. It seems to be
    very attractive.
        Madam Secretary, I would suggest, if you have not, that you
    go out of your way maybe 50 or 75 miles when you are in one of
    the forests in New Mexico. You get on the road that goes
    through the Mescalero Apache Tribe's land and note what their
    forest looks like and what the Federal forest looks like side
    by side. You will see the answer as to why we are having forest
    fires, why they are so big, and why they burn so much because
    the Mescalero Indians are not bound by our forest management
    nor by our litigation as to how we can manage a forest. The
    forests do not look like forests on the same earth or that they
    are the same kind of trees because they stand free and tall.
    The trees breathe and grow and they do not grow as forest
    fodder for fire in the future. The Messalero forest are
    actually the way most forest were when I was a young boy.
        Now we fight so much about what we should not do, that we
    leave it all there and, lo and behold, the forests burn. It
    seems to me that if we are not making a conscious decision to
    do that, we have done it, nonetheless. I believe that it is a
    conscious decision because there are people who are so
    frightened about managing a forest because it means a tree
    might get cut, that they would rather just leave it grow where
    it is.
        I went through a forest where you walked 100 yards this way
    through an unkept U.S. forests, and when I got to a line and
    went over into another forest, which had been kept--and I do
    not know why--I wondered if we were in two different managed
    areas of America. It turned out lawsuits won on one and let it
    grow. On the other, there was cleanup done and it looked
    completely different.
        So, I do not think we are going to solve the fire problem,
    including the burning of buildings. We made headway on
    buildings because we gave you specific money to clean up around
    buildings. A huge amount of money should be in your budget for
    that kind of work because this subcommittee put it in a bill.
    Is that right? $650 million on the floor of the Senate I
    believe. I do not know where it has gone, but it was to clear
    the forests as a priority where trees and brush are close to
    buildings, private and public. As a matter of fact, you were
    supposed to have identified the areas that are dangerous in a
    report to the U.S. Government because the trees are too close
    to the improvements.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Feinstein.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

        Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank you, Madam Secretary. Your Department has
    been a great help. As you know, Mr. Raley has been trying to
    help us solve some problems in the southern part of the State
    so that we can maintain the Colorado water transfer agreement
    that has been forged. He has been very helpful, and I want you
    to know that. We met yesterday with the four involved water
    districts--Imperial, Coachella, San Diego, and the Met--as well
    as with the bipartisan delegation of House Members and Senator
    Kyl's participation.
        I for one believe we should carry out our Colorado River
    commitment to reduce our takings, and I am hopeful that we have
    set in motion now a way to solve this. So, I want to thank you
    for Mr. Raley's active involvement.
        I also want to indicate that we were fortunate in being
    able to get the CALFED water bill passed out of the Energy
    Committee by a vote of 18 to 5. It is a bill that, probably in
    terms of Federal priorities, is number one on California's
    list. And you have $15 million for it in this year's budget. It
    is a $1.64 billion, 3-year bill. So, I would like very much to
    work with you and the committee to see if we cannot possibly
    increase this amount.
        I would like now for the first time to indicate my concern
    about a project in the area of the California desert with which
    I have had something to do, and that is the Desert Protection
    Act. The Desert Protection Act has wording in it to protect
    underground water that is vital to the maintenance of the
    desert. There is a proposal now, known as the Cadiz Proposal,
    which would fill the aquifers that are not filled, if there are
    any, and transmit some of that water to Los Angeles.
        I will be asking this subcommittee to help me with language
    that essentially would provide that no funds be appropriated by
    the Department of the Interior to carry out any activities
    associated with the Cadiz groundwater storage and dry year
    supply project until such time as the U.S. Geological Survey
    has determined the recharge rate of the affected basin. And
    this figure has been incorporated into the management of the
    project.
        As you well know, Madam Secretary, the California desert is
    not like the Sahara. It has got flora and fauna. It has got
    animals that depend on it, wild burrows, desert tortoises,
    mountain goats, a number of other things, as well as the only
    Joshua Tree forest in the world, and very, very beautiful
    flowers. We do not want to see it become another Owens Valley.
        So, pursuant to the language in the bill, I am going to ask
    for report language to be sure that the desert is not harmed by
    this project.
        I also want to just mention a few things. California has 24
    of the Nation's 385 national park units. That includes Mojave,
    Death Valley, Joshua Tree, Yosemite, Golden Gate, et cetera. As
    I look at your fiscal year 2003 budget request, I note that the
    California parks receive only an average of a 1.5 percent
    increase to their base operations. That is not even enough to
    cover fixed costs, cost-of-living adjustments.
        One of the things that I have noticed, as I go now to
    national parks on the east coast, is how much better staffed,
    how much better the visitor centers are, how much better the
    visuals are than the parks on the west coast. Perhaps it is
    because proximity really breeds attention. But we have some
    great parks and to see them really pushing into disrepair is of
    deep concern.
        So, I am hopeful that I can sit down with you and hopeful
    with this committee as well, that we might be able to at least
    plus that up a little bit so that there is not a net loss, but
    a small gain to be able to make some of the O&M improvements
    that have been listed. I can send you that list if you do not
    have it.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Feinstein, thank you very much.
        Madam Secretary, welcome. Your entire statement will be
    made a part of the permanent record, and you may summarize. Why
    do you not proceed.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON

        Secretary Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    members of the committee. I am pleased to be with you today to
    talk about our budget for fiscal year 2003.
        Before we move into the details of the budget, I would like
    to give just an overview of our Department's responsibilities.
    I think many of you are familiar with it, but I think it bears
    repeating, the breadth of our activities.
        We manage more than 1 out of every 5 acres of land in this
    country. These lands include some of the most beautiful and
    pristine areas on earth. We are entrusted with some of the
    patriotic symbols of our country, the Statue of Liberty, the
    Washington Mall, Independence Hall.
        We maintain relationships with the federally recognized
    tribes and provide services to approximately 1.4 million
    American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        We provide approximately one-third of the Nation's energy
    supply from Interior lands and waters. We supply the water that
    makes the arid West bloom, and next week the Bureau of
    Reclamation will be celebrating its 100th anniversary.
        We serve nearly half a billion visitors to our lands every
    year.
        One wonderful thing about our Department is the willingness
    of people to volunteer to help us. We have over 200,000
    volunteers, which is about three times our paid work force.
        In the most recently completed fiscal year, we collected
    $11 billion in revenue from our lands and waters, and this is
    $1 billion more than was appropriated to us.
        As we began the process last year to build this year's
    budget, we were guided by President Bush's commitments to build
    a new environmentalism through cooperative conservation
    partnerships, to improve our management of public lands and
    waters, to advance the development of domestic energy, to
    improve both the classrooms and the classroom performance of
    our Native American students, to manage for excellence through
    citizen-centered governance.
        Our budget priorities were reshaped by the events of
    September 11. Interior's employees responded to the call to
    increase our vigilance and our preparedness for the changed
    world we face. We have increased Park Police patrols in the
    Washington, D.C. area and other places in the country. We have
    upgraded our security equipment. We have increased guard
    services at our other sites and instituted around-the-clock
    security at our major dams such as Hoover, Glen Canyon, Shasta,
    and Grand Coulee.

                  DEPARTMENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET REQUEST

        The Department's 2003 budget request is about $9.5 billion
    in current appropriations to be handled through this committee.
    There is an additional $245.6 million for Government-wide
    accounting adjustments for retirement and employee health
    benefits. The budget is essentially level with that enacted in
    fiscal year 2002. It sustains a 21 percent increase over the
    year 2000 budget, which is well above the increases due to
    inflation.

                      COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE

        If there is any one item in this budget that we think
    deserves the committee's support and some additional focus, it
    is the Cooperative Conservation Initiative. This is a $100
    million proposal that will provide funding to enhance
    conservation projects and to build partnerships in support of
    conservation. It fills a void by giving our land managers a
    tool to work with their neighbors, volunteers, States, tribes,
    and community groups to achieve conservation goals. $50 million
    will be provided to the States through the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund State grant program as part of this overall
    initiative. The balance of our request is funded through the
    operating accounts of the National Park Service, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. This
    approach will meet unmet needs for natural resource restoration
    in refuges, parks, and other public lands. This initiative
    fully reflects the President's call for a shared approach to
    conservation of our public lands and is consistent with the
    underlying intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
        Our budget also includes $60 million for two presidential
    initiatives that began last year, the Landowner Incentive
    program and the Private Stewardship grant program. Both of
    those focus on conservation on private lands because much of
    the habitat for endangered species, for example, is found on
    private lands. This gives us the ability to work with
    landowners to enhance habitat on their lands. We appreciate the
    support that this committee has provided in the past for those
    programs.

                  NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES

        I would like to highlight the aspects of our budget that
    deal with the needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives:
    trust programs and education. I appreciate the support of the
    members of this subcommittee for our efforts in both of these
    areas.
        We certainly face difficult and complex challenges in our
    management of trust assets. As you know, I announced an outline
    for reorganization and consolidation of Indian trust management
    functions. We worked with the tribes and we received their
    feedback on our initial proposal, and out of their concern
    about that proposal, we created a task force that was suggested
    by the National Congress of American Indians. That task force
    has proven to be a very valuable working group. They have
    really gotten in, studied the needs, and studied the proposals.
    Just last week, we sent out their recommendations to all of the
    tribes. It provides several different options for
    reorganization, and we will be going through a consultation
    process. We are in the midst of doing that right now. Next week
    I will be meeting with the National Congress of American
    Indians in a nationwide consultation process in Bismarck, North
    Dakota. So, we look forward to receiving their feedback on
    these various options for reorganization.
        We also experienced, through this process last year, the
    shutdown of the Department's Internet systems. Most of our
    Internet systems were disconnected in December, and we have
    been working with the special master of the court in the Cobell
    litigation to reconnect them. Most of our bureaus and major
    systems have now been reconnected, and only the Office of the
    Special Trustee, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and some
    Department offices remain off-line. Our estimate is that our
    costs to date to get back on-line are approximately $13
    million. This does not capture fully all of the staff time that
    has been spent on that or other programmatic costs, but that is
    our basic expenditure to date.
        For the longer term, we have concluded that there is a need
    for a network to secure trust data and applications. We
    received approval from the House and Senate to reprogram
    funding in order to proceed with creation of this secure
    network.
        Our fiscal year 2003 budget is based on the current
    organizational structure and does not reflect specifics on IT
    improvements. As we complete the consultation process and move
    forward, we will submit a revised budget that includes a
    crosswalk between the current and revised proposals.
        This budget provides significant new resources to address
    long-overdue changes. Our budget request contains a major boost
    in spending for Indian trust reform, nearly $84 million. We
    think that this is an appropriate amount of funding to ensure
    that significant changes will take place in that area.
        Our budget continues a high level of funding for Indian
    school repair and replacement. It includes an increase of $19
    million for school operations. Our 2003 budget request promotes
    tribal management of schools, seeking increased funding for
    administrative cost grants.
        In his State of the Union address, President Bush
    emphasized the importance of early childhood development
    programs. I have had the opportunity to visit several locations
    for our family and child education program that is an early
    childhood education program, and we are requesting an increase
    of $3 million for that program.

                            OTHER BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

        To briefly summarize some of our other budget highlights,
    we are requesting an increase of $18 million, or 36 percent,
    for the Natural Resource Challenge, which provides scientific
    information and analysis and work within our parks.
        100 years ago, President Teddy Roosevelt established the
    first national wildlife refuge at Pelican Island, Florida, in
    1903. Next year we will be celebrating the anniversary of our
    wildlife refuge system. We are requesting a $56.5 million
    increase for the national wildlife refuge system. This is an 18
    percent boost in spending and represents the largest dollar
    increase ever requested in the history of the refuge system.
        To continue to protect our national assets, our employees,
    and our visitors, the budget includes $62 million for security
    and protection measures, which essentially continues the
    amounts that were provided in 2002 emergency supplementals.
        In support of the President's national energy policy, the
    budget includes an increase of $28 million in four bureaus.
    This will provide funding for both traditional energy sources,
    as well as wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy.
        We continue a strong partnership with the Corps of
    Engineers on the Everglades restoration program. Our budget
    increases funding for land acquisition grants to restore
    natural water flows in that area.
        Finally, we are committed to managing well the resources
    that are entrusted to us. We are working diligently to improve
    the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the services we
    deliver and to enhance the accountability and transparency of
    the work we do with the resources for the American people.
    Assistant Secretary Lynn Scarlett has been the leader on our
    efforts within the Department to enhance the management, and
    her efforts have been held up as examples for other parts of
    the Federal Government in trying to improve the way in which we
    respond to citizens and manage our resources.

                               prepared statement

        I would like to also recognize the efforts of the
    subcommittee staff. They have developed a great knowledge of
    our programs, and we appreciate their willingness to work with
    us to make sure that we are meeting the needs as defined by
    this committee.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss our
    budget.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Gale A. Norton
        I am pleased to be here today before the Subcommittee on Interior
    and Related Agencies to present the fiscal year 2003 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.
        Before I move to the details of the budget request, I'd like to
    offer some observations as to the breadth of the Department's
    responsibilities and the impact of our programs on the lives of
    Americans.
      --We manage more than one of every five acres of land in this Nation.
            These lands include some of the most beautiful and pristine
            places on earth. We are entrusted with some of the most
            patriotic symbols of our Nationhood, including the Statue of
            Liberty in New York and Independence Hall, the home of the
            Liberty Bell in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
      --We maintain relationships with 558 Federally-recognized Indian
            Tribes and provide services to approximately 1.4 million
            American Indians and Alaska Natives. Included in the lands we
            manage are 56 million acres of trust land.
      --We provide approximately one-third of the Nation's domestic energy.
            We supply the water that has made the arid West bloom,
            providing water to over 31 million people.
      --We serve visitors from around the world who take delight and find
            recreation through nearly half-a-billion visits to our lands
            each year.
      --Over 200,000 volunteers assist us, a volunteer workforce that
            outnumbers our own employees by nearly three to one.
      --In the most recently completed fiscal year, we collected $11
            billion in revenue from the lands and waters we manage. This is
            $1 billion more than we had appropriated to us. We also shared
            $1 billion of that with the States, our partners in the onshore
            petroleum-leasing program.
        Our approach to citizen-centered government at the Department is
    organized around the Four C's: conservation through consultation,
    cooperation, and communication. Empowerment of citizens to bring about
    this approach is the touchstone of all that we do on the land, and this
    approach is reflected in the budget that we present to you today.
        As we began the process last June to build this budget, we were
    guided by President Bush's vision of a shared approach to conservation,
    and his commitments to restore our national parks, improve both the
    classrooms and the classroom performance of Indian students; and meet
    our environmental responsibilities in a manner that best reflects the
    innovative nature of our nation.
        Our budget priorities were reshaped by the events of September
    11th. Interior's employees have responded to the call to increase our
    vigilance and our preparedness for the changed world we face.
        Our 2003 budget request balances these responsibilities and commits
    to:
      --build a new environmentalism through cooperative conservation
            partnerships;
      --improve our management of public lands and waters;
      --advance the President's National energy policy;
      --improve the lives of Native Americans; and
      --manage for excellence through citizen-centered governance.
        Our commitment to management excellence means managing well the
    resources entrusted to us. We are working diligently to improve the
    quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the services we deliver and
    to enhance the accountability and transparency of the work we do with
    the resources of the American people. We have developed a plan for
    citizen-centered governance that builds on the President's management
    agenda, and our plan has been well received by both the Office of
    Management and Budget and the President's Management Council. It will
    ensure that we bring innovation, competitiveness, and accountability to
    all that we do.
                                budget overview
        The Department of the Interior's 2003 budget request is $10.6
    billion in current appropriations, including $270.5 million for a
    government-wide legislative proposal to shift to agencies the full cost
    of the CSRS pension system and the Federal employee health benefits
    program for current employees. Permanent funding that becomes available
    as a result of existing legislation without further action by the
    Congress will provide an additional $2.6 billion, for a total 2003
    Department budget of $13.2 billion.
        Excluding the pension and health benefits legislative proposal, the
    2003 current appropriations request is $10.3 billion, a net decrease of
    $12.7 million from the amounts provided in the 2002 Interior and
    Related Agencies and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts.
    The 2003 budget proposal maintains a robust funding level compared to
    historic levels for the Department. The proposal is over 21 percent
    higher than the 2000 appropriation level of $8.6 billion.
        The budget request proposes funding increases for priority programs
    and initiatives, while discontinuing or reducing funding for lower
    priority projects funded in 2002. In addition, the 2003 budget reflects
    the Department's commitment to operate programs more effectively and
    efficiently, by proposing to absorb $57.4 million in uncontrollable
    fixed cost increases and a $20.6 million reduction in travel and
    transportation costs.
        For 2003, the budget request for programs funded in the Interior
    and Related Agencies Appropriations Act is $9.5 billion, an increase of
    $20.5 million over the Act. This comparison excludes $59.2 million
    appropriated in 2002 for emergency response/counter-terrorism. The 2003
    request for programs under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee is
    $320.6 million above the 2002 President's budget request.
                      cooperative conservation initiative
        If there is one item in this budget that deserves special
    attention, it is our Cooperative Conservation Initiative. It fully
    reflects the President's framework for a ``new environmentalism.'' The
    Cooperative Conservation Initiative will fund on-the-ground stewardship
    projects across the Nation and stimulate innovative approaches to
    conservation. It will allow us to leverage Federal funding and to work
    in partnership with States, local governments, Tribes, and private
    citizens to give all stakeholders a greater role in how to protect the
    Nation's great natural resources. It is a collaborative approach to tap
    the ingenuity, imagination, and innovative spirit of our people. It is
    an approach that is landscape-based, citizen-centered, and incentive-
    driven. In short, it is a new way of meeting our environmental
    responsibilities in partnership with our fellow Americans. The
    Department proposes $100 million to promote partnerships in
    conservation.
        The program will fund restoration, protection, and enhancement of
    natural areas through established programs and new pilot programs that
    feature creative approaches to conservation. These projects will be in
    keeping with the President's commitment to a shared responsibility for
    conservation. One-half of the initiative, $50 million, will be managed
    through the Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance program
    and will benefit State lands as well as adjacent lands. The balance of
    the initiative will be used for cost shared projects funded in the
    operating accounts of the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
    Service, and the National Park Service and will benefit Federal and
    adjacent lands. Benefits to State and Federal lands will complement the
    private lands conservation activities conducted with private
    stewardship funding.
                             landowner partnerships
        The budget for the Fish and Wildlife Service also promotes working
    with partners on conservation issues by proposing to continue two
    Presidential initiatives, the Landowner Incentive and Private
    Stewardship programs. The budget request includes $50 million, an
    increase of $10 million over the 2002 level for grants to States for
    landowner incentives that protect and restore habitats on private lands
    that benefit species at risk. A model for this program is the
    Shortgrass/Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat incentive program, a new
    program piloted in Colorado in 2002. This program will provide
    financial assistance to landowners in four soil conservation districts
    to protect black-tailed prairie dogs, their habitat, and associated
    shortgrass prairie.
        The budget includes $10 million for the Private Stewardship grants
    program to directly assist landowners and groups engaged in voluntary
    conservation efforts for the benefit of federally listed, proposed, or
    candidate species. Technical and financial assistance to landowners
    will help them avoid harming imperiled species while improving habitat
    for native species.
                            other conservation tools
        The 2003 budget proposes $194.6 million for three other
    conservation programs managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service,
    including: $91 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species
    Conservation Fund; $43.6 million for the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Fund; and $60 million for State and Tribal Wildlife
    grants. These programs that we propose to fund through the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund in 2003 magnify the benefits of Federal funding
    with matching efforts for conservation.
        In 2003, State Assistance and Federal land acquisition programs
    funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund build upon the
    President's vision of cooperative conservation. The budget includes
    $200 million for the State Assistance program, an increase of $56
    million over the 2002 level. A portion of this, $50 million, will be
    used for the Cooperative Conservation Initiative to fund competitively
    awarded grants. The balance of $150 million will fund grants to States
    for approved conservation and outdoor recreation plans, allocated based
    on a national formula established by law.
        An additional $204.1 million is requested for Federal land
    acquisition programs, including $44.7 million for the Bureau of Land
    Management, $70.4 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service, $86.1
    million for the National Park Service, and $3 million for acquisition
    of lands in support of the Shivwits Indian Water Settlement Act of
    1999. The request emphasizes the use of innovative alternatives to fee
    title purchase, such as conservation easements and land exchanges to
    make the most efficient use of this funding, promote cooperative
    alliances, and leave lands on State tax roles. In the Upper Snake/South
    Fork Snake River project in Idaho, the Bureau of Land Management is
    working with eight cooperators including Ducks Unlimited, The Nature
    Conservancy, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe to protect river corridors
    and habitat that supports bald eagles and cutthroat trout through
    conservation easements.
        Together with the Forest Service's budget request, the 2003 budget
    will provide $909.2 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    programs, or $911.1 million including the adjustment for pension and
    employee health benefits that is proposed.
                                 trust programs
        Managing Indian trust funds and trust resources is a solemn
    obligation of the Federal government, and one of the Department's
    greatest challenges. Since taking office in January 2001, I have moved
    on several fronts to help improve Indian trust management. In July
    2001, we established the Office of Historical Trust Accounting to
    provide focused efforts to produce a historical accounting for
    individual Indian allottees. The Office has developed a blueprint for
    development of its comprehensive plan for a historical accounting and
    will soon convey its comprehensive plan to Congress.
        During our formulation of the 2003 budget, various issues were
    identified concerning the trust asset management roles of the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, and
    other Departmental entities carrying out trust functions. At this same
    time, Electronic Data Systems, Inc. was undertaking an independent,
    expert evaluation, which indicated that one of the fundamental barriers
    to trust reform is the disorganized scattering of trust functions
    throughout the Department. In November 2001, I announced the outline of
    a proposal to reorganize and consolidate Indian trust management
    functions into a separate organization with the goal of improving the
    management of trust assets by creating clear lines of authority for
    trust reform and trust operations. Over the past several months we have
    been consulting with Tribes to involve them in the process of
    reorganizing the Department's trust asset management responsibilities.
    I established a Joint Tribal Leaders/Department of the Interior Task
    Force on Trust Reform, comprised of 24 tribal representatives and
    representatives from the Department. The Task Force has found that
    there is a need for reform and that the status quo is not acceptable
    and has issued a report identifying options to achieve meaningful
    reorganization. Given the Task Force's efforts, the Department does not
    plan to pursue its proposal for a separate Assistant Secretary with
    responsibility for trust management. Instead, we will continue to work
    cooperatively with the Task Force to delineate an organizational
    structure that facilitates improvement in managing trust funds while
    obtaining the support of Indian Country. We will continue discussions
    with Congress concerning the results of the ongoing consultation and
    delineation of a proposed reorganization.
        As part of the ongoing Cobell v. Norton proceedings, on December 5,
    2001 the Court ordered the Department to disconnect all of the computer
    systems that house or provide access to Indian trust data from the
    Internet. We have been working diligently with the Special Master to
    obtain concurrence to complete reconnection. The majority of our
    bureaus and systems are reconnected. On February 11 we notified you
    that we were providing estimated payments to individual Indian money
    account holders until such time as automated payment systems were
    resumed. The system to process revenue data to allotted Indian owners
    was restored on March 22, 2002. For the longer-term, we have concluded
    that there is a need for a dedicated network to secure trust data. We
    received approval from the House and Senate to proceed with
    establishment of this dedicated trust network, a new secure information
    technology system for Indian trust data.
        The 2003 budget request for trust reform and operations is based
    upon the current organizational structure and does not reflect our
    conclusions about the need for a dedicated trust network. As we
    complete the consultation process and move forward with our plans for
    the network we will submit a revised budget that includes a crosswalk
    between the current and revised budget proposals.
        Our budget request contains a major boost in spending for Indian
    trust reform and trust related programs, a nearly $84 million increase,
    the largest increase in the history of trust reform. These additional
    funds are necessary to address the long overdue changes that the
    Secretary is committed to making in the Indian trust program.
        The $48.8 million increase requested for the Office of the Special
    Trustee is a 44 percent increase above the 2002 level. The Special
    Trustee allocates funds to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for trust
    reform efforts they carry out, to the Office of Hearings and Appeals
    for adjudication of probates involving ownership of Indian lands, and
    to the Office of Historical Trust Accounting. The 2003 request will
    allow the Department to continue trust operations improvements already
    implemented, such as the trust fund accounting system. The budget
    request will allow the Bureau and Office of Hearings and Appeals to
    make progress on reducing probate backlogs, will improve risk
    management activities and oversight of trust and trust-related
    activities, and will support other trust reform initiatives.
        The Special Trustee's budget includes $8 million for the Indian
    Land Consolidation program. This program prevents further fractionation
    of Indian trust allotments by consolidating highly fractionated
    interests through purchase from willing sellers. The decreased
    fractionation aids trust reform by decreasing the number of trust asset
    management transactions, decreasing the number of interests subject to
    probate, and returning land to the control of the Tribes.
        The budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs includes $34.8 million
    in increases to improve its performance of trust services programs.
    This includes $20.3 million in trust services and natural resource
    programs and $14.5 million for other areas including tribal courts,
    social services and information resources management.
                                indian education
        I am committed to the President's promise to improve education in
    America and ``leave no child behind.'' The Bureau of Indian Affairs has
    a special, historic responsibility for educating Indian children. The
    Bureau manages 185 elementary and secondary schools in Indian Country
    that provide educational services to 48,000 students. Many schools are
    located in isolated, remote, rural communities, posing challenges and
    requiring greater operational costs than those typically facing public
    school districts.
        The President's education plan promotes flexibility and local
    control of schools. The Department's 2003 budget request encourages
    Tribes to assume management of their schools or enter into private
    partnerships to manage the schools. This privatization effort is the
    centerpiece of the Administration's initiative to improve the
    performance of the lowest-performing schools. The request includes $8
    million to address costs inherent in the outsourcing of schools, such
    as administrative cost grants and potential displacement of teachers.
    An additional $2 million for student transportation and $1.9 million
    for facilities will be available to improve operational problems that
    might be a disincentive for Tribes wishing to assume school management.
    The 2003 budget also includes a $5.8 million increase for teacher pay.
        In his State of the Union Address, the President underscored the
    importance of early childhood development programs. The budget includes
    an increase of $3 million to expand the successful early childhood
    education program, Family and Child Education program. This increase
    will allow the Bureau to expand the program to over one-quarter of the
    146 schools that serve elementary students. This program promotes
    greater involvement by parents in the early, critical stages of their
    children's education, and results in improved adult literacy, and
    improved parenting skills that help improve children's readiness for
    school.
        The 2003 budget for education construction continues the
    President's initiative to repair and replace unsafe schools. Funding in
    2003 is maintained at the 2002 level, $292.7 million, which will fund
    six replacement school projects and address repair and rehabilitation
    projects in the backlog. The goal is to fulfill the President's promise
    to eliminate the school repair and maintenance backlog in 2006.
                     managing the park maintenance backlog
        President Bush pledged to address the backlog of maintenance and
    repair in the national park system. I share the President's commitment
    to maintaining park facilities to safeguard the visiting public and
    park employees, to preserve park resources for future generations, and
    to improve visitors' experiences. The 2003 budget includes $663 million
    for facility maintenance and construction, including required planning
    and compliance work. Within this total there is an increase of $25
    million for cyclic maintenance to ensure that routine maintenance work
    is completed in a timely manner. The budget proposes an increase in
    facility repair and rehabilitation of $17.6 million, which will focus
    on moving the National Park Service toward performance-based management
    of its facilities.
        Within the increase for repair and rehabilitation, $8.4 million
    will address the deferred maintenance and critical resource protection
    backlog. This increase will have resource protection benefits. In 2002,
    approximately one-fifth of the repair and rehabilitation program was
    devoted to resource protection. A comparable amount will be dedicated
    to this effort in 2003.
        In addition to the request for annual appropriations, a significant
    amount of recreational demonstration fee receipts will be devoted to
    deferred maintenance projects. This program is now authorized through
    2004. The 2003 budget proposes that the program be permanently
    authorized. This program allows Federal land managers to retain
    receipts to meet management goals and is an important tool in improving
    the quality of programs such as facility maintenance and visitor
    services. The Department expects to receive $146.1 million through the
    program in 2003. The Administration expects to propose authorizing
    language shortly and asks that the Congress take action on the proposal
    this year.
                           natural resource challenge
        There are 385 National Park units that protect and preserve unique
    and important natural resources. The Natural Resource Challenge--a
    priority for the President and me, fosters the protection of these
    natural resources. An increase of $18 million is requested for the
    fourth year of the National Park Service's Natural Resource Challenge.
    This program will continue to strengthen natural resource management
    throughout the park system by protecting native species and habitats;
    monitoring the health of natural resources within the parks;
    eradicating exotic species; and sharing information about natural
    resources with the public.
        Collaborative efforts with the U.S. Geological Survey and
    universities assist the parks in the assessment of natural resources
    and help to identify and alleviate potential threats to resources. Much
    of this increase, $9 million will be accomplished through a partnership
    with the U.S. Geological Survey.
                                   everglades
        A recently signed agreement between President Bush and Governor
    Bush of Florida ensures that water will be available for the natural
    system in the Everglades, restoring the natural ecological systems. The
    2003 budget proposes a total of $96 million, including $8.9 million
    that will support Department-wide efforts to implement the
    Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The Department will continue
    to work cooperatively with the Army Corps of Engineers to complete the
    modified water delivery project at Everglades National Park. The budget
    includes $13.3 million for the project, a reduction of $21.9 million
    from the 2002 levels, as a result of progress made toward completion of
    the project.
        An additional $20 million, an increase of $5 million over the 2002
    level, is requested to fund matching grants to the State of Florida
    that will be used to purchase important properties within the
    Everglades system. Consistent with our efforts to better integrate
    science into land management, the budget proposes to consolidate
    funding for Everglades science in the U.S. Geological Survey. The 2003
    Survey budget includes an increase of $4 million for the Critical
    Ecosystem Studies Initiative, funds that were previously appropriated
    to the National Park Service, for planning, monitoring, assessing, and
    providing ongoing science support essential to the adaptive management
    of the Everglades restoration project.
             preparing for the national wildlife refuge centennial
        In 1903 President Teddy Roosevelt established the first National
    Wildlife Refuge at Pelican Island, Florida. Today Pelican Island
    National Wildlife Refuge is part of a 538- unit system that spans 95
    million acres. This is a unique and diverse network of lands and water
    that provide habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife, sanctuary
    for endangered species, and nursery areas for fish. Refuges also
    provide opportunities for wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, and
    environmental education for 39 million visitors a year.
        Our budget commemorates the 100th anniversary of the refuge system
    by requesting a $56.5 million increase for the national wildlife refuge
    system. This 18 percent increase in spending represents the largest
    dollar increase ever requested in the history of the National Wildlife
    Refuge system. Overall refuge operations funding will increase by $25.8
    million. A $30.7 million increase for maintenance will address critical
    health, safety, and resource protection needs, as well as fund high
    priority activities that enhance visitor experiences. This historically
    high level of funding for operation and maintenance of the national
    wildlife refuge system includes $5 million for the Cooperative
    Conservation Initiative.
                        endangered species conservation
        The 2003 budget continues a partnership approach to endangered
    species conservation, including funding for grant programs that assist
    State and local communities in their conservation efforts to benefit
    federally listed, proposed, candidate, and other imperiled species.
    Among these grant programs are two Presidential initiatives to partner
    with private landowners and States, the Landowner Incentive and Private
    Stewardship programs and $91 million for the Cooperative Endangered
    Species Conservation Fund to assist States in acquiring lands essential
    for the recovery of species and to support development and
    implementation of habitat conservation plans. The budget proposed for
    Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species operations is $125.7
    million and includes increases of $5.9 million for conservation of
    candidate and listed species and to assist in meeting demands for
    inter-agency consultation, technical assistance, and assistance with
    habitat conservation planning.
                        harnessing our natural resources
        The Department's programs are key to addressing important energy
    supply issues and fostering a dynamic economy, while preserving and
    enhancing environmental quality. Energy projects on federally managed
    lands and offshore areas supply approximately one-third of the Nation's
    energy production. In support of the President's National Energy
    Policy, the budget includes increases of $28.6 million for energy
    related activities in four bureaus. Increases in the Bureau of Land
    Management and Minerals Management Service will allow these agencies to
    eliminate delays and be more responsive to increasing demands for
    energy while increasing environmental oversight. In addition, funds
    will support investments in management systems that will allow these
    bureaus and stakeholders to more efficiently conduct business and
    improve compliance oversight.
        The budget proposes an increase of $10.2 million for Bureau of Land
    Management energy-related activities, including $1.6 million to expand
    rights-of-way processing, $1 million to conduct a study of oil and gas
    resources on public lands, $1.5 million to provide oversight of oil and
    gas operations, and $1 million to expedite permitting and increase
    responsiveness to stakeholders needs for post-lease actions. The
    increase for rights-of-way will allow the Bureau to process 6,900 cases
    in 2003, an increase of 900 or 15 percent over the 2002 level.
        The President and I are committed to increasing domestic energy
    supplies, including oil and gas on Federal lands from a variety of
    sources in an environmentally acceptable manner. The energy resources
    of the northeast corner and the rest of Alaska's North Slope are
    national assets that can contribute to the Nation's energy security.
    The 2003 budget includes an increase of $3 million for activities on
    the North Slope. The increase will support planning for 2004 sales in
    the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge. Congressional authorization will be required for a lease sale
    to be conducted in the Arctic Refuge. The budget assumes a lease sale
    in 2004 that will generate $2.4 billion in anticipated bonus bids. Of
    this amount, the Federal government's $1.2 billion share will be
    dedicated to research and development projects on solar power, wind
    energy, biomass power and fuels, geothermal energy, and other
    alternative energy technologies.
        In November 2001, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and I
    convened a renewable energy conference. This conference served as a
    catalyst for the Department's renewable energy programs. The 2003
    budget more than doubles funding for renewable energy programs in the
    Bureau of Land Management. To expand opportunities for geothermal,
    hydropower, and wind energy production, the Bureau is requesting an
    increase of $750,000.
        The budget for the Minerals Management Service proposes a program
    increase of $5 million in order to meet increased workload brought
    about by the demand for Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf program
    services. These additional funds will ensure that leasing and
    regulatory programs in the Gulf of Mexico keep pace with public demand
    for energy, industry requests for processing permits, and the need to
    review plans and conduct inspections. The 2003 budget includes an
    increase of $8.7 million to design and implement innovative business
    processes and advances in electronic technology and provide web-based,
    paperless transactions in the offshore program. The Bureau will also
    invest $6 million to develop management systems that support taking
    Federal royalties on oil production in-kind, rather than in-value.
        Increases totaling $2.7 million are requested by the U.S.
    Geological Survey, including: $500,000 to produce updated information
    on available geothermal resources; $1.2 million to conduct estimates of
    undiscovered oil and natural gas resources on Federal lands in the
    continental United States, as required by the Energy Act of 2000; and
    $1 million to produce digital base maps in Alaska focused on potential
    lease areas of the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska. The Bureau of
    Indian Affairs is requesting an increase of $1.7 million in its budget
    for energy programs to work in partnership with Indian organizations
    and Tribes.
                               land use planning
        The 2003 budget proposes an increase of $14 million for Bureau of
    Land Management land use planning. The land use planning process is the
    Bureau's primary tool for consensus building by involving the public in
    development of land management plans. This increase will allow the
    Bureau to accelerate development of 37 plans and initiate development
    of 12 plans. Land use plans guide land use and resource management
    decisions, and allow for public involvement in developing program goals
    for recreation, habitat conservation, energy and mineral extraction,
    livestock grazing, timber harvest, fire management, and community
    rights-of-way access.
                            wildland fire management
        A joint Interior, U.S. Forest Service National Fire Plan guides
    collaborative efforts to improve the effectiveness of the wildland fire
    program to better protect communities and the environment from wildfire
    devastation. The plan is guiding joint efforts to control fires when
    they are small, manage large-scale fires, reduce hazardous fuel loads,
    rehabilitate burned areas, and assist rural fire departments to protect
    their communities.
        In 2001, the Department made significant progress in implementing
    the plan's recommendations and established an unprecedented level of
    cooperation with the Forest Service. The Department conducted an
    aggressive hiring program to staff essential firefighting positions;
    purchased necessary equipment; contracted aircraft; and repaired fire
    facilities. Additional funding was allocated to the agencies and
    awarded to rural and volunteer fire departments. Hazardous fuels
    treatment projects were selected and conducted, including projects
    treating approximately 164,000 acres in the wildland-urban interface.
        In 2002, the Department and the Forest Service are working closely
    on a number of collaborative efforts including: the development of
    joint workload and performance measures to determine progress in
    meeting wildland fire management goals; an independent review of
    wildfire suppression costs and strategies; development of an
    implementation plan for the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy; and other
    activities.
        The budget continues robust funding for the Department's Wildland
    Fire Management program, requesting $675.5 million for fire readiness
    and response, wildland firefighting, assistance to rural communities,
    and a comprehensive program to reduce fuels in the wildland urban
    interface. This budget carries forward the initiatives begun in 2001
    and continued in 2002 to reduce the buildup of hazardous fuels,
    especially in the wildland-urban interface, and fully funds suppression
    based on the ten-year average.
                               homeland security
        In the wake of the events of September 11, we responded with
    assistance to the rescue and recovery efforts. We also put in place
    security measures to protect our most important national assets, our
    visitors, and our employees. We increased park police patrols in
    Washington, D.C., and New York; upgraded park policy security
    equipment; increased guard service and protection for important
    national icons such as the Liberty Bell and St. Louis Arch; and
    instituted around-the-clock security at key Reclamation facilities such
    as Hoover, Glen Canyon, Shasta, and Grand Coulee Dams. The 2003 budget
    request includes $88.8 million to continue enhanced security measures
    at approximately the same level funded in 2002, including $62.1 million
    for agencies funded in the Interior appropriations bill. Our 2003
    request includes detail on these security measures, including $23.7
    million for the Park Service to begin construction of enhanced security
    systems at the Washington Monument and the Lincoln and Jefferson
    Memorials.
                           office of insular affairs
        The Office of Insular Affairs assists Territories and Freely
    Associated States by providing financial and technical assistance. The
    2003 budget proposal for Insular Affairs continues to provide mandatory
    funding to Guam and the CNMI for impact of Compact assistance. A total
    of $4.6 million in mandatory Covenant grant funding will be allocated
    to Guam and $840,000 will be provided to CNMI for this purpose in 2003.
    An increase of $750,000 is requested to provide enhanced oversight of
    Compact of Free Association financial assistance. Renewed financial
    assistance for two of the three Freely Associated States is currently
    being negotiated; improved oversight and accountability are key goals.
                        uncontrollable and travel costs
        The Department's budget includes $86.9 million in fixed cost
    increases; an additional $57.4 million in fixed costs will be absorbed
    by focusing resources on the highest priorities as well as increased
    administrative and program efficiencies. The budget also assumes
    Department-wide savings of $20.6 million in travel and transportation
    costs, in anticipation of reduced expenses in 2003 due to increased
    teleconferencing, greater use of central meeting locations, and
    reductions in employee relocations.
                             management excellence
        Our management strategy is an integral component of the 2003
    budget, implementing the President's five government-wide initiatives
    for strategic management of human capital, competitive sourcing,
    improved financial performance, expanded electronic government, and
    budget and performance integration. We are undertaking efforts that
    will improve citizen service through achievable results in 2003,
    including the following examples:
      --The Department is developing comprehensive workforce plans to guide
            staffing, training, and succession management and to better
            manage a workforce that is facing a loss of experience.
            Workforce plans will help to assure that positions are staffed
            with appropriate skills and that programs are in place for
            employee retention and reward.
      --To improve service delivery and effective use of resources, the
            Department is reviewing the potential to restructure process-
            oriented aspects of human resources operations, information
            technology support, and acquisition management and contract
            management.
      --Interior will meet 2002 and 2003 targets to review commercial
            activities performed by Federal employees, for a determination
            as to whether activities should be performed in-house or by the
            private sector, as required by the Federal Activities Inventory
            Reform Act.
      --Interior is developing a new strategic plan for 2003 that will be
            released in spring 2002. In order to improve the linkage of
            budget and performance results, the Department is using the
            Bureau of Land Management's activity based costing system as a
            benchmark for the development of comparable systems in other
            bureaus. Through activity based costing, managers can better
            understand program costs and citizens can get answers to
            questions such as, ``How much does it cost to run a visitor's
            center?''
      --The Bureau of Land Management will improve citizen service by
            expanding ``Service First,'' working with the U.S. Forest
            Service to provide efficient, streamlined interagency
            cooperation in public lands management. The Department is also
            exploring opportunities for expanding this program to include
            other Interior agencies.
      --The National Park Service will continue management reforms to
            assess resource and facility conditions, measure performance in
            improving conditions, and target funds at top priority needs.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, the 2003 budget provides strong support for
    Interior's programs and for the approximately 70,000 employees that
    carry out our mission. Further, it provides expanded opportunities to
    partner with others and supports the President's vision of a shared
    approach to conservation and the Four C's.
        When I visited the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge in
    Pennsylvania, I observed first-hand the power of partnerships. Dating
    back to the 1950's, the citizens of Philadelphia have been the driving
    force behind establishment and expansion of the refuge, creation of an
    environmental education center, and restoration of wildlife and
    habitats. This community turned out to welcome us and celebrate their
    excitement at the results we have achieved with our partnership
    efforts. In the midst of some of Philadelphia's most developed areas,
    we witnessed the ability of local citizens to bring about real change.
    Our Cooperative Conservation Initiative will use government resources
    to remove barriers to citizen participation and give citizens a greater
    role in conservation. In addition, the Department will reap the
    benefits of the collaborative process and the innovation and creativity
    of the States, Tribes, local communities, and citizens that partner
    with us.
        This concludes my overview of the 2003 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 Dorgan. Madam Secretary, thank you very much.
        Let me ask a couple questions. Some of my colleagues, in
    their opening statements, discussed the issue of the new Bureau
    of Indian Trust Asset Management proposal. I think I will leave
    it to those colleagues to ask questions about that.

                                TRIBAL COLLEGES

        Let me ask a question about the tribal colleges, if I
    might. I am concerned about the proposal to cut $2 million from
    the tribal colleges from last year's appropriation. That is
    about 5 percent of the operating grants of these colleges or I
    believe $400 per student roughly. These tribal colleges I think
    have been an extraordinarily successful model.
        I think most of us who spend time on Indian reservations--
    we have four in North Dakota--would agree that we have a full-
    scale emergency in health care, in housing, and in education on
    Indian reservations. The tribal colleges are one of the few
    bright spots that allow those on the reservations who have
    access to the family structure for child care and other
    support, to be able to go to a tribal college and continue
    their education.
        And I am very concerned. Senator Burns, Senator Domenici,
    myself, and others have worked hard to propose adequate
    funding, and we are not nearly there at this point. But the
    proposal to cut $2 million is one that I am troubled by. Can
    you describe to me what the purpose of that cut would be?
        Secretary Norton. We certainly do feel that those are very
    valuable programs, and so we are proposing to provide $39
    million for those programs.
        Our primary challenge was trying to allocate the resources
    for education programs, and we felt that putting the money into
    the K through 12 programs and the early childhood programs
    would prove more beneficial. So, that was the primary rationale
    for our adjustment to those programs.
        Senator Dorgan. Madam Secretary, the budget, as I see it,
    for the entire Bureau of Indian Affairs is about a 1 percent
    increase, which I think as Senator Feinstein indicated in other
    areas really does not even keep pace with continuing needs. I
    understand your point about trying to prioritize in allocating
    assets among an unlimited set of needs with limited resources,
    but I really think the tribal colleges are a terrific
    investment, and I hope this subcommittee will restore the $2
    million funding.

                        UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE

        Let me ask you also about the United Tribes Technical
    College. That happens to be in North Dakota, similar to Crown
    Point in many ways. But the United Tribes Technical College is
    a college that has students from 40 tribes across the United
    States, has been operating for 22 years roughly. It is really
    an incredible success story in my judgment. The proposal is to
    zero out funding for that.
        I want to ask a specific favor of you, if I might. Are you
    going to Bismarck yourself this week?
        Secretary Norton. Yes, I am.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, the United Tribes Technical College
    is about a quarter of a mile from the turnoff to the Bismarck
    airport. Do you know the favor I would like to ask of you?
        Secretary Norton. I think I can guess. Let me see if I can
    arrange that.
        Senator Dorgan. I would like to ask if you would drop in
    just for a few minutes and visit with Dr. Gipp and some others
    on your way to or from the airport so that you understand
    something personally about that college. I know it is
    parochial. Senator Campbell, who is not a North Dakotan, has
    visited that college many times. He will tell you the value of
    that college to some 40 tribes across the country. I am asking
    if you would take just a few minutes to do that, and I hope you
    will do that.
        Secretary Norton. I would be happy to do that.
        I would like to pass along a recommendation from the head
    of our Indian education program who visited there recently. His
    suggestion was trying to include that with some of our other
    existing education programs so that we can look across the
    board at priorities for our various types of education programs
    and to try to evaluate that in the same way we are evaluating
    other programs.
        Senator Dorgan. I do not really care how it is funded. I
    just care that it is funded. I worry that including it with all
    the other programs, for example, as I indicated, a 1 percent
    increase for the array of programs under the BIA is not even
    going to keep pace with their needs given inflation. So, the
    conservation initiative you talk about at $100 million. I would
    say to you this, the restoration of the $3 million, the $2
    million for the tribal colleges, the restoration of the Crown
    Point, cut that conservation initiative back to roughly $95
    million, fund these three critically needed pieces for Indian
    country. So, I think you will find the subcommittee will want
    to work with you on that.
        But I just want to emphasize that I think we have really a
    full-scale emergency in housing, health care, and education on
    our reservations. We had testimony from one of the tribal
    chairman who started it in a very interesting way. He said, you
    know, I live in a third world country, and then he began to
    describe all the evidence of where he lived, the infant
    mortality, life expectancy, a whole series of things. Indeed,
    in those areas on America's reservations, we have very serious
    problems.
        One way to get up and out of those is, first of all,
    improve education, provide adequate health care, and provide
    adequate housing. But education is really the one that lifts
    people, and so I am asking if you will do that this week in
    Bismarck. I might say to you that it is a short drive from
    where you are going to meet to the airport. It is not one of
    these 45-minute situations. So, it will be convenient.
        I have other questions, but I know many of my colleagues
    have questions. Let me defer mine. Madam Secretary, thank you
    for your testimony. I think it gives us a better description of
    what your priorities are. We want to work with you as well as
    we proceed, but on Indian education, please help us.
        Let me call on Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. Madam Secretary, you will find in Bismarck
    that they do not have traffic hours up there. They have traffic
    minutes.
        So you will be fine.

                               FOREST MANAGEMENT

        I was struck the other day--and the cry goes out in other
    States on the fires that they are experiencing. We have been
    burning for 4 years, and I think we broke the drought as far as
    the parks are concerned in the mountainous areas because my
    chief of staff was snowed in East Glacier this week. Now they
    have got floods up there.
        But I can sure relate to the folks who have beetle kill and
    this type thing because I have got one of the worst managed
    forests there is in America. I mean it is absolutely the worst.
    It is the worst looking piece of land I have ever seen in my
    life. And you know what? We cannot do anything about it because
    these very highly intelligent folks know more about the
    relationship of water, sun, and soil than people who were
    really actually raised on the land. And it is unbelievable to
    me how dumb they can be.

                      GOING TO THE SUN AND GLACIER HIGHWAY

        But anyway, let us take up something else. We are going to
    build a road Going to the Sun and Glacier Highway. We
    appreciate your efforts on that. It is a road that is probably
    the most spectacular drive there is in America. It is one of
    the great traveled areas in Glacier Park. But you know, when it
    is snowed in, we found out one thing. The big part of the year
    is when they open the road, and that is when the tourists start
    coming through. That is when businesses that depend on tourism
    start making a living. We found out the other day that you are
    only plowing the road 4 days out of the week, and if it snows
    during those days, they do not plow. But the weather clears up,
    they do not plow then either.
        So, I wish you would look into that and see how they
    schedule it. I was in the auction business. I asked an
    auctioneer friend of mine. I said, how many days in the week
    start with T? He said, two. I said, what are they? He says,
    today and tomorrow.
        That was not really the answer we wanted but 4 days and
    then when the sun shines, you do not make hay, it does not make
    a lot of sense to me. If you would take a look at that.

                                  INDIAN TRUST

        Let us look into the Indian trust thing and what you are
    doing. I want to congratulate you on coming forward with a
    plan, something that no other Secretary has done to this point,
    of trying to resolve that and using a new system to do it.
        It is my thought that we cannot really get to the heart of
    this problem and solve the problem with the same folks that put
    us in the problem. It has to be moved outside of that and, in
    some way or other, structure the folks that are going to be
    working on it to really solve the problems. You cannot solve
    problems with the people that created the problems.
        I talked to several of my friends in Montana, especially
    the tribal council members. And we have seven reservations in
    my State. They seem to be amenable to that. I know they have
    some reservations about it, but they also know that it is a
    huge, huge situation.

                                INDIAN EDUCATION

        I, like Byron Dorgan, do not like the idea of cutting back
    funds on our colleges. We will probably reinstate those funds,
    if we possibly can, and find some areas to pay for it. I really
    believe that we have got one of the premier educators in our
    State, Joe McDonald, up on the Kootenai. The Confederated
    Tribes over on the western part of the State do a tremendous
    job in this 2-year college, and also he does his work also with
    K through 12, getting those children prepared for higher
    education. So, we are very much a part of that.

                             EIS ON COALBED METHANE

        Also, what I said about EIS's and grazing. We also are slow
    in our EIS on coalbed methane down in southeastern Montana. I
    would like to draw your attention to that, and if we can have
    some dialogue with regard to how that is moving. It seems to me
    that south of border into Wyoming, we have a lot of production,
    and then you come north of the line, and it is the same basin
    and almost the same vein, and everything else just drops off. I
    am wondering why that has to be because I know that the EPA has
    some things to do down there, but on the other hand, I think it
    is incumbent on us to move forward on that EIS. I know we've
    got the draft. The rest of it is not supposed to be done until
    this fall. If that could be accelerated.

                            STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

        Another area is stewardship contracting. We have begun a
    program with the Forest Service that is called a stewardship
    program. That is small contractors in salvage harvesting and
    cleaning up after these fires. And we have had more experience
    in cleaning up after fires than anybody in the world. So, I
    wonder if you would look at that because I know that is just
    the Forest Service alone.
        Can you explain to me why that has not been adopted by the
    BLM or is it being looked at?
        Secretary Norton. Senator, we would appreciate the ability
    to look at that. We currently need some authorization for that
    program. So, I would like to work with you on making sure we do
    have the appropriate authorization to engage in those kinds of
    contracts because they do seem very valuable to us.
        Senator Burns. I know it is an area where I think we can
    help you out, and you are going to have a lot more salvage
    after this year than you have experienced in the past. So, we
    feel for you.
        I have got a couple of other questions, but I do not want
    to hog all the time either. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very
    much.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Bennett.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                LITIGATION COSTS

        You heard my opening statement, Madam Secretary. I would
    like to get a little comment from you about the question of
    litigation costs and the impact that is having on your budget.
    Yesterday, the Chief of the Forest Service released a report on
    the gridlock that his agency is experiencing as a result of
    these frivolous lawsuits. My question would be, would you be
    willing to undertake an analysis similar to the Forest Service
    so that we could have a firm quantification of how much this
    is? And would you care to comment on the whole question of the
    cost of litigation and its impact on your ability to manage
    Federal lands?
        Secretary Norton. One of the things that we are doing
    within the Bureau of Land Management right now is putting in
    place an activity-based costing system that allows us to obtain
    accounting information on how much we spend on all kinds of
    different things. It is not just how much we spend on
    litigation, but how much we spend on wild horse roundups or
    whatever the activity might be. That will give us better
    information for management overall.
        Part of what would be tracked would be litigation
    activities. My gut feeling is that we are spending a lot on
    litigation. Whenever we are talking about grazing leases, for
    example, we have litigation on grazing leases. When we are
    talking about recreation activities, we have litigation on
    those. When we are talking about endangered species activities,
    we have litigation on that. So, almost everything we do has
    litigation as one very significant aspect of it. We would be
    happy to look at trying to quantify how much is actually spent
    on our litigation activities.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you. That information would be very
    helpful as we join the debate in the public land States.

                           PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

        Now, roughly two-thirds of the State of Utah is owned by
    the Federal Government. You are the largest landlord in the
    State of Utah. There are a number of counties in the State
    where the Federal Government owns in excess of 95 percent. The
    challenge of maintaining any kind of coherent county government
    in those situations where 95 percent of the land is outside the
    tax base is an enormous challenge. We have one county where the
    total population in the county is less than 1,000, and the
    number of visitors to Federal facilities there is in the
    hundreds of thousands, if not millions, every year. It is a
    little hard for the county sheriff to do much law enforcement
    in a circumstance like that. And we live or die on Federal
    payments in lieu of taxes or, as they are known, PILT.
        Frankly, in rural Utah and I think some other rural areas
    in the West, we were quite delighted when this administration
    took office because they felt they were ignored, abused,
    otherwise maltreated by the previous administration. And now
    for 2 successive years, this administration has not supported
    full funding of PILT.
        How do I go back to these people who were looking forward
    to your administration as the change in terms of attitude
    towards rural issues and rural people and say, yes, they are
    much friendlier, but they will not pay their taxes or they will
    not pay their payments in lieu of taxes to support the local
    government functions, which go in support of the Federal
    functions on that land? Could you comment? I know that is kind
    of a tough question, but it is a tough problem that we have
    back home.
        Could you comment on the administration's attitude toward
    PILT and what you might do if this subcommittee, as it has done
    in the past, increases the PILT funding above the level you
    have recommended? I know you cannot say OMB was wrong, but
    comment, to the degree you can, about that particular issue.
        Senator Domenici. Madam Secretary, would you let me answer
    in your behalf?
        I was just going to suggest that the administration wanted
    him to do some work for his constituents, so he can get the
    PILT money for them. That is a very fair deal.
        Secretary Norton. That was not quite the answer I had in
    mind.
        Senator Domenici. Besides, it is going to happen that way,
    so you might as well claim it.
        Secretary Norton. Our challenge is trying to balance the
    use of resources and to make sure that we are providing
    funding. We have to make some tough choices in that process. We
    have increased the request from last year, and we are working
    with local governments in a variety of different ways. The law
    enforcement issue that you mentioned is one that we are trying
    to look at comprehensively throughout the Department. We are in
    the process of reorganizing our law enforcement activities so
    that we have a better handle across the departments on how our
    law enforcement resources are being allocated. One part of that
    is in trying to work better with local governments on our law
    enforcement activities.
        Senator Burns. Would you yield? You know you got a letter
    signed by 66 Senators in this body saying that this PILT thing
    is a serious thing, and we would like to see it increased. I am
    old county commissioner. Now, we did not get a lot of PILT
    money in Yellowstone County, but I know counties live and die
    in the State of Montana. I think 66 signatures is significant.
        Secretary Norton. Yes, sir.

                      PEER REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT DECISIONS

        Senator Bennett. One last comment which will be, I think, a
    little friendlier. There have been questions raised about the
    adequacy of the science used in the decision making by Federal
    land managers, and some people have said we ought to have
    independent peer review. I do not know if that would hold down
    the lawsuits because I think the lawsuits are filed without
    regard to science, logic, or anything else. They are raised
    strictly for roadblock purposes.
        But would you support peer review of Department decisions,
    or is there anything else that you think we should do in order
    to put us in a position where we can defend the science of the
    decisions that are made a little better than perhaps we can
    now?
        Secretary Norton. Senator, we have already begun a move
    toward more peer review of key decisions and key scientific
    information. Obviously, a peer review process is not something
    we can implement across the board because there are just so
    many thousands and thousands of different decisions that are
    being made on a regular basis. But where we have brought those
    scientists in, I think it has enhanced our decision making, and
    we look forward to working with you all to further enhance our
    ability to ensure that the scientists widely accept the
    decisions that are being made.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Bennett, thank you.
        If I might just comment on Senator Bennett's question on
    PILT and Senator Burns' response, it raises the question of
    whether new initiatives are more important than current
    obligations. That is at the root of it as well. If we are
    proposing $160 million in new spending, is that more important
    than the current burdens and obligations that we have to meet?
    That is what I think other members of the subcommittee reflect.
        Senator Campbell.
        Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

                                TRIBAL COLLEGES

        First, I would like to associate my comments with yours
    about tribal colleges. I visit a lot of them, as Senator Dorgan
    does, and I can tell you they really provide a service to
    people who are living in an area where they have no other
    options. They certainly cannot go 200 miles daily to go to
    school. Many of the people who are in tribal colleges, in fact,
    are mothers and dads who could not get an education when they
    were younger, and they go back to school as adults.
        As you know, they do not have a property tax base that they
    can draw from. They get very little money from States. The
    tuition is very nominal. But one thing that is not commonly
    known about the tribal colleges is that they really provide a
    community service for everybody. Indian reservations are not
    just made up of Indians anymore. I mean, there are many people
    who live on it within the boundaries of reservations that are
    not enrolled members. They are not Native American at all, and
    yet all of them can avail themselves to go to those tribal
    colleges. I do not know the exact number, but I would estimate
    that in every tribal college, probably 10 percent or more are
    not Indians. So, they do provide a service for everybody in the
    community, not just Native Americans.
        So, I support Senator Dorgan's request that we try and bump
    that money back up to a livable number because you mentioned
    yourself, there are tough choices. We know that. We have to
    make them here all the time. One of the tough choices is
    whether you educate young people or educate people who need the
    training to be able to get a job and provide for their families
    or you pay the piper at the other end from the results of not
    having an education. That is in social discord and crime and
    drug abuse, all the other stuff that goes with the opposite of
    being able to get an education.

                                  TRUST FUNDS

        Let me ask a couple of questions about the trust funds.
    Other members have already done that, but as I understand it,
    for the Office of the Special Trustee, the budget includes
    $160.6 million, which is a 44 percent increase over fiscal year
    2002 enacted levels, and includes $153.4 million for trust
    operations and service, which is a 29 percent increase. In many
    ways, the request is based on the High Level Implementation
    Plan, called the HLIP plan, which we understand is now a dead
    plan. So, are these figures subject to change and when will we
    know when there are going to be appropriate funding levels that
    are needed?
        Secretary Norton. This budget cycle has been a difficult
    one for us because we have been going through the consultation
    process. We are getting good results on it, but we are really
    just getting those now. So, what we have been doing is working
    with the committee staff and going through the requirements, as
    they are coming about. We anticipate working with you taking
    the same overall number but making changes within that.
        Senator Campbell. There will be some reprogramming requests
    probably.
        Then I might ask you, how many more meetings of the task
    force are in the plan?
        Secretary Norton. We are proceeding essentially with a
    couple of different goals in mind. Our primary meeting, in
    terms of the higher level of organization, is taking place in
    the next few days and leading up to next week's meeting in
    Bismarck. There is a hearing scheduled, I think on June 26, to
    present that feedback to you all.
        We also anticipate working with the task force on some of
    our implementation activities, on figuring out more of the
    details about how things need to be implemented. So, we
    anticipate working with that task force on an ongoing basis as
    we go through the reform process.
        Senator Campbell. Well, it is my view, and I think the same
    view of many members, it is time to start cutting some checks,
    and I hope that we are going to be able to get some legislation
    introduced to do that soon.

                           INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION

        Let me ask you also on Indian land consolidation, we did
    one hearing in the Indian Affairs Committee. We put a program
    in place a few years ago that was really a pilot program. It
    was very well received and done very well. We had hoped to
    expand that, but there were some differences between the Office
    of the Special Trustee and the Bureau and we did not do that. I
    just would hope that you would be willing to work with the
    committee to try to expedite that and leverage some money to
    appropriate whatever land we need for that consolidation
    program so that we can allow tribes to use that land because
    you cannot use a piece of land when there are 150 owners on 10
    acres, and that is what it amounts to now. So, I would ask for
    your help on that.

                               FIRE PREPAREDNESS

        Let me go to something else so I do not hog the time here,
    and that is fire preparedness. Several members have mentioned
    the difficulty we are having in the West. When the head of the
    Forest Service, Chief Bosworth, was in to testify, I remember
    asking him his response in view of so many new fires this year.
    We have had, I think, 60 in Colorado alone this year, over the
    number we had last year. Throughout the West, that is
    happening. I asked him about his budget if it was adequate, or
    if we were going to have to deal with some kind of an emergency
    supplemental for it. He said, no, he did not think so, that
    they would be able to borrow money from other accounts. Well,
    sooner or later, you have got to pay the money back. It comes
    down to whether we are going to be able to provide the money to
    be able to pay back the accounts I guess that it is borrowed
    from.
        But I wanted to know in Interior--most of those fires are
    on BLM land or maybe park land--how is your funding? Is it
    going to be adequate to get us through the season?
        Secretary Norton. In terms of the emergency suppression
    type activities, we have the ability to borrow money from
    construction funding, land acquisition funding, and other no-
    year money.
        Senator Campbell. That is a form of borrowing also from
    other accounts.
        Secretary Norton. In essence, it is. So, we do not face any
    situation of running out of money to be able to suppress fires,
    but it is something we do need to then come back and work on
    supplementals to backfill that money essentially.
        Senator Campbell. Do you have an estimate of where you are
    going to be in light of these devastating fires in the West?
    And I know they do not have a boundary. The fires do not care
    if it is BLM land or Forest Service land. Once they are raging,
    you know how it works.
        Secretary Norton. Once we have to tap into the emergency
    money, we are over and above this, but we do have money that is
    appropriated directly for suppression activities. That is $160
    million. So far we have spent about $60 million. Obviously, we
    are way ahead of where we usually are at this point in time.
        Senator Campbell. In spending.
        Maybe one last question, back to the BIA budget. You might
    not have the answer to this, but I was looking at some charts a
    while ago, and I understand that the IHS recently testified
    that 50 percent of its total budget is now administered by the
    tribes under the Self-Determination Act. That is something I
    absolutely support. If they have the ability and the
    infrastructure and all the things it takes to administer the
    programs themselves, they ought to do it. It is a better and
    more efficient use of our tax money.
        What percent of the BIA budget is directly administered by
    the tribes under that act? Would you know that offhand?
        Secretary Norton. I do not know the exact number offhand.
    We would be happy to provide that for you. We certainly do
    encourage self-determination.
        [The information follows:]
    BIA Budget Directly Administered by Tribes Under the Self-Determination
                                      Act
        Fiscal year 2001 data, the latest for which data is available,
    indicate tribes administer 49.6 percent of the BIA budget.

        Senator Campbell. I appreciate it. Thank you, Madam
    Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                           LEAVENWORTH FISH HATCHERY

        Madam Secretary, I know you are personally familiar with a
    little project on the Leavenworth fish hatchery in Washington
    State and efforts by the Icicle Creek Watershed Council to try
    and remove the old weirs and structures that are blocking fish
    passage to a lot of our high quality habitat. Those structures
    were actually built by the Bureau of Reclamation when they were
    doing construction of Grand Coulee Dam and they have been
    managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for many decades.
        There is an EIS that has been completed to remove the
    structures. Absolutely everybody supports it. But our problem
    is that the Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife
    Service both say that it is the other agency that is
    responsible for conducting the work, and we have been going
    back and forth with this battle.
        I want to provide some money to help them get this along,
    but we do not know which subagency actually to assign that to.
    Would you please tell me today which agency will be
    implementing the CIS plan?
        Secretary Norton. I will get back to you with an answer on
    that. Frankly, this is an item that I have on my agenda to talk
    with both of those bureaus for the fiscal year 2004 budget
    cycle. So, we certainly are looking at that.
        Senator Murray. Well, we want to get some money. They have
    been waiting a long time, and if you can answer that question
    for me very quickly, I would really appreciate it. We need to
    know which agency.
        Secretary Norton. I will be happy to work with you on that.

                        BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS BUDGET

        Senator Murray. Let me go back to the budget for the BIA
    too because I also share a lot of concern that I have already
    heard here. I know that you were able to keep that increase
    very low--it is only 1 percent--by cutting some very specific
    programs that are very important to a lot of members and
    tribes. Your budget eliminates the funding for timber, fish,
    and wildlife program, Lake Roosevelt management, Endangered
    Species Act management, Upper Columbia United Tribes program.
    It cuts shellfish funding which is a high priority. These kinds
    of programs in the Pacific Northwest are what allow our tribes
    to do what we require them to do, which is to manage their
    natural resources in cooperation with the State and Federal and
    local governments.
        Are you willing to go back and work with us to include
    these accounts in the future?
        Secretary Norton. I understand that most of those are
    specific earmarks for specific projects. We tried to work on
    those things within the context of overall programs, so that we
    are allocating the funding appropriately on a nationwide basis
    because we have responsibilities to make sure we are trying to
    do the right thing across the country.
        Senator Murray. In the Pacific Northwest, and I assume in
    many areas, part of what we need our tribes to do is to manage
    their natural resources effectively. And we require them to do
    that with our State, Federal, and local officials. If they do
    not have the funding to do it, they cannot have the people and
    personnel in place to do it. So, they are very important
    programs.
        Secretary Norton. One aspect of our Landowner Incentive
    program is for tribes. There is funding available specifically
    for tribes as a part of that program. We would be happy to work
    with you on that aspect of it.
        Senator Murray. Okay, good.

                           LAW ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE

        Well, another area for Indian country that is really
    important is the funding and resources for law enforcement and
    tribal courts. We know that Native Americans suffer a much
    higher rate of violent crime than any other population group,
    and we all know that tribal courts are underfunded.
        Can you please tell us your thoughts on continuing the law
    enforcement initiative in Indian country? That is cooperation
    between your Department and the Department of Justice that was
    begun a few years ago that is very important.
        Secretary Norton. Another aspect of our overall law
    enforcement initiative is trying to look at our BIA programs
    and looking at law enforcement programs across the board. So,
    that will be one aspect that we will be looking at as we go
    through our reorganization. We will get some information back
    to you on the law enforcement programs that are being done in
    cooperation with the Justice Department.
        [The information follows:]
                  Cooperative BIA/DOJ Law Enforcement Programs
        In 1997, the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General
    worked with tribal leaders to develop a multi-year collaborative
    initiative to combat rising crime rates in Indian Country. A joint BIA/
    DOJ law enforcement initiative was initiated in fiscal year 1999. Over
    the past two years, DOJ has provided grant funds to tribes for tribal
    officers and equipment, tribal courts, and tribal detention center
    construction. BIA has used additional funding to hire additional
    officers, improve radio systems, replace vehicles, strengthen basic
    detention services, bolster tribal court systems, and funnel additional
    resources to at-risk children.
        The BIA operates law enforcement programs and funds tribally
    operated law enforcement services throughout Indian Country. Since
    DOJ's budget has included detention center construction funding, the
    BIA has suspended its detention center replacement program since fiscal
    year 1998. However, BIA has maintained its responsibility for funding
    the operational costs of these facilities.
        The BIA promotes working relationships with various offices within
    the DOJ for the overall benefit of Indian country law enforcement. The
    Federal Bureau of Investigation provides training and technical
    assistance to Indian Country law enforcement officers. Training is
    designed to develop a highly trained professional law enforcement cadre
    to better serve Indian country enabling both BIA and tribal officers to
    be more autonomous and effective in their major investigations. More
    effective fieldwork helps ensure productive and effective prosecutions.
        The FBI sponsors and supervises the Safe Trails Task Forces (STTF)
    which currently operate throughout Indian Country. STTF's are joint
    operations designed to investigate and prosecute major crimes occurring
    in Indian country. STTF's are staffed by FBI and BIA Special Agents,
    and State, local, and Tribal police officers. STTF's have led to the
    prosecution of numerous large scale cases by utilizing the resources of
    Federal and local law enforcement agencies to investigate the
    production and sale of illegal drugs.
        The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) offers training and
    technical assistance to Indian country law enforcement officers on
    vehicle stop drug interdiction, major drug investigations and
    clandestine laboratory processing and investigation. Vehicle stop drug
    interdiction has become a successful and vital aspect in the movement
    of drugs through Indian Country.
        The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and U.S. Border
    Patrol (USBP) work closely with BIA and tribal law enforcement officers
    to address the problem of smuggling undocumented aliens, controlled
    substance and other contraband, through Indian country. The BIA is
    currently working on an in-depth project concerning northern and
    southern border initiatives some of which has expanded into the realm
    of antiterrorism. The BIA is currently working on a project to utilize
    the USBP's canine training division to train both dogs and their law
    enforcement handlers.
        The cooperation between the BIA and the USBP focuses on reducing
    undocumented aliens and contraband entering the United States through
    Indian Country jurisdiction near both borders. The utilization of the
    USBP canine training division will provide the much needed asset of
    canine officers capable of searching for escaped or missing persons,
    drugs, explosives as well as other canine patrol functions.
        The Office of Tribal Justice (OTJ) and the Executive Office for the
    United States Attorneys provide guidance and coordination on legal
    issues impacting law enforcement in Indian country. The U.S. Attorney's
    Office provides technical assistance and training on various aspects of
    the Federal prosecution process and on major case investigations
    occurring in Indian Country. Assistance from the U.S. Attorney's Office
    provides officers and agents with foundation to ensure the legal
    aspects of criminal prosecution are addressed.
        Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) has awarded COPS grants
    to numerous tribal programs throughout Indian Country. The BIA-OLES
    continues to generate dialog with the COPS office in an attempt to
    secure continued financing of this much needed program whose efforts
    have shown significant positive impact in Indian Country.

        Senator Murray. I would really appreciate that because I
    think they are very important initiatives.
        Let me just say I also noticed that you did not request the
    $14 million that is needed to hire staff at our new detention
    facilities that were built with funds from DOJ. We have new
    Washington State facility for the Colville Confederated Tribes.
    They do not have any money to hire the personnel for it, and it
    is scheduled to open in the fall of 2003. I wondered if you are
    aware that if this $14 million is not provided, there are as
    many as 10 completed facilities already built that will remain
    vacant while tribes wait for funding to hire the personnel. I
    wanted to know if you would work with us on this crucial
    funding that these tribes need in order to use those buildings
    that have been built.
        Secretary Norton. I am not aware of that situation, so let
    me look into that and provide an answer to you.
        Senator Murray. Thank you. I appreciate it very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information follows:]
                    Funding for New BIA Detention Facilities
        Staffing and operational funds will be needed to open 16 new
    detention facilities being built by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
    BIA will operate three of the facilities and tribes will operate the
    remainder. An additional 56 FTE is required to staff two of the
    facilities that will be BIA operated. Two of the facilities have been
    fully funded for staffing and operational costs. Ten facilities have
    received partial funding. Additional funding will be required at
    facilities that are scheduled to open by fiscal year 2004. These
    funding needs are being considered in the fiscal year 2004 budget
    formulation process.

        Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein, I will not be very long.

                    FUNDING FOR INDIAN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

        Madam Secretary, I think it might serve you and us well if
    you would take a look at the various colleges or post-high
    school facilities that are allegedly for our Indian people,
    either in whole or in part, and submit to us, through the
    chairman, what are they. That sounds like a crazy question, but
    essentially these schools do not know what they are. They come
    up here and say, would you get us $1.5 million because the
    Navajo government will not give us any money? This is an
    ongoing college with kids attending. Another one will come up
    and say, will you make sure that the Department of the Interior
    funds us because they have not been fully funding us? I think
    all of us ought to know what our responsibilities to the
    various colleges are. I have never seen it addressed, and I
    keep working ad hoc to help these schools.
        I have two or three in my State that I make sure get
    funded, and they have turned out to be very, very good. In
    fact, I would say if you are visiting New Mexico, in Bernalillo
    County, Albuquerque, there is a multi-state Indian school
    called SIPI. It is a full-blown technical vocational school of
    very high quality. It can be one where you could claim we are
    doing our job right. I do not know if we are doing the job
    right everywhere, but that is one.
        [The information follows:]
               BIA Funded Tribally Controlled Community Colleges
        Currently, the BIA funds 26 Tribally Controlled Community Colleges
    (TCCC) under the provisions of Public Law 95-471, the Tribally
    Controlled Community College Assistance Act. Of these, 25 are
    authorized under Title I provisions of the law, and one, Dine College
    (Formally Navajo Community College) is funded under Title II of the
    law. Public Law 95-471 provides for funding one TCCC per tribe. These
    institutions are authorized by individual tribes and operate under
    control of Tribal Boards of Regents. Tribes may establish other TCCCs,
    but only one is authorized for funding under Public Law 95-471.
    Additionally, the BIA operates and funds two post-secondary schools
    providing services to all tribes--Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
    Institute (SIPI) and Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU).
        Funding the Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT) is authorized
    under the Carl Perkins Act (Public Law 105-332) while the United Tribes
    Technical College (UTTC) has previously operated under contract with
    the BIA to provide education services in the North Central Plains
    States. Although Congress has provided funding in the past, BIA's
    fiscal year 2003 budget request does not include funding for CIT or
    UTTC due to other higher funding priorities for Tribes on a nationwide
    basis.
        Since the Navajo Tribe operates Dine College under Public Law 95-
    471, the Navajo tribe may not seek funding for Crownpoint under
    provisions of Public Law 95-471 which authorizes TCCCs. United Tribes
    Technical College is not sponsored by one tribe (it was established by
    a consortium of tribes) and, hence, does not meet the criteria
    established for funding under the provisions of Public Law 95-471.
    Therefore, under existing provisions of Public Law 95-471, these
    schools are not eligible for TCCC funding. In previous years, Congress
    has provided funding for these institutions as economic development
    under Special Programs and Pooled Overhead.

        Senator Domenici. Let me move on for a minute. You heard my
    observations in a few opening remarks that I made with
    reference to how different our forests seem to look now
    compared to 35 years ago or 40 years ago when I was--I do not
    want to tell you how old, but older than 20, 30. How does that
    sound? You could walk in the forests and there were big trees,
    and most of them are not like that today.

                          POLICY FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT

        I just wonder if you could tell us whether you have a
    policy for forests in the United States that causes that? Why
    are some forests in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico full of
    old trees and easy to walk in?
        As a matter of fact, I might tell you there are many people
    who hunt mushrooms among those pine trees. I hope you do not
    laugh too much. The entire Italian American community of
    Albuquerque used to have great fun hunting mushrooms. They are
    okay. None of them died.
        But you could walk through the forest and they did not burn
    very often. I just wonder if we have a policy or if there is a
    policy being thrust upon us. And there is another piece of the
    forest that you see, after a beetle infestation or a fire burn.
    In one area, you will see people cleaning it up maybe 1\1/2\
    years after it happens; in another, it is sort of like somebody
    put a sword in the ground and said, you will not touch this.
    So, there sits the burned trees until they rot and there sits
    the infested trees. People that drive by wonder what we are up
    to. What is with this? I think it would be great if you would
    tell us what is with it. Not now. But this is a very important
    and complex issue and we keep fighting around the edges. I am
    not sure we really know what the policy is.
        Secretary Norton. Senator, you are right. It is a very
    large issue and perhaps more than we have time for. But I have
    seen exactly the same thing in my experience with watching
    Colorado forests. Just as we were flying over the fires the day
    before yesterday, we saw the beetle-killed trees that are right
    on the edge of the areas that are burning. So, if one out of
    every five trees is a dead, dry tree, that certainly makes fire
    fighting more difficult.
        Our forests today, according to a study that was done a few
    years ago, are ten times as dense as they were in 1900. So, it
    is no misperception on our part that the forests look a lot
    different than they did a few decades ago. We had fire
    suppression as a major program----
        Senator Domenici. Is that good? As stewards of America's
    forests, is that good?
        Secretary Norton. It is very bad. It is very unhealthy. The
    ecosystems of our forests are in tremendous imbalance, and we
    need to work to restore that balance.
        We just signed an agreement with the Western Governors on a
    bipartisan basis that I think puts in place a great program to
    begin making those changes. We really need to make fundamental
    changes in the way that we manage our forests. It is a long-
    term undertaking.
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a
    fundamental issue for us. We put a lot of money in to forest
    management and we do not know from time to time which of these
    forests is going to turn out which way. I think it depends upon
    Federal judges and local tribunals and who files a suit and who
    does not. But I for one would urge that you, as chairman of the
    committee, ask for some kind of statement of policy on this
    issue. I think it is the most important one confronting us
    because if we are going to say let the forests burn down is a
    good policy, then we ought to know it and tell our people. We
    ought to tell Denver, tell Los Alamos 2 years ago, well, just
    do not worry. That is our policy. We just hope it does not burn
    you down. Which I cannot believe is our policy.

                                 SILVERY MINNOW

        Let me move on. In Albuquerque and on the Rio Grande River,
    there has been a recent decision with reference to endangered
    species, the minnow. I think you might have been in our State
    right in the middle of the adjudication of this situation, or
    at least you should be aware of the decision.
        Secretary Norton. Yes.
        Senator Domenici. There is a Federal court decision. I do
    not know if the time to appeal it has run. But essentially for
    some people it was not a shock, but for this Senator it surely
    was. I did not believe the decision would come down like it
    did.
        What is the position with reference to an appeal on the
    part of the U.S. Government, or is it too early for me to ask
    you?
        Secretary Norton. Let me get back to you with that
    information on where we are in the litigation.
        [The information follows:]
                             Litigation Background
                                 minnow v. keys
        This litigation began in 1999 when environmental groups represented
    by the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies (Plaintiffs) sued the Bureau
    of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers for alleged violations
    of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental
    Policy Act (NEPA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
        In an April 19, 2002 opinion, Chief Judge James A. Parker upheld a
    June 2001 Biological Opinion issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
    In that decision, however, Judge Parker also held that Reclamation had
    improperly limited the scope of its ESA consultation and that it had
    broad discretionary authority to use natural Rio Grande flows
    associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project and the San Juan-Chama
    Project for the silvery minnow. Therefore, Reclamation would have to
    consult over the exercise of that authority for the benefit of the
    silvery minnow if and when it reinitiated consultation.
        Although the United States filed a protective notice of appeal and
    intervening parties filed notices of appeal, the Tenth Circuit
    dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
        This year brought a drought of unprecedented proportions. Reserve
    water supplies in the Basin have been relied upon heavily in the past
    several years to provide water to protect the silvery minnow. The
    severe drought conditions and limited water supply eventually warranted
    reinitiation of consultation under section 7 of the ESA. On August 2,
    2002, Reclamation reinitiated consultation over a new proposed action
    for the remainder of this water year only. As the drought continued to
    worsen, Reclamation learned that the water supply the Middle Rio Grande
    Conservancy District (MRGCD) leased from Albuquerque would last two
    weeks less than expected, thus providing less water than expected the
    downstream stretches of the river. On August 30, 2002, Reclamation
    again amended its proposed action in consultation with the FWS, this
    time proposing to keep only the Albuquerque stretch of the river wet
    and only as long as supplemental water supplies from willing sellers
    remained available.
        On September 4, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Emergency
    Injunctive Relief asking the court to order Reclamation to continue to
    meet the terms of the June 2001 Biological Opinion for the remainder of
    the calendar year. Plaintiffs sought a court order compelling
    Reclamation to release water from an upstream reservoir (Heron) to
    continue meeting the flow requirements of the June 2001 biological
    opinion to avoid alleged jeopardy and unlawful ``take'' of the silvery
    minnow.
        On September 12, 2002, the Service issued a new Biological Opinion.
    According to the Service, Reclamation's proposed ongoing operation of
    the Project would jeopardize the continued existence of the species,
    but there was no reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) to the
    proposed action that would alleviate jeopardy to the species. Relying
    on hydrological information provided by Reclamation, the Service
    concluded that given the extremely limited quantity of reserve supplies
    in the Basin, any Heron water releases in 2002 would also jeopardize
    the minnow. The Service concluded that it would be better to keep the
    limited water resources available for a flow spike to signal minnow
    spawning next spring and to be managed to keep at least some stretches
    of the river wet if the drought persists.
        On September 23, 2002, Judge Parker found that the Service's
    September 12 Biological Opinion was arbitrary and capricious. Judge
    Parker ordered Reclamation to comply with the action as proposed in its
    August 2, 2002 letter to the Service.
        On October 16, 2002, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the
    City of Albuquerque and the State of New Mexico's request for an
    emergency stay of Judge Parker's order. The United States' request for
    expedited appeal was also granted, and appellate briefs are due to the
    Tenth Circuit in 30 days. The Department of the Interior will be
    working closely with the Department of Justice on the appeals process.

        Secretary Norton. As to the silvery minnow issue overall,
    we worked for several months with the city of Albuquerque and
    with the water users along the way. We were pleased that we
    were able to enter into an agreement to purchase some water
    that Albuquerque brings in from the Colorado River and to
    provide some funding for water for the fish as well as water
    for the irrigators. That, I think, is a much better outcome
    than we might have achieved otherwise.
        Senator Domenici. Well, Madam Secretary, just so you will
    know, we did that before you arrived without an agreement. We
    put money in the appropriation bill for the Bureau of
    Reclamation to fund the acquisition on a 1-year basis, one at a
    time. Now you just reduced it all to writing, but we have had
    that agreement with the subcommittee that I chaired, now
    chaired by Senator Harry Reid. But the water is only acquired
    for 1 year. So, the fish is not a taking. It is only borrowing
    through this five-party agreement. That is not going to last
    forever. The minnow issue is going to perk up again, and I
    think our State needs to know what the Federal Government is
    going to do about that case.
        Secretary Norton. I have had some of my top people working
    very closely on that. I think we have made substantial progress
    on it.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici, thank you very much.
        I am going to call on Senator Feinstein in one moment. I
    want to ask just a brief question and then I may have to depart
    before Senator Feinstein concludes. So, she will chair and then
    conclude the hearing.
        We will also ask that those who have questions will have
    until 5 p.m. tomorrow evening to submit questions for the
    record. We will do that without objection, and Senator Byrd and
    I will also submit a series of questions, Madam Secretary.
        I do not know that I pinned you down quite enough. Can I
    get a half an hour of your time when you are in Bismarck? I
    will not be able to be there because the Senate is in session,
    but can we ask that you spend 30 minutes on the way to or from
    the airport with Dr. Gipp at United Tribes? A quarter mile from
    the turnoff.
        Secretary Norton. My scheduler will probably kill me for
    saying this, but yes, I will do that.
        Senator Dorgan. Have your scheduler call me. I will run
    interference with your scheduler.
        Secretary Norton. I know we have had some real difficulty
    getting the arrangements made.
        Senator Dorgan. I understand. Well, thank you very much for
    that commitment. And I will call while you are there just to
    make sure you are going there.
        Not that I in any way ever doubt that, but I would like to
    call in just for a moment while you are there. But thank you
    for being willing to do that.
        Let me go back to just this very brief point. Madam
    Secretary, in many areas I agree with what you are doing. In
    some areas I do not agree. I voted for your confirmation. You
    have a very difficult job. You control a great deal of
    resources and have responsibility for a lot of public land.
        We rank, by the way, in North Dakota, I will say to Senator
    Feinstein, 50th among the 50 States in native forest lands. In
    other words, we are dead last in trees. So, while I find it
    interesting for all these folks to be talking about trees, we
    do not have any.

                          NEEDS ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS

        But it goes back to the question I asked earlier, if I can
    just make this brief point. We do have Indian reservations, and
    there is such desperate need there. I worry a great deal that
    this budget is not reflecting the right priorities when it
    proposes new initiatives. The conservation initiative might be
    fine. I do not know, but at $100 million for a new initiative
    to provide grants in areas where we have a substantial amount
    of grant authority already existing, and then to see United
    Tribes, the tribal colleges reduced, a 1 percent increase in
    the BIA programs, there is just such a compelling need there. I
    really think we have missed the priority.
        I do not know how much of that originates with you or the
    Department because I know the way this comes up back through
    OMB, but I would like us to talk about that at some point
    because this is not a case of simply saying, gee, this would be
    nice to fund. These are urgent, urgent needs. There are kids
    who are dying on these reservations for lack of adequate health
    care. I talk to these people all the time who suffer because
    they do not have adequate access to housing and health care.
        I would just make one final point, Senator Feinstein. I am
    sorry to take your time here. I apologize.
        Senator Feinstein. That is all right.
        Senator Dorgan. I have been told of the woman on the South
    Dakota reservation that froze to death about a year ago, laying
    in a house at 30, 40 below, she and her grandkids, without
    beds, with plastic sheeting covering the windows. There is
    clearly an urgent situation in housing, health care, and
    education on these reservations. And we must address it. Shame
    on us if we do not.
        And it is not Democrat or Republican. Every administration
    since I have been in Washington has underfunded these programs
    and not paid adequate attention to the emergency that exists
    right here in our country. So, I just ask you to work with us,
    and I hope we can have a conversation about it because I do not
    think this budget reflects that urgent priority that is
    necessary.
        Let me again thank you, Madam Secretary, for coming today,
    and let me call on Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

                                CARGILL PURCHASE

        Madam Secretary, I have another thing to thank you for and
    that is for your cooperation in the Cargill purchase, the
    purchase of the 16,000 acres of salt flats. I want you to know
    that that went very well. The agreement is being finalized. I
    know that the California State legislature, Byron Sher's
    committee, is going to be holding a hearing. I think there was
    some confusion that some people thought it had something to do
    with runway expansion at San Francisco International. It does
    not. Not at all. I think we have got a very good agreement. You
    have been wonderful, and we got it done.
        For me, particularly exciting was having the cooperation of
    the Gordon Moore and the Hewlitt and the Packard and the
    Goldman Foundations. It made the purchase a lot easier. They
    are going to use their people to help us with the remediation
    and the oversight. So, it has been really a wonderful
    experience putting that together. And you have been there with
    us all the way, and I want to say thank you for that.
        Secretary Norton. Thank you. It is a spectacular addition
    to our wildlife refuge system. It is an incredibly important
    ecosystem that we will be restoring.
        Senator Feinstein. Yes, I really agree with that. Thank you
    very much.
        Secretary Norton. You bet.

                             CALIFORNIA OIL LEASES

        Senator Feinstein. The second thing I want to ask you
    quickly about is on the subject of oil leases. I read where
    there is going to be action on the oil leases off the Florida
    coast. The California coast has 36 oil leases. They are under
    the jurisdiction of the California Coast Commission. They are
    not going to drill off the coast of California. We have fought
    this battle for 30 years. I think there was a misimpression by
    the President that Californians do not care about this. As a
    matter of fact, overwhelmingly Californians do care.
        The thing that occurs to me with these 36 leases is that we
    might be able to effect a trade and really move them out of the
    area. What I would like to do is work with a certain member of
    your staff to see if such a thing is possible and we cannot get
    this issue resolved.
        Secretary Norton. There are several aspects of this that I
    should mention. First of all, we have looked at those leases,
    and we are in litigation about them. That is still at a very
    early stage as opposed to the Florida situation where the
    litigation had been underway for several years. So, there
    obviously are issues like valuation and so forth that
    crystallize as you go through litigation that have not yet done
    so in the California situation. We certainly will continue to
    work with you on that.
        California is somewhat different than Florida in terms of
    the State's position on additional drilling taking place
    offshore. We do recognize that the State policy has been
    somewhat different than Florida has been.
        We also have some very severe difficulties for us, and one
    of the major issues that needs to be addressed is the
    litigation that the State of California has undertaken about
    interpretation of consistency under the Coastal Zone Management
    program. The implications of the Florida litigation hamper our
    ability to manage the offshore activities in the active
    producing areas like the Gulf of Mexico. So, we have taken the
    position that is the same position as the previous
    administration took in that litigation because of the impact on
    our other activities. We have had some discussion with the
    State about that, but I think it is important for you to
    understand that we have nationwide implications about the
    State's litigation that we are very concerned about.
        Senator Feinstein. Perhaps we should talk further because
    in my view this could all get resolved if there is an outcome
    that will be agreeable to all parties. I think there could be
    an outcome that would be agreeable to all parties. In any
    event, I would like to work on it because I do not think this
    litigation makes any sense. It is going to go on.
        There is not going to be drilling off the coast of
    California. I mean, there is just too much public sentiment
    against it, and we have had some massive problems from oil
    drilling, particularly in the Santa Barbara area where most of
    these leases actually are. So, it is not going to happen. Let
    us see if we can resolve it in a way that there is a balanced
    and fair result for everybody concerned. I just want to
    indicate to you I would like very much to work with you to get
    that done.
        Secretary Norton. I would be happy to work with you.

                            COLORADO RIVER AGREEMENT

        Senator Feinstein. The third thing I want to ask has to do
    with the Colorado River agreement and it has to do with the
    Imperial Irrigation District and the meeting that I spoke
    earlier about yesterday. See, it became very clear that when
    David Hayes negotiated the Colorado River agreement to give
    California what is called a soft landing--in other words, a
    gradual reduction of the take of water from the Colorado--the
    Salton Sea did not figure into it because it was thought at
    that time Salton Sea would be settled by then.
        Well, the Salton Sea is not settled, and there is deep
    concern by the Imperial Irrigation District that obviously they
    do not want to be forced into a fallowing situation and then be
    responsible for the Salton Sea. There is an endangered species
    problem there, and it is very difficult.
        My point for this little dialogue is that we need to see
    Interior's Salton Sea alternatives report ASAP. And I want to
    ask if you could perhaps see that that gets done. Everybody
    needs to see what the Salton Sea recovery costs are. A, is it
    possible? B, what does it cost?
        There are a lot of misimpressions floating around. Bennett
    Raley cleared up one of them for us yesterday, and that
    misimpression was that you could do a sort of dyking proposal
    for $300 million. He said it is not true. It is $900 million.
    Well, that alternatives report I think really figures into our
    ability to get the Colorado River agreement carried out and to
    move those four irrigation districts.
        Secretary Norton. I do not know that we have something that
    lays out all the alternatives and the costs in quite the way
    that you are talking about. But I do know there is a lot of
    misinformation out there about the possibilities. So, let me
    check. We would be happy to provide the information.
        [The information follows:]
                   Salton Sea Restoration Alternatives Report
        The Department of Interior is in the process of preparing a report
    on restoration alternatives for the Salton Sea that is not complete.
    Very shortly, the Secretary intends to transmit a letter to Senator
    Feinstein, detailing the status and timeframe for completion of the
    Salton Sea Restoration Alternatives Report.

        Senator Feinstein. Really sooner rather than later because
    we have got to get an agreement because, as you know, the EIR
    for this quantification agreement has to be done by the end of
    December or it puts everybody in a terrible position of what
    might happen with your declaring a nonsurplus situation on the
    Colorado and a major taking of water.
        Secretary Norton. We certainly appreciate your working with
    us and working with the irrigation districts and the southern
    California governments to help them understand the seriousness
    of the situation. So, we look forward to continuing to work
    with you as we tackle a very serious challenge coming up in the
    next 6 months.
        Senator Feinstein. Right, because the bottom line that is
    stopping everything is the Salton Sea. And how much
    responsibility the Imperial Irrigation District would have and
    what kind of liability they would have if the tailing water
    stops going into the sea. In a great way, it is unfair because
    when the agreement was negotiated, the Salton Sea was not a
    concern, and now it is and there is a huge species issue. There
    is a huge endangered species issue, the possibility of suit,
    tremendous liability. That is why I think we need to bite that
    bullet and take a look at the sea and make some decisions as
    quickly as we can to get this other agreement consummated.
        Secretary Norton. We will certainly continue working
    closely with you.
        Senator Feinstein [presiding]. Thank you very much. I
    appreciate it.
        Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. Present.
        Senator Feinstein. And accounted for.

              LANDOWNER INCENTIVE AND PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAMS

        Senator Burns. Your Landowner Incentive and Private
    Stewardship programs--I know you are kind of proud of those and
    I noticed Congress providing funding for two new conservation
    programs in fiscal year 2002, $40 million for the Landowner
    Incentive program and $10 million for Private Stewardship
    grants programs. I guess I got a couple of questions on those.
        We are asked to start yet another program here. I have the
    feeling that we may be getting too many tools in the
    conservation tool box. And I am a promoter and a supporter of
    both programs. When does the Department intend to make those
    grant awards for those programs? Because none of those funds
    have been expended yet from last year.
        Secretary Norton. On the Landowner Incentive and Private
    Stewardship programs, we really wanted to have those be
    effective tools for the States and local governments because
    part of that relies on State implementation. We have had to
    build a relationship with the State wildlife agencies because
    that did not really exist as strongly in the past as we needed.
    And we had to get our management team in place. It was not
    really until February that we had our Director of the Fish and
    Wildlife Service and our Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife
    and Parks in place.
        They have been working very hard since then and consulting
    with the affected governments on these programs. We published
    the guidance criteria and ranking criteria on a proposed basis
    in the Federal Register on June 7. So, we are now moving
    forward with that. We think we have good general agreement on
    how those programs can operate.
        We really wanted those to be ones that would be workable
    for the private landowners so that a farmer or rancher or other
    landowner would be able to understand and access that funding
    fairly easily instead of having it be too complex a process. It
    has taken some time to get criteria in place that will allow a
    user friendly kind of process.
        Senator Burns. Madam Secretary, you might tell the
    committee of one now--I think it is a good idea. I ask
    unanimous consent that we go to the mark.
        You might tell this committee how these three programs
    differ from the Partners for Wildlife program. You have got
    that one. You have got the Cooperative Endangered Species
    program, the NAWCA program, and other grant programs
    administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Can you
    provide a chart for the record that explains the differences
    among these various programs?
        Secretary Norton. We would be happy to do that. I think we
    could get that to you fairly quickly. Each of the programs has
    a little different emphasis and is designed to achieve a
    somewhat different result.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Burns. I think the committee needs to do that
    because if we are scratching for money and all of them are
    doing maybe essentially the same thing, well, I think we should
    have those side by side so if we have to pick and choose
    which--you might rank them in priority too because I just have
    a feeling that they may become very important.

                            CABIN SITES AT FORT PECK

        The transfer of the cabin sites at Fort Peck, Montana. Last
    year you indicated to me that the Fish and Wildlife Service had
    to do some work necessary to begin the cabin site sales, and
    that work could be done by December of 2001. Are there any
    remaining tasks for the Fish and Wildlife Service to complete
    before those sales can begin?
        Secretary Norton. Let me defer to John Trezise to answer
    that one.
        Mr. Trezise. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Senator Burns, we did not meet the December date, but on
    June 11, the Fish and Wildlife Service wrote to the Corps of
    Engineers on the budget issues for the project, and I believe
    that now puts us in the position for the Corps of Engineers to
    proceed.
        Senator Burns. Well, I understand the Corps of Engineers
    work was all done.
        Mr. Trezise. They were waiting for the Fish and Wildlife
    Service and the service has now acted.
        Senator Burns. But the Service does not have their work
    done.
        Mr. Trezise. No. It has now provided the Corps the
    information that it needs to proceed.
        Senator Burns. Okay. Is this item included in the Fish and
    Wildlife Service budget this year?
        Mr. Trezise. Well, this is a Corps of Engineer budget
    issue. The question has been the cost of the Fish and Wildlife
    Service to facilitate this transfer. However, that cost would
    be paid by the Corps.
        Senator Burns. By the Corps.
        Mr. Trezise. Yes, and I believe the Corps does have the
    funding.
        Senator Burns. I have got a couple of questions I am going
    to submit in writing. I think we pretty much covered PILT.
    Border security. We want to welcome you, Madam Secretary, to
    the State in the next week and a half. I think we will probably
    be visiting with you about the bison arrangement in Yellowstone
    Park, and we will probably be talking about wolves and elk
    numbers and calf numbers and this type thing. So, that is all
    the questions I have.
        I notice my colleague from New Mexico has rejoined the
    committee and I would recognize him.
        Senator Domenici. I am just going to talk to her before she
    leaves personally.
        Senator Burns. Well, I tried to go to a mark, Senator
    Domenici, but I was shut down by the staff back here.
        That is all that I have. Madam Secretary, thank you for
    coming this morning and for your testimony. We look forward to
    working with you as we work our way through this budget
    situation.
        Secretary Norton. Thank you for your attention.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Senator Feinstein. We have received the statement of
    Senator Thad Cochran which will be made part of the hearing
    record.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming the
    distinguished Secretary of the Interior to this hearing. In my opinion,
    Secretary Norton is doing an excellent job managing the Department of
    the Interior and carrying out the duties of this important office. In
    my state we have a very strong interest in national parks and the
    National Seashore which are under the jurisdiction of this Department.
        It is my hope that our committee will approve the funding that is
    needed to maintain these valuable resources and complete the
    construction of the Natchez Trace Parkway. The Parkway attracts about
    fifteen million visitors annually, and upon completion will attract an
    additional two million visitors each year.
        Additionally, I believe the Superintendent of the Natchez Trace
    Parkway should be a Senior Executive Service position. Madam Secretary,
    I hope you and your staff will review this suggestion and consider
    making this change as soon as possible.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Feinstein. 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 Robert C. Byrd
                            office of surface mining
        Madame Secretary, you come from a state, like West Virginia, that
    has been blessed with great tracts of natural resources. I have sought
    in my time here in the Senate to protect miners, their families, and
    their communities as best I could. In 1972, 125 people were killed in
    Logan County, West Virginia, when a coal impoundment on the Buffalo
    Creek collapsed. More recently, in October 2000, another coal slurry
    dam, along the West Virginia-Kentucky border failed--and more than 250
    million gallons of slurry poured into regional waterways. Luckily, no
    injuries or deaths resulted from the Inez, Kentucky, disaster.
        In the aftermath of the Inez collapse, I helped obtain $2 million
    to commission a National Academy of Sciences' study. The goal of which
    was to examine evidence and make recommendations to reduce the
    probability of future coal slurry impoundment failures. The NAS
    recommendations are clear--the Mine Safety and Health Administration
    and the Office of Surface Mining lack the clear and distinct authority
    to regulate impoundment basins. Moreover, because mine mapping and
    storage has been accomplished on an ad hoc basis, when at all, there is
    a dangerous lack of information available to communities and mine
    operators.
        Question. What steps is the OSM taking to work with other federal
    and state entities to institute the recommendations made by the NAS? If
    OSM is working with these other entities, are they evaluating the NAS
    recommendations? Are they prepared to recommend any regulatory changes
    or new guidelines based on the NAS report?
        Answer. OSM is working closely with the Mine Safety and Health
    Administration (MSHA) to determine how to best address the
    recommendations presented in the National Research Council (NRC) of the
    National Academy of Science (NAS) study. While OSM worked with MSHA in
    coordinating agency responsibilities and developing technical
    requirements for operating coal slurry impoundments prior to forming
    the NRC study committee, these efforts increased significantly after
    the Martin County Coal Corporation incident near Inez, Kentucky.
    Technical staff from both agencies began meeting after the 1996 coal
    slurry releases in Virginia and they continue to meet to address the
    Martin County Coal Corporation incident and other areas of mutual
    concern.
        Following the release of the NRC report, the agencies agreed to
    form a standing technical team to address issues of mutual concern,
    particularly those related to coal slurry impoundments. The group will
    focus on NRC report recommendations related to mapping, engineering and
    design standards, and monitoring requirements. Additionally, the
    agencies have discussed the other recommendations of the NRC committee
    and have identified priorities for future work. The standing joint OSM-
    MSHA technical committee will begin addressing particular actions
    needed to implement the NRC recommendations at its July 2002 meeting.
    As these efforts are ongoing, neither OSM nor MSHA have yet developed
    any regulatory proposals or guidelines based on the NRC report.
    However, as the joint team's work progresses, one or both of the
    agencies may develop additional requirements for impoundments.
        At the same time, OSM is committed to working with the states and
    others on these issues as well. OSM and MSHA plan to host a meeting
    between representatives of the two agencies and the states to discuss
    their role in developing standards and approaches to implement any new
    requirements.
        Not only is OSM working with MSHA, the states and other federal
    entities, OSM is working on its own to address concerns surrounding the
    safety of coal waste impoundments. After the Martin County Coal
    Corporation impoundment failure, OSM developed and implemented a
    regional plan designed to minimize the potential for future impoundment
    breakthroughs into underground mines by:
      --evaluating the factors contributing to the Martin County
            impoundment breakthrough,
      --developing criteria for evaluating existing high-risk impoundments
            near underground mines,
      --evaluating state program requirements and program implementation
            with regard to impoundments, and
      --ensuring effective state evaluation of existing high-risk
            impoundments through oversight and technical assistance.
        As part of its oversight responsibilities, OSM has made
    impoundments a priority by initiating ongoing evaluations of state
    programs to ensure that they are adequate and that they are effectively
    implemented. A part of this effort includes a determination of whether
    the states are effectively evaluating existing high-risk impoundments,
    identifying problems, and adequately addressing those problems.
        In providing technical assistance on this issue, OSM has made
    resources available to the states to assist them in their identifying
    and evaluating existing impoundments that are of high concern. In
    addition, using its impoundment engineering expertise, and with input
    from states and MSHA, OSM has developed a technical guidance document
    with established criteria that can be used in re-evaluating existing
    high-risk impoundments over or adjacent to underground mines. OSMS
    provided this document to the states in July 2001.
        Finally, OSM has worked to facilitate communication between State
    and Federal agencies involved in regulating coal slurry impoundments
    and related facilities. Through enhanced communication, coordination
    and cooperation, OSM believes that many of the issues related to coal
    waste impoundments can be resolved.
                   endangered species--listing program system
        Question. Please update the Committee on your efforts to develop a
    biologically-based priority system for listing species, including a
    timeline for its release.
        Answer. The Service is working to develop a system by which all the
    petition findings, listing determinations, and critical habitat
    designations will be prioritized in a manner that is scientifically
    credible, managerially feasible, and legally defensible. We need a
    practical and reliable protocol for establishing the priority order of
    all our listing actions, based on clear and scientifically defensible
    criteria. We need the public to have confidence in the Listing Action
    Prioritization System. This system will provide the means by which we
    will establish the order for taking action on the hundreds of
    backlogged listing actions. We are committed to developing a system
    that has a sound science foundation and broad public acceptance. We are
    seeking a broad range of scientific and other input from outside the
    Service before developing a proposed rule. We are planning stakeholder
    caucuses to obtain input from various interested groups. The caucuses
    are to be held the weeks of September 9 and 23 with representatives of
    the following interest groups: States, counties, user groups,
    conservation NGOs, Federal agencies, Native Americans, and academic
    scientists. Our goal is to have the final listing priority system in
    place in fiscal year 2003.
                 endangered species--consultation and recovery
        Question. To what extent are funds designated for endangered
    species recovery efforts used to perform endangered species
    consultation work? Please provide figures from the fiscal year 2002
    appropriation.
        Answer. In June 2002, GAO issued a report on the Endangered Species
    Program that noted, based on a GAO survey, that Endangered Species
    funding may not be spent in accordance with budgetary direction. While
    the Department believe the report raises valid concerns, we do not
    believe that the fieldwork performed was sufficient to conclude that
    spending on endangered species activities is materially different than
    Congress intended. The Department's efforts to implement Activity Based
    Costing by fiscal year 2004 will help to ensure that endangered species
    activities are accurately charged to budgetary elements. The Service
    will be reviewing its processes for recording time charges and taking
    necessary steps to ensure that the endangered species program is
    adhering to reprogramming policies. The Service will also be providing
    further clarifying guidance to field staff on the types of activities
    that are funded from each program element.
                                      nctc
        Question. There has been no appreciable increase in the NCTC
    training budget request since it opened in October 1997. The last real
    increase NCTC received that was dedicated to training was in fiscal
    year 1998. What has been the impact on training efforts? Has the number
    of courses offered at NCTC declined over the years? If so, why?
        Answer. The number of courses has declined over the years from a
    high of approximately 270 in fiscal year 2000, to approximately 210 in
    2001 and a projected 200-210 in 2002. The decline has occurred due to
    numerous factors, including: a small decline in 2001 and 2002 due to
    the events of September 11, 2001, and shifting resources out of some
    existing courses into higher priority leadership development efforts
    and increasing costs related to NCTC staff salaries and course
    expenses. The Service continues to try to fund its highest priority
    courses within the funds available.
        Question. The Federal Facilities Council standard for routine
    maintenance and repair of a facility of the size and scope of NCTC is
    typically two to four percent of the aggregate current replacement
    value of those facilities. Since the construction cost, which is the
    replacement value, of NCTC is over $100 million, one would estimate the
    budget for maintenance and repair to be $2-$4 million each year. The
    NCTC maintenance budget is only $450,000. What is the rationale for
    short-funding NCTC in the area of maintenance and repairs?
        Answer. The Service is aware of Federal Facility Council standards
    and strives to address the maintenance needs at NCTC. The NCTC facility
    was designed using highly durable building materials to reduce
    maintenance needs in the short-term. NCTC has an active program to
    identify maintenance needs and the highest priority needs are addressed
    as funding allows while other items are deferred until funding becomes
    available. The Service has made a significant capital investment in the
    NCTC and recognizes the need to keep up with maintenance to avoid even
    higher long-term costs.
        Question. I have received a request from Mrs. Jessie Hendrix to
    extend the life use estate for her house, immediate farm buildings, and
    5 acres through the life of her daughter Mary. Does FWS have immediate
    plans or need for the Hendrix House? If not, would it be possible to
    extend the life estate?
        Answer. The Service has no immediate needs for the Hendrix House
    and is exploring options with Mrs. Hendrix and her daughter Mary that
    would meet their needs and desires, while assuring that the interests
    of the government are protected in the long-term.
                    bureau of indian trust asset management
        Question. What is the status of your proposal to establish a new
    Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management?
        Answer. The Secretary has consented to withdraw her proposal for
    two assistant secretaries for Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian
    Trust Asset Management in favor of a trust division within the current
    office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs as proposed by the
    Tribal Task Force.
        Question. If your proposal has been abandoned in favor of the
    recommendations being put together by the Trust Reform Task Force, then
    what is the purpose of the Office of Indian Trust Transition?
        Answer. The Office of Indian Trust Transition will continue to be
    responsible for creating a fiduciary trust asset management system for
    Indian Affairs, completing the development of a trust enterprise
    strategic plan and for integrating the various trust components that
    are located throughout the Department into the new trust system. This
    Office is also responsible for several trust reform components
    including probate, IT systems, and data cleanup.
           landowner incentive program and private stewardship grants
        Question. The Landowner Incentive Program and the Private
    Stewardship Grants program were new initiatives in fiscal year 2002.
    Yet, as this subcommittee prepares to mark up the fiscal year 2003
    Interior bill, I note that the fiscal year 2002 funding has not been
    spent. Given that, how do we evaluate the effectiveness of these
    programs in the context of the fiscal year 2003 request?
        Answer. It has taken longer to develop these programs than we had
    originally anticipated. Early deliberation with interested parties,
    however, will likely result in greater effectiveness during on-the-
    ground implementation. These programs expand upon a proven concept--
    helping private landowners to voluntarily protect and manage habitat
    for imperiled species--for which we know there is strong demand and
    that are essential to conserving imperiled species. Furthermore, the
    Service has had success in implementing other assistance programs for
    imperiled species. The potential for these programs can be seen in the
    recently published proposed implementation guidelines (67 FR 39414-
    39423; June 7, 2002), and by noting the broad array of important
    projects that are likely to be funded.
        Question. If these programs have no track record of success, why
    should Congress provide additional funding in fiscal year 2003?
    Wouldn't it be better to wait a year and reconsider your request after
    the programs have had a chance to prove themselves?
        Answer. Initial delays in starting these new programs should not be
    an indication of their potential for success. Continuity and
    consistency in funding during the early stages of these programs is
    essential to building program infrastructure within the States
    (staffing, spending authorities, authorization for matching funds) and
    to fostering interest among private landowners and the conservation
    community (creating public awareness, generating project applications).
    For example, on some projects, landowners engage in extensive planning,
    permit reviews and preliminary design work prior to submitting a
    project proposal for funding. Landowners may postpone or abandon this
    critically important planning effort if future program funding appears
    in question. If future program funding is uncertain, State agencies and
    legislatures may be reluctant to make commitments to willing landowners
    and make the changes necessary within their organizations to implement
    a new program. Continuity of funding is essential to maintaining the
    momentum that each program builds and for each program to reach its
    full potential.
        Question. Given the fact that the Federal Register notifications
    for these programs were published only last week--three months later
    than the timeline established by the Fish and Wildlife Service--when
    does the department anticipate awarding the Fiscal Year 2002 Landowner
    Incentive and Private Stewardship grants?
        Answer. As stated earlier, we acknowledge that it has taken longer
    to develop these programs than we had originally anticipated. However,
    we believe our early coordination with interested parties will likely
    result in greater effectiveness during on-the-ground implementation. On
    June 7, 2002, the Service published for public comment the proposed
    implementation guidelines. Public comments are due for both programs by
    July 8, and Final Notices will be prepared and submitted for
    publication in the Federal Register with an Request for Proposals
    describing the criteria and ranking factors as soon as possible
    thereafter. A 60-day submission period is planned for these competitive
    grant proposals. Regional (PSGP) and national (LIP) assessments of the
    grant applications will take place early this fall, with grant award
    recommendations forwarded to the Director and Assistant Secretary for
    final approval.
                  proposed cooperative conservation initiative
        Question. Please justify the proposal of a new $100 million
    program, the Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI), when so many
    existing needs-from Indian education to maintenance and operational
    needs on public lands-are desperately short of funds?
        Answer. We believe that the federal interests are strongly served
    by incorporating the ideas from the public, such as non-governmental
    organizations and citizens, that partner with a bureau unit for the
    Cooperative Conservation Initiative. Management decisions will be made
    by the Federal partner(s) since CCI funding will complement agency
    priorities and goals. Joint federal/partners decision-making mechanisms
    will be reflected in approved applications for funds.
        The CCI program proposes that the resources to address federal
    critical stewardship needs will be augmented, not reduced by CCI, since
    federal dollars will be matched at least one-for-one.
        Whenever a budget is formulated, the Department has to make
    difficult choices among good programs and balance all needs and
    priorities. Our proposed allocation of funds best meets the
    Department's priorities and enhances cooperative efforts between
    private, State, and federal entities.
        Question. If funded, how can you assure that these funds could be
    spent in this fiscal year, particularly given the delay in awarding
    last year's two new programs, the Landowner Incentive Program and
    Private Stewardship grants?
        Answer. The Department capitalized on the experiences of these
    programs and began the planning process for timely implementation of
    CCI shortly after the President's budget was released. If appropriated
    by Congress, the Department is confident that the program can be
    executed without significant delays.
        Many conservation grant programs already exist within the
    Department of the Interior, not the least of which are the State
    Wildlife grants, the Cooperative Endangered Species Program, the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Fund, and the stateside program of the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund.
        Question. What does this new Initiative accomplish that these other
    established grant programs do not?
        Answer. The new CCI program focuses on improving resources on the
    Federal units in the system with assistance from partners since the
    cumulative effect of addressing a restoration issue in a larger
    geographic area benefits surrounding resources.
        Many of these programs overlap in terms of their objectives. Yet,
    all of them are run through different offices with different
    guidelines.
        Question. How, then, do users untangle the bureaucratic maze? How
    does a North Dakotan figure out he or she could apply for a grant from
    any of these programs, particularly the CCI?
        Answer. For grant programs offered through the Department of the
    Interior, citizens can use the U.S. Government's Catalog of Federal
    Domestic Assistance. Additionally, FWS, the agency that has
    responsibility for most of Interior's conservation grants programs, has
    a website listing all its grants, including the proposed CCI program,
    at www.grants.fws.gov.
        Question. Will the Fish and Wildlife Service Regional offices make
    decisions about the $5 million dedicated to refuges in the CCI, as is
    the case with the Refuge Cost Share program, or will your office make
    final decisions about these grants?
        Answer. The Director of the FWS will make final recommendations to
    the Secretary.
                                fish hatcheries
        Question. A number of reports suggesting hatchery reform have been
    produced recently, including one by the Sport Fishing and Boating
    Partnership Council. What is being done to implement the
    recommendations made by these reports?
        Answer. In July 2001 the Service charged the SFBPC to convene a
    steering committee that represented perspectives from a broad array of
    stakeholders in fish and aquatic resource conservation to help develop
    a new Fisheries Program blueprint, the Strategic Vision. The first
    product from the steering committee was a consensus report on the
    recommended role that the Fisheries Program should play in the
    partnership effort to conserve the Nation's fish and other aquatic
    resources. These recommendations, along with the earlier hatchery
    report from the SFBPC, ``Saving a System in Peril,'' are cornerstones
    of the Fisheries Program's strategic planning process, particularly its
    development of a Strategic Vision for the Program.
        The Fisheries Program's Strategic Vision will be completed before
    the end of fiscal year 2002. It will identify where the Fisheries
    Program is today, where it needs to go in the future, why it is
    important to get there, and what key actions the Program will take to
    achieve its Strategic Vision. The Fisheries Programs in each of the
    Service's seven Regions will then step-down this Vision, adding more
    detail about their objectives, goals and key actions. Through this
    collaborative planning process, the Service is re-committing to its
    role as a partner in conserving America's fish and other aquatic
    resources. In some cases the Service will lead; in others, it will
    facilitate or follow. In all cases, the Service will focus its efforts
    and activities on what it is best positioned to contribute based on its
    unique resources and capabilities, recognizing that sound science and
    solid partnerships will continue to be the key to aquatic resource
    stewardship. Through the partnerships that have been fostered, the
    Fisheries Program has built strong two-way communications. It is
    through these communications that the partners understand the missions
    and actions taken by the Program and by which the Fisheries Program is
    held accountable by its partners.
        In addition to these reports, the Service has assembled seven work
    groups, each led by a Directorate member and made up of regional and
    Washington Office employees, to address: (1) sound science and good
    management; (2) achieving cost savings; (3) strategic thinking; (4)
    performance management; (5) workforce management; (6) mitigation
    analysis and cost recovery; and (7) competitive sourcing and activity-
    based costing. Each of these work groups is focusing on identifying
    actions that the Service can take to move the hatchery component of the
    Fisheries Program forward. The Service is incorporating recommendations
    received from SFBPC; from the seven workgroups described above and
    several previous workgroups; and from two reports from GAO, Biological
    Opinions on Pacific salmon, and previous nationwide stakeholder
    meetings into the Strategic Vision. Detailed reports and other products
    prepared by these seven work groups are currently being reviewed by the
    Department and Office of Management and Budget.
        Question. Recently, the Fish and Wildlife Service provided details
    about the $1 million general operations decrease for hatcheries
    proposed in the fiscal year 2003 budget. Could you discuss this
    proposal, particularly addressing the role of cost recovery in hatchery
    funding?
        Answer. The Service has proposed to implement the $1 million
    decrease in hatchery operations by increasing reimbursements from non-
    reimbursed, non-native fish for mitigation or by reducing production at
    these facilities ($711,000) and discontinuing channel catfish
    production ($289,000). There are 10 National Fish Hatcheries that
    predominately produce non-reimbursed, nonnative fish for mitigation.
    Mitigation production programs at Jones Hole (UT) and Hotchkiss (CO)
    NFH's, that are currently funded by the Service, mitigate Bureau of
    Reclamation projects. The Service will continue working with the Bureau
    of Reclamation and the Department over the next few months to try to
    obtain cost recovery for this mitigation production. It is unlikely
    that full cost recovery will be achieved in fiscal year 2003.
    Therefore, the Service and Bureau of Reclamation are currently
    reviewing management and funding options for operations and maintenance
    of these two hatcheries.
        The Service assembled a workgroup led by senior managers to
    identify all hatchery programs providing mitigation services for
    federal water resource development projects, the legal authorities for
    the Service to conduct the mitigation work, associated costs, and
    relevant agencies responsible for such projects. A comprehensive
    mitigation analysis report, developed by this work group, is currently
    being reviewed by the Department prior to transmittal to the Office of
    Management and Budget. This report also discusses potential legislative
    actions that would facilitate full cost recovery for hatchery
    mitigation programs. The Service continues to work with the Department,
    federal water development agencies, and other stakeholders to seek full
    cost recovery. Service hatchery operational funds freed up through
    these cost recovery activities will be redirected to high priority
    hatchery needs identified in the Service's collaborative planning
    effort.
        Question. Do you plan on putting any hatcheries in ``caretaker
    status'' (essentially shutting them down) over the next year?
        Answer. The Service proposes to end its channel catfish production
    which ranks as a low priority based on the Service performance goals
    and priority objectives. Channel catfish are currently produced at six
    NFH's. Cessation of channel catfish production at Inks Dam NFH (TX),
    which is the only hatchery that is predominately (81 percent) producing
    catfish. Under the Service's proposal to implement the $1 million
    decrease in hatchery operations, Inks Dam would be placed in caretaker
    status and the regional fish distribution truck and associated budget
    and FTE transferred to another regional facility.
        Inks Dam would need to be put into caretaker status by the end of
    fiscal year 2002 in order to achieve the cost savings relative to the
    fiscal year 2003 decrease. The Service anticipates plans to begin
    phasing out channel catfish production and placing Inks Dam in
    caretaker status in 2002. Because of the unavailability of operational
    fund to pay for the costs associated with putting Inks Dam into
    caretaker status, funding would need to be reprogrammed from hatchery
    maintenance projects.
        Question. What is the appropriate role of hatcheries in the federal
    Fish and Wildlife Service? What do you see as the future of the
    hatchery system?
        Answer. Facilities in the Service's National Fish Hatchery System
    (National Fish Hatcheries, Fish Technology Centers, and Fish Health
    Centers) provide unique, integrated capabilities to meet Fisheries
    Program priorities. National Fish Hatcheries focus on producing and
    distributing fish, fish eggs, mussels, amphibians, aquatic plants, and
    other aquatic species for cooperative Service programs. Fish Technology
    Centers focus on scientific and technical support in areas such as
    genetics, physiology, behavior, and approval of drugs to treat fish
    diseases. Fish Health Centers focus on monitoring, diagnosing, and
    controlling fish pathogens and diseases. Together these facilities are
    involved in the production of aquatic species for recovering listed and
    candidate aquatic species, restoring depleted aquatic populations to
    preclude listing, restoring interjurisdictional fisheries, helping meet
    Trust responsibilities on National Wildlife Refuges and tribal lands,
    and mitigating Federal water projects. The National Fish Hatchery
    System is the only federal hatchery system and capability to meet
    unique federal responsibilities in fish and other aquatic species
    culture and that there is strong State, Tribal and other partner
    support for the NFHS. All of these programs are conducted in
    cooperation with other Federal, State, Tribal, and private partners,
    and are tied to habitat restoration for those non-mitigation programs
    where habitat restoration is possible.
        The Fisheries Program's Strategic Vision and Regional step-down
    plans will address the role of Service hatcheries in the broader
    context of the role of the Fisheries Program in aquatic resource
    conservation. The Program is continuing to work with its partners and
    stakeholders to complete its Strategic Vision by the end of 2002.
        Question. Should federal hatcheries produce recreational or non-
    native fish? Why or why not?
        Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Act establishes recreational fishing
    as part of the Service's mission. The Service has responded to this and
    other legislative mandates, and to stakeholder concerns for
    recreational fisheries to the degree that appropriated resources and
    administrative direction have allowed.
        The Service provides for healthy, recreationally valuable fish
    populations through programs that focus on restoring depleted or
    imperiled fish population to self-sustaining levels, replacing
    fisheries to mitigate for adverse impacts of Federal water development
    projects, or on meeting trust responsibilities to Tribes. These actions
    involve the NFHS through:
      --Stocking healthy fish to mitigate adverse effects of federal water
            development projects. This allows for existence of a fishery,
            concurrent with energy production activities, in water that is
            commonly too cold for native fish or that has limited spawning
            habitat.
      --Coordinating whirling disease research in native trout populations
            to enable State and Tribal fishery managers to control the
            disease and continue economically valuable trout fisheries.
      --Conducting the Wild Fish Health Survey that provides an outline of
            where fish pathogens exist. This is significant for State,
            Tribal, and Federal managers in making decisions about where to
            acquire wild broodstock, where to focus and where to avoid
            restoration efforts, for determining the extent and seriousness
            of diseases caused by largemouth bass virus and other
            pathogens, and for helping protect the aquiculture industry
            from importing or introducing costly diseases.
        The Fisheries Program's Strategic Vision and Regional step-down
    plans will address the Program's role in recreational fisheries in the
    broader context of its role aquatic resource conservation. The Service
    will continue to be responsive to its stakeholders and inclusive of
    State, Tribal, and other Federal agencies in finalizing these documents
    and implementing them. As demands for Service involvement in
    restoration and recovery programs for native species increase, and as
    the capabilities of the Service's State, Tribal and private partners
    change, the Service will work with these stakeholders to ensure that
    the unique capabilities of each are employed appropriately to meet the
    needs of recreational anglers and other aquatic resource stakeholders.
            office of surface mining--mine reclamation program cuts
        Question. There is currently over $6.8 billion in abandoned mine
    land reclamation work to be done. Given that backlog, why has the
    department proposed cutting the funding for the AML program by 11
    percent?
        Answer. The reduction is in two parts--a reduction of $17 million
    in the regular AML grants and $10.9 million for the Federal Emergency
    program.
        The $17 million reduction in AML grants compares to the $35 million
    reduction proposed by the Administration in 2002. There is also $2
    million in carryover funds from the Federal AML emergency program that
    will be transferred to the AML state grant program to lessen the
    reduction. The pressures of competing priorities in the wake of new
    requirements emerging from the events of 9/11 have precluded us from
    doing more. However, even at this reduced level, the Department will be
    able to make significant progress on the clean up of disturbed land and
    other hazards by reclaiming an additional 6,900 acres.
        The $10.9 million reduction in the AML Federal Emergency program is
    a one-time reduction and will not affect program performance. The
    Department anticipates that there are sufficient carryover funds
    available to meet any program needs during fiscal year 2003.
        While the overall OSM budget declines because of the AML reduction,
    the budget includes a $1.0 million increase over the 2002 enacted level
    for State regulatory grants for a total of $57.6 million. Within this
    amount, West Virginia receives an additional $2.0 million to sustain
    ongoing program improvements and avoid Federal takeover of the program.
    The proposed budget also continues available funding for the successful
    Appalachian Clean Streams program at $10.0 million, the same as the
    2002 enacted level, to empower partners in affected communities to
    address important local acid mine drainage pollution.
        Question. How many fewer sites nationally will be cleaned up
    because of this proposed reduction in funding?
        Answer. We can not accurately estimate how many fewer sites will be
    reclaimed, as the participating States and Tribes select the sites to
    be reclaimed and those sites vary greatly in terms of size and
    reclamation cost. However, based on historical information, we estimate
    the nationwide number of acres of abandoned mine problems (non-
    emergency and non-clean streams program) that can be reclaimed at a
    given dollar amount. From the fiscal year 2002 appropriation,
    approximately $144 million was distributed to the participating States
    and Tribes for this purpose, resulting in an estimated 8,200 acres
    reclaimed. From the proposed fiscal year 2003 appropriation,
    approximately $127 million would be distributed similarly, resulting in
    an estimated 6,900 acres reclaimed.
        Question. With such an enormous backlog of critical mine
    reclamation work, how can the administration justify cutting the AML
    program while creating a new vaguely defined program called the
    Cooperative Conservation Initiative and funding it to the tune of $100
    million?
        Answer. We believe that the federal interests are strongly served
    by incorporating the ideas from the public, such as non-governmental
    organizations and citizens, that partner with a bureau unit for the
    Cooperative Conservation Initiative. Management decisions will be made
    by the Federal partner(s) since CCI funding will complement agency
    priorities and goals. Joint federal/partners decision-making mechanisms
    will be reflected in approved applications for funds.
        The CCI program proposes that the resources to address federal
    critical stewardship needs will be augmented, not reduced by CCI, since
    federal dollars will be matched at least one-for-one.
        Whenever a budget is formulated, the Department has to make
    difficult choices among good programs and balance all needs and
    priorities. Our proposed allocation of funds best meets the
    Department's priorities and enhances cooperative efforts between
    private, State, and federal entities.
                             fire suppression costs
        Question. I understand that the Department of the Interior has a
    total of $170 million on hand for fire suppression this year, but that
    fire suppression costs have averaged over $220 million for the last 5
    years. Does this mean that you will likely have to borrow over $50
    million from non-fire accounts this year?
        Answer. The Department borrowed a total of $240 million from non-
    fire accounts, including $210 million for suppression operations and
    $30 million for emergency stabilization and rehabilitation.
        Question. We have already seen a number of large fires out West
    this spring. Can you tell us whether this year is likely to be a better
    or worse fire season than normal?
        Answer. The 2002 fire season has been one of the most severe and
    costly ever. As of November 22, 2002, 71,342 fires burned about 7.1
    million acres, nearly double the 10-year average.
        Question. If the agency is forced to borrow funds again this year,
    how will the agency decide which accounts are to be borrowed from and
    in what amounts? Has an effort been made to minimize programmatic
    impacts?
        Answer. To avoid or minimize programmatic impacts, the Department
    borrowed funds from unobligated balances of the construction and land
    acquisition accounts of the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
    Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, and the construction
    account of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In focusing the borrowing on
    no-year construction and land acquisition accounts, as opposed to
    bureaus' operating accounts, the borrowing does not impact visitor
    services, resource use authorizations, or other aspects of day-to-day
    Departmental operations. The creditor bureaus are also managing their
    land acquisition and construction accounts to avoid or minimize
    disruptions to projects; for example, they are targeting the funding
    reductions to projects still in the planning phase so that construction
    projects that have already commenced can proceed to completion.
                       buyout of florida oil & gas leases
        Question. Last month, you announced a buyout of oil and gas leases
    on federal lands in Florida and off the Florida coast in the Gulf of
    Mexico. The purpose of the buyback was to protect the environment. Do
    you have any plans to buyout federal oil and gas leases in other States
    for conservation purposes?
        Answer. The Administration has had initial discussions with the
    State of California in an attempt to resolve the full range of
    longstanding issues surrounding the 36 undeveloped Federal leases
    offshore California, including settling the litigation brought by
    California concerning the Coastal Zone Management Act. This was the
    first step toward developing a negotiated solution. The Administration
    emphasized at that time that all issues and methods of resolution were
    on the table.
        Question. I understand that the Governor of California has asked
    the federal government to buyout leases off the California coast. Why
    isn't California worthy of the same protection as Florida?
        Answer. The Administration was pleased to receive Governor Davis'
    May 30, 2002, letter supporting the Administration's decision to settle
    the Chevron v. United States litigation regarding the Destin Dome
    leases offshore Florida. The Governor requested that the Administration
    similarly repurchase the 36 undeveloped leases offshore California. On
    June 6 Secretary Norton responded that the Administration greatly
    values the beauty and magnificence of the California coast, stating
    that it is a national treasure that should be protected through sound
    environmental policies. Secretary Norton also repeated our willingness
    to cooperate with California in developing a satisfactory resolution of
    the issues surrounding the 36 undeveloped leases. In addition, the
    Secretary pointed out the numerous ways in which the California leases
    differ significantly from the Destin Dome leases. However, even with
    those significant differences, the Secretary reiterated the
    Administration's commitment to seriously consider the concerns and
    objections of those opposed to further offshore oil and gas development
    off California and to work with California to resolve these issues.
        Question. Have any estimates been made of how much it would cost to
    buyout the federal offshore leases in California?
        Answer. The lessees for the 36 undeveloped Federal leases offshore
    California filed breach of contract litigation (Amber Resources Co. et
    al v. United States) against the United States this past January in the
    Court of Federal Claims. The Amber case is currently stayed pending a
    resolution of the Coastal Zone Management Act litigation brought by
    California. The Amber case has not yet reached the discovery stage,
    thus the parties have not had the opportunity to obtain information
    that is essential to evaluating the merits of the arguments and to
    structuring any settlement. For instance, there is no documentation on
    how much the plaintiffs paid to their predecessors in interest for
    their lease interests or what expenses they may have incurred in lease
    activities. This information is necessary to making legitimate
    assessments of the appropriate course to resolve the litigation.
        Question. Funding for the lease buyback in the state of Florida--
    which accounts for $120 million of the $235 million total--requires
    congressional approval. Will your department request that the funds and
    authorization for this buyout be included in the Interior
    Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003?
        Answer. Over the next several weeks, the Administration will work
    with the Congress to resolve issues related to the Government's
    purchase of the Collier mineral interests in Florida.
                   u.s. geological survey--homeland security
        Question. The supplemental appropriations bills recently passed by
    the Senate and the House include funding for a critical infrastructure
    mapping program to be undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey. Did
    your Department make a request for this funding to the Office of
    Management and Budget?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. What is the Department's position with respect to the
    program?
        Answer. The Department believes that the USGS Mapping Program
    overall is a critical one, and believes it would be useful for USGS to
    promote partnerships for mapping data, and make geographic information
    more accessible and easier to use.
        Question. Do you consider the project to be a homeland security
    initiative?
        Answer. USGS mapping is not a homeland security initiative.
    However, USGS mapping data could be helpful to homeland security, just
    as mapping data supports many other government functions.
        Question. When both the Senate and House include an item in an
    appropriations bill, that usually means there is significant support
    for the merits of the project. Why didn't the Administration include
    this project in its supplemental request to the Congress?
        Answer. The Administration's supplemental request was intended to
    fund emergency needs. Acquisition of these data was not considered to
    be an emergency need.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
                              school privatization
        Question. The Administration has requested $11.9 million to
    outsource or privatize management of some BIA schools. Since there are
    already two mechanisms in federal law--the grant school authority and
    638 contracting authority--that gives tribes the option to manage BIA-
    funded schools, why does the Administration feel privatization is
    necessary?
        Answer. The requested $11.9 million encourages tribes to seek grant
    or contract status for the remaining 64 schools by increasing the
    funding levels for student transportation, school facilities and
    maintenance operations, and Administrative Cost grants; these programs
    total over $8 million of the requested funding. An additional $5
    million is requested within ISEP for program adjustments: $2 million to
    fund the transition/displacement of BIA personnel, as Bureau controlled
    schools transition to tribally controlled status and $3 million to
    contract private education providers to assist in improving education
    in Bureau-operated schools. The Administration believes schools are
    best operated by organizations that are closest to the communities
    being served in this case the tribes themselves. In the event that
    tribes do not wish to operate the schools, the Bureau would like to
    bring in partners to help manage the schools and improve student
    performance as the Congress indicated was essential in their recent No
    Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation.
        Question. How would the authority provided under the BIA's
    privatization proposal be different than authority already granted to
    tribes to manage these schools?
        Answer. The authority already granted to tribes allows the tribes
    to seek grant or contract status to manage the schools themselves. The
    privatization proposal would allow BIA to bring in a third party to
    manage schools and improve student performance in the event that tribes
    do not want to operate the schools. The use of contractors would not
    change the current relationship between the Bureau and the tribes that
    are served by those schools. The Bureau would continue to provide
    education for the students in those Bureau-operated schools and would
    continue to work with the local leadership in providing the best
    education possible. There is no change anticipated for the role of the
    School Boards or with the local professional educators' Unions.
        Question. Under what existing legislative authority does the BIA
    propose to enter into agreements with private education management
    companies, or is the Administration requesting new authority?
        Answer. The Bureau has an existing authority to contract out some
    services to outside agencies and private contractors, including food
    service, maintenance, and construction activities with the full
    approval and encouragement of the Congress. Under this funding request,
    the Bureau would contract with private education management companies
    to assist in management of Bureau-operated schools. These contractors
    would not take over these schools; the schools would continue to be the
    responsibility of the Bureau and would be operated by the Bureau. The
    private contractors would not have the rights or the responsibilities
    that are currently allocated to tribal authorities under the existing
    grant and contract authority as found in Public Law 95-638.
        Question. If BIA schools were to be turned over to professional
    education management companies, how would these companies be chosen?
    How would the BIA ensure that these companies provide a level of
    education greater than is currently provided?
        Answer. The Bureau-operated schools would not be turned over to
    private management companies. We encourage tribes to seek contract or
    grant status. In the event that tribes do not want to operate their
    local schools, the Bureau would gradually seek private contractors to
    assist in school management. This would be done through the existing
    competitive bidding and contracting laws currently in effect. The
    contractors would have specific goals for student achievement to reach
    that would be part of the contract. The tribes and local community
    representatives would assist the Bureau in both the contract
    development process and selection of the contractor.
        Question. How would the BIA ensure that the fundamental federal
    trust responsibility to provide education services to Indian children
    is not abrogated by turning this role over to a private company?
        Answer. The Bureau would not abrogate its role and responsibilities
    in providing education to Indian children. The Bureau will continue to
    operate all of the existing schools unless the tribes themselves seek
    to operate the schools under existing legislation providing for
    contract and grant status. The Bureau takes its responsibility for
    education seriously. It is the goal of providing effective education
    services to Indian children that is driving the Bureau to make
    improvements in education by seeking cooperative partners to manage of
    the schools.
                              ojibwa indian school
        Question. The No Child Left Behind Act includes authorization for
    the Ojibwa Indian School in Belcourt, North Dakota to pay rent for
    facilities that it has been using without compensation since 1994. The
    BIA has paid such leases in the past, and the authorization specifies
    that the BIA is to provide the funding for the payment of this lease.
    Can you tell me the status of implementation of this provision of the
    No Child Left Behind Act?
        Answer. A funding agreement has been reached with the Lessor to pay
    past rent on the facilities used for the Ojibwa Indian School to
    resolve all the current year and all prior year lease payments owed.
        Question. It appears that no funding for this purpose was requested
    in the fiscal year 2003 budget. Can you tell me why that is the case?
        Answer. Facilities operations funds will be used to pay for the
    lease until the new Ojibwa Indian school is built.
                 lewis and clark/corps of discovery ii funding
        Question. As you know, the Bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark
    Expedition is quickly approaching and the DOI is the lead agency
    coordinating the commemoration. In recent months, I have been concerned
    with the level of support that the NPS has dedicated to Corps of
    Discovery II project, which was envisioned as a mobile exhibition,
    visitor and media center and Internet classroom which would draw
    visitors to communities along the trail. It is the only major coast to
    coast project planned by any agency or entity connected to the
    Bicentennial. Planning for the project began two years ago, and
    hundreds of communities on the trail are eager to apply for and host a
    Corps II visit. I have two of these communities in North Dakota.
        I was disappointed that funding was not included in the President's
    fiscal year 2003 or fiscal year 2002 budget for this item, and I have
    been working with the NPS to find some funding so that the Corps II is
    ready to be launched early next year. While I am pleased that the NPS
    recently committed $1 million in fiscal year 2002 funds, this is still
    far short of what the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council
    believes is necessary. At this point, I would like to have your
    commitment that Congressional efforts to add funds for this item this
    year will be supported, and that the Subcommittee will see this funding
    in future budgets throughout the Bicentennial. Can we count on your
    support of Corps II?
        Answer. Money was not requested in the Administration's fiscal year
    2002 or 2003 budget requests for this commemorative event. The
    Department was working with partners, including the National Lewis and
    Clark Bicentennial Council and the National Park Foundation, to raise
    private funds for Corps II.
        For fiscal year 2002, we have committed to provide $1 million from
    fee revenue available at the Director's discretion. This funding will
    be used to prepare exhibits and tents for the Corps II traveling
    exhibit. For fiscal year 2003, we intend to provide $2 million from
    available fee sources to complete preparation of the tents and
    exhibits, as well as $1 million from available operating funds for the
    traveling exhibits. The costs to be covered from the fee revenue are
    non-recurring. We anticipate having traveling exhibits ready for the
    first of the Bicentennial's ``signature events,'' which is scheduled
    for January, 2003 at Monticello.
        We are confident that this will provide an educational experience
    that will do justice to the commemoration of one of the most
    significant events in the history of our great nation. We are also
    pleased to report that fund-raising efforts for the Corps II project
    are continuing. We anticipate that fund-raising successes will add to
    the scale of the traveling exhibit.
                     tribally controlled community colleges
        Question. The $2 million being cut represents approximately 5
    percent of operating grants. Were any other education programs cut 5
    percent, or just this one?
        Answer. Funding was not reduced for any other BIA education
    programs by 5 percent. In the fiscal year 2003 budget request,
    increases are targeted at the primary and secondary educational level,
    including the pre-school level.
        Over the last 10 years funding for TCCCs has increased by 80
    percent, from $21 million in 1993 to $38 million proposed for fiscal
    year 2003. Over the same 10 year period the Indian Student Count (ISC)
    has increased by 35 percent, from 5,800 to 8,000, and per ISC funding
    is currently $4,700 compared to $3,600 in 1993. The ISC is calculated
    by dividing the total number of full and part-time credit hours
    provided by a college by 12, the number of credits an average full-time
    student would take.
        Question. Turtle Mountain Community College, in North Dakota, has
    achieved the highest standards set by national accrediting agencies.
    Instead of rewarding such performance, the administration's budget
    would cut funding to the College. What kind of message does that send
    to this college and others?
        Answer. The 2003 budget sustains $39 million for TCCCs, including
    Turtle Mountain, maintaining a level of funding that has significantly
    increased since 1993. Approximately 1,600 students attend Turtle
    Mountain Community College. The Indian Student Count (ISC) at the
    College (calculated by dividing the total number of full and part-time
    credit hours provided by a school by 12, the number of credits an
    average full-time student would take) is projected to be 670 in fiscal
    year 2003. The ISC at Turtle Mountain Community College has grown by 49
    percent over the last 10 years. Funding for Turtle Mountain Community
    College has grown by 94 percent. Funding per ISC has grown by 31
    percent from $3,600 to $4,600.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
                           snowmobiles in yellowstone
        The Park Service has undertaken a litany of measures to manage
    recreational snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park. In one week
    this February, Park Service rangers recorded approximately 400
    violations, including speeding over 70 miles per hour. This means one
    out of every ten snowmobiles received a ticket. Recently, the Los
    Angeles Times reported park officials saying that hundreds, probably
    thousands of snowmobiles are entering the park illegally, riding
    through fragile meadows.
        According to the Park Service, $265,000 was spent this year to
    mitigate these longtime incursions and violations on the corridor from
    West Yellowstone to Old Faithful, a 31-mile stretch. These efforts
    continue at great expense with no sign of relief for these ongoing
    problems. Trespassing, speeding, and fume clouds that force Park
    rangers to wear respirators persist.
        Question. Are taxpayers going to have to pay for these mitigation
    efforts in perpetuity?
        Answer. Management of winter use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton
    National Parks, no matter what the mode of transportation, is
    expensive. These costs will continue to occur no matter if snowmobiles
    or snowcoaches are emphasized, in large part because of the specialized
    efforts needed to operate the parks in extreme cold, winter storm, and
    over-snow conditions.
        Question. How much has the National Park Service spent re-studying
    the snowmobile phase-out?
        Answer. The budget estimate for the Supplemental Environmental
    Impact Statement is $2.4 million.
        Question. Did that re-study uncover any new evidence?
        Answer. New information was received regarding snowmobile
    emissions. The earlier Environmental Impact Statement assumed that
    snowmobiles could achieve an approximate 50 percent reduction in
    emissions and a moderate reduction in sound level. Information supplied
    by the snowmobile manufacturers and independent laboratory testing by a
    contractor to the National Park Service indicate that two of the new
    four-stroke snowmobiles could actually achieve an approximate 85
    percent reduction in emissions. The new information is being applied in
    the supplemental analysis.
        Question. What percentage of the supplemental comments favor
    maintaining the snowmobile phase-out?
        Answer. Of the approximately 361,000 comments received on the Draft
    Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, about 80 percent favored
    phasing out snowmobiles.
                       energy exploration on public lands
        Question. How much does your budget allocate for fossil fuel
    production on federal lands?
        Answer. Funding to support sustainable and environmentally sound
    fossil fuel production on federal lands is allocated through three
    subactivities in BLM's Management of Land and Resources Appropriation:
    Oil and Gas, Coal, and Lands and Realty Management. Fiscal year 2003
    funding levels for the bureau's Oil and Gas program and Coal program
    are $84.9 million and $9.6 million, respectively. In addition,
    approximately $15 million, or 40 percent, of the Lands and Realty
    Management program funds are allocated for the issuance of right-of-way
    actions and permits to support the necessary infrastructure to deliver
    the fossil fuels to market.
        Question. How much does your budget allocate for processing
    renewable energy applications?
        Answer. The public lands can play an important role in providing
    our Nation with clean and diverse supply of renewable resources such as
    geothermal, wind and solar energy, biomass, and hydropower. However,
    only recently has there been an increased interest by the public and
    industry to develop the renewable resources on public lands. Funding to
    support renewable energy development on public lands has been
    proportionate to this interest. In fiscal year 2002, the BLM allocated
    about $350,000 to support geothermal leasing, exploration, and
    development. The BLM 2003 budget request doubles this amount to
    $700,000 to begin to increase support for the growing demand for this
    type of renewable energy.
        To support hydropower, wind and solar energy projects, the BLM's
    2003 budget request includes an additional $400,000 in the Lands and
    Realty program, including $100,000 for wind and solar energy, and
    $300,000 for hydroelectric relicensing activities.
        The overall operation of hydropower energy development on public
    lands is principally managed by the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission (FERC), however, BLM support and involvement in the program
    is critical and increasing. BLM's role is in reviewing and providing
    input to hydropower relicensing efforts led by the FERC. The bureau
    allocates approximately $1 million per year to support hydropower
    project relicensing from base program funds. As mentioned above, BLM's
    2003 budget request includes an increase of $300,000 to support
    hydropower project relicensing.
                                  blm--nevada
        Question. What percentage of the BLM's operating budget does the
    agency spend in the state of Nevada?
        Answer. The following table compares funds allocated to Nevada to
    both the total appropriation and to the total appropriation amount that
    is allocated to all States.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             2001
                                                              2001 Total      2001       2001 Nevada's     Nevada's
                                                2001 Bureau     funds       Nevada's      allocation      allocation
              Appropriation/activity             total [In    allocated    allocation  percent compared   percent of
                                                 thousands      to all        [In        to total BLM    total state
                                                of dollars]     state      thousands        funding         office
                                                             offices \3\  of dollars]  availability \3\   allocation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Management of Land and Resources..........     $764,634     $599,133      $50,545             6.6            8.4
    Wildland Fire Management:
        Fire Preparedness.....................      205,596      121,519       19,717             9.6           16.2
        Fire Suppression \1\..................      150,129      135,887       32,369            21.6           23.8
        Burned Area Rehabilitation \1\........       41,795       36,556       20,759            49.7           56.8
        Hazardous Fuels Reduction.............       28,983       22,216        1,249             4.3            5.6
        Wildland Urban Interface..............       66,154       39,824        6,148             9.3           15.4
        Rural Fire Assistance.................        5,970        5,957          850            14.2           14.3
    Range Improvements \2\....................        9,999        9,400        1,230            12.3           13.1
    Oregon & California Grant Lands...........      103,919        9,965  ...........  ................  ...........
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Amounts in Fire Suppression and Burned Area Rehabilitation represent actual dollars spent.
    \2\ Allocations are based on grazing fee receipts.
    \3\ State office allocations do not necessarily capture all funds spent in a state, but can serve as a proxy to
      estimate relative distributions.

        Question. What percentage of BLM's land is in Nevada?
        Answer. Nevada accounts for 18 percent (47.9 million acres) of the
    262 million surface acres administered by the BLM, and 8.4 percent
    (58.7 million acres) of the 700 million subsurface mineral estate acres
    administered by BLM.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
                      cooperative conservation initiative
        Your request includes $100 million for the Cooperative Conservation
    Initiative.
        Question. Could you elaborate on the goals of this program?
        Answer. The specific criteria that applicants will have to meet are
    different for the two portions of CCI except that partners--States,
    local governments, Tribes, non-governmental organizations, the private
    sector, and/or private individuals--are required for the receipt of any
    funds. In addition, coalitions of partners are encouraged. Projects
    will be nominated through the Governors' LWCF State Coordinators for
    the CCI LWCF State grants and through the bureaus' field units for the
    CCI operating account funds.
        All programs/projects must seek to achieve the actual restoration
    of natural resources and/or the establishment or expansion of habitat
    for wildlife. Where applicable, the project/program must reflect
    efforts to resolve conflicts through incentives and cooperation to
    achieve the intended goal. Cost-shared, results-oriented conservation
    projects, using innovative means or practices that embody Secretary
    Norton's Four C's of cooperation, communication, and consultation, all
    in the service of conservation, are required. Not included are funds
    for cultural and recreational purposes (except for limited aspects of
    recreation in LWCF State grants), routine annual and cyclic
    maintenance, and all international projects except those natural
    resource projects with demonstrated results in the United States.
        In addition to details on both ranking criteria and reporting
    requirements, the following presents general guidelines developed for
    the whole CCI program: ranking criteria, selection criteria, the
    selection process, project accountability, project duration,
    administrative costs, and mechanisms for fund transfers.
        Ranking Criteria.--For the three operating accounts, CCI criteria
    will be more specifically developed jointly by the three bureaus
    beginning in April 2002 so that the program would be ready to proceed
    in October 2002, with approval of the Congress. Examples of types of
    criteria that will be considered include enhancement or protection of
    wildlife; restoration of streams and riparian areas; number of partners
    and degree of involvement, financial and otherwise; and size of match.
        For the LWCF CCI State grants, funds will be made available to
    benefit the States for restoration, protection and enhancement of
    natural areas. Purposes would include but not be limited to habitat
    protection, wetlands restoration, and riparian area protection.
    Preference will be given to non-traditional methods of conservation and
    multiple partners.
        Selection Criteria.--Eligible projects/programs could be either new
    or expansion projects in accordance with the purposes stated above. New
    projects could be a demonstration project, a pilot, or replication of a
    project succeeding elsewhere. For expansion of existing projects, CCI
    funds can only be used for the new and expanded portion.
        Projects will be selected competitively based on the benefits
    derived from the project. Bureaus will look for innovative ideas from
    partners and joint federal/partners decision-making mechanisms will be
    reflected in approved applications for funds.
        Applications will (1) identify stakeholder involvement in the
    application and (2) be required to identify benefits to be achieved as
    well as timelines for accomplishing clearly defined goals.
        For CCI LWCF State grants, the degree of non-State partnerships and
    participation will be given priority.
        Selection Process.--The Directors of BLM, FWS, and NPS each will
    make final decisions on competitive applications for funds, with final
    review by the Secretary.
        Duration of Projects.--The length of projects will receive no
    commitment beyond one year for the operating accounts but opportunities
    for renewal will exist.
        For CCI LWCF State grants projects, priority will be given to
    projects to be completed in a shorter time period than the traditional
    LWCF Stateside program's three to five years.
        Administrative Costs.--Bureau administrative/overhead costs will be
    no more than two percent of the total for the operating account
    programs and $1.4 million in accordance with the proposed CCI LWCF
    State grants appropriations language.
        Mechanisms for Fund Transfer.--Cooperative agreements, contracts,
    and memoranda of understanding will be used for the operating account
    CCI programs and grants will be used for the LWCF CCI State assistance
    program.
        Reporting Requirements/Accountability.--Both CCI operating account
    projects and LWCF State grant recipients will be required to quarterly
    report program progress and financial status. The Directors of the BLM,
    FWS, and NPS or their designees will meet quarterly with the Department
    to discuss progress of the program.
        Question. How does it relate to programs already in place in the
    National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of
    Land Management?
        Answer. We need another conservation program to provide enhancement
    for the Federal and State conservation efforts to complement existing
    programs. The Cooperative Conservation Initiative has two major parts:
    one to be of assistance to the States through a $50.0 million Land and
    Water Conservation Fund State Assistance grants program and a second to
    strengthen Federal conservation efforts in BLM with $10.0 million, FWS
    with $18.0 million, and NPS with $22.0 million for a broad range of
    habitat conservation/protection projects in concert with partners. The
    CCI program addresses the whole spectrum of natural resources for its
    conservation projects instead of selected aspects.
        Question. How is it different?
        Answer. The Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI) programs in
    the operating accounts of the bureaus are distinguished from the
    existing challenge cost share programs in BLM, FWS, and NPS because the
    new CCI program focuses solely on natural resource restoration/
    protection that serves federal interests and does not include
    recreational and cultural programs.
        The existing BLM challenge cost-share program is made up of nearly
    25 percent of projects for recreation and cultural programs, plus other
    research studies and outreach programs. The FWS challenge cost-share
    program, in addition to providing funds for natural resource
    restoration, also makes funds available for efforts on private lands
    and for cultural programs. The NPS challenge cost-share program focuses
    primarily on cultural programs.
        The major distinction between last year's new Landowner Incentive
    and Stewardship grants and the new CCI, is that both the Landowner
    Incentive and Stewardship grants are for assistance to private
    landowners for species protection and habitat restoration. The primary
    purpose behind CCI is to assist State conservation programs and its
    partners through the LWCF State grants portion, and Federal
    conservation efforts though program in the BLM, FWS, and NPS operating
    accounts and their partners.
        The CCI program addresses the whole spectrum of natural resources
    for its conservation projects compared to the FWS Joint Venture program
    that focuses solely on migratory bird conservation goals or the Coastal
    program that promotes to protect and restore high priority fish and
    wildlife habitat along our Nation's coasts.
        My guess is that some may question why you are devoting so much
    money to activities that aren't solely Federal responsibilities, when
    the Department is still struggling to keep up with maintenance and
    management responsibilities on Federal lands.
        Question. What is your response to such criticism?
        Answer. The funds in the operating accounts will primarily benefit
    the resources on the land units in BLM, FWS, and NPS.
        Question. With regard to the portion of the program that is funded
    through the agency operating accounts, is it your expectation that
    these funds will be focused on work on federal lands, or will projects
    be evaluated without regard to whether they directly involved Federal
    holdings?
        Answer. The major focus of the program is to improve resources on
    Federal lands. However expenditure of funds outside the unit boundaries
    of BLM and FWS to improve the resources would be possible through
    existing legislative authorities. For NPS, program funds will be
    dedicated for resources on its lands in accordance with its existing
    legislative authorities.
        Question. Is land acquisition an allowed purpose for CCI grants
    funded through bureau budgets?
        Answer. Land acquisition is not an allowed purpose for CCI grants
    in the operating accounts of BLM, FWS, and NPS.
        Question. What about grants funded through the state LWCF program?
        Answer. Land acquisition is possible in the NPS LWCF State grants
    portion of CCI, although the program guidelines state that it is not
    the preferred method of protecting resources.
              landowner incentive and private stewardship programs
        Congress provided funding for two new conservation programs in
    fiscal year 2002: $40 million for the Landowner Incentive program and
    $10 million for the Private Stewardship Grants program.
        Question. When does the Department intend to make grant awards for
    these programs?
        Answer. On June 7, 2002, the Service published for public comment
    the proposed implementation guidelines. Public comments are due for
    both programs by July 8, and Final Notices will be prepared and
    submitted for publication in the Federal Register with an Request for
    Proposals describing the criteria and ranking factors as soon as
    possible thereafter. A 60-day submission period is planned for these
    competitive grant proposals. Regional (PSGP) and national (LIP)
    assessments of the grant applications will take place early this fall,
    with grant award recommendations forwarded to the Director and
    Assistant Secretary for final approval.
        Question. What is the difference between these two programs and the
    Cooperative Conservation Initiative proposed in the fiscal year 2004
    request?
        Answer. The Cooperative Conservation Initiative has two major
    parts: one to be of assistance to the States through a $50.0 million
    Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance grants program and a
    second to strengthen federal conservation efforts in BLM with $10.0
    million, FWS with $18.0 million, and NPS with $22.0 million for a broad
    range of habitat conservation/protection projects on or adjacent to
    federal lands in concert with partners.
        The major distinction between last year's new Landowner Incentive
    and Stewardship grants and the new CCI, is that both the landowner
    Incentive and Stewardship grants are for assistance to private
    landowners for species protection and habitat restoration while the
    primary purpose behind CCI is to assist state conservation programs and
    their partners through the LWCF State grants portion, and federal
    conservation efforts though programs in the BLM, FWS, and NPS operating
    accounts and their partners.
        Question. How do the three programs differ from the Partners for
    Wildlife Program, the Cooperative Endangered Species program, the NAWCA
    program, and other grant programs administered by the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service? Can you provide a chart for the record that explains
    the differences among these various programs?
        Answer. See the following chart explaining the differences among
    the various grant programs.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Question. Are we getting to a point where we might have too many
    different tools in the conservation toolbox?
        Answer. The Service does have a very diverse set of ``tools''
    available to create partnerships and address the needs for protection
    of fish and wildlife and their habitats. There are differences between
    the various programs as demonstrated in the chart provided as part (c)
    of your question. For example, some programs are available on ly to
    States and some only to private landowners; some grant programs require
    matching funds and some have no cost share requirement; some grants
    amounts are determined by formula and some are subject to competitive
    decisions; and some grants are restricted to private lands and others
    are directed to benefit federal lands.
        It is hoped that through this wide array of options, the
    availability of funding for habitat restoration and improvement can be
    communicated to as many partners as possible thereby expanding the
    benefits to the wildlife resource far beyond those achieved through the
    traditional, time-honored tools such as the Federal Aid in Wildlife
    Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration, and Cooperative Endangered Species
    Conservation Funds. These newer, innovative programs provide greater
    opportunities for the local farmer, Indian tribe, or private
    organization to participate in conservation activities.
                 glacier national park--gts road rehabilitation
        The National Park Service is currently preparing an EIS for the
    reconstruction of the Going-To-The-Sun Road at Glacier National Park.
        Question. What is the schedule for completion of the EIS? Can you
    commit to me today that you will do everything in your power to see
    that this EIS is completed on schedule? Have sufficient funds been
    allocated to assure timely completion of the EIS?
        Answer. The Going-To-The-Sun Road (GTSR) Rehabilitation Plan and
    Environmental Impact Statement was released in draft form in September
    of 2002 and is expected to be released in final in the spring of 2003.
    We are on target with this schedule. The draft was released on
    schedule. Depending on the number of comments received, the final will
    also be on time (In the past, the extent of comments from the public
    has delayed finalization of environmental documents because each
    comment needs to be addressed). There are sufficient funds programmed
    to complete the EIS.
        As part of its development of the EIS, the National Park Service
    has sought input from the Going-To-The-Sun Road Advisory Committee.
        Question. Can you assure me that the input of the Advisory
    Committee will be given every consideration in the development of the
    EIS?
        Answer. The GTSR Advisory Committee has been an integral partner in
    the preparation of the EIS. In fact the agencies' preferred alternative
    was also the Committee's preferred alternative.
        It is my understanding that there is up to $11 million worth of
    road repair work that will be ready for contracting by the beginning of
    fiscal year 2003 ($3-5 million for retaining walls and $5-6 million in
    deferred maintenance). These are repairs that likely will need to be
    completed regardless of the specific rehabilitation alternative
    selected in the EIS process.
        Question. Does the National Park Service plan to allocate
    sufficient funds from the FLHP program in fiscal year 2003 to
    accomplish this work?
        Answer. The current funding estimate required to accomplish the
    road work in Alternatives 3 or 4 of the draft EIS totals approximately
    $125 million--to be obligated over the course of eight years. We are
    prepared to begin this work in 2004 should funding become available,
    which is dependent upon the reauthorization of funding through the
    Highway Trust Fund.
        There is no new construction scheduled to start in 2003. Currently
    design is underway for two GTSR projects totaling $5,250,000.
      --Fiscal year 2004: $3 million. Stone retaining wall repairs
      --Fiscal year 2005: $2.25 million. Stone retaining wall repairs
        In addition to the above projects there are two FLHP funded
    projects scheduled for other Glacier National Park roads:
      --Fiscal year 2004: $525,000. Rehabilitate Apgar Loop Road
      --Fiscal year 2006: $2.8 million. Stabilize slides on Chief Mountain
            Road
        The National Park Service's final recommendation for rehabilitation
    of the Road will likely be an expensive proposition. The cost could
    swamp the capacity of the existing Federal Lands Highway Program. I
    intend to work hard to ensure that the next transportation
    authorization bill makes sufficient allowance for timely completion of
    the Going-To-The-Sun Road project, and recently wrote to Secretary
    Mineta to urge that he advocate for adequate park roads funding in the
    Administration's reauthorization proposal.
        Question. As the Administration begins to develop its proposal for
    reauthorization of the TEA-21 Act, what is the Department doing to
    ensure that adequate resources are set aside for Federal Lands Highway
    Program, and particularly for Going-To-The-Sun Road?
        Answer. The Department is working closely with the Federal Highway
    Administration (FHWA) to identify funding needs that should be
    considered as part of the reauthorization for all Interior agencies.
    Over the past year, the FHWA has held focus meetings across the country
    to receive input from stakeholders (Federal, State and county and
    public representatives) on how well the current Federal Lands Highway
    Program (FLHP) is working and areas for improvement. National Park
    Service (NPS) representatives from the park, region and national levels
    participated in these forums articulating their specific interests and
    needs.
        In cooperation with the FHWA, the NPS has been developing an
    updated system inventory, collecting condition data and completing
    scientific and economical analysis for the roads and bridges in
    preparation for the fiscal year 2004 Highway Trust Fund
    Reauthorization.
        In reply to the President's ``National Parks Legacy Project,'' a
    draft report was developed called, ``NPS, Roads and Bridges, Deferred
    Maintenance Needs and Funding Options, October 2001'' to begin to
    unfold a strategy for eliminating the roads and bridges deferred
    maintenance backlog. The report includes analysis supporting a need to
    invest $375 million annually between fiscal year 2004-2009. Included in
    this investment is the $11-21 million annually in net construction cost
    needed to rehabilitate the Going-to-the-Sun Road, Glacier National
    Park.
        Currently, the NPS is participating in a Federal Agency Work Group
    that includes all the Federal Land Managers with road interest such as
    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife and Forest Service and lead
    by the FHWA under the FLHP. Because these are Highway Trust Fund
    dollars the program oversight, direction and funding is through FHWA
    under Title 23, Highways, United States Code, section 204, Federal
    Lands Highway Program.
        Besides the report mentioned above, we are nearing completion of a
    NPS's Draft Reauthorization Needs Resource Paper due to be completed by
    July 15, 2002, which provides total needs in the range of $440 million
    annually between 2004-2009. Addressing not only the deferred
    maintenance needs discussed above, but also the uncompleted parkways
    such as the Natchez Trace and Foothills parkways, as well as continuing
    to explore expansion of existing and development of new alternative
    transportation systems to address overcrowded parks.
        This NPS Highway Trust Fund Reauthorization Needs Resource Paper is
    combined with the other Federal Agencies resource papers to develop and
    support the Administration's position regarding all Federal agencies
    needs for the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle and Highway Trust Fund
    Reauthorization. The FHWA, Highway Trust Fund Reauthorization
    legislative proposal will be forwarded to Office of Management and
    Budget in the Fall of 2002 for inclusion in the President's fiscal year
    2004 Budget.
        The National Park Service is in pursuit of Title 23 funds to cover
    the cost of much needed road and bridge repairs throughout the Service
    that will include the repair, rehabilitation and reconstruction of such
    important National treasures as Going-to-the-Sun Road, Glacier National
    Park.
                    glacier national park--gts road plowing
        Let me switch gears a bit, from rehabilitation of the Road to
    operation of the Road itself. As you know, the opening of the Road each
    summer is a key event for the communities surrounding Glacier National
    Park. Obviously the date of the opening is dependent in part on snow
    accumulation and weather, and it doesn't help when we get large
    snowfalls in mid-June like we have this week.
        But it strikes me as critical that the Park make every possible
    effort to open the Road at the earliest possible date. I'm not
    confident the Park is doing that right now. I understand that it is
    Park Service policy to plow only 4 days a week--Monday through
    Thursday. And when the weather is not conducive to plowing during those
    days, the work is not shifted to the Friday-Sunday window even if the
    weather clears. You can imagine how the locals feel when there is no
    plowing being done on days when the weather is clear.
        Question. Would you go back and take a look at the staffing and
    funding for the plowing of the Road, and see if we couldn't be doing a
    bit better?
        Answer. Currently, two park crews are used to plow the Road from
    the east and west sides of the park. Each crew works a minimum of 10
    hours per day, and 40 hours per week on road clearing. The ten-hour
    schedule is necessary to allow crews to transit to the work locations
    and have minimum of a full eight hours on-site.
        The park dedicated an additional $60,000 from base funding to
    assist the road opening efforts in fiscal year 2000. The park estimates
    that $650,000 in recurring funds above the current base is required to
    enhance spring plowing and fund the associated communications, law
    enforcement and resource protection with the road. Further, a one-time
    cost of $266,000 would be necessary in order to purchase additional
    equipment.
        The park identified the $650,000 operating requirement for the road
    in the NPS Operations Formulation System in late August 2002, after the
    fiscal year 2003 budget was submitted to Congress. The park has ranked
    this need as the 5th highest park operational priority. The region has
    not assigned a regional priority to this request. As part of the
    financial management and operations process, the park reviews its
    operating programs annually and, to the extent allowable, makes
    resource allocation decisions appropriate for the amount of funds
    available each year.
        The equipment need has been identified in the Project Management
    Information System for unfunded non-recurring needs and will be
    addressed as Servicewide priorities and funding levels allow.
        Question. Could we be bringing in assets from other areas or parks?
    Could we be using more local contract workers to maximize work during
    good weather windows?
        Answer. The safest and most successful operation would be with
    highly qualified and experienced equipment operators, who would be
    attracted to work in the park and could be retained from year to year
    if offered a long enough work season.
                        bison management at yellowstone
        The National Park Service has a central role in the implementation
    of the Bison Management at Yellowstone.
        Question. Can you assure me that the National Park Service remains
    committed to being a full partner in implementation of the Bison
    Management Plan, and that it is devoting the personnel and resources
    necessary to successfully implement the Plan?
        Answer. Yes, we can assure you that the National Park Service
    remains committed to being a full partner in implementation of the
    Bison Management Plan and has devoted the personnel and resources
    necessary to successfully implement the Plan. The National Park Service
    has been an active participant in the implementation of the plan during
    the first year of its operation and has provided the necessary funding
    to Yellowstone National Park to implement the plan. The NPS requested
    and received an operating increase of $1.2 million in fiscal year 2002
    for this effort. The park has recruited personnel and is implementing
    its portion of the plan elements within the park and has been an active
    participant in joint operations with the other agencies outside of the
    park.
        Question. Is it your impression that the Department is working
    cooperatively with the State of Montana to implement the management
    plan?
        Answer. Yes, the National Park Service has been working with the
    State of Montana as well as the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
    Service (APHIS) and the Forest Service in implementing the plan; both
    of these bureaus fall under the Department of Agriculture. All of the
    agencies met once again on September 24, 2002 to continue coordination,
    and other field operation meetings in October and December are
    scheduled to refine coordination prior to implementing this upcoming
    winter's operations. This is the latest in a series of coordination
    meetings that have been held since the plan first went into effect.
                                   everglades
        President Bush and Governor Bush have signed an agreement that will
    ensure that the Everglades natural areas will receive the benefit of
    the Federal investment in the Everglades restoration project.
        Question. What is the status of litigation regarding the December
    2000 Record of Decision on the Modified Water Delivery project? Please
    summarize for the record the status of all ongoing litigation involving
    Everglades restoration.
        Answer. In early July 2002, a district court in Florida issued its
    decision finding that the Army Corps of Engineers lacked authority to
    acquire lands within the 8.5 SMA to implement ``Alternative 6D'' as the
    required flood mitigation component for the Modified Water Deliveries
    Project. As a result, the Army Corps of Engineers has suspended work on
    that portion of the project, as well as delayed the initiation of
    several key related projects, including the decompartmentalization
    project authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The
    Administration has appealed the district court's decision to the 11th
    Circuit.
        Other litigation involving Everglades restoration efforts remains
    on going. The most significant include two cases, both filed by the
    Miccosukee Tribe, challenging the Army Corps of Engineers' efforts to
    implement an Interim Operational Plan (IOP) for water management
    operations to avoid jeopardy to the endangered Cape Sable Seaside
    Sparrow. The IOP is anticipated to be in place until the Modified Water
    Deliveries Project and C-111 Projects are on-line several years from
    now. The Department is not a defendant in either of these lawsuits.
        In addition, environmental organizations have challenged the Army
    Corps of Engineers' issuance of ten wetland dredging permits for rock
    mining operations in the ``Lakebelt'' area of Miami-Dade County. The
    Fish and Wildlife Service is a defendant in this action, as the
    environmental organizations allege that the Fish and Wildlife Service
    violated the Endangered Species Act in its consultation on the permits
    with the Corps of Engineers. Under the Comprehensive Everglades
    Restoration Plan, the area to be mined is also proposed as a potential
    location to store additional water for environmental use.
        Question. What is the obligation status of funds appropriated in
    the last several years for the Modified Water Delivery project?
        Answer. As of fiscal year 2002, $160.2 million had been
    appropriated for the Modified Water Delivery project, and $92.9 million
    has been obligated.
        Question. What is the status of the programmatic regulations?
        Answer. I understand the Army Corps of Engineers has completed
    reviewing the numerous public comments that were submitted in response
    to the draft regulations, and is working on final programmatic
    regulations. Although the statute requires the final regulations to be
    issued in early December, it is likely that the final regulations will
    not be issued until early in 2003. Overall, the Department is pleased
    with the Army Corps of Engineers' progress to develop programmatic
    regulations that fulfill the requirements of WRDA 2000.
        Question. What is the status of land acquisition for the East
    Everglades expansion? Are funds appropriated to date sufficient to
    complete the acquisition program? Are there likely to be excess funds
    available for this activity?
        Answer. The National Park Service has acquired approximately
    103,619 acres (7,771 tracts) by purchase, donation and condemnation.
    The Corps of Engineers has acquired approximately 1,402 acres (93
    tracts). The State of Florida has acquired approximately 2,253 acres
    (212 tracts). In total, lands acquired are approximately 107,274 acres
    (8,076 tracts) out of 109,600 authorized. The NPS believes that there
    are sufficient funds to complete full acquisition of the park's
    expansion area. However, it cannot yet make an assessment as to whether
    or not there will be excess funds after land acquisition is completed.
    The NPS will also be acquiring mineral rights for these areas, which
    could have significant costs. Also, there is the potential for
    litigation costs to arise as it completes the authorized purchases.
        Question. What is the status of land acquisition in 8.5 square mile
    area?
        Answer. As a result of litigation challenging the Army Corps of
    Engineers implementation of Alternative 6D, the Corps of Engineers has
    halted all federal land acquisition in the 8.5 SMA. The Administration
    has appealed the adverse district court decision to the 11th Circuit.
        Question. What is the obligation status of land acquisition funds
    appropriated for grants to the State of Florida?
        Answer. $17.291 million in grant funding is unobligated, however,
    $15 million of these funds are targeted for a pending grant request.
    The pending grant request to the South Florida Water Management
    District (District) would allow the District to acquire lands in the
    East Coast Buffer and in the Indian River Lagoon, which is a component
    of the CERP. Once the grant is approved, $2.291 million will remain
    unobligated.
        Question. What is the status of the comprehensive land acquisition
    strategy?
        Answer. The Working Group of the South Florida Ecosystem
    Restoration Task Force has developed and issued a draft comprehensive
    land acquisition strategy. Based upon the recommendations of the Task
    Force, which discussed the strategy at its last meeting, the Working
    Group is making revisions and is finalizing the document for
    publication early next year.
        Question. How long will interim water management operations plan be
    in effect once they are developed?
        Answer. The interim water management operations presently in
    effect, otherwise known as the Interim Operational Plan or IOP, are
    anticipated to be in place for several years until the Combined
    Structural and Operational Plan (CSOP), reflecting the combined
    operations of the Modified Water Deliveries Project and C-111 Project,
    is developed and adopted. Although federal and state agencies are
    working to implement the CSOP, this effort has just begun and is
    anticipated to take a number of years.
                                border security
        As you well know, the Department of the Interior owns a good bit of
    real estate in U.S. border areas, particularly in the American
    Southwest and in Montana. The Forest Service is also a major presence
    along the Canadian border in the Pacific Northwest.
        Question. As the Administration has considered border security
    issues in the wake of September 11th, what has your department's role
    been? Do you feel you've been sufficiently consulted and involved in
    the formulation of border security policy by Gov. Ridge and others in
    the White House?
        Answer. FWS. The Department's Office of Law Enforcement and
    Security (OLES) has been the point of contact in dealing with the
    Administration on border security issues. The Service has provided
    information to OLES identifying resource and policy issues that impact
    our law enforcement operations along the border and at the ports of
    entry.
        NPS. The National Park Service has played a direct role in
    monitoring and providing law enforcement support for anti-terrorism and
    security at a variety of nationally significant sites. Additional law
    enforcement has been provided for border and immigration issues,
    coastal shipping and drug intervention and the monitoring of dams. The
    NPS works cooperatively with interagency partners on a variety of
    security and international border issues. The NPS has approximately
    1,019 miles of international border and 2,357 miles of coastline with
    potential security concerns. Approximately 57 NPS sites are impacted or
    have the potential to be affected by international security issues.
        There are a number of park units with especially high instances of
    illegal alien activities, drug trafficking, and smuggling in the
    southwest and on the southeastern shoreline. The Intermountain Region
    border park areas include Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Coronado
    National Memorial, Amistad National Recreation Area, Big Bend National
    Park, Chamizal National Memorial, Palo Alto Battlefield National
    Historic Site, and Padre Island National Seashore along the
    international border with Mexico. These areas cover approximately
    1,260,000 acres and 365 miles of international border with Mexico and
    72 miles of seashore. These areas had more than 2,780,000 visitors in
    2000. Border security related issues and activities also directly
    affect other parks near the border. These parks include Saguaro
    National Park, Chiricahua National Monument/Fort Bowie National
    Historic Site and Tumacacori National Historic Park.
        Increased enforcement at traditionally busy border crossings--San
    Diego, El Paso, and Nogales--has diverted undocumented migrants and
    drug traffic to rural and remote areas along the border, including NPS
    park areas. Illegal activities have increased exponentially within the
    past several years, threatening visitor and employee safety and causing
    an incredible amount of resource damage. In 2000, Border Patrol
    estimated that approximately 250,000 undocumented aliens entered the
    country through parklands, over 180,000 in Organ Pipe Cactus National
    Monument alone. Since then these numbers have only increased. In 2001
    rangers interdicted over 20,000 pounds of drugs on parklands; to date
    this year rangers have seized over 15,000 pounds of drugs. In the
    summer of 2001, over 20 undocumented migrants died in or shortly after
    travelling through Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Employees at
    Coronado, NM live under constant surveillance by drug traffickers. Low
    staffing levels require rangers and other employees to work alone in
    remote locations, often with inadequate communications and backup. NPS
    Park Ranger Kris Eggle was murdered in Organ Pipe Cactus National
    Monument on August 9, 2002 by a Mexican national associated with drug
    trafficking.
        There have been some NPS field concerns raised about not getting
    sufficient intelligence information or general homeland security
    updates. Much of the intelligence information has been gained by
    cooperative communications with other local law enforcement entities or
    other bureaus.
        The NPS has established a multi-regional coordinating task group
    consisting of headquarters and regional chief rangers that conducts
    conference calls twice weekly. The purpose of this group is to mobilize
    Law enforcement staffing resources as well as ensure that important
    communications on security and counter terrorism activities occurs at
    all levels of the organization.
        BLM. The Bureau of Land Management administers considerable tracts
    of public land along the Mexican Border. The Bureau of Land Management
    (BLM) also administers scattered parcels of public land along the
    Canadian border. It is also a little known fact that the BLM also
    administers a sixty-foot strip of public land that runs continuously
    along the Mexican border from San Diego, CA to El Paso, TX that was
    withdrawn from the public land entry laws by an Executive Order on May
    27, 1907. With limited law enforcement resources, the BLM exercises law
    enforcement jurisdiction over these public lands. The role of the BLM
    law enforcement program on these public lands is the same as for all
    public lands, to provide for resource protection and public safety. The
    BLM role on these border lands did not change since September 11th.
    However, as other Federal agencies responsible for Border issues have
    stepped up their inspection and interdiction activities, this has lead
    to significant increases in illegal border activity occurring on the
    public lands administered by the BLM. Those involved in illegal border
    crossings have merely shifted their emphasis to the undeveloped and
    relatively ``unguarded'' BLM lands.
        Question. Since September 11th, have there been significant shifts
    in the management of border lands under your jurisdiction? What has
    been the impact of any such shifts on departmental resources? What has
    been the impact on other departmental responsibilities?
        Answer. FWS. The Office of Law Enforcement continues to maintain a
    presence with special agents and wildlife inspectors at duty stations
    and ports of entry along the northern and southwest borders. Service-
    owned border lands are managed by the National Wildlife Refuge System.
    The National Wildlife Refuge System has made several modifications in
    managing border lands to increase the safety of officers as well as
    visitors and facilities on federal lands along both the northern and
    southwest borders. The Service will be adding six new refuge law
    enforcement officers at refuges along the southwest borderlands. The
    Service has also detailed officers to border refuges. This shift has
    left some federal lands in the refuge system with no law enforcement
    protection for refuge visitors or natural and cultural resources.
        NPS. No, many border park areas were significantly impacted and
    affected by broarder security issues prior to September 11th. In these
    parks border security issues continue as a high priority, although NPS
    resources have proven inadequate given the scope of the problem and the
    significant threats to visitors, employees and resources.
        There have been huge demands placed upon law enforcement resources
    at National Park Service sites. A significant number of rangers have
    been detailed to augment security and support at high security sites:
    icon parks, Department of Interior Headquarters, Camp David, various
    BOR dam sites, and National Capital Region (NCR) special events, since
    9/11. These rangers often work 12 hours days, with few days off. There
    have been impacts upon park operations: fewer law enforcement patrols,
    less emergency response capability, less search and rescue operations,
    less wildland and structural fire response, increased officer safety
    issues, rangers working extended shifts to cover staffing shortages
    creating employee ``burnout''. A number of rangers have left the agency
    for other jobs such as in the new Transportation Security
    Administration (TSA.). (At least four have been documented in the North
    East Region). The United States Park Police (USPP) in NY have lost
    nearly 20 officers to TSA. Additionally, there have been impacts upon
    Special Events (SET) Teams, and All-Risk Management Teams.
        BLM. There have been no shifts in the agencies managing the Federal
    lands at or near the borders. However, in the recent past, the Congress
    and the BLM have changed some of the resource management requirements
    that are applicable to certain border lands. The public lands along the
    Mexican border include two National Monuments, three National
    Conservation Areas, and three National Wilderness Areas. Yet the
    tremendous increase of Undocumented Alien (UDA) and drug smuggling
    often involves use of motorized vehicles in violation of regulations
    and is causing considerable resource impacts such as off-road travel,
    trash dumping, illegal fires, and abandonment of stolen vehicles.
    Because these persons are already committing felony criminal activity
    (illegal crossing, smuggling, etc.) they pay little attention to other
    violations of Federal law or to BLM criminal regulations. The BLM is
    finding that its law enforcement rangers cannot conduct their regular
    daily patrols without encountering these dangerous illegal activities.
    All of this requires a much larger BLM law enforcement workforce at
    border areas than other areas of public lands.
        Question. How many Department of the Interior law enforcement
    personnel were reassigned to other duties (air marshals, airport
    security) in the wake of September 11th? How many have returned to
    regular duty? What has been the impact of these reassignments on
    traditional departmental responsibilities?
        Answer. FWS. Office of Law Enforcement: The Service responded to
    requests for assistance at both the national and local levels:
      --29 special agents were assigned as federal air marshals for a six-
            month period
      --22 special agents were assigned to the Logan Airport security
            taskforce for a total of 242 staff days
      --10 special agents were assigned to the World Trade Center and
            Freshkills Landfill evidence recovery taskforce for a total of
            40 staff days
      --17 special agents were assigned to the security detail at the Main
            Interior Building for a total of 221 staff days
      --1 special agent has been assigned to the Bureau of Reclamation law
            enforcement detail for a period of six months
      --1 special agent has been assigned to the FBI anti-terrorism task
            force in New Mexico for the past year and will remain in that
            position for the next 18 months
        All special agents have returned to their normal duties with the
    exception of the last two agents listed above.
        During the six-month period when special agents were assigned to
    the air marshal detail, high priority investigations were continued.
    Special agents from adjoining areas and task force operations were
    utilized to complete the complex, resource-intensive investigations.
    State and tribal conservation officers worked closely with the Service
    and provided support on those cases that were regional in nature and
    less time sensitive.
        National Wildlife Refuge System.--The National Wildlife Refuge
    System (NWRS) responded and continues to respond to requests for
    national security details throughout the United States both on and off
    federal lands:
      --107 refuge law enforcement officers were assigned to the security
            detail at the Main Department of Interior Building in
            Washington, D.C. The officers worked details ranging from two
            to five weeks in duration.
      --5 refuge law enforcement officers were assigned to the Bureau of
            Reclamation's Grand Coulee Dam for two weeks.
      --24 refuge law enforcement officers were assigned to the Bureau of
            Reclamation's Shasta Dam for three-week details.
      --25 refuge law enforcement officers were assigned to the National
            Park Service's Mount Rushmore National Memorial to prepare and
            staff July 4th activities (5-7 days).
      --71 refuge law enforcement officers were assigned to the National
            Park Service's Jefferson National Expansion Memorial to prepare
            and staff July 4th activities (5-12 days).
      --The Service continues to provide refuge law enforcement officers to
            the Department's Office of Law Enforcement and Security in
            Washington, D.C. for details ranging from two to four weeks in
            length. We presently have two officers in OLES. The details
            began September 2001 and will continue through fiscal year
            2003.
        All of the NWRS law enforcement officers have returned to their
    duty stations after the details with the exception of ongoing details
    in MIB in Washington, D.C. The NWRS continues to send law enforcement
    officers on detail to Department's OLES ``Watch Office''.
        Officers of the National Wildlife Refuge System Law Enforcement
    Program have provided an equivalent of nearly 4,000 working days on
    details throughout the United States to increase the level of security
    on a variety of sites and events.
        NPS. At its peak, NPS provided over 400 personnel during February
    2002 to address security matters. This included rangers that provided
    security and visitor services for the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake
    City. NPS has assigned 1,658 resources and dedicated 47,826 person days
    in direct support of DOI and NPS homeland security priorities during
    the period 9/11/01-8/14/02. These are conservative figures that do not
    represent all NPS contributions, including those by the U.S. Park
    Police in NY, DC and San Francisco. Although NPS has approximately 57
    percent of the Department's law enforcement positions, the agency is
    estimated to have carried over 75 percent of Department of Interior's
    homeland security workload. The scope and nature of this response is
    unparalleled. The number of rangers dedicated to homeland security
    assignments at any one time has ranged as high as 300 out of a
    permanent workforce of 1,360. Over 500 different NPS rangers have
    pulled homeland security duties. Presently, 189 rangers are dedicated
    to homeland security assignments.
        NPS rangers have provide homeland security in at least 29 locations
    or incidents since September 11, 2001. These have included 11 BOR dams,
    the Main Interior Building, multiple NPS park areas, support of FEMA in
    NY/NJ/DC, the 2002 Olympics, and July 4 events at Mount Rushmore,
    Jefferson Expansion National Memorial and the National Mall. Few NPS
    resources were assigned to air marshal and airport security positions
    due to the immediate need to protect park areas considered at risk to
    terrorism, and meet other priorities determined by the secretary,
    including protection of BOR dams and the Main Interior Building.
        Currently there are approximately 189 employees involved in law
    enforcement related to homeland security. The NPS has also provided
    increased security and support at the following BOR/NPS Dam and Lake
    sites: Hoover Dam, Shasta Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, Glen Canyon Dam, Blue
    Mesa, Crystal and Morrow Point Dams, Yellowtail Dam, Lake Meridith
    Dam,O'Shaughnessy Dam and Lake Amistad.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       No. of
                      Assignment                     resources     Resource
                                                      assigned       days
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Security for BOR Dams.........................          431        8,597
    Support Main Interior.........................           44        1,012
    Security NPS Icon Units.......................          414        8,188
    Security 2002 Olympics........................          105        2,786
    Security July 4th Events......................          288        1,847
    Security--Other...............................          368        7,659
    FLETC Instructors.............................            8          115
    Security--Parks...............................  ...........       17,622
                                                                ------------
          Totals..................................  ...........       47,826
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the impact of these reassignments on traditional Departmental
    responsibilities, see response 7b.
        BLM. Since September 11, 2001, BLM law enforcement officers (LEOs)
    have completed 4,553 days on assignments to other duties. This includes
    ten LEOs to the FAA as Federal Air Marshals for a period of six months,
    twenty seven LEOs to the Olympics in Salt Lake City for a three week
    assignment, and one hundred thirty seven LEOs completing 2,307 days on
    security related assignments to the Department of the Interior (DOI),
    Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and the National Park Service. Two BLM
    LEOs currently remain on security assignments to the DOI and BOR.
        With an average law enforcement staff size of only 230 officers for
    270 million acres of Public Lands, the impacts of these reassignments
    have been significant, particularly in areas where there is only one or
    two LEOs assigned to a Field Office, southwest border areas, and areas
    with high recreation use. Reassignment of an LEO in many cases resulted
    in limited or no capability to complete traditional responsibilities
    during the period of reassignment. The impacts of these reassignments
    have also varied during certain time frames. For example, in February
    of 2002, forty one LEOs or eighteen percent of the total law
    enforcement workforce were on non-BLM related security assignments.
    This occurred during the high-use recreation season for the
    southwestern United States where the majority of BLM law enforcement
    resources are located.
        Question. Are there elements of your fiscal year 2003 budget
    request relating specifically to border security that you'd like to
    highlight for the Committee?
        Answer. FWS. Office of Law Enforcement.--The Service has requested
    a $1 million increase to enhance our core enforcement capability. These
    funds will be used to enhance special agent mobility and improve
    responsiveness for mission-critical and homeland security enforcement
    needs.
        National Wildlife Refuge System.--In the wake of the International
    Association of Chiefs of Police's (IACP) thorough evaluation of the
    National Wildlife Refuge System law enforcement program, an Office of
    the Inspector General report on law enforcement in the Department, and
    the tragic September 11 events, the National Wildlife Refuge System
    will begin implementing the Secretary's Law Enforcement Reforms. We
    have reassessed our law enforcement mission and are now marshaling
    forces into rapid program reforms such as models for deployment of
    refuge officers, standardized position descriptions and centralized
    hiring of officers, standardized weapon systems, new incident reporting
    systems and a case management system. The Refuge System Law Enforcement
    Program is being modernized in training, tools, and management.
        Visitor safety and resource protection are paramount law
    enforcement needs. The National Wildlife Refuge System is stepping up
    its commitment to proactive prevention and protection of our visitors
    and our treasured natural and cultural resources. Compounding
    traditional enforcement efforts are the thousands of undocumented
    aliens and huge quantities of illegal drugs annually entering the
    United States by crossing the border at national wildlife refuges. As
    security is tightened at established entry points around the nation,
    terrorists seek entry by finding such alternative locations to enter
    the country. Terrorists present numerous law enforcement
    considerations, one of which is the high threat to officer safety.
        Protection of our visitors and lands is being accelerated through
    improved law enforcement and investigative activities with the addition
    of 28 new full-time law enforcement officers on national wildlife
    refuges, as well as a national Law Enforcement Program Specialist and a
    Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System Law Enforcement Program.
    Hiring has been initiated and the results of their work will increase
    homeland security and counter-terrorism efforts in fiscal year 2003.
    Because the rise in law enforcement needs continues to alter the ways
    we preserve and protect visitors, wildlife, and habitat, refuge law
    enforcement officers face tremendous threats daily. To improve officer
    response and safety, the National Wildlife Refuge System will field
    test the IACP priority recommendation calling for a Field Training and
    Evaluation Program (FTEP). The mission of the 10-week FTEP program will
    be to provide highly trained, fully functional, positively motivated
    natural resource law enforcement officers on every refuge.
        NPS. There is a request for $6,098,000 in operational support for
    six high profile icon parks. There is a request for $12,600,000 in
    operational support for United States Park Police and $23,834,000 in
    construction preparedness, security upgrades. The NPS is reviewing
    allocations to ensure that high priority needs of all southwest border
    units are considered. Funding is needed to address critical shortfalls
    of ranger staffing in high risk parks areas, to provide additional
    protection and communication equipment, to provide incident command
    system training, and to establish a centralized recruitment, training
    and development program for law enforcement officers.
        BLM. The issues presented by the BLM in the area of border security
    did not make it into the fiscal year 2003 budget request. However,
    recently the BLM forwarded a report, Southeast Arizona Coordinated Plan
    to Mitigate and Prevent Environmental and Other Impacts Caused by
    Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Land, to the House Committee on
    Appropriations. In response to the report, Arizona Representative Jim
    Kolbe has proposed that $1 million be included in the fiscal year 2003
    budget for the BLM to implement some of the recommendations outlined in
    the report. While this is appreciated it must be recognized that this
    only applies to AZ and not the remainder of BLM border areas.
        Question. Does the President's proposal to establish a separate
    Department of Homeland Security affect your department directly?
    Indirectly?
        Answer. FWS. Office of Law Enforcement.--The Service will play a
    significant role in supporting the interdiction efforts of the Federal
    Inspection Service (FIS) agencies that are included in the Department
    of Homeland Security proposal. Service wildlife inspectors work side-
    by-side with other federal agencies at border ports throughout the
    country. Our inspectors have face-to-face contact with people entering
    the country and handle more than 116,000 import shipments annually. The
    travelers, vehicles and cargo our inspectors encounter are potential
    conduits for the tools or terrorism that warrant increased scrutiny in
    the interest of national security and public safety. As the number of
    inspectors for the other FIS agencies grows exponentially, the Service
    will require additional staff and financial resources to continue with
    our current level of support.
        National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Service will play a
    significant role in supporting the enforcement efforts of the
    Department of Homeland Security in many areas. The National Wildlife
    Refuge System manages over 120 noncontiguous miles along the southwest
    border. National wildlife refuge law enforcement officers work very
    closely with all law enforcement agencies in their vicinity. For
    example, refuge officers work jointly with the Border Patrol as well as
    Customs officers along the United States borders. Refuge law
    enforcement officers are the front line of defense in many areas along
    the United States land and coastal borders. Many national wildlife
    refuges are located along the coast, both on the Atlantic as well as
    the Pacific Ocean. With the increase in border security at the normal
    port of entries, there will be an increase in illegal traffic in the
    more remote areas along the United States border, which will result in
    an increase of illegal activities.
        NPS. The most direct impact to date is that the Transportation
    Safety Administration (TSA) has been drawing our trained and senior
    field rangers from NPS units to Sky Marshal jobs. As the Homeland
    Security (HS) Department continues to grow and spread out to other
    areas beyond aviation safety it is likely that many more rangers and
    senior law enforcement managers may be drawn into HS jobs. The
    continuing disparity of pay, and benefits will also add to the
    departure of NPS law enforcement officers.
        BLM. The BLM believes that the proposal to establish a separate
    Department of Homeland Security will have both a direct and indirect
    affect on the Department of the Interior. The direct effect will most
    be in the areas of border security and protection of critical assets
    that are present on the public lands. The border security personnel
    within the proposed Department will still be conducted their activities
    along the border at or near the public lands. This will have a direct
    effect in the areas of resource impacts caused by these activities and
    by the illegal activities they are directed against. In light of BLM's
    responsibility for the management of certain critical on-shore
    resources (oil and gas), there will be an impact as the proposed
    Department evolves in the area of security requirements for critical
    assets (pipelines, oil and gas facilities, power lines, communication
    sites, etc.). These requirements will have to be implemented with the
    private owners of the assets through BLM's oversight responsibilities
    related to required permits, easements, leases, rights-of-way, etc.
    Indirectly, the BLM will be impacted by the proposed Department on what
    security requirements are made for the Federal facilities the BLM has
    custody over and the required levels of security to be required when
    alerts are declared under the new color code alert system.
                                coal bed methane
        Question. One of the most important tasks the BLM is undertaking in
    Montana is the completion of an EIS for coal bed methane development.
    BLM is a co-lead on this EIS, along with the Montana Department of
    Environmental Quality. What is the status of that EIS, and when can we
    expect a record of decision?
        Answer. The BLM continues to place a high priority on the
    completion of the Final EIS for coalbed methane development in Montana.
    The bureau is working diligently to ensure that the Final EIS is
    completed on schedule with the goal of publication by early in 2003.
    The Bureau has received substantial public and agency comments on the
    document and is fully committed to being responsive to all concerns
    raised and will be incorporating and addressing the concerns, as
    necessary, in the Final EIS document. Every effort is being made to
    work closely with the State of Montana on the preparation of the Final
    EIS document. The record of decision is expected no later than the end
    of February 2003.
        Question. Will it be necessary to appropriate additional dollars
    for its completion?
        Answer. As a result of significant public and Federal agency review
    and comment, additional analysis and an improved cumulative analysis
    will be incorporated in the Final EIS. BLM estimates completion of the
    Final EIS will cost an additional $200,000-$500,000 over original
    estimates. The BLM is assuming that all the new information and changes
    to the document can be made within the current schedule and with the
    requested funding levels.
                              collier acquisition
        The President recently announced his intention for the Federal
    government to acquire the mineral rights underlying 760,000 acres in
    Big Cypress National Preserve and Florida Panther National Wildlife
    Refuge for $120 million.
        Question. Can you shed any light on how you expect the Federal
    government to pay for this acquisition? Will the Administration seek a
    supplemental appropriation for land acquisition? Pursue a mandatory
    appropriation in some other legislative vehicle? Propose legislation to
    provide Collier with bidding credits?
        Answer. The Department is working to finalize the details of the
    proposal to be funded through regular appropriations.
        Question. How did the Department and Collier arrive at the $120
    million price? Has the Department conducted an appraisal of the assets
    to be acquired? If not, will it do so?
        Answer. Determining the value of the oil and gas resources in an
    area where there has been little or no actual exploration or
    development activity is challenging. MMS has considerable experience in
    making these sorts of evaluations as part of its responsibilities for
    valuing hydrocarbon (oil) resources on the Outer Continental Shelf as
    part of the lease sale process. That is why the Department in the mid-
    90's first asked MMS to value the Preserve's resources. The valuation
    we used in the successful negotiations was prepared by MMS in 2000 and
    2001.
        MMS used its Probabilistic Resource Estimates-Offshore (PRESTO V)
    model. The model basically simulates drilling the area under
    consideration. To perform this task, the model has two principal parts.
    The first is geologic information to determine the likelihood of
    whether oil exists and where it is located. The second is an
    engineering and economic analysis which includes the potential volumes
    of the oil and its value based on future price projections. The result
    of this modeling process is a range of potential oil values and a mean
    value. It should be noted that this value was specified as a resource
    value not as a fair market value.
        Following the MMS study, an independent mineral valuation expert
    was obtained who has also been used by the Department of Justice in
    litigation for oil and gas valuations. This expert confirmed that MMS'
    model was a reasonable methodology to determine a median value and that
    based on the limited data available, MMS' geologic and economic inputs
    also were reasonable. Our expert further assisted in developing a range
    of values that a person would be willing to pay for the mineral
    resources in the Preserve based on the mean value of the resources
    developed under the model. To create this range, he used data from
    thousands of bids for offshore leases.
        We do not intend to perform additional appraisal work at this time.
    While an exploration program such as the one proposed by the Colliers
    would likely provide more reliable data on the size of the reserves-
    upward or downward--the cost of doing so would impact the very
    resources that the acquisition is intended to protect.
        Question. How much of a tax benefit will Collier claim for donating
    residual value to the Federal government (in excess of the $120 million
    price)? Will Congress ever be given this information so it can better
    evaluate the total Federal cost of this acquisition?
        Answer. Throughout the discussions that have taken place between
    the Department and the Colliers since the mid-90's, the Colliers have
    consistently represented that the fair market value of the oil and gas
    was substantially greater than the government's estimates. As a means
    to bringing closure to this transaction, we agreed to the concept of a
    donation for any residual value that has previously been used by the
    Department in other transactions where similar valuation disagreements
    existed. This approach leaves it to the donor to demonstrate to the
    satisfaction of the Internal Revenue Service that the fair market value
    of the property is higher than that paid by the government. The
    Department does not have access to such tax information and would have
    to request this information from the Internal Revenue Service. The
    Department does not take a position with respect to any claim that the
    Colliers may make with the Internal Revenue Service.
        Question. Information provided by the Department indicates that the
    Collier acquisition does not account for all mineral rights in the
    Preserve or in the Refuge. Does the Department intend to pursue the
    acquisition of remaining mineral rights in these areas? Have the owners
    of these mineral rights been actively pursuing development? Will the
    Collier acquisition essentially set the price for the acquisition of
    these remaining rights?
        Answer. Not at this time. We have not received other plans to
    develop the mineral rights underlying these units. Most of the
    remaining mineral interests within the Preserve are held in relatively
    small parcels by numerous owners. Our understanding is that the threat
    to the Preserve's resources is minimal at this time because development
    of such small holdings would likely be uneconomic. Moreover, under
    Florida law, oil and gas can only be developed if a majority of the
    mineral interests ownership in a 160 acre drilling unit consent. With
    the acquisition from the Colliers, the National Park Service believes
    that any threat to Preserve resources is presently remote. Should this
    situation change, the National Park Service would undoubtedly
    reconsider its present position.
        Because the threat posed to the park and other resources was in
    large part a measure of the proposed scale of operations and the
    economics of developing the remaining interests is likely quite
    different than from those of the Colliers, we do not believe that we
    have set a price for the remaining rights. We understand that the Park
    has recently heard from several mineral holders interested in donating
    their remaining interests. The Department welcomes any such donations.
                                 science reform
        In the wake of the lynx scandal and the National Academy of
    Science's rejection of the Federal government's decision to shut off
    water to Klamath Basin farmers, I gather your department has been doing
    some soul searching with regard to science.
        Question. Can you tell me where you are with regard to reviewing
    and reforming departmental science procedures and policies?
        Answer. Three related actions are underway.
        We have developed a Code of Scientific Conduct for use by
    employees, contractors, cooperative partners, and grant recipients
    engaged in scientific work sponsored by the Department. It is currently
    undergoing external review and we expect to begin implementation by
    February 1, 2003.
        We have developed and published final guidelines on Information
    Quality in response to section 515 of the Treasury and General
    Government Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001 (Public Law 106-
    554). These guidelines cover the quality, objectivity, utility, and
    integrity of information disseminated to the public and provide an
    opportunity for the public to challenge information they believe to be
    biased or incorrect.
        We are also pursuing an initiative concerning how science advises
    public policy. This effort will provide guidelines to cover not only
    the traditional peer review of scientific research, but also the
    independent synthesis, review and interpretation of scientific
    information in preparation for decision making. We expect to recommend
    use of a variety of independent review sources, in addition to the
    National Academy of Sciences.
        Question. What must be done to prevent these types of things from
    recurring?
        Answer. We need to establish a high level of scientific credibility
    with the public and we need to find economically feasible ways to
    obtain high quality and timely independent review of scientific
    findings and related information that will be used to advise decisions.
        We believe the actions described above will do so.
                         president's management agenda
        The Department is in the initial stages of performing outsourcing
    reviews on a large number of positions as part of the President's
    Management Agenda.
        Question. What is the timetable for completion of these reviews?
    How much will the reviews cost to perform? Will the individual bureaus
    be absorbing 100 percent of these costs?
        Answer. The Department is striving to achieve its 15 percent goal
    for studies scheduled for review and completion by the end of fiscal
    year 2003. The cost of the studies varies according to the methodology
    used, and the choice of methodology is largely determined by the number
    of FTEs covered by a particular study. We have already gotten OMB
    approval for a new inexpensive methodology to study less than 10 FTEs,
    and are working on another methodology to much more economically study
    groups of 11-65 FTEs. Both approaches are also fairer to employees than
    the more traditional methodology. We have yet to determine the full
    cost to perform DOI reviews. Competitive sourcing funding was not built
    into Interior's fiscal year 2002 budget request because the
    Administration did not announce the President's Management Agenda until
    August 2001. Similarly, we did not come to closure with our bureaus on
    their fiscal year 2002-2003 competitive sourcing plans until April
    2002, two months after the fiscal year 2003 budget was transmitted to
    Congress. Most bureaus are incurring the entire cost for these reviews
    within available funding.
        Question. To the extent savings are realized from outsourcing, will
    these savings be ``retained'' by the individual bureaus to meet other
    needs? If the review process indicates that no savings will be achieved
    from outsourcing a particular position, does that automatically
    disqualify a position from being outsourced? Will the Department
    actively consider outsourcing positions when no savings are expected,
    but when the position review shows that outsourcing may result in a
    better product or service?
        Answer. OMB has told Department's that they may retain any savings
    from competitive sourcing, and Interior in turn has given bureau
    directors the same pledge. Bureaus therefore may retain the savings
    from competitive sourcing, whether those savings are from outsourcing
    or improved in-house operations, to meet other bureau needs. A ``no
    savings'' determination does not disqualify a position from being
    outsourced. Outsourcing positions should not necessarily be based on
    ``savings'' but may be based on best value--performance quality,
    efficiencies, and results.
                          office of inspector general
        Question. Of the specific programmatic increases requested for the
    Office of Inspector General, most of them appear to be predominantly
    one-time in nature. Assuming the requested increases are provided, what
    amounts should we expect to be presented as programmatic reductions or
    redirections in the fiscal year 2004 request?
        Answer. The following four program increases were requested:
    Redistribution of Staff Resources, Automated Work Papers System
    (Audits), an Electronic Case Management and Information System
    (Investigations) and critical security and communications enhancements
    to an aging and resource-intensive OIG infrastructure (Management and
    Policy).
        This request, for the first time, recognizes that past OIG budgets
    have provided for the mandatory and basic costs of existing staffing
    but lacked base funding for essential non-personnel management tools to
    achieve our mission. Rather than seeking more staff resources, the
    fiscal year 2003 budget represents a strong proclamation of the OIG's
    focus on non-personnel related management tools--i.e., redistribution
    of existing staff and investment in information technology
    infrastructure and systems--to provide a foundation for effectiveness
    and efficiency and achieving maximum results and return on investment.
    The Inspector General hired a new Chief Information Officer in fiscal
    year 2002 to facilitate the development and implementation of a long-
    term OIG capital investment strategic plan. This budget reflects a
    portion of this plan.
        The fiscal year 2003 program request items detailed below need to
    be incorporated into the OIG base appropriation so we can maintain the
    activities in future years.
        Redistribution of Staff Resources ($320,000).--Redistributing staff
    resources to where the critical work resides, i.e., putting the right
    people in the right place at the right time, has been a management tool
    that we have not been able to utilize. This has resulted in increased
    expenses to get experienced staff on significant reviews or cases or it
    has resulted in the postponement or referral of audit/investigative
    reviews or cases. Redistributing existing staff is significantly more
    cost effective and timely than hiring new staff in locations where
    staff resources are needed.
        Specifically, in fiscal year 2003, we will be redistributing staff
    from our Guam office to the Hawaii mainland to provide more effective
    oversight of Department of the Interior (DOI) funds and Insular
    Islands' capabilities to receive and expend Federal funds. In future
    years, we anticipate more staff relocations, particularly from our
    office in the Virgin Islands to the continental United States and
    relocations between various regions within the United States.
        Automated Work Papers System ($200,000) and the Investigations
    Electronic Case Management System ($300,000).--The fiscal year 2003
    request provides for partial funding for the planning, purchase and
    initial implementation of these new systems. In the out-years, these
    systems will require funding for maintenance, modifications and
    enhancements and staff training. For example, future year budgets will
    be used to upgrade automated reporting capabilities (including
    performance and activity based costing reporting) and for enhanced
    equipment such as scanners to assist with automated work papers and
    investigative case files.
        Critical Infrastructure and Security Enhancements ($256,000).--To
    meet the basic requirements for maintaining our IT infrastructure
    (which includes work stations, servers, software/hardware and
    telecommunications lines), this funding will provide critical resources
    for expenses that directly support all the OIG administrative systems
    and is the cornerstone of our IT security and knowledge management
    initiatives. This allows us to meet the requirements of OMB Circular A-
    130 and similar IT and security-related requirements. In addition,
    because the Management and Policy activity provides IT support for all
    OIG activities, these infrastructure enhancements would also support
    the capacity of our Office of Audits IT staff in their audits and
    reviews of the entire DOI critical infrastructure and security systems
    planning and implementation.
                               section 6 funding
        Question. Funding for the Cooperative Endangered Species
    Conservation program is currently divided into several distinct pots.
    Has the Department considered the merits of a more flexible approach to
    this program, whereby the amount of funding for the various program
    elements would not be determined in advance of applications being
    received? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such an
    approach? When will fiscal year 2002 funds for HCP land acquisition
    grants be awarded?
        Answer. The Department has considered the merits of soliciting
    project proposals based on a total funding amount and has determined
    that the disadvantages of this approach outweigh the advantages. This
    approach would offer the ability to provide a greater level of funding
    to highly meritorious proposals of a specific type when funding of
    those proposals might otherwise be limited by the prior apportionment
    of funds to the distinct programs.
        However, there are several disadvantages to this approach. This
    approach would not provide certainty to States with respect to the
    level of competition. The States commonly draft their proposals based
    on the identified level of funding for certain project types. If the
    amounts of funding for the various program elements were not determined
    at the time proposals were solicited, States would find it more
    difficult to determine how much funding to request and how much effort
    to put into preparation of a proposal. More over, States do not always
    need the same type of funding every year (planning funding versus land
    acquisition dollars); we believe the current grant programs provide a
    sufficient balance for States to be assured of opportunities to compete
    for needed funds each year.
        In addition, this approach would remove the ability to employ
    different methodologies for allocation of funding for different project
    types. The Service awards grants for the HCP Land Acquisition and HCP
    Planning Assistance programs based on a national competition, and the
    Recovery Land Acquisition program based on a regional competition. Each
    Region funds projects under the traditional Conservation Grants Program
    based on methodologies developed in conjunction with the States. These
    different processes were developed in order to balance providing
    predictability to the States with respect to the level of competition
    and ensuring that sufficient funds are available to fund higher cost,
    highly meritorious projects. Separate grant programs enable the Service
    to ensure funds are available for distinct, measurable actions, and to
    ensure accountability.
        Therefore, the Department believes identifying funding levels for
    each distinct program at the time proposals are solicited meets the
    purposes for which the funds are available, benefits applicants and
    ensures a balance of funding among the many important types of
    conservation efforts. The HCP Land Acquisition grants were awarded in
    September 2002.
                             endangered species act
        It is my understanding that in a case involving the New Mexico
    Cattle Growers, the courts recently determined that the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service must analyze not just the marginal economic impact of
    critical habitat designations vs. listing, but the impact of the
    designation in its entirety. I further understand that in the wake of
    this decision, the Service is developing a framework for performing
    these economic analyses.
        Question. What is the status of the effort to develop this
    framework? How much additional staff work, money, etc. will be required
    to complete these more exhaustive analyses? Is the legal question at
    issue settled in the Department's view?
        Answer. In New Mexico Cattle Growers Ass'n v. U.S.F.W.S., 248 F.3d
    1277 (10th Cir. 2001) the 10th Circuit held that the baseline approach
    to economic analysis of critical habitat designations that was used by
    the Service for the southwestern willow flycatcher designation was
    ``not in accord with the language or intent of the ESA''. In
    particular, the court was concerned that the Service had failed to
    analyze any economic impact that would result from the designation,
    because it took the position in the economic analysis that there was no
    economic impact from critical habitat that was incremental to, rather
    than merely co-extensive with, the economic impact of listing the
    species. The court rejected the baseline approach incorporated in the
    southwest willow flycatcher critical habitat designation, concluding
    that, by obviating the need to perform any analysis of economic
    impacts, such an approach rendered the economic analysis requirement
    meaningless. The Service believes that the 10th Circuit decision was
    rightly decided, and courts in the 9th Circuit have recently agreed.
        In response to the 10th Circuit decision the Service has revised
    its approach to economic analyses for critical habitat designations
    nationwide and is developing a framework document to delineate the
    methodology that the Service is now using to conduct economic analyses
    for critical habitat. The framework document will be shortly be put
    forth for peer review. After peer review, it is our plan to publish the
    document for public comment this year.
        Economic analyses for critical habitat designations are becoming
    increasingly more costly. Not only the 10th Circuit ruling, but public
    comments and an improved understanding of the potential economic
    effects of critical habitat designations have led the Service to
    continuously improve the economic analyses that it is conducting. We
    now anticipate that it will cost approximately $80,000 to conduct an
    average analysis; some analysis for wide ranging species may cost up to
    $150,000-$200,000). The Service contracts out its economic analyses,
    but it is a continual challenge to manage timeliness and quality issues
    associated with the production and review the documents.
                            blm--cbm eis for montana
        I have been following the BLM's preparation of the Environmental
    Impact Statement for the Powder River Region of Montana with a great
    deal of anticipation and interest. As you know, I have worked hard to
    secure additionally funding above past budget requests to ensure that
    adequate environmental studies would be completed and that the EIS
    would be done in as responsible a manner as possible.
        Question. Could you update us on the status of that EIS, and when
    can we expect a record of decision?
        Answer. As discussed in the previous answer, the record of decision
    is expected no later than the end of February 2003.
        Question. I assume we have completed the need for resource planning
    dollars for this specific EIS. Does the current fiscal year 2003 budget
    submission include adequate funding in the oil and gas base program to
    support development in the Powder River Region of Montana in fiscal
    year 2003?
        Answer. The degree to which coalbed methane development in Montana
    will occur is based on what can be reasonably foreseen from geologic
    and reservoir analysis. This level of activity is currently being
    analyzed within the EIS, in compliance with all National Environmental
    Policy Act requirements. The BLM requested additional funding in the
    2003 budget to support increased oil and gas development, including
    coal bed methane. BLM Montana will receive an appropriate portion of
    these additional funds, if appropriated. This should be sufficient to
    cover the State's needs over the next year.
                                   blm--pilt
        Overall, I must admit that the proposed budget for the Bureau of
    Land Management shows promise. With increases for energy production and
    an increase of $114 million to update land use plans, it is evident
    that the administration is focused on wise use of our natural
    resources. However, supporting these activities places a large burden
    on our rural communities. As a result, Congress has made it clear that
    PILT funding to compensate rural governments is a national priority.
        Question. I know the land management planning process is notorious
    for being expensive, and if we expect our local governments to be able
    to afford participation in the process, isn't it important that we at
    least hold PILT funding level? Does the BLM agree that an increase in
    activity on federal lands will continue to place a financial burden on
    local governments?
        Answer. While increased population, visitation, and energy
    development on Federal lands could place a greater financial burden on
    local governments, just as it has on the Federal government, it is
    reasonable to expect that local governments will also benefit from a
    larger tax base, increased tourism, and more energy development.
    Additional energy leasing and operations on public lands provide
    additional revenues to states and jobs and stimulus to local economies.
    Providing opportunities for grazing, recreation, and timber harvest
    also provides additional state and local revenues, jobs and more
    economic development. Although the amount requested for PILT in 2003 is
    less than the amount enacted in 2002, it is $15 million, or 10 percent
    more, than was requested in the 2002 President's Budget. By contrast,
    the President's budget for 2003 proposes an increase of 6 percent over
    the 2002 request for the Bureau's main operating account.
        It is also important to point out that the PILT program received
    large increases (57 percent in just two years) starting in fiscal year
    2001, during a time of surpluses. With the recent changes in the budget
    outlook, it is reasonable to expect that governments at all levels
    share in the responsibility to maintain fiscal restraint.
                            blm--energy and minerals
        I notice that your budget for the BLM requests another substantial
    increase for energy related activities on federal lands. I whole-
    heartedly applaud this effort and will do everything that I can to
    ensure this money is included in this year's final appropriation.
        Question. Could you detail some of the initiatives BLM will be
    undertaking in fiscal year 2003 that are designed to increase domestic
    energy production while also diversifying our energy portfolio?
        Answer. The federal lands contain a large portion of U.S. energy
    resources. To meet our country's growing energy needs, the BLM is
    working diligently to fulfill our important responsibilities in
    implementing the President's National Energy Policy. Over a quarter of
    the President's energy policy recommendations specifically affect one
    or more of the BLM's energy, mineral, and planning-related
    responsibilities. To systematically carry out the President's policy
    and goals, the BLM has identified more than 40 tasks to facilitate
    domestic production and transmission of both renewable and non-
    renewable energy resources, while ensuring environmental protections.
        The National Energy Policy included a specific recommendation for
    the Department of the Interior to review its land status and lease
    stipulations regarding oil and gas development on federal lands. To
    this end, the ongoing Energy Policy and Conservation Act inventory of
    oil and gas resources and reserves and a review of access impediments
    are being expedited. Five basins were identified within the Rocky
    Mountain Region as the priority geographic areas for study. These areas
    include the Powder River, Green River, Uinta/Piceance, and San Juan/
    Paradox Basins, and the Montana Thrust Belt.
        As the information becomes available from the EPCA inventory, the
    BLM plans to analyze the data for opportunities to improve the Bureau's
    management of the oil and gas resources on federal lands. Direction
    will be provided to BLM Field Offices on how best to apply the EPCA
    information to facilitate environmentally-responsible development of
    oil and gas resources, both in the BLM's land-use planning process and
    the daily management of the public lands and its resources. This
    analysis and the consideration and implementation of changes in
    management policies are considered critical tasks for BLM in
    implementing the President's National Energy Policy.
        It should be emphasized that as the BLM reviews the EPCA
    information and considers potential land-use planning modifications, we
    will continue to abide by the Federal Land Management and Policy Act's
    principles of multiple-use, sustained yield, and environmental
    protection. These are standards to which the BLM is completely
    committed. The BLM will only consider opportunities to increase access
    to oil and gas resources while still maintaining multiple-use values,
    including surface resource values.
        In addition, as part of the BLM's efforts to implement the
    President's National Energy Policy, the Bureau established a working
    group to review and evaluate various reports and data concerning
    expediting the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) process. The group
    has identified several specific recommendations, which the BLM will
    evaluate. Examples of areas under review are cultural resource
    clearances, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes,
    consistency of lease stipulations, and automation of the APD process.
        Also, consistent with the President's National Energy Policy, BLM
    is working to expand renewable energy development opportunities on
    public lands. The Department's November, 2001, National Conference on
    Renewable Energy was a good first step in an ongoing effort to work
    with industry in a collaborative manner to reduce unwarranted delays in
    processing authorizations for renewable energy facilities on the public
    lands. The BLM is working closely with the Department to develop a
    Renewable Energy Action Plan in response to comments and
    recommendations from the conference. As a follow-up to the conference,
    the BLM is evaluating new ways to increase production of renewable
    resources on public lands.
        In addition to a $350,000 increase for geothermal energy
    development in the Energy and Minerals Management Program, the 2003
    President's Budget requests $400,000 more to support geothermal, wind,
    and solar energy rights-of-ways on BLM lands.
        Question. In my experience these initiatives are largely supported
    by state and local governments. In your opinion, is the Department
    working well with local government entities and are they generally
    supportive of these efforts?
        Answer. We believe most local governments are supportive of the
    Department's efforts to implement the President's National Energy
    Policy. Both the Secretary of the Interior, and the BLM Director are
    very strong supporters of consulting with State and local governments
    in all activities and policies that affect their interests. We are
    working with these groups and are keeping them actively involved and
    up-to-date as we develop and implement the BLM's portion of the
    National Energy Plan. A critical aspect of the Bureau's plan is to more
    actively engage all sectors of state, tribal, and local government as
    well as to increase general public participation. The BLM is more
    committed than ever to a truly collaborative process and believes the
    states, tribal and local governments can help us to focus our efforts
    in the development of new plans and policies.
        Question. Concerns have been raised in Montana, and I assume in
    other states as well, that focusing on single, high-priority oil and
    gas projects has the potential to slow other ongoing energy development
    activities included in BLM's base funding. Can you address this issue
    and assure the subcommittee that resources will not be shifted from
    other ongoing and proposed oil and gas projects?
        Answer. The increases the BLM has received in recent appropriation
    acts have allowed the BLM to allocate additional funding to States and
    areas where most of the oil and gas development and work is located. We
    do not plan or anticipate shifting base funds as long as the BLM
    receives the additional funding proposed in this budget. BLM does
    review information in our cost management system to evaluate
    performance and efficiency across the BLM organization. Where cost
    management, performance, or other sound business management information
    of practices dictate, some base funding adjustments may be made.
                               blm--fire funding
        Your budget request includes a $34 million increase for fire
    suppression activities. I applaud this move, as I believe we are
    learning that the increasing severity of wildland forest fires coupled
    with ongoing drought conditions make suppression an extremely costly
    activity.
        Question. Recently, the Administration announced a new Interagency
    Wildland Fire Leadership Council leading the effort to implement the
    National Fire Plan. Can you give us some examples of how this new
    council adds value to the National Fire Plan? Quite honestly, the new
    council appears to replicate the current interagency agreement.
        Answer. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior established
    the Wildland Fire Leadership Council this year to provide leadership at
    the top agency and bureau levels to guide the policy and program
    direction for the National Fire Plan. To date, the Council has directed
    its efforts to ensure a seamless, cohesive approach to the
    identification of fuels treatment priorities across all the wildland
    fire management agencies and our many state, local, tribal, and private
    collaborators. In the future, the Council will address other priority
    concerns, such as differences in the ways that the Departments classify
    and record their costs for fire suppression operations, firefighter
    pay, and burned area rehabilitation. Another key issue the Council will
    address is how to recruit, retain, train, and develop the next
    generation of fire leaders to replace many of today's leaders who are
    nearing retirement.
        Question. I have heard numerous grumblings from the West, and I
    must agree with many of them, that the Administration has failed to
    fully embrace the needs of the National Fire Plan. Can you detail some
    of the work that has been taking place to get elements of the National
    Fire Plan up and running?
        Answer. In the two years since Congress initiated the National Fire
    Plan, the Plan agencies have made significant improvements in the way
    they prepare and respond to wildfires. Interior has hired, trained, and
    deployed over 2,000 new firefighters. We have substantially increased
    the inventory of essential heavy equipment including engines, air
    tankers and helicopters. The equipment was put to heavy use in the
    summer of 2002. We will be reporting exact numbers to Congress in the
    National Fire Plan 2002 Annual Performance Report which is being
    prepared. The Departments have also been increasing treatments to
    reduce hazardous fuels, both in the wildland urban interface and remote
    public lands. This is a major element in the long-term strategy to
    reduce the risk of unwanted and unplanned fires by reducing fuel loads.
    The numbers of projects and treated acres have been increasing
    annually. More will be accomplished in 2003 than ever before. In short,
    the National Fire Plan has resulted in steady progress that continues
    to this day.
        Clearly, the most important component to the fire plan in
    preventing future large scale wildland fires is the fuels treatment
    component. I have learned that much of the funding we dedicated for
    this purpose was initially hitting a backlog in the planning process.
        Question. Have we overcome this hurdle and are we beginning to see
    more fuels reduction work actually being completed on the ground?
        Answer. Interior's program made significant strides in reducing
    hazardous fuels reduction in 2002. The number of acres treated grew to
    over 1,050,000 acres, up 44 percent from 2001. The Departments of
    Agriculture and the Interior also accelerated the project selection
    process this past year so that projects for 2003 would be identified
    and selected earlier than ever before, ensuring a more productive first
    quarter than in previous years. The effort to select projects earlier
    also resulted in the identification and prioritization of future year
    projects, in effect creating a pipeline of future projects.
        It is true that the planning process used to be an impediment to
    getting work done on the ground. The Departments did not have the
    infrastructure in place to respond quickly to the dramatic increase in
    funding that Congress provided in 2001. That is no longer a problem.
    The departments have staffed the program and established new procedures
    to ensure that fuels reduction work will increase again in 2003.
        Question. In overcoming the planning backlog in implementing
    hazardous fuels reduction projects, as well as learning new lessons as
    we ramp up this program, have your land managers offered any
    suggestions aimed at making the process more manageable or more
    effective? I know that many are suggesting the Forest Service's
    Stewardship Contracting authority as an ideal way to deal with
    hazardous fuels work.
        Answer. Public land managers have been instrumental in improving
    and implementing hazardous fuels reduction projects. As you know, they
    are collaborating with local, state, and private landowners in
    developing fuels treatment plans. We are starting to see several types
    of innovations arising from field managers. Environmental plans for
    projects are being batched, both within individual offices and across
    agencies. Field managers are also pooling personnel for project
    planning on a landscape basis. Improvements such as these create
    efficiencies of scale that result in more acres being treated at lower
    marginal costs for taxpayers.
        Question. Have you had any discussions regarding the application of
    similar contracting authorities on Interior lands?
        Answer. Yes, the Department is very interested in pursuing similar
    authority. In fact, a cornerstone of the President's Healthy Forests
    Initiative is a legislative proposal to allow Interior to enter into
    long-term stewardship contracts with our partners. Such authority would
    be particularly advantageous in the west, where Federal agencies alone
    cannot rid the country of a century's worth of hazardous fuels buildup.
    Allowing contractors to exchange their labor in removing hazardous
    fuels for the rights to the resulting biomass would better leverage
    funds to complete additional fuels reduction work and could potentially
    increase the production of domestic energy.
                         bia--tribal community colleges
        The request before the Subcommittee decreases funding available for
    Tribally Controlled Community Colleges by $2 million. I find this
    especially troubling as I have worked extremely hard to increase the
    funding available to these vital learning institutions.
        Question. What is the justification for this reduction, and can you
    outline other steps, if any, the Administration is prepared to make to
    ensure that these colleges continue to be successful in providing
    secondary education to our nation's Native American students?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2003 budget request for
    Tribally Controlled Community Colleges maintains a level of funding
    that has significantly increased since 1993.
        Over the last 10 years funding for operating grants for TCCCs has
    increased by 65 percent, from $23 million in 1993 to $38 million
    proposed for fiscal year 2003. Over the same 10 year period the Indian
    Student Count (ISC) has increased by 35 percent, from 5,800 to 8,000,
    and per ISC funding is currently $4,700 compared to $3,600 in 1993. The
    ISC is calculated by dividing the total number of full and part-time
    credit hours provided by a college by 12, the number of credits an
    average full-time student would take. The operating grants are
    distributed to the TCCCs based on the ISC.
                           bia--community development
        I notice that your budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    essentially eliminates the accounts for Community Development. This
    concerns me deeply, as these accounts are extremely popular with the
    tribal community and my colleagues here in Congress. Additionally,
    these programs generally give us the flexibility to meet unique needs
    in Indian Country.
        Most of these programs are designed to fill an unmet niche in
    Indian education, or are designed in bridging the gap between having
    some level of secondary education and applying it in the job market.
        Question. Can I have your assurance that you will re-examine your
    position on these programs and offer the Committee an explanation of
    how the Administration proposes to fulfill this need in their current
    budget submission?
        Answer. The President's budget fulfills the highest priority needs
    in Indian Country. The request supports community development goals by
    ensuring a strong education foundation for Indian Country's future
    leaders and continues efforts to improve the services and delivery of
    its programs and trust management responsibilities. The budget supports
    the efforts of Tribes to provide basic reservation programs and develop
    stable governments, ensure accreditation of Bureau- and Tribally-
    operated school; address critical infrastructure needs, and meet the
    Secretary's Trust responsibilities. The President's budget includes
    funding for 48,000 elementary and secondary students, replacement and
    repair of schools, and economic development programs in some of the
    more depressed areas in the country. All these activities contribute to
    improving the quality of life and economic potential of the
    reservations.
                       doi/cobell case--computer shutdown
        You inherited one of the most frustrating court cases in recent
    memory the moment that the court scratched out Cobell v. Babbit and
    wrote in Cobell v. Norton. Since you have been handed the reins, Judge
    Lamberth decided to shut down virtually all of your Department's
    computer systems. You and your team were quick to respond and have
    taken a wide array of steps to solve the problem, including new
    hardware upgrades, and external hosting of the Department website.
        Question. Could you give us a fairly quick update as where each
    individual Bureau stands in its efforts to get back online?
        Answer. All bureaus and offices can currently send email within
    their local bureaus or offices. To allow exchange of email between
    bureaus and offices, we are setting up a virtual exchange point for
    email traffic in Denver National Business Center. The bureaus and
    offices can send email to other bureaus and offices as they are
    reconnected to this virtual exchange point.
        The Department of the Interior disconnected computer systems from
    the Internet in accordance with a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
    issued December 5, 2001. On December 17, 2001, the Court entered a
    Consent Order, which provided four methods by which the Department
    could reconnect to the Internet and/or resume operations of its
    computer systems. The Department is working with a court-appointed
    Special Master to achieve compliance with the Consent Order. Under the
    terms of the Consent Order, the Department is required to provide the
    Special Master with ``reasonable assurances'' that individual Indian
    trust data on computer systems has been identified, protected and
    secured.
        In order to provide reasonable assurances to the Special Master,
    Departmental bureaus and offices prepare and submit proposals for
    reconnection to the Internet and/or resumption of operations to the
    Associate Deputy Secretary. Upon his approval, these proposals are
    given to the Department of Justice. Attachments from the proposals,
    along with declarations from Department officials, are submitted to the
    Special Master with a formal request to reconnect to the Internet and/
    or resume operations of particular computer systems. Under the terms of
    the Consent Order, the Special Master, as necessary, will interview
    Interior personnel or contractors and conduct site visits ``wherever
    technology systems or individual Indian trust data is housed or
    accessed.'' Computer systems are reconnected to the Internet and/or
    resume operations after the Special Master has provided notification he
    concurs with the reasonable assurances provided by the Department.
        Furthermore, the Consent Order requires the Department to implement
    specific network security improvements at BIA by January 31, 2002
    (which have been completed), and to task a qualified, independent
    contractor to evaluate the requirements to bring relevant individual
    Indian trust information systems into compliance with applicable
    standards of the OMB Circular A-130. In the Second Status Report of the
    Special Master submitted to the Court on February 5, 2002, the Special
    Master recognized ``that OMB A-130 compliance is simply not possible in
    the near future given Interior's current budget, resources and
    infrastructure . . . [and] has repeatedly emphasized that immediate
    reconnection and/or resumption of operations will not hinge on full
    compliance.''
        Utilizing this process, as of July 1, 2002, approximately 89
    percent of the Department has been reconnected to the Internet. This
    includes the National Park Service, the United States Geological
    Survey, BIA's Indian Schools network, and the Office of Surface Mining.
    Four other Departmental bureaus, the Bureau of Land Management, the
    Bureau of Reclamation, Minerals Management Service, and Fish and
    Wildlife Service are reconnected under ``preliminary approval'' until
    the Special Master has completed his assessment for reasonable
    assurances that individual Indian trust data is protected and secured.
        It is difficult to say when all computer systems will be
    reconnected to the Internet. The remaining bureaus and offices have a
    more significant role in managing the Department's fiduciary
    responsibilities to Native Americans, and the process for providing
    ``reasonable assurances'' to the Special Master could be more involved.
        Email and Internet connections are only a piece of the task of
    restoring the Department's information technology systems. The larger
    issue is the security of our IT systems with respect to individual
    Indian trust data, which must be improved to meet existing guidance and
    which must meet the Special Master's requirements.
        Question. Could you give us an estimate of the unforeseen costs
    these upgrades have added to your Department's expenditures?
        Answer.

                                        INTERNET RECONNECTION COSTS, AS OF 8/7/02
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2002
                       Bureau                      funds      Total                        Notes
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM........................................     $1,200     $1,200
    OSM........................................         85  .........
    MMS........................................      4,308  .........  25,300 hours of overtime.
    BOR........................................  .........  .........  No significant monetary impact.
    USGS.......................................  .........  .........  No significant monetary impact.
    FWS........................................         79         79  R7 AK, some costs to isolate data.
    NPS........................................  .........  .........  < 100 hours of overtime.
    IG.........................................         21         21
    OIA........................................  .........  .........  No significant monetary impact.
                                                ----------------------
          Subtotal, on-line bureaus............      4,596      5,589
                                                ======================
    Department.................................      1,550      1,550  SAIC IV&V Testing.
    TrustNet (to date).........................        500        500
    BIA........................................      4,100      4,100  OIRM Expenses to date.
    OST........................................        109        109
    SOL........................................      1,132      1,132
                                                ----------------------
          Subtotal, Balance of Dept............      7,582      7,582
                                                ======================
          Total to date........................     12,178     13,171
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Costs will continue to accumulate for OST, BIA, SOL, and the Department.
    Estimates of overtime values are not yet available for all bureaus.

        Question. Finally, I understand the computer shutdown has delayed
    many payments the Department is obligated to process within given
    timeframes. Has the Department been held responsible for late fees,
    interest charges or other penalties as a result of the problems caused
    by Judge Lamberth's decision to pull the plug on all Department
    operations? Do you have an estimate of these costs and how they are
    being addressed?
        Answer. The following bureaus incurred interest or late payment
    penalty fees as a result of the internet shutdown:
        FWS: $14,000
        NPS: $124,000
        MMS: $500,000 (only an estimate)
                     blm/bia--zortman-landusky mine cleanup
        Secretary Norton, I know you are aware of the Zortman/Landusky mine
    reclamation in North Central Montana. The state of Montana holds
    approximately $60 million in bond for the reclamation, but a recently
    released BLM/State DEQ joint SEIS recommends reclamation exceeding this
    bond by approximately $33 million. $11 million is still needed to
    supplement a trust ensuring the water treatment facilities can be
    operated in perpetuity.
        Question. It is my understanding the Montana BLM office identified
    this project as a top priority and requested increased funding in its
    fiscal year 2003 budget to address reclamation needs. Why did the
    Department of Interior not include this request in its final proposal
    fiscal year 2003 budget? Can you identify funding in your current
    budget request to support these activities?
        Answer. Because of competing priorities and constrained funding
    availability, additional funding for this project was not included in
    the 2003 budget request.
        Question. Will you work with me to ensure that the fiscal year 2004
    budget for BLM reflects a commitment by the Department of Interior to
    ensure, at the very least, adequate funding is dedicated to address the
    water treatment concerns outlined in the Record of Decision?
        Answer. The Department cannot make any funding commitments for
    fiscal year 2004.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                    funding for operation of indian programs
        Question. The President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2003 for
    the Operation of Indian Programs reflects an increase of $37 million
    over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. What inflation rate is
    reflected in the President's Budget Request for the Operation of Indian
    Programs? What inflation rate is reflected in the President's Budget
    Request for the Department of Interior overall? If there is a
    difference, please explain.
        Answer. In estimating its budget request, the Department of the
    Interior estimates cost increases based on programmatic need and
    priorities across the Department. It does not use a general inflation
    rate as the basis for estimating budget needs. Cost increases are
    requested for such specific fixed cost increases as pay raises,
    including teacher pay raises, health benefits, rent, workers'
    compensation, unemployment compensation, and working capital fund
    expenses. Such increases are estimated uniformly across all bureaus.
        Question. Several Community Development Programs are within the
    Operation of Indian Programs Account. The President's requested amounts
    for Community Development represent significant decreases from the
    fiscal year 2002 enacted levels. How will the decreased funding impact
    Community Development in Indian Country?
        Answer. These decreases were within our Special Programs activity
    and will not impact ongoing Tribal/agency community development
    programs.
        There are a number of Community Development programs, such as the
    Distance Learning Project, United Sioux Tribe Development Corporation,
    and many others, for which no funding was requested.
        Question. Did the Bureau perform a review of these various
    Community Development programs, which concluded that these programs are
    ineffective? Will you provide the Committee with copies of any reports
    that indicate that the programs are ineffective?
        Answer. There are many needs in Indian Country and the current
    focus is on programs that serve Tribes on a nationwide basis. There was
    no determination that the programs denoted in the question are
    ineffective, but rather how the Bureau could fund higher priority
    programs in these times of fiscal constraints. The Bureau holds the
    annual budget meeting to obtain Tribal input on budgetary issues and
    concerns to assist in the budget formulation process for the next
    budget cycle. It was necessary to make some difficult decisions to
    eliminate funding for certain programs while funding others that would
    serve Indian Country on a larger scale to address many of the Tribal
    priorities. Funding is targeted at the primary and secondary
    educational level, including the pre-school level, in the fiscal year
    2003 budget request. Investment during the early stages of a child's
    education improves the chances of success not only in the secondary
    schools but also eventually in the post secondary schools.
                               homeland security
        Question. What plans, if any, does the Department have to involve
    Indian Country in Homeland Security?
        Answer. The Department envisions Indian County as a partner in
    homeland security. The Department is committed to sharing existing
    resources and providing resources and technical assistance in the
    future to increase the effectiveness of BIA contributions to homeland
    security. The partnership is being fostered through meetings with
    Indian Tribes at their locations, listening to the specific and often
    unique problems they are experiencing, and actually seeing the
    challenges they face at their locations. Through an exchange of ideas
    and information, and a closer working relationship with our Indian
    County partners, the Department envisions a stronger, more cohesive
    response to homeland security.
        Question. What role has the Department envisioned for Indian
    Country in Border Security?
        Answer. The Department has definite plans to involve Indian Country
    in border security. The Department recognizes there are 37 Indian
    Tribes with lands contiguous to, or in close proximity to our
    international borders with Canada and Mexico.
        For the previous two years, the Department, including
    representatives from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Law
    Enforcement Services and the Office of Law Enforcement and Security has
    coordinated with border area Tribes in the development of DOI Border
    Strategies.
        The Department's strategies promote the cooperation of DOI law
    enforcement officers and agents from the different Bureaus, as well as
    area Tribal law enforcement officers, to enhance the law enforcement
    presence and response capabilities in the remote border areas.
        The success of the strategies has recently been highlighted in a
    multi-agency, jurisdictional law enforcement operation code named
    Operation Blueline X. This operation has occurred for 10 years on the
    Northern Olympic Peninsula of Washington State. The operation's primary
    focus is border interdiction of illegal drugs along the Straits of Juan
    de Fuca. The Incident Commander of the operation is a special agent
    with the NPS. Participants in the operation included special agents and
    officers from the NPS, BIA-OLES, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Coast
    Guard, and Clallam County Sheriff's Office. The areas covered during
    this operation included several Indian reservations. The Department is
    planning similar operations in other Indian Country border area
    locations.
        The Department included specific language in what became
    legislative authority for the Bureau of Reclamation to contract with
    Indian County (Tribal), and other Federal, State and Local law
    enforcement programs to provide law enforcement security at major BOR
    dam sites, some of which are in close proximity to Indian reservations.
                                law enforcement
        As part of the new National Security initiative, it is the
    Committee's understanding that every Federal law enforcement agency was
    required to provide law enforcement officers to the Federal Air
    Marshall program.
        Question. How many BIA Law Enforcement officers have been provided
    to the Air Marshall program?
        Answer. Beginning in October 2001, the BIA detailed 22 law
    enforcement personnel to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for
    the Federal Air Marshall program.
        Question. When will the BIA law enforcement officers be replaced
    and how much is requested to replace the law enforcement officers lost
    to the Air Marshall program?
        Answer. Every BIA officer serving with the FAA in the Federal Air
    Marshall program was returned to active duty with the BIA on April 1,
    2002.
        While the FAA reimbursed the travel costs and other expenses for
    these personnel, the BIA absorbed their salaries. The absorbed BIA
    salaries are estimated to total $400,000. Due to the relatively short
    duration of the details, the Department has not requested replacement
    funding.
                              detention facilities
        The President requested a $3 million increase for the Office of
    Facilities Management and Construction for detention facilities
    operations and maintenance. It is the Committee's understanding that
    this amount will only provide for 65 percent of the operations and
    maintenance needs of the new detention facilities being built by the
    Department of Justice and scheduled for completion in 2003.
        Question. Is this correct?
        Answer. The $3 million increase requested in the President's budget
    was for new and existing facilities operations. Of the increase
    request, $737,000 will provide the remaining funding needed to operate
    six recently constructed detention centers. The request will provide
    $658,000 in partial funding for operations at new detention centers
    that will come on-line at various times during the year. Over half the
    request, $1.605 million, will be used to increase support at existing
    operations.
        Question. There is already a backlog of the construction, repair
    and renovation needs of tribal detention facilities. Why would the BIA
    not request sufficient funds to maintain its new facilities?
        Answer. Since the operational costs are critical when opening a new
    detention center, priority was given to requesting funding for these
    costs. Deferring some maintenance during the first year of operation of
    a new facility is not likely to create a deficiency in the backlog.
        Question. In the absence of sufficient funding, will the new
    facilities not be used?
        Answer. The facilities will be opened and will be used.
        The Office of Law Enforcement Services developed a three-phase plan
    for funding and staffing new detention facilities being constructed by
    the Department of Justice. The third phase, scheduled to begin in
    fiscal year 2003, indicates a need for an additional $14 million for
    staffing costs at the 11 new facilities scheduled for completion in
    2003. Yet, no funds were requested to address the staffing needs for
    these 11 new facilities.
        Question. Without these funds, will the new facilities remain empty
    for 12 months or longer until the requisite funds for staff are
    appropriated for fiscal year 2004?
        Answer. The BIA will utilize available resources for operations of
    the detention centers.
        The San Carlos Apache Tribe received a grant from the Department of
    Justice for the construction of a new adult and juvenile rehabilitation
    and detention center. Under the three-phase plan prepared by the Office
    of Law Enforcement Services, $255,000 was to be distributed from fiscal
    year 2002 funds to begin the hiring process of appropriate staff. The
    Committee is advised that the Tribe has been informed that the $255,000
    may not be provided.
        Question. When will the fiscal year 2002 funds for staffing needs
    at new detention facilities be distributed?
        Answer. In accordance with the Assistance Secretary--Indian Affairs
    policy for tribal consultation prior to distributing funds, the Office
    of Law Enforcement Services provided a consultation with all tribes in
    the Nation. Sending a letter out to all tribal leaders requesting
    comments on the planned distribution methodology completed this
    consultation. Upon completion of this consultation, the Office of Law
    Enforcement Services distributed the funds on June 1, 2002.
        Question. Will all tribes receive their fiscal year 2002 funds in
    the amounts and in the time period identified in the three-year plan
    prepared by the Office of Law Enforcement Services?
        Answer. The distribution was completed on June 1, 2002. The
    comments returned through the consultation process did not adversely
    effect the planned distribution amounts.
                                social services
        The President's Budget Request proposes to cut funding for Welfare
    Assistance by $4 million. This is in addition to the $2.5 million cut
    made in fiscal year 2002. In the Budget Justification, the decrease in
    Welfare Assistance is justified because of the positive effects of
    Welfare Reform yet, at the same time, the Budget justification
    indicates that once the time limit on the receipt of welfare benefits
    is triggered, the General Assistance caseload will increase.
        Question. How do you reconcile the assertion that Welfare Reform
    has been such a success with the Department's statement that an
    increase in General Assistance participants is likely once Welfare
    Reform benefits are terminated?
        Answer. Welfare Reform has had a positive effect in bringing costs
    down, throughout the country, including Indian country. However, once
    Indian recipients have exhausted their State benefits, it is believed
    that many of these individuals will seek assistance from the Bureau's
    Welfare Assistance program and that program costs may increase.
        Question. What is the justification for the decreases to the other
    four programs funded under the BIA's Welfare Assistance fund?
        Answer. The majority of the decrease was expected to impact the
    general assistance program. As Indians are eligible for Temporary
    Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) assistance, this has reduced the
    BIA caseload for general assistance without impacting the benefits
    available to Tribes and individual Indians. Also, the Bureau is
    expecting a slight decrease in adult care expenditures due to tightened
    regulations. The Bureau expects the Child Welfare Assistance program to
    remain at about the same level. On the other hand, the Bureau expects
    the Tribal Work Experience Program (TWEP), a work related program for
    general assistance recipients, to increase. The miscellaneous
    assistance category was higher than expected in fiscal year 2000 and
    fiscal year 2001 because of a fishing disaster in the State of Alaska.
    The fiscal year 2003 estimate does not reflect expenditures related to
    the Alaska disaster.
        Question. Has the Bureau determined what kind of impact that this
    reduction in funding will have on Indian Tribes and individual Indians?
        Answer. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
    Reconciliation Act of 1996 established the Temporary Assistance to
    Needy Families (TANF) program, which provides States block grants for
    welfare assistance. As Indians are eligible for TANF assistance, the
    Bureau has revised its current welfare assistance regulations to
    incorporate welfare reform activities. This has reduced the BIA
    caseload for welfare assistance without impacting the benefits
    available to Tribes and individual Indians.
                office of alcohol and substance abuse prevention
        The responsibility for the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse
    Prevention and Treatment program is currently shared between the
    Department of Interior and the Department of Health and Human Services.
    An Inter-Departmental Memorandum of Agreement defines the scope of the
    program for each department, assigning treatment and recovery functions
    to the Department of Health and Human Services and assigning the
    prevention function to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian
    Affairs. Pending legislation would vest the Department of Health and
    Human Services with the responsibility to develop and implement a new
    Inter-Departmental Memorandum of Agreement for consolidation of
    programs.
        Question. Do you support the proposal that the Department of Health
    and Human Services assume the lead responsibility for the Alcohol and
    Substance Abuse Program?
        Answer. BIA is currently the point of contact for Tribes, States,
    and other Federal agencies regarding tribal alcohol and substance abuse
    programs. BIA has a much broader and more comprehensive responsibility
    than HHS. BIA's responsibility goes beyond health and treatment
    responsibility to include law enforcement, highway safety, school/
    educational efforts, social services, and tribal law and courts. BIA
    recognizes that alcohol and substance abuse is a serious problem on
    reservations and is committed to working with HHS to address the
    problem.
        Alcoholism and substance abuse in Indian country are far in excess
    of the rest of America. Yet, the Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse
    is funded only at $397,000.
        Question. Given the statistics that indicate the substantial role
    of alcohol in crime, domestic violence, school truancy and other areas,
    is this amount sufficient to address the alcohol and drug prevention
    needs of the 561 Indian tribes?
        Answer. BIA recognizes that alcohol and substance abuse is a
    serious problem in Indian Country. The Office of Alcohol and Substance
    Abuse has a limited, but important role of providing coordination and
    oversight of prevention efforts, as well as technical assistance to
    Tribes. The office coordinates with the BIA Office of Law Enforcement
    Services, the Office of Tribal Services, and the Indian Health Service
    (IHS), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
    (SAMHSA), and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention within HHS. The
    bulk of funding for alcohol and substance abuse is provided through HHS
    programs.
        Question. What is the actual amount of funds needed to adequately
    address these problems?
        Answer. According to SAMHSA data, American Indians/Alaska Natives
    have the highest rate of past year drug dependence and second in
    alcohol dependence, which is evidence that alcohol and substance abuse
    problems in Indian Country are not being adequately addressed. However,
    it is difficult to estimate the amount of funds that would be needed
    because there are so many components of the problem--fetal alcohol
    syndrome, parental neglect, child abuse, mental health, physical
    health, unemployment, crime and poverty. Furthermore, there are
    numerous Federal programs, as well as State and Tribal programs that
    are working to address the substance abuse problem in Indian Country,
    as well as the contributing factors to substance abuse and the problems
    that substance abuse causes.
                              social services/iim
        As part of the trust reform efforts by the Department of Interior,
    an additional $2 million is requested for Social Services. The funds
    will be used for increased responsibilities related to the management
    of Individual Indian Monies (IIM) accounts for minors, adults in need
    of assistance, adults under legal disability and adults who are judged
    to be non compos mentis. The Budget justification indicates that the
    BIA plans to outsource the funds first to state departments of human
    services and state institutions. If states are unable to contract the
    duties because of the large caseloads that they are experiencing, then
    the Bureau will hire 12 Master of Social Work level social workers.
        Question. Does the Bureau of Indian Affairs currently provide
    states with the first priority in contracting social work
    responsibilities related to the management of Individual Indian Monies
    accounts?
        Answer. The Bureau will not give preferences to states for
    contracting of any of its programs; however, states are considered to
    be the most likely candidates for outsourcing because of their
    experience in providing protective services. Other options will be
    considered, including contracting with Tribes or Tribal organizations
    for these services. The Bureau is not locked into any one method or
    source for outsourcing.
        Question. What data or reports were used to determine that
    outsourcing to states, as compared to contracting with tribes or hiring
    the social workers directly, is more efficient, culturally appropriate,
    or will result in better services?
        Answer. States are considered to be the most likely candidates for
    outsourcing because of their experience in providing protective
    services. However, the Bureau is not ruling out any other sources for
    contracting.
        Question. How will the Bureau ensure that the states provide for
    Indian preference and hire culturally knowledgeable individuals to
    manage Individual Indian Monies accounts?
        Answer. The Bureau would require any contractor to make available
    culturally knowledgeable staff for this type of project or set up a
    mechanism whereby they were trained to become culturally knowledgeable.
    In addition, there are numerous Native Americans employed in states
    with large American Indian populations.
        Question. Has the Department started to implement this outsourcing
    initiative?
        Answer. In bureaus throughout the Department studies to evaluate
    competitive sourcing potential have started to determine if program
    functions may be operated more effectively. However, no action can be
    taken for this particular initiative until the resources become
    available through the appropriations process.
                    bia education budget (fiscal year 2003)
        Question. Indian Student Equalization Program funding is used to
    operate BIA schools. However, the requested amount for Indian Student
    Equalization Program funding is not sufficient to cover the mandatory
    pay adjustments. As a result, there is a decrease in funding for the
    Indian Student Equalization Program. How is this consistent with the
    President's priority of ``No Child Left Behind?''
        Answer. The funding level requested in the President's budget for
    Indian Student Equalization Program (ISEP) represents a new estimate
    for the projected student population in School Year 2003-2004.
    Projections for the Weighted Student Unit (WSU) funding available for
    each student is projected to increase in fiscal year 2003 (School Year
    2003-2004). This will enable the President to ensure that No Child is
    Left Behind. There will be sufficient funds available for the mandatory
    pay adjustment.
        Question. Although the President's Budget requests a $2 million
    increase for student transportation, last year, the BIA estimated that
    student transportation was underfunded by $11 million. The public
    school per-mile average six years ago was $2.97 per mile. For fiscal
    year 2003, the requested increase for BIA-funded schools will provide
    only $2.37 per mile. If the Bureau's own data shows that an additional
    $11 million is needed, why wasn't the full amount of needed funds
    requested?
        Answer. The Bureau is currently doing a cost analysis to determine
    actual transportation costs rather than relying on a national average.
    The results of this analysis will enable the Bureau to more accurately
    determine the need for transportation resources in future budget
    requests.
        Again this year, the President's Budget Request proposes to provide
    inadequate funds for Administrative Cost grants (AC Grants). AC Grants
    are used by schools for administrative and indirect cost expenses, such
    as accounting and auditing expenses, incurred in the operation of a
    BIA-funded school.
        The Bureau acknowledges that AC Grants were funded at only 70
    percent of need last year and that this year, they will be funded at 75
    percent of need. At the same time, the Bureau has a school
    privatization proposal that would provide incentives to private
    educational organizations to take over the management of schools now
    operated by the Bureau.
        Question. Does the Bureau expect that tribes will want to contract
    or grant schools when insufficient funding for such operation is
    provided?
        Answer. The Bureau funding levels for Tribal grant and contract
    schools provide for increases in several areas. The Administration's
    request also seeks more resources for student transportation and
    facilities maintenance and operations, which provides additional
    resources to Tribally operated schools. The combination of these
    requests should make it more desirable for tribes to seek contract or
    grant status.
        Question. If the Bureau acknowledges the insufficient funding, is
    the Bureau planning on amending its request to provide for full funding
    of AC Grants?
        Answer. The Administration increased funding for several programs
    (Administrative Cost Grants, student transportation, and facilities
    maintenance and operations) that affect Tribal grant and contract
    schools in its budget request. At this time the Administration believes
    the requested funding appropriately addresses school priorities.
                              economic development
        In the President's budget summary for the Department of Labor,
    there is a proposal to eliminate or consolidate numerous job-training
    plans. The summary indicates that 9 job-training programs serving
    American Indians and Alaska Natives administered by the Department of
    Interior will be eliminated or consolidated.
        Question. Please identify which programs will be eliminated or
    consolidated and provide the justification for the elimination or
    consolidation.
        Answer. The 9 training programs are the: Distance Learning Project,
    Cheiron Foundation Training, Tribal Guiding program, National
    Ironworkers Training program, Alaska Native Aviation Training program,
    Yuut Elitnauviat People's Learning Center, United Sioux Tribe
    Development Corporation, Crownpont Institute of Technology, and United
    Tribes Technical College. Funding for these programs is being
    eliminated in order to focus funding on programs of higher priority to
    Tribes on a nationwide basis.
        Question. In the BIA's 1999 Indian Labor Force Report of the total
    labor force, it was reported that 43 percent of Indians living on or
    near their reservations were unemployed. And of those who were
    employed, 33 percent were living below poverty guidelines established
    by the Department of Health and Human Services. Given the rate of
    unemployment on reservations, what was the justification for decreasing
    the funding of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2002 appropriation for the Indian Arts and
    Crafts Board (Board) is $1,548,000. $1,048,000 of this amount is for
    Board programs. The priority is the enforcement of the Indian Arts and
    Crafts Act, with $500,000 earmarked by Congress for a $250,000 Grace
    Hudson Museum exhibit enhancement project in Ukiah, California, and
    $250,000 for the State of Alaska market access program.
        The request for fiscal year 2003 discontinues these two
    Congressionally earmarked projects. Therefore, the request of
    $1,061,000 for the Board does not reflect a decrease in Board funding.
    Instead, it reflects level funding for the Board's enforcement and
    economic development programs, with a nominal increase for
    uncontrollable costs.
                              reprogramming funds
        In Section 634 of the Government-wide provisions section of the
    President's Budget Request, there is a proposal to enable the President
    to transfer up to five percent of funds from any Federal department,
    agency, or corporation to any other account that he wishes.
        Question. Do you know whether the President plans to transfer funds
    from the BIA to another account? Does the President plan to transfer
    the full 5 percent from the Department?
        Answer. The Department is unaware of any plans within the
    Administration that would transfer budgetary resources from the BIA, or
    from elsewhere in the Department, using the authority requested by the
    President's Budget in the Govenment-wide general provisions.
        Under the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act, Federal agencies
    must identify commercial activities performed by Federal employees. The
    Interior Budget in Brief states that the Department will examine 5
    percent of its Full Time Employees in 2002 and 10 percent of its Full
    Time Employees in 2003 to determine whether these functions might be
    better performed by non-Federal employees.
        Question. Other than cost, what factors will the Department examine
    to determine whether non-Federal employees can better perform the
    functions?
        Answer. One must consider whether the retention of the commercial
    function is needed to perform agency mission, any additional capital
    investment to update/upgrade technical capability needed, and
    additional human capital assets and resource needs if work is to be
    performed by in-house personnel.
        Question. Will the Department apply Indian preference when
    assessing Indian-related functions?
        Answer. Yes, especially for those activities in the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs and Office of Special Trustee where Public Law 93-638 is
    applicable.
        Question. Will the Department require knowledge of Federal Indian
    law or Indian culture when assessing Indian-related functions for
    performance by non-Federal employees?
        Answer. Absolutely. A significant level of knowledge, understanding
    and expertise on Native-American related issues are needed to render
    effective service.
        Question. How will the Department ensure that the trust
    responsibility to Indians will be fulfilled by private contractors?
        Answer. Fulfillment of the trust responsibility to Indians is an
    inherently governmental responsibility. Initially, we will determine
    which positions that are not inherently governmental in nature and core
    essential to continued mission performance, and only utilize
    contractors when determined economically and efficient to do so in
    accordance with existing laws and regulations.
                                  consultation
        Last fall, the Bureau proposed to reorganize the trust function
    duties without consulting with Indian tribes.
        Question. What is the Department's definition of tribal
    consultation and when does the Department believe the process of
    consultation should begin?
        Answer. In keeping with the Secretary's four C's--Consultation,
    Conservation, Coordination, and Communication--the Department consults
    with tribes as early as possible on issues concerning Indian Country.
    Collaboration with tribes is one of the Secretary's highest priorities.
    The Department's trust reform management team worked with a task force
    of 24 tribal leaders selected by their peers from tribal governments
    throughout the Nation on a new organization for trust asset management.
        Throughout the Department of Interior's Budget Justification, there
    are proposed funding cuts for programs and even the elimination of some
    programs. The justification for many of these cuts is that the
    Department proposes to focus funding on programs of higher priority to
    Tribes on a nationwide basis.
        Question. Did the Department consult with Indian tribes to
    determine the tribal priorities with respect to funding of programs?
        Answer. The Bureau holds the annual budget meeting to obtain Tribal
    input on budgetary issues and concerns to assist in the budget
    formulation process for the next budget cycle. There are many needs in
    Indian Country and the current focus is on programs, which serve Tribes
    on a nationwide basis. As a result, it was necessary to make some
    difficult decisions to eliminate funding for certain programs while
    funding others that would serve Indian Country on a larger scale to
    address many of the Tribal priorities. Funds are targeted at the
    primary and secondary educational level, including the pre-school
    level, in the fiscal year 2003 budget request. Investment during the
    early stages of a child's education can improve the chances of success
    not only in the secondary schools but also eventually in the post
    secondary schools. Funds were targeted in the fiscal year 2003 budget
    request to address this as well as other programs of higher priority to
    Tribes on a nationwide basis. There was no determination that the
    programs denoted in the question are ineffective, but rather how the
    Bureau could fund higher priority programs in these times of fiscal
    constraints.
                                  trust reform
        The Department is requesting that new language be added to the
    Interior Appropriations bill providing that, with regard to
    overpayments made to holders of trust accounts, ``erroneous payments
    that are recovered shall be credited to this account.''
        Question. What are the Department's existing procedures for
    recovering overpayments?
        Answer. Under the current statutes, any collected payments of such
    general funds are deposited into the U.S. Treasury. The Department
    needs the authority to retain the funds to offset the erroneous payment
    made. The following is a summary of the procedures that are generally
    followed by the Office of Trust Funds Management when erroneous
    payments are made to accountholders:
      --Determine the cause of the erroneous payment, the responsible
            office and whether the funds remain on deposit in the trust
            account(s).
      --If the funds are still on deposit in the trust account(s), and
            certain other criteria is met, then the procedures as outlined
            in the section 6-9 of the BIA/OST Handbook are followed.
      --If the funds are no longer on deposit in the trust account(s), or
            the criteria in section 6-9 of the BIA/OST Handbook are not
            met, then based on the amount involved, appropriated funds may
            be utilized to pay the correct account(s). Comptroller General
            Opinion B-219235 of March 23, 1988, 25 CFR Ch, I (4-1-01); 25
            CFR Sec. Sec. 115.600 et. seq. and provisions of the Snyder Act
            also include methods and process the government follows to
            address collection of payments. The appropriated funds for the
            office responsible for the error would be utilized if it were
            decided to use appropriated funds to pay the correct
            account(s).
      --If appropriated funds are utilized, then it is determined whether
            the administrative costs related to recovering the funds from
            the account(s) paid in error would be greater than the amount
            to recover. If the administrative costs are greater than the
            amount to recover, then no efforts are made to recover the
            funds paid in error. If it is determined that the
            administrative costs related to recovering the funds from the
            account(s) paid in error are less than the amount to recover,
            or appropriated funds were not utilized to pay the correct
            account(s), then the process of restricting the account(s) paid
            in error are followed as outlined in 25 CFR Part 115, Subpart E
            are followed for individual accounts. If tribal accounts were
            paid in error, then the tribe is contacted and the requirements
            as outlined in 25 CFR Part 115, Subpart G are followed.
      --If appropriated funds are used to pay the correct account(s), and
            the Department is going to attempt to recover the amounts as
            outlined in the previous bullet, then a receivable is
            established on the Federal Finance System (FFS) for the amount
            to be recovered.
      --If appropriated funds were not previously utilized to correct the
            error, then once the amount paid in error is recovered, it is
            posted to the trust account(s) that should have received the
            funds had the error not occurred and the receivable established
            in FFS is relieved. If appropriated funds were previously
            utilized to correct the error, then once the funds are
            recovered, the receivable established in FFS is relieved.
        Question. What is the statutory authority for this recapture of
    overpayments?
        Answer. The Snyder Act of 1921, 25 USC 13 authorizes appropriations
    and expenditures for the administration of Indian affairs and for
    general and incidental expenses in connection with the administration
    of Indian affairs.
        The President has requested a substantial increase in funding for
    trust management reform.
        Question. How will the Department use these funds to address the
    breaches of trust identified by the Cobell v. Norton litigation, and
    the need to undertake a historical accounting of trust accounts?
        Answer. The Department plans to continue to address trust reform
    initiatives addressed in Cobell v. Norton and is also actively
    undertaking efforts to address historical accounting. The Office of
    Historical Accounting has submitted its work on a report to Congress on
    July 2, 2002 outlining a plan to perform a historical accounting for
    current and past individual Indian account holders. The breaches of
    trust--systems architecture, workforce planning, and collection of
    missing information and records management all have specific programs
    underway to address these requirements. The Status Report to the Court
    Number Ten, dated August 1, 2002 provides a more extensive and detailed
    status of the efforts underway by the Department to address trust
    reform. A copy of the report was provided to the Committee.
        The Secretary's proposal to reorganize the Department's trust
    management functions through the creation of the Bureau of Tribal Asset
    Management (BITAM) has been put on hold while the Department consults
    with tribes.
        Question. In light of the existing uncertainty as to the eventual
    structure of the Department's trust management functions, how does the
    Department plan to use this increased funding level to enable
    significant progress to occur on resolving existing breaches of the
    United States' trust responsibility to Indians?
        Answer. The Departments efforts to continue building relationships
    and understanding with trust beneficiaries are ongoing. DOI's trust
    reform management team has been working with a task force of 24 tribal
    leaders selected by their peers from tribal governments throughout the
    United States. While these efforts are underway, trust reform
    activities are being actively implemented. DOI is creating an ``as-is''
    business model of trust asset management. Once completed, a team of DOI
    and tribal representatives will then create a new model for trust asset
    management. In addition, on September 17, 2002, a ruling by the Court
    in Cobell v. Norton require the Department to provide to the Court no
    later than January 6, 2003: a plan for conducting a historical
    accounting of IIM trust accounts; and a plan for bringing the
    Department into compliance with the fiduciary obligations that are owed
    to IIM beneficiaries, including describing, in detail, the standards by
    which the Department intends to administer IIM trust accounts and how
    the proposed actions bring the Department into compliance with the
    standards.
        Question. Does the Department regard the need to address existing
    breaches of trust as an extraordinary expense that justifies the
    shifting funds from other Indian programs, rather than as justification
    for increasing the total funding for Indian programs?
        Answer. The Department views the need to address the existing
    breaches of trust as significant extraordinary expenses. These
    additional requirements have been identified as budget increases and
    included in the budget justifications each year. The Department has not
    shifted resources from other Indian programs to address trust reform.
    The Department has requested increased funding in both the OST and BIA
    appropriations in the past several fiscal years.
        Question. It is the Committee's understanding that since the
    Department's computer system was shut down by court order, estimated
    oil and gas royalty checks to Indian allottees have been made. Also, a
    recent field hearing in New Mexico demonstrated that mineral royalty
    payments to trust beneficiaries are still subject to delay. How and
    when does the Department plan to resolve these problems?
        Answer. OST has received a number of inquiries regarding the
    estimated royalty payments made by the Department of the Interior in
    February and March 2002 and the process being used to recover those
    estimated payments now that actual oil and gas distributions have
    resumed. The letter described below is intended to clarify the
    estimated payment and recoupment processes.
        The Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians mailed a
    letter explaining the recoupment process to all of the estimated oil
    and gas recipients with valid addresses in the Trust Funds Accounting
    System (TFAS). Also included in the envelope was a separate recap sheet
    dated August 1, 2002 and providing information on:
      --Individual Indian Money (IIM) Account Number.
      --Amount Received for Both Estimated Payments.
      --Amount Recouped to Date.
      --Amount Remaining to be Recouped.
      --Amount Received in Excess of Amount Recouped.
        Printed on the recap sheet was the OST toll free number in case
    they had any questions. The calls will be going to the Office of Trust
    Funds management (OTFM) Field Operations Office in Shawnee, OK.
        A copy of the letter follows:

        ``Dear Account Holder: We have received a number of inquiries
    regarding the estimated royalty payments made by the Department of the
    Interior in February and March 2002 and the process being used to
    recover those estimated payments now that actual oil and gas
    distributions have resumed. This letter is intended to clarify the
    estimated payment and recoupment processes.
        ``An oil and gas royalty payment occurs as a result of information
    collected, shared and processed among several government agencies and
    operators/producers who are engaged in the production of oil or gas
    from Indian trust lands. In order to process these payments as quickly
    as possible, both industry and the government rely on computer
    technology to acquire, sort and process relevant information. There are
    four government agencies involved in the oil and gas royalty payment
    process. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) receives and deposits
    the payments from the producers with the Department of Treasury. MMS
    also collects royalty production information from the producers via the
    Internet. Once MMS reconciles the production information it receives
    from producers, the dollar amount collected and the identification of
    the associated lease are electronically transferred to the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) on a bi-monthly basis. The BIA then determines the
    individual ownership of the allotment(s) subject to the lease and the
    corresponding amount to be credited to the individual owners'
    Individual Indian Monies (IIM) accounts. The BIA electronically
    transmits this information to the Office of Trust Funds Management
    (OTFM). OTFM then processes the BIA transmission, which results in
    credits to the IIM accounts for the oil and gas royalty payments, the
    printing and mailing of Explanations of Payment, and the generation of
    a disbursement in the form of a check or direct deposit if the IIM
    account instructions so indicate.
        ``In December of 2001, the federal district court presiding in the
    case entitled Cobell v. Norton, responding to security concerns
    expressed by the Special Master (an individual assigned by the federal
    judge presiding over this case), ordered that all Department of the
    Interior (DOI) agencies having access to individual Indian trust data
    be disconnected from the Internet. Unfortunately the reliance upon
    computer technology meant that MMS could not receive the oil and gas
    royalty information from the producers, and could not transfer the
    information described above to BIA. Therefore, BIA was also unable to
    transfer necessary information to OTFM in order for OTFM to post oil
    and gas royalty payment credits to IIM accounts, print and mail
    Explanations of Payment, and generate disbursements if the IIM account
    instructions so indicated.
        ``In an effort to limit the harm resulting to Indian trust mineral
    owners from non-processing of these oil and gas royalties, the DOI
    initiated an estimated payment effort based on oil and gas royalty
    information existing from royalty distributions processed in October
    and November of 2001. An average of the payments received in an IIM
    account for the two-month period was calculated. If the average amount
    calculated was $5.00 or greater, the average amount calculated was
    credited to the corresponding IIM account. This process resulted in
    approximately $3.6 million dollars ($1.8 million for February 21, 2002
    and $1.8 million for March 21, 2002) being credited to approximately
    10,000 IIM accounts. The estimated payment amounts were not intended to
    be an entitlement. Rather it was understood that when the processing of
    actual oil and gas royalty payments resumed, the estimated payment
    amounts were to be recouped.
        ``At about the time the second estimated payment was being
    processed, a consent decree between the Special Master, the DOI and the
    plaintiffs in the Cobell v. Norton case was entered by the court
    allowing MMS to reconnect some Internet capabilities in order to
    process oil and gas royalty payments. However, because producers were
    not able to submit production information to MMS during the internet
    disconnect period, a backlog had built-up in processing the oil and gas
    royalty payments that had been received over this period. In order to
    eliminate the backlog as quickly as possible, the four DOI agencies
    involved with oil and gas royalties resumed processing March 27, 2002
    on a weekly basis. Recoupment of the estimated payment amounts credited
    to IIM accounts began with the first weekly distribution in April 2002.
    This means that until an IIM account holder has his or her estimated
    payment amount fully recouped, they will not receive oil and gas
    royalty payments in the form of a check or direct deposit, but will
    continue to receive the Explanation of Payment as the oil and gas
    royalty payments reflected on the Explanation of Payment are being
    posted to the IIM account as well as the recoupment transaction.
    Additionally, the explanation associated with the recoupment
    transactions shows the total amount of estimated payments posted to the
    account, the amount recouped to date and the amount remaining to be
    recouped. This information will be reflected on the quarterly statement
    mailed to the address of record for the IIM account.
        ``In light of the above it is important to note that until all of
    the estimated payment amounts issued are recouped, oil and gas royalty
    account holders will not receive a check with the Explanations of
    Payment that they are receiving even if they have had the estimated
    payment amount that they received fully recouped. Instead, those
    account holders who have had the estimated payment amounts that they
    received fully recouped are receiving a check issued from their IIM
    account with the notation of `Account Balance'. If prior to the
    Internet disconnect, you were receiving direct deposit, once the amount
    of the estimated payments that you received are fully recouped, your
    direct deposits will continue as before as long as the instructions for
    the IIM account so indicate.
        ``As of August 1, 2002, over 98 percent of the oil and gas royalty
    account holders that received estimated payments have had the estimated
    payment amount fully recouped from actual royalty payments received
    through MMS and the BIA. Attached is a recap of the activity associated
    with the estimated payment amounts that you received. We hope that you
    will find this letter and recap informative, and apologize for the
    inconvenience and confusion resulting from the Internet disconnect.''
                     branch of acknowledgment and research
        Question. Does the Department believe that the Branch of
    Acknowledgment and Research can fulfill its responsibility in a timely
    manner with the current level of funding and staffing? What plans does
    the Department have to increase the ability of this branch to function
    in a timely manner?
        Answer. On November 2, 2001, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
    released a report on the acknowledgment process entitled ``Improvements
    Needed in Tribal Recognition Process.'' The two concerns raised by GAO
    were the need to improve the speed and transparency of the decision-
    making process. Currently, the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research
    (BAR) has three research teams. Each team is composed of a cultural
    anthropologist, a genealogist, and a historian. The fiscal year 2003
    President's Budget includes $1,100,000 in funding for three teams and
    support staff for BAR. To improve the speed and transparency of the
    process additional research teams and additional support staff would
    need to be provided. As petitions are processed, increases in
    administrative work such as processing FOIA requests, preparing
    administrative records, and addressing appeals will occur. The
    additional support staff would focus on administrative functions and
    allow the six research teams to focus on the documented petitions.
                       indian land consolidation program
        Question. The Administration proposes to reduce the budget for this
    program by $3 million, from $10.98 million to $7.98 million. The Budget
    justifies the decrease because there are unspent carryover funds
    available. Why were the funds appropriated in fiscal year 2002 not
    expended?
        Answer. The purpose of Indian Land Consolidation program is to
    reduce fractionated ownership of Indian lands through implementation of
    the Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000. This acquisition
    program has been very successful; however, program administration has
    not been able to keep pace with the growing interest in the program.
    Time required to conduct appraisals, title searches and other
    administrative requirements, were compounded by the impact of the BIA
    Internet shut down during fiscal year 2002. We have provided addition
    staff, training, and administrative support to this program to process
    pending and new applications. Any funds not obligated in fiscal year
    2002 will carryover to the next fiscal year and are anticipated to be
    obligated in fiscal year 2003.
                                     ______

             Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
                        platte river endangered species
        As you know, in 1997 the States of Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska
    entered into a Cooperative Agreement for endangered species on the
    Platte River in Nebraska. Colorado water suppliers hundreds of miles
    upstream from where these species (the whooping crane, piping plover,
    least tern and pallid sturgeon) are affected by the Endangered Species
    Act. The science behind this Cooperative Agreement has become very
    controversial.
        You may have heard about federal biologists wanting to dump 500
    tons of sand in the Platte River in Nebraska for the alleged benefit of
    these species! The states and water users also have real questions
    about the science behind so-called target flow requirements for these
    birds (and a fish). As you know, Colorado faces the worst drought in
    its recorded history. Water suppliers hundreds of miles upstream have
    to sacrifice water for species in Nebraska based on questionable
    science.
        The participants in this Platte River Cooperative Agreement propose
    an independent study of the science behind these issues by the National
    Academy of Sciences (NAS). I understand the Bureau of Reclamation alone
    contributes up to $2 million per year for the Platte River Cooperative
    Agreement.
        Question. Secretary Norton, would you support an NAS study?
        Answer. Yes, the Department is supportive of a National Academy
    Review of endangered species issues in the Platte River Basin.
                           hazardous fuels reduction
        As we all know, Colorado is in trouble with these fires. Here it
    is, only June 13th, and thousands of acres of have already burned. Over
    80 percent of Colorado has been classified under the U.S. Drought
    Monitor as ``Extreme'' drought or ``Exceptional'' drought, which is
    obviously worse.
        This drought is going to create a lot of hazardous fuels for future
    fires (if it isn't burned by now). The Forest Service told me that they
    are behind in fuels reduction due to ``analysis paralysis.''
        Question. I am curious as to your level of progress in fuels
    reduction and if you have encountered the types of setbacks and delays
    experienced by the Forest Service.
        Answer. The Department is making good progress in its fuels
    treatment program. In 2002 the Department treated over 1,050,000 acres.
    This exceeds by 44 percent the 728,000 acres treated in 2001. For 2003,
    the program plans to treat at least 1,118,000 acres.
        With respect to Colorado, the 2002 target was 83,500 acres. The
    Department treated 22,254 acres. Our inability to achieve the target
    was a function of significant wildland fire activity in Colorado and
    the minuscule burn window available in which to conduct prescribed
    fires.
        Generally, appeals and concerns about appeals can adversely impact
    the Department's ability to conduct needed fuels treatments, delaying
    and constraining such projects. While a problem for the Department of
    the Interior, the Department understands that it is even more so for
    the Forest Service because Forest Service fuels treatment projects are
    subjected to a more cumbersome review and approval process that creates
    more opportunities for procedural delays, administrative appeals, and
    litigation.
                              school construction
        The Request includes $121 million to fund 6 Schools on the
    ``Replacement School List''. Given the length of that List, two
    questions come to mind:
        Question. At the current rate of Annual Funding, when will the List
    be eliminated?
        Answer. The existing priority list published in the Federal
    Register on January 9, 2001 contains 20 replacement schools. If fiscal
    year 2003 funding is provided as requested, only three schools on the
    list will remain unfunded. The three schools that will remain on the
    list to be funded in fiscal year 2004 will be Turtle Mountain High
    School, ND, Mescalero Tribal School, NM, and, Enemy Swim Day School,
    SD. Consequently, at the current rate of funding, the existing
    replacement school priority list will be eliminated with fiscal year
    2004 funding. With this progress, the Bureau will be developing a third
    priority list for replacement of schools to be published in the Federal
    Register in the near future.
        Question. Does the Administration support creative ways to finance
    Indian School Construction, for instance co-financing with willing
    Tribes or initiatives such as the ``Indian School Bonding Initiative''
    (S. 243) that would complement Federal funds by issuing debt
    instruments to raise capital in the private markets to build Indian
    Schools?
        Answer. The Department and the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs
    have in the past and continue to seek alternative sources of funding to
    supplement current appropriations for replacement, repair, and
    improvement of existing school facilities. The Assistant Secretary has
    expressed to the Congress his support of the bonding concept contained
    in the S. 243 legislation. And, if the legislation is passed this year,
    the Bureau would seek to implement the program as soon as practical and
    in coordination with the Tribes so that additional funding needs of
    high priority school projects could be addressed in future fiscal
    years.
                           tribal energy development
        The BIA request includes $2.8 million for ``Minerals and Mining
    Management'' a 29 percent increase over fiscal year 2002. This amount
    includes $1 million for the ``Mineral Assessment Program''. Also, the
    request includes $585,000 for an ``Energy Oversight and Coordination
    Team'' to implement the Bureau's Energy Development Plan.
        Question. There seems to be a lot of overlap in the Mineral
    Assessment Program and the Energy Oversight and Coordination Team. Can
    you explain how these programs interact?
        Answer. Funding for the Energy Oversight And Coordination Team
    ($585,000) would be used to establish work groups to address planning,
    development and implementation of energy policies, which includes
    consultation with Tribes concerning trust responsibility and
    conservation issues. This initiative would be part of the Economic
    Development program under the Bureau's Tribal Priority Allocations
    Program. The overall goal of the economic development program is to
    provide Tribes with the resources necessary to develop a self-
    sustaining economic base. The potential exists for additional energy
    production on Indian lands, and this initiative would help build the
    capability of Tribes to promote and market their energy resources.
        The Mineral Assessments Program ($1 million) provides grants to
    Tribes to evaluate mineral resource potential through the acquisition
    of exploratory data and the subsequent geoscientific interpretation,
    and to develop Integrated Resource Management Plans (IRMP). This
    information helps Indian landowners ascertain the potential value of
    their lands for leasing purposes and assists them in resource planning.
    Funding for this program is provided under the Bureau's Non-Recurring
    Program.
        In short, the Minerals Assessment Program helps Tribes evaluate
    what mineral resources they have, the Energy Oversight and Coordination
    Team will help them promote and market these energy resources.
        Question. Has the Department undertaken any analysis to see how the
    Regulatory and Administrative processes of the Department and the
    Tribes can be streamlined so that Energy Projects are encouraged and
    not made difficult by the stifling bureaucracy?
        Answer. Several actions are underway or completed, which will
    result in greater efficiencies in the development of Indian energy and
    minerals resources. BIA is currently revising its 25 CFR Part 216
    regulations related to the exploration, mining, and reclamation of
    Indian minerals. Although BIA authorizes the development of energy and
    mineral resources on Indian lands, other agencies in the Department
    provide operational assistance. BLM is working with the BIA to ensure
    that the 25 CFR 216 regulations contain certain regulatory provisions
    governing Federal energy and minerals leases, which will also apply, to
    operations on Indian lands. The regulations are also being rewritten in
    plain English.
        BLM has solicited industry and trade group comments to help
    identify problems with the Application for Permit to Drill process
    (APD). BLM is implementing technological improvements such as on-line
    APD processing and the well information service that potentially would
    speed the processing of energy projects on tribal lands. BLM's efforts
    to streamline its APD process and enhance its Inspection and
    Enforcement program are expected to result in improved processing and
    compliance on Indian lands.
        In addition, agencies in the Department are working to improve
    communication with Indian beneficiaries relative to energy development
    on tribal and allotted lands. For example, BIA, OSM and BLM just
    revised an interagency memorandum of understanding to streamline and
    clarify the responsibilities of each agency for Indian coal leasing and
    operations.
                         self-determination contracting
        I am encouraged that the Department is continuing to support Tribal
    Self Governance Contracting and Compacting and the way I see it,
    encouraging ``outsourcing'' of BIA functions to the Tribes seems to
    directly correspond to the President's goal of maximizing outsourcing
    of Federal programs.
        Question. Does the Department take the view that Tribal Contracting
    and Compacting represents the kind of ``outsourcing'' the President has
    in mind? Are there plans to encourage additional Tribes to become
    Contractors and Compactors under the Indian Self-Determination Act?
        Answer. The Department views contracting and compacting of Bureau
    programs as a form of competitive sourcing, in accordance with the
    President's Management Agenda.
        The Bureau has a very active and popular education and training
    program for Bureau and tribal staff with regard to Public Law 93-638,
    as amended. Training is provided to Bureau staff to ensure that they
    possess and maintain the most current understanding of the law and how
    it relates to Indian Tribes. The Bureau has provided formal training to
    655 Bureau employees and 355 tribal staff, through the third quarter of
    fiscal year 2002.
                 percentage of bia budget contracted to tribes
        The Indian Health Service (IHS) recently testified that 52 percent
    of its budget is now administered directly by Tribes under the Indian
    Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
        Question. What percentage of the total BIA budget is directly
    administered by Tribes under that Act?
        Answer. About 50 percent of the total BIA budget is directly
    administered by Tribes/Consortia through Self-Governance funding
    agreements or self-determination contracts.
                                  budget games
        Tribal Self-Governance Compacting began in 1991 with 7 tribes and
    happily has now grown to include 85 funding agreements for 226 tribes.
    But the Budget Request notes that the funding increase for fiscal year
    2003 is from ``estimates of road construction funds from the Federal
    Highway Administration.
        Question. Does this mean that the Self-Governance funding increase
    comes from a reduction in the Indian Roads Account?
        Answer. No, the increase reflects estimates of road construction
    funds that will come from the Federal Highway Administration and be
    included in self-governance agreements. The Indian Reservation Roads
    program funds road maintenance, and is separate from road construction
    funds received from the Federal Highway Administration.
        Question. Because I grew concerned about the administration of the
    Indian Reservation Roads program, I introduced legislation (S. 344) to
    reform the process. Can you provide the Subcommittee with your views of
    that bill?
        Answer. The maintenance of Indian reservation roads is a high
    priority. Well maintained roads and bridges are critical to economic
    and community development on reservations. S. 344 is currently under
    review, and we are working with the administration to prepare our views
    on the bill for the Subcommittee. The Department looks forward to
    working with the Subcommittee to enact reforms that will improve the
    efficiency and effectiveness of the Indian Reservation Roads program.
                         encouraging tribal contracting
        One of the BIA's long term GPRA goals is to ``By 2005,  . . .
    promote Indian Self Determination by increasing Public Law 93-638
    training and technical assistance by more than 200 percent and
    minimizing impediments to Tribal contracting, compacting and grants.''
        Question. How does the BIA actively encourage Tribes to consider
    entering into self-governance compacts or to enter into 638 contracts
    for BIA programs?
        Answer. The BIA provides training and technical assistance to
    tribal leaders and staff as well as to BIA regional and agency staff on
    the procedures and mechanics of entering into 638 Self-Governance
    contracts. BIA is also willing and able to provide technical assistance
    on individual programs should tribes so request. In addition, the
    Office of Self-Governance as well as existing Self-Governance tribes/
    consortia are willing to provide technical assistance to other tribes
    who are interested in entering into a Self-Governance funding
    agreement.
                               trust improvement
        Question. For the Office of the Special Trustee the Request
    includes $160.6 million--a 44 percent increase over the fiscal year
    2002 enacted level, and includes $153.4 million for trust operations
    and services, a 29 percent increase over the fiscal year 2002 enacted
    level. In many ways the request is based on the High Level
    Implementation Plan (HLIP) which we understand is now ``dead''. So are
    these figures subject to change and when will we know the accurate
    funding levels that are needed?
        Answer. While the overall trust business plan is being developed,
    ongoing trust reform efforts will continue. These include, but are not
    limited to: development of the business processes for all trust
    functions, which will lead to better services to all beneficiaries;
    development of the systems and architectures to support these
    processes; continuing to process backlog probate cases throughout all
    regions; an assessment of the viability of use of the TAAMS title
    module; realignment of the data clean up priorities; expansion of the
    risk management program to assure consistent and effective operation of
    trust programs; and the clean up, storage and inventorying of trust
    records to maintain the vital historical documents needed as the
    trustee.
        DOI officials and tribal government leaders are working through the
    issues on a true government-to-government basis to seek innovative
    solutions to some very intractable problems facing both tribes and DOI.
    As encouraged as the Department is about the progress to date, it is
    also true that the process of reaching agreement has occasionally been
    agonizingly slow, and it is clear that overnight, quick fixes are
    unlikely.
        Nevertheless, the Department remains committed to changing the way
    business is done in Indian country and to using the resources Congress
    provides in the most efficient and effective way possible to carry out
    our trust duties. The Department hopes that the proposals formulated
    from the collaborative Task Force process will be more widely embraced
    and more enduring than changes imposed unilaterally.
        The Task Force recommended that DOI establish an Undersecretary
    position within DOI that will be the focal point for all DOI Indian
    trust matters, regardless of which bureau or office has responsibility
    for the particular issue. In addition, the Task Force has agreed in
    principle to an office of Trust Accountability that will be responsible
    for ensuring that individual and tribal trust assets held by the
    federal government on behalf of individuals and tribes will be The
    results of the initial consultation effort were reported at a
    Congressional hearing on July 30, managed in a manner that meets the
    highest level of fiduciary trust responsibility. At the final
    consultation meeting in Arlington, VA. the Tribal leadership of the
    Task Force withdrew its request for the Under Secretary position in
    exchange for a broad trust legislation that could not be supported by
    DOI. DOI will continue with its efforts to realign responsibilities
    within DOI to accomplish as much as possible from the Task Force
    recommendations.
        The Task Force will continue to review the remaining trust
    structure, including the difficult issue of regional and agency-level
    organization. The Department will continue to meet with tribes and
    tribal organizations in the future as trust improvements are
    implemented.
        Question. Once the Department, in consultation with the Tribal Task
    Force, has finalized a plan for trust asset management reform, can we
    expect you to come back with a Reprogramming Request?
        Answer. The Department expects that a reprogramming request will be
    submitted for the new trust organization once the plan is finalized and
    an appropriate level of detail is available.
                 expediting pilot of indian land consolidation
        After hearings before the Indian Affairs Committee it became
    apparent there are internal administrative obstacles, such as friction
    between the BIA and the Office of Special Trustee, to expediting
    consolidation of Indian lands under the Pilot Program we launched years
    ago.
        Question. Would the Department be willing to work with the
    Committee staff to come up with ways to expedite and leverage the money
    appropriated for the Land Consolidation program so that we can re-
    consolidate checkerboard Indian lands?
        Answer. Yes, the Department is willing to work with the staff to
    expedite and leverage the money for land consolidations.
                          indian loan guaranty program
        I am advised that the Indian Guaranteed Loan Fund has a 93 percent
    success rate and helps create jobs and increase private investment on
    Native American reservations.
        Question. Is the Department interested in expanding this program?
        Answer. The Indian Finance Act has not been substantially revised
    since 1974. Although the Act has been quite successful overall, it
    remains long overdue for increased lending limit authority levels to
    keep up with inflation over the past 25 years and to expand its future
    operation and programs. Changes to the Act have the potential to
    provide a real economic stimulus for many sectors of the Tribal
    economy, as individual tribal members and tribal governments can more
    effectively develop business opportunities suited to the increased
    populations that now exist on most reservations.
        To that end, the President's budget proposes appropriation language
    to increase the Guaranteed Loan Program by $500,000 to implement the
    insured loan portion of the Act. The benefits of the loan insurance
    aspect of the Act have not been fully realized. With insured loans,
    financial lenders would assume greater responsibilities in financing
    and servicing smaller-sized Indian businesses. Numerous, modest Indian
    business loan proposals currently being proposed that are suited to
    insured loans. The requested increase would generate about $7 million
    in additional loan subsidies.
        Question. Would you support a proposal to enact an Indian Self-
    Determination Act Pilot to ``out-source'' the functions of the Guaranty
    Loan Program to private institutions that have expertise in lending to
    economically troubled areas?
        Answer. The program has already been significantly outsourced. The
    current functions of the Guaranty Loan Program are federal functions
    that are not subject to competitive sourcing. The loan officer
    functions of client assistance, loan review and loan servicing have
    already been contracted to tribes under Public Law 93-638. However,
    loan approval and lender monitoring is a federal function that cannot
    be contracted out. Foreclosure and liquidation of trust assets held as
    collateral are also federal functions. The preparation of regulations
    to implement the loan program is not subject to contracting. This
    program has already been diminished to a very small staff of
    approximately 15 full time equivalent employees throughout the country,
    with many regions servicing several states and a large number of tribes
    with just one full- or part-time loan officer.
                               reservation roads
        Question. In light of the upcoming re-authorization of TEA-21, can
    you tell me the major challenges to the Indian Reservation Roads
    Program?
        Answer. Increased funding is needed to allow meaningful
    participation of all Tribes in the program. The reauthorization of TEA-
    21 in 1998 included an increase of approximately 50 percent for states.
    This helped in the implementation of the apportionment formulas among
    all states. Tribal governments are faced with a similar dilemma. The
    road maintenance program funding (Tribal Priority Allocation) amount is
    disproportionately small in comparison to the Highway Trust Funded IRR
    program. The eligibility of heavy or major maintenance activities such
    as bridge repairs, restoration of paved surfaces, etc., under the IRR
    program would help to maintain these structures and reduce the need to
    reconstruct deteriorating roads and structures while assuring that IRR
    are kept safe and open.
        Question. Does the IRR Program need funding and/or structural
    changes to improve its effectiveness?
        Answer. The program could be improved with authority in place to
    use the national priority program of bridges' funds (Indian Reservation
    Roads Bridge Program) for preliminary engineering activities such as
    engineering design and planning. Currently the reserved $13 million a
    year can only be utilized for construction and construction
    engineering. Many deficient IRR bridge projects are delayed because
    other funds have to be approved and acquired before a project can be
    submitted to the Federal Highway Administration for approval and
    funding for construction.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                                      bia
        Question. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, through its Office of
    Indian Education Programs `` OIEP'', filed a single 470 application as
    a consortium on behalf of all 185 BIA funded schools in late 2001. What
    type and when was consultation with the schools and tribes on the
    OIEP's Master Technology Plan conducted?
        Answer. The OIEP has two types of Technology Plans. The over-
    arching technology plan was developed with representatives from the
    OIEP and representatives in the OIEP school system (Bureau Funded,
    Contract, and Grant Schools). This technology plan sets the vision and
    direction for OIEP's education technology program. The technology plan
    used for eRate purposes (referred to as the ``Master Technology Plan'')
    is a nuts and bolts technology plan on how to implement the education
    technology plan. This plan was developed by the OIEP through the use of
    written consultation (in 2001/2002) procedures with Tribal Education
    Organizations and schools. The results of this written consultation
    process were incorporated into our education technology plan and formed
    the basis for the eRate application.
        Question. Was a site survey of BIA's Master Technology Plan (MTP)
    completed?
        Answer. The OIEP completed a representative sampling of 66 schools
    in early December 2001, in preparation of the eRate Technology Plan.
        Question. How does the BIA's MTP fit in with the goals and
    objectives of the previous ``Meeting of 100?''
        Answer. The MTP supports the goals and objectives developed by the
    ``Meeting of 100'' by providing support for: early reading programs,
    enhanced use of technology to teach math and reading skills, and
    greater access to resources on Native cultures through the use of the
    Internet.
        Question. Does the OIEP Master Technology Plan take into
    consideration new school construction?
        Answer. Yes. Although the eRate technology Plan does not
    specifically deal with new construction, it does set standards for the
    following areas:
      --Standardized Data Communications Equipment
      --Standardized Voice Communications Equipment
      --Standardized Wireless Communications Equipment
                               drought and water
        The State of New Mexico is experiencing severe drought conditions.
    Recently, New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson sent a letter to Secretary
    Veneman requesting Secretarial designation of disaster areas for all of
    New Mexico's counties.
        The drought conditions have only added to the challenges of New
    Mexico and other Western states who suffer from a limited water supply.
    The economic impacts on many individuals, rural communities and
    businesses are likely to get worse. Additionally, severe drought
    conditions have only compounded the threat posed by catastrophic
    wildfire.
        As many of you on this committee are aware, there was relatively no
    funding included in the Senate passed Supplemental to alleviate
    worsening drought conditions.
        Question. If additional money is not made available, how will you
    address the water crises west-wide in the upcoming months?
        Answer. While the Albuquerque Area Office has some substantial
    drought-related funding needs for supplemental water purchases,
    including contracts agreed to between Reclamation and the City of
    Albuquerque, the magnitude of the problems exceeds currently available
    resources. If there is no water available from willing parties for
    lease, as is the case on the Pecos River Basin, money can not solve the
    problem. Resources will have to be prioritized to mitigate the most
    serious problems.
                               drought and minnow
        Severe drought conditions in most of the west have added to the
    challenges already facing many states with regard to endangered
    species. Madame Secretary, I know that you are familiar with the plight
    of the silvery minnow and the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico. New
    Mexico remains grateful for your efforts in getting the 3-year
    agreement signed and implemented last year. As you know, the District
    Court Judge handling that case recently issued a ruling on the matter.
        Question. How is the Department of the Interior dealing with this
    current litigation?
        Answer. The drought in the western United States is having a
    significant impact on many Department of the Interior programs. The
    Department is closely monitoring the situation in New Mexico with the
    intent to reduce the drought impacts.
        This specific litigation began in 1999 when environmental groups
    represented by the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies (Plaintiffs) sued
    the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers for alleged
    violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
        In an April 19, 2002 opinion, Chief Judge James A. Parker upheld a
    June 2001 Biological Opinion issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
    In that decision, however, Judge Parker also held that Reclamation had
    improperly limited the scope of its ESA consultation and that it had
    broad discretionary authority to use natural Rio Grande flows
    associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project and the San Juan-Chama
    Project for the silvery minnow. Therefore, Reclamation would have to
    consult over the exercise of that authority for the benefit of the
    silvery minnow if and when it reinitiated consultation.
        Although the United States filed a protective notice of appeal and
    intervening parties filed notices of appeal, the Tenth Circuit
    dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
        Question. Does Interior plan to appeal this decision?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior is still weighing its
    options regarding appeal.
        When litigation on the Middle Rio Grande began, I brought all
    interested parties (federal agencies, environmentalists, state agencies
    and farmers) together with the intent that they reach an agreement on
    the issue rather than pursuing litigation. This group, known as the ESA
    Workgroup was created at that time and has been receiving federal
    dollars to proceed with the project. In fiscal year 2002, the group
    received $11.2 million for the project. Many of these dollars were
    necessary in order to meet the requirements of the 3 year agreement and
    Biological Opinion signed last summer.
        It is my understanding the Bureau of Reclamation has many
    commitments as a result of the Biological Opinion and the on-going
    litigation. I did notice you did not request money in your budget to
    help meet these commitments.
        Question. Thus far, has the Bureau of Reclamation been able to
    comply with the requirements of the Biological Opinion?
        Answer. Reclamation experienced a several week period where
    extremely dry conditions and insufficient bypass of water by the Middle
    Rio Grande Conservancy District caused flows to drop below target
    levels at the San Marcial gage. This resulted in drying of about 7
    miles of river channel. Reclamation initiated informal consultation
    over these problems and worked with all parties to regain compliance
    with the Biological Opinion.
        Question. Do you feel that the Bureau will still be in a position
    to meet it commitments and the Biological Opinion requirements
    following the recent ruling?
        Answer. In spite of recent water leasing and water loaning
    transactions between the City of Albuquerque, Reclamation, and the
    Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, meeting the requirements of the
    Biological Opinion through the end of the irrigation season may be
    difficult. The District is now estimating that it may use all of its
    newly acquired water by August. Without District irrigation water
    running down the river or without additional precipitation, it will be
    difficult for Reclamation to meet all of the Biological Opinion flow
    requirements with only the water that it has currently leased from the
    City.
                      pecos river and compact obligations
        New Mexico has certain obligations under a United States Supreme
    Court decree to deliver water to Texas on the Pecos River. The Carlsbad
    Irrigation District is the most senior water user on the river. Once
    again the drought makes these water deliveries and even greater
    challenge. The State of New Mexico has taken steps to try and help with
    this situation.
        Question. What is being done to ensure interstate-compact
    compliance in light of the drought and Bureau of Reclamation
    responsibilities?
        Answer. While Reclamation has no direct responsibility for meeting
    Pecos River Compact obligations, we are an active participant on the
    Pecos River Basin Ad Hoc Committee, which was established by the State
    of New Mexico to come up with solutions for meeting the compact
    obligation.
        Question. Is the Bureau of Reclamation working with the State of
    New Mexico and the beneficiaries of the Carlsbad project to prevent any
    under-delivery of water to the State of Texas?
        Answer. Reclamation continues to work with the State and Carlsbad
    Irrigation District to find creative ways to get water to the state
    line for delivery. Collectively, we were successful in averting a
    shortfall last season. According to State estimates, this year may be
    much more difficult for New Mexico to meet its compact obligations, and
    we are currently working with the State and the District to start
    pumping wells in order to get water to the state line as we did last
    year.
        We are also beginning negotiations on more permanent arrangements
    between the State and the District under which the State would purchase
    and retire irrigated lands within the district and use the appurtenant
    water to make compact deliveries.
        Last year's budget request greatly reduced the amount for the on-
    going Pecos River Basin Water Salvage project. However, the fiscal year
    2002 Appropriations bill provided additional funds to maintain this
    worthwhile project, which eradicates water-using salt cedar in an
    effort to increase the amount of water in the Pecos. The fiscal year
    2003 budget request again reduces the amount for this project.
        Question. Can you explain the rationale which led to reduced
    funding levels for this long term collaborative project with the State
    of New Mexico?
        Answer. Due to the demands resulting from the extraordinary drought
    we are experiencing, Reclamation found it necessary to reprioritize
    available funding. Other efforts, such as leasing water from willing
    parties, are more effective means of providing wet water in the river.
                                    security
        Secretary Norton, since September 11th the Bureau, along with all
    other agencies, has focused its efforts in determining risk and threat
    assessments. With NM being a Reclamation state there are a number of
    dams and works that could be at risk.
        Question. Can you tell me, in general terms, what efforts the
    Bureau has made since and how has the Bureau handled this new
    environment of heightened security?
        Answer. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the Bureau of
    Reclamation (Reclamation) took immediate actions to ensure the safety
    of the public, their employees, and their facilities. Reclamation
    activated all emergency action plans and continuity of operation plans;
    initiated stationing armed law enforcement officers and security guards
    on around-the-clock patrols at all National Critical Infrastructure
    dams and other major dam and power plant facilities; and increased
    patrols and surveillance at all facilities.
        Reclamation closed all visitor centers at dams and halted public
    tours until security assessments of tours and visitor centers were
    completed and recommended actions to increase security were
    implemented. The agency also provided security guidance on tourism and
    international visitors prior to re-initiating public tours. Most
    visitor centers have now been re-opened and limited tours re-started.
        Reclamation's website was shut down until all potentially sensitive
    information could be screened and removed from the site if deemed a
    security risk.
        Other threat response measures such as limiting traffic near
    facilities, inspecting vehicles, screening all visitors, increasing
    liaison with local law enforcement officials, and erecting security
    barriers were implemented. Reclamation also coordinated actions with
    Department of the Interior security experts, Interior bureaus with law
    enforcement authority, Office of Homeland Security, Interagency Forum
    on Infrastructure Protection, and other security and law enforcement
    organizations.
        Reclamation contracted with expert security organizations such as
    Defense Threat Reduction Agency and Lawrence Livermore National
    Laboratories to conduct in-depth vulnerability assessments at the 55
    most critical facilities (scheduled to be completed by the end of
    calendar year 2002). Assessments at all other of Reclamation's 252 high
    and significant hazard dams will be contracted over next two years.
    Regional Offices are implementing recommendations resulting from
    assessments in 30 or 60 days where feasible. A high level Security
    Assessment Team (which includes Sandia National Laboratories) reviews
    reports and meets with the Regional Director, Area Manager, and the
    Director of Security, Safety and Law Enforcement to analyze report
    recommendations and develop a decision document for programming long
    term actions for security improvements.
        Reclamation also contracted with Sandia National Laboratories to
    perform an independent top-down review of the agency's security
    program, which will evaluate its effectiveness and make recommendations
    for improvement. The review is underway and scheduled to be completed
    by end of 2002.
        Following enactment of Public Law 107-69 on November 12, 2001,
    Reclamation moved to implement its new law enforcement authority by
    publishing rules on public conduct on Reclamation lands in the Federal
    Register on April 17, 2002. Following review and approval by the
    Attorney General, regulations on the contractual use of non-Interior
    law enforcement officers to enforce Federal laws on Reclamation lands
    were published on June 4, 2002. Actions are underway to recruit
    permanent regional law enforcement officers and to finalize contractual
    arrangements with other Federal, state, tribal or local law enforcement
    organizations to complete implementation of the law enforcement
    program.
        The Commissioner of Reclamation created the new Office of Security,
    Safety, and Law Enforcement to bring the functions of physical
    security, health and public safety, dam safety, and law enforcement
    under a single command.
                            water funding and minnow
        I'm sure you are aware of the new agreement signed last Friday
    between the Bureau of Reclamation Albuquerque office and the City of
    Albuquerque. The agreement will allow the Bureau to purchase water from
    the City for the benefit of farmers and endangered fish. Four million
    dollars is needed for the Bureau to complete this purchase. The money
    was not included in the Supplemental.
        Question. If this money does not get included, how do you plan to
    keep the agreement signed (or will you, under those circumstances)?
        Answer. Without supplemental funding this priority commitment can
    only be maintained by a re-prioritization among competing needs within
    Reclamation's available funding.
        Question. Do you feel the water under that agreement will satisfy
    the existing Biological Opinion and will it avoid future crises and
    further litigation?
        Answer. Initially, when the agreement was being considered, most of
    the parties thought the amounts of water would be adequate. But now the
    Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District is advising other parties that
    even this additional amount of water may be exhausted sometime in
    August. If the District runs out of water in August, it likely will be
    impossible for Reclamation to meet the Biological Opinion's flow
    requirements with the amount of water currently leased for the minnow.
        The water under the Agreement will not necessarily avoid crises in
    the future if drought conditions continue. Should Reclamation predict
    that we would not be able to meet the flow recommendations contained in
    the Biological Opinion, we would have to re-consult with the Fish and
    Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
                                trust management
        Question. Can you please provide the Committee with an update of
    your efforts to reform the management of the Indian Trust funds and
    assets, including how the Department is abiding by the direction
    provided by the Senate Appropriations Committee to not reprogram any
    funds for the new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management (BITAM)?
        Answer. To date, the Department is abiding by the direction of the
    Senate Appropriations Committee and has not reprogrammed any funds for
    a new trust organization. The following is a summary of some of the
    trust reform efforts underway within the Department. A copy of the
    Quarterly Reports to the Court, which provide more detailed information
    are provided to the Committee.
    Reorganization
        DOI officials have had several meeting with the Task Force. Three
    meetings were held in various locations to accommodate tribal requests.
    The Task Force recommended that a new position of Undersecretary for
    Indian Affairs be created in order to provide within DOI a high-level
    executive who would have direct line authority over all agencies that
    are engaged in delivering trust services or managing trust operations.
    DOI agreed with this request and this information was provided to
    Congress at a hearing in June 2002.
        Unfortunately, subsequent to the June hearing, DOI was advised that
    the Tribal leadership of the Task Force withdrew its recommendation and
    consent to the Undersecretary proposal. The Task Force offered a
    substitute proposal, which included the office of an Undersecretary,
    but had several other conditions that were not acceptable to DOI and
    likely, would not be acceptable to Congress. To confirm that the tribes
    were in accord on this, a Task Force meeting was held in Alexandria,
    Virginia, in September. At that meeting, the tribes advised DOI that
    they planned to proceed with their own legislation and were not willing
    to agree to reorganization with an Undersecretary as a stand-alone
    legislative act. DOI will now take into consideration all that has been
    learned from the consultation sessions and proceed to complete its plan
    and provide a way of executing the plan through the present structure
    of the Department.
    Trust Business Plan (Strategic Plan)
        DOI continues work on the Trust Business Plan. The Task Force, the
    Special Trustee for American Indians and other trust-related managers
    within DOI approved the goals and objectives of the plan. The tasks for
    completing each objective are being developed and will be incorporated
    into the final plan. Each task will be defined by the ``As-Is''
    business process review now underway or will be a new ``To-Be''
    determined task by reengineering of an ``As-Is'' task. Each task will
    have an individual an assigned with appropriate training plan meeting
    the requirements of the task and performance standards and metrics to
    determine whether the tasks are being appropriately managed. Many of
    these lower-level tasks will, of necessity, not be defined until the
    ``To-Be'' business processes have been determined, and the policy,
    procedures and regulations, as required, are written and implemented.
    In addition, DOI will develop a plan that addresses the requirements
    set forth in the Court Orders of September 17, 2002, will be developed
    and submitted to the Court as requested.
    Fractionation
        Work on resolving fractionation of Indian lands has continued. DOI
    hosted a large group of regional, agency, central office, tribal and
    individual representatives to discuss the issue and develop options for
    managing or eliminating the problem. DOI is required to manage
    thousands of accounts that contain less than one cent and many
    thousands more that contain less than a dollar. The money expended on
    managing these kinds of accounts takes away resources needed to manage
    more productive properties. No private trustee would engage in such a
    practice as most private trusts are fee-generating businesses and there
    is not sufficient income from small dollar accounts to pay a fee. In
    many instances, several thousand individuals own a single tract of
    land. This makes the land very difficult to manage and, as a result,
    produces less income than might otherwise be available. The Indian Land
    Consolidation Act of 2000 is a step in the right direction. The impact
    of this Act has been reported previously. It is important that DOI
    continue to pursue land consolidation as a remedy on a nationwide
    basis.
    Other Trust Reform Activities
        The ``As-Is'' study being done by DOI with the help of EDS is
    scheduled to be completed by the end of calendar year 2002. All regions
    will have had an opportunity to complete an assessment of how trust
    business processes are done currently and will later have the
    opportunity to express ideas on how these processes can be improved. A
    special business process review time for self-governance tribes has
    been set aside for November 2002, at which time tribal trust business
    processes will be examined.
        One of the major concerns of the Tribal Task Force has been whether
    DOI has the appropriate manpower and money to meet the requirements of
    the trust duties required of DOI. DOI has worked closely with the
    workforce planning coordinator assigned to the trust project to be
    certain that field personnel are aware of workforce planning tools
    available through the DOI and knowledgeable of how to use these tools.
        Efforts are well underway to consolidate training for all areas of
    trust. Efforts are underway to develop a trust executive training
    program for all Bureau of Indian Affairs' superintendents and regional
    directors.
                            bia school privatization
        Question. Can you please elaborate as to the reference of BIA
    school privatization being the ``centerpiece'' of the Administration's
    Indian school policy? Of the 185 schools the BIA manages currently, how
    many of them have been privatized?
        Answer. Of the 185 schools the BIA manages, no schools have been
    privatized. There are 121 schools that are being managed through grant
    or contract status by Tribes. The requested $11.9 million encourages
    tribes to seek grant or contract status for the remaining 64 schools by
    increasing the funding levels for student transportation, school
    facilities and maintenance operations, and Administrative Cost grants;
    these programs total over $8 million of the requested funding. An
    additional $2 million is requested to fund the transition/displacement
    of personnel. The Administration believes schools are best operated by
    organizations that are closest to the communities being served--in this
    case the tribes themselves. In the event that tribes do not wish to
    operate the schools, the Bureau would like to bring in partners to help
    manage the schools and improve student performance as the Congress
    indicated was essential in their recent No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
    legislation. The Administration is seeking $3 million to contract with
    private education providers to assist in improving education in Bureau-
    operated schools.
                                tribal colleges
        Question. Please justify the President' s budget request for tribal
    colleges, and specifically why it has been cut by $2 million less than
    Congress appropriated last year?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2003 budget request for
    Tribally Controlled Community Colleges maintains a level of funding
    that has significantly increased since 1993.
        Over the last 10 years funding for operating grants for TCCCs has
    increased by 65 percent, from $23 million in 1993 to $38 million
    proposed for fiscal year 2003. Over the same 10 year period the Indian
    Student Count (ISC) has increased by 35 percent, from 5,800 to 8,000,
    and per ISC funding is currently $4,700 compared to $3,600 in 1993. The
    ISC is calculated by dividing the total number of full and part-time
    credit hours provided by a college by 12, the number of credits an
    average full-time student would take. The operating grants are
    distributed to the TCCCs based on the ISC.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Mike DeWine
        Question. If the Senate were to provide the $14 million for
    administration expenses that was included in the President's fiscal
    year 2003 budget, would the Fish & Wildlife Service provide the
    administrative funds needed in order to continue the partnership with
    the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to sustain the current level of sea
    lamprey control in the Great Lakes?
        Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service has a long-standing,
    important partnership with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in the
    delivery of sea lamprey control on the Great Lakes. This effort has
    been enormously successful in reducing lamprey abundance, restoring
    lake trout, and protecting the $4 billion fishery. The Service is
    committed to maintaining this successful partnership.
        The President's fiscal year 2003 budget request includes a program
    increase of $13 million in the General Operations activity. The
    increase will be made available to Service programs to implement the
    Secretary's Cooperative Conservation Initiative, an incentive-based,
    cost-share grant program that will be used to fund cooperative
    conservation challenge projects.
        The types of projects that would qualify for funding are those that
    seek to restore natural resources through innovative means or
    practices, establish or expand habitat for wildlife, or collect
    information whose purpose contributes directly to the conservation of
    natural resources or protection of wildlife. Funding is for activities
    that encourage Service offices to reach out to new constituencies and
    promote innovative new conservation proposals, focusing on citizen-
    centered natural resource stewardship, utilization of innovative new
    ideas, and expansion and replication of existing successful activities.
    The President's budget also requests an additional $5 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System to implement this initiative.
        Paying the administrative costs of the sea lamprey control program
    is not consistent with the intent of the Cooperative Conservation
    Initiative because sea lamprey control is not an incentive-based, cost-
    share challenge grant program. The sea lamprey program is funded
    through a reimbursable agreement with the Great Lakes Fishery
    Commission in the amount $6.3 million (fiscal year 2002).
    Administrative costs incurred by the sea lamprey program are $1.05
    million, of which $493,100 will be recovered through the agreement with
    the Commission, resulting in a shortfall of $557,000. The Service
    redirected funds from other activities to recover administrative costs
    in fiscal year 2000-2002, but will be unable to provide this coverage
    in fiscal year 2003 and beyond. The shortfall in administrative cost
    recovery will rise to about $950,000 in fiscal year 2003 due to
    increased costs for leased space, and is expected to climb to $1.5
    million by 2005.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Feinstein. I thank you very much. The subcommittee
    will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., Thursday, June 13, 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 2003

                                  ----------

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

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
    hearings on nondepartmental witnesses, the statements and
    letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                           Bureau of Land Management
       Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
                                   California
        Chairman Byrd and members of the subcommittee: The Metropolitan
    Water District of Southern California (MWD) appreciates the opportunity
    to submit testimony for the record regarding the U.S. Department of the
    Interior's fiscal year 2003 budget. MWD is a public agency that was
    created in 1928 to meet the supplemental water demands of people living
    in what is now portions of a six-county region of southern California.
    Today, the region served by MWD includes 17 million people living on
    the coastal plain between Ventura and the international boundary with
    Mexico. It is an area larger than the State of Connecticut and, if it
    were a separate nation, would rank in the top ten economies of the
    world.
        Included in our region are more than 225 cities and unincorporated
    areas in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San
    Bernardino, and Ventura. We provide nearly 60 percent of the water used
    in our 5,200-square-mile service area. MWD's water supplies come from
    the Colorado River via the district's Colorado River Aqueduct and from
    northern California via the State Water Project's California Aqueduct.
                                  introduction
        MWD supports the continued funding contained in the President's
    Budget for the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water, and Air
    Management and Range Management subactivities contained within the Land
    Resources activity of the Management of Land and Resources
    appropriation. Also, MWD supports the continued funding contained in
    the President's Budget for the Resource Management Planning subactivity
    contained within the Resource Protection & Maintenance activity of this
    appropriation. BLM intends to use a portion of the funds for watershed
    and water quality restoration in selected priority watersheds with a
    specific focus on the Colorado River Basin and other areas. MWD
    requests that Congress allocate $5.2 million for BLM's activities that
    control salt contributions from the lands it manages. MWD urges the
    Subcommittee to specifically mark $800,000 for the Colorado River
    salinity control program to focus BLM's efforts in this regard.
        In addition, MWD requests funding for cost sharing of recreation
    facilities at the Diamond Valley Lake, which is located in Riverside
    County, California. The amount requested in fiscal year 2003 is $2
    million in the BLM Construction Fund Account for implementing Public
    Law 106-500. This would be a first increment of the $14 million
    authorized in 2001.
        MWD supports funding of $42.2 million for reauthorization of the
    CALFED Program and a total of $26.4 million for Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological
    Survey to support this program. We also urge support for the efforts of
    California, Arizona and Nevada, Native American tribes, and federal
    agencies to develop a Multi-Species Conservation Plan for the Lower
    Colorado River through appropriation of funds to the FWS Habitat
    Conservation Planning Program.
                       colorado river salinity management
        The Colorado River is a significant component of the regional water
    supply and its relatively high salinity causes significant economic
    impacts on water customers in MWD's service area, as well as throughout
    the Lower Colorado River Basin. Furthermore, high salinity adversely
    affects the region's progressive water recycling programs and is
    contributing to an adverse salt buildup through infiltration into
    Southern California's irreplaceable groundwater basins. Reclamation
    estimates that water users in the Lower Basin are experiencing $330
    million in annual economic impacts from salinity levels in the river
    and, without mitigation, impacts will progressively increase with
    continued agricultural and urban development upstream of California's
    points of diversion. Droughts will cause spikes in salinity levels that
    will be highly disruptive to southern California water management and
    economy. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program (Salinity
    Control Program) has proven to be a very cost-effective approach to
    help mitigate the impacts of high salinity.
        Due to geological conditions, the land within the Colorado River
    Basin is composed largely of soils heavily laden with salts. Large
    portions of these lands are federally owned, and are managed by the BLM
    for a variety of uses: recreation; road building and transportation;
    oil, gas and mineral exploration and production; and most
    significantly, grazing. As a result, man has induced and accelerated
    the natural erosion processes. When such soils and rocks heavily laden
    with salt are eroded, much of the resulting silt is carried along in
    the Colorado River and its tributaries--sometimes for long distances.
    Ultimately, the silt settles in the streambed or on the flood plain.
    The salts, however, are dissolved in the water and remain in the
    stream, appearing in the water supplies of downstream users. The
    accumulative nature of these salts causes more severe water quality
    impacts the farther downstream each succeeding use occurs.
        The 1984 amendments to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Act direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop a comprehensive
    program to minimize salt contributions to the Colorado River from
    federally owned lands administered by the BLM. The rangeland management
    programs of the BLM have demonstrated that they can bring about some of
    the most cost-effective salinity control actions available. It is
    essential that implementation of BLM's salinity control program be
    accelerated to reduce economic impacts. The $5.2 million level of
    funding which MWD recommends for BLM's continued participation in
    activities that control salt contributions from BLM managed lands would
    be for immediate implementation of salinity control measures through
    improvements in rangeland management. MWD urges the Subcommittee to
    specifically mark $800,000 for the Salinity Control Program to provide
    BLM direction as to its intent.
                              diamond valley lake
        With the recent completion of Diamond Valley Lake as a major water
    storage facility for 17 million people, the public's requirement for
    recreational facilities will need local, state and federal support. At
    the present time, MWD is working with local communities to secure
    funding for $58 million to be allocated as partial cost for
    constructing and maintaining a major trail system for pedestrian and
    non-motorized vehicles in the surrounding areas; along with a Western
    Center Museum for archaeological and paleontological discoveries.
        MWD is requesting $2 million be appropriated in fiscal year 2003
    and added to BLM's Construction Fund Account for purposes of carrying
    out Public Law 106-500, a law enacted in 2000 to provide federal cost
    sharing for facilities at Diamond Valley Lake. The reservoir is located
    in Riverside County, California. This $2 million is the first increment
    of a $14 million authorization in 2001 to provide federal assistance in
    the construction of the Western Center Museum for Paleontology and as
    many as 60-70 miles of multi-use trails. Many of these trails will be
    handicap-accessible and an interpretive program is planned. The draft
    trail plan also envisions connections with a portion of the Southwest
    Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve.
                             calfed reauthorization
        The San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta
    (Bay-Delta) Estuary serves as the hub of California's water system,
    fueling the State's trillion-dollar economy, supplying more than two-
    thirds of the State's 34 million residents with a portion of their
    drinking water and irrigating 45 percent of the nation's produce.
    Federal money for the Bay-Delta funds an array of critical
    improvements, including habitat restoration, watershed protection,
    fishery enhancement, water supply reliability and water quality
    improvement. Recognizing the importance of the Bay-Delta to
    California's economic and environmental health, the California voters
    approved a $1 billion general obligation water bond in November 1996
    and a $2 billion bond in March 2000. These bonds contain monies for
    ecosystem restoration, watershed protection, water supply and water
    quality improvement, flood control, water recycling, and water use
    efficiency measures.
        In total, MWD urges Congress to appropriate $42.2 million in fiscal
    year 2003 to fund the Bay-Delta related activities of federal agencies
    engaged in resolving the problems facing California's Bay-Delta.
    Specific to your Subcommittee on Interior, MWD urges you to appropriate
    a total of $26.4 million to fund the Bay-Delta related activities of
    the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, FWS and the Geological Survey.
        In 1996, Congress passed the California Bay-Delta Environmental
    Enhancement and Water Security Act (California Bay-Delta Act), which
    authorized $430 million over 3 years for ecosystem restoration and
    water management improvements in the Bay-Delta Estuary. From 1998 to
    2000, Congress has appropriated $220 million, or approximately 50
    percent of the original authorization. MWD urges your support for
    reauthorization of the California Bay-Delta Act, which includes the San
    Joaquin Water Supply and Exchange Program, a program of great
    importance to MWD.
              lower colorado river multi-species conservation plan
        MWD is presently engaged in an innovative partnership with the FWS
    and other Department of the Interior agencies, as well as other water,
    power, and wildlife agencies, and Native American Tribes in the states
    of Arizona, California, and Nevada, to develop a Lower Colorado River
    Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP). The program will address
    the conservation, enhancement, and recovery needs of a broad suite of
    more than 50 listed and sensitive species and their associated aquatic,
    wetland, and riparian habitats in the three states, while providing
    long-term regulatory certainty for all parties. An effort of this
    nature can only succeed through the development of innovative voluntary
    public-private partnerships.
        The FWS Habitat Conservation Planning Program provides funds to
    support the development of habitat conservation plans that will
    conserve federally listed and other sensitive species and their
    habitats. MWD supports the appropriation of $63.1 million within the
    $91 million request for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
    Fund, for Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) land acquisition and planning
    assistance grants to support local efforts to protect habitat within or
    near areas covered by HCPs.
                                   conclusion
        MWD urges you and your subcommittee to support these funding levels
    for the various programs we have addressed within the Department of the
    Interior budget. Thank you for your consideration of our testimony.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
        In Support of $5,200,000 to assist in Colorado River Salinity
    Control, with $800,000 to be designated specifically to salinity
    control efforts with support for $34,683,000 for the Land Resources
    Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management as requested by the
    President and also with support for the President's request for the
    funding of Subactivities Rangeland Management and Resource Management
    Planning.
        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 proposed by the
    Administration, calls for the collection of ``data and information
    about watershed, its processes, and its capabilities in order to attain
    water quality standards while meeting multiple uses of land and
    water.'' The BLM budget justification document also notes ``Program
    success depends upon the involvement of stakeholders at the local and
    national levels. Cooperative partnerships and involvement promote
    better watershed management which in turn protects water quality, state
    identified beneficial users of water and the health of aquatic
    systems.'' Further, the BLM states ``with a stable funding level, (BLM)
    continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress, and
    report salt-retaining measures in order to further the Plan of
    Implementation of the Federal Salinity Control program in the Colorado
    River Basin.''
        The seven Colorado River Basin States, through the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Forum, have been trying to engage the BLM and to
    look for a partnership to be forged between the Basin states and the
    BLM as has been done with other federal agencies. This enhanced working
    relationship has been slow to develop. The BLM is currently preparing a
    report, required by Congress, that is to set forth its plan for
    salinity control. The Forum is encouraged by the words in the budget
    document. The Forum supports the funding request. 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 2003.
        Although the Forum has not been able to determine, to its
    satisfaction, how funds have been or will be spent, we are encouraged
    by recent efforts by the BLM. The Forum has requested that a salinity
    coordinator for the basinwide program be selected. This person would
    serve with the two full-time coordinators now in place for the USBR and
    the USDA. Salinity Coordinators in each of the state BLM offices have
    been identified.
        The BLM has been charged by the Congress with preparing 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 leaving
    implementation of the salinity control policy with the Secretary of the
    Interior, 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 $0.3 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 3 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 Forum's adopted plan of
    implementation.
        BLM has not had a history of always adequately reporting its
    efforts, the associated expenditures and its accomplishments with
    respect to Colorado River salinity control. Legislation passed in 2000,
    S. 1211, requires the BLM to report its program for salinity control to
    the Congress. The Forum supports this requirement.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Society
        Dear Senators Byrd and Burns: The Wildlife Society appreciates the
    opportunity to provide comments on the proposed fiscal year 2003 budget
    for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In particular, we propose
    increases of $10 million for the Wildlife and Fisheries program, $5
    million for the Threatened and Endangered Species program, and $3
    million for Riparian Area Management. The Wildlife Society is the
    association of professional wildlife biologists and managers dedicated
    to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and education.
    The Society supports all aspects of federal programs that benefit
    wildlife and their habitat on public and private lands.
        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 264 million acres (48
    percent) of the nation's public lands, making it the largest natural
    resource management agency in terms of acres managed. Yet its operating
    budget amounts to a funding rate of $3.73/acre, about $4-$16 less per
    acre than the three other largest Federal land and natural resource
    management agencies. BLM lands provide critical habitat for fish and
    wildlife and recreational opportunities for millions of visitors. The
    Wildlife Society is concerned that the essentially static funding level
    in fiscal year 2003 will deprive the BLM of its ability to enhance
    management and programs, and present significant challenges to even
    maintain current levels of activity. Congress needs to increase BLM's
    operational budget to bring it into parity with the other Federal land
    management agencies.
        Specifically, The Wildlife Society is concerned about the proposed
    reductions in the Wildlife and Fisheries and Threatened and Endangered
    (T&E) Species programs. The Wildlife and Fisheries programs help the
    BLM ensure sound management and protection of a diversity of wildlife,
    fish and habitats, while providing for recreational and commercial uses
    of the land. The Administration has proposed a spending level reduction
    of 9.8 percent for these programs in fiscal year 2003, from $37.429 to
    $33.755 million. If Congress supports this reduction, the BLM will be
    forced to continue running these programs at minimal funding and
    inadequate staffing levels.
        Since 1992, the number of trained wildlife biologists employed by
    the BLM has declined from 385 to 320 (-20 percent), which translates to
    only 1 biologist per million acres of agency-managed land. At current
    staffing levels, the BLM is meeting approximately half of its
    identified programmatic needs on an annual basis for fish, wildlife,
    and threatened and endangered species. Given the increased emphasis in
    this budget on accelerating land use plan completion and expanding
    energy development on public lands, the Administration's proposed
    funding reduction and the BLM's staff shortages are likely to result in
    inadequate attention being given to fish and wildlife resources.
        Energy companies, the Administration, and many in the Congress have
    said that restrictions on energy exploration, development, and
    operations on public lands must be removed, and that new areas must be
    opened to development--without specifying which ones. In the past, many
    economically and culturally important wildlife populations, such as
    mule deer, elk and pronghorn, were restored from over-exploitation by
    sportsmen's dollars. It is simply unfair to expect American sportsmen
    and women to pay to recover wildlife populations a second time. The BLM
    must have the funds necessary to carry out the monitoring, evaluation,
    and eventual mitigation of any impacts that are identified from energy
    development. The Wildlife Society encourages Congress to restore $3.674
    million to the Wildlife and Fisheries program, and to appropriate and
    additional $10 million for Wildlife and Fisheries Management, to
    provide for adequate staff and operation funds.
        Lands administered by BLM provide habitat for hundreds of
    threatened and endangered species. Like other Federal agencies, the BLM
    is mandated by the Endangered Species Act to protect and restore
    threatened and endangered species and the habitat that they require. To
    this end, the President requested $21.288 million in fiscal year 2003
    for the T&E Species Program, a $330,000 decrease from fiscal year 2002.
    The Wildlife Society believes the request falls short of addressing
    endangered species needs on BLM lands, where the number of listed and
    proposed species has doubled since 1990. The Wildlife Society
    recommends that Congress to restore $330,000 to the T&E species
    program, and add an additional $5 million to support recovery of T&E
    species.
        Part of the wildlife, fisheries and T&E species program changes
    proposed in the Administration's budget result from shifts to fund the
    BLM's Challenge Cost Share (CCS) program. In fact, $5.5 million--over
    60 percent--of the CCS funding originated from these programs. If it
    could be guaranteed that a comparable amount would be used for these
    same purposes under the CCS program, the net effect may not translate
    into an immediate reduction of program emphasis, but the long-term
    implications are just that. The Wildlife Society requests that funding
    for the CCS program not come from existing conservation programs.
        The new Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI) launched by the
    Secretary of the Interior will provide $10 million to the BLM for
    natural resource conservation and restoration projects. The money will
    be allocated to field offices through competitive grants for
    ``conservation'', but The Wildlife Society is concerned that
    conservation programs for resources other than fish and wildlife (e.g.
    soil, water and air) will have a higher priority in the competition.
    Our concern is relevant particularly as accelerated energy development
    compromises fish and wildlife habitat in some regions.
        The BLM manages over 23 million acres of riparian or wetland areas,
    supporting some of the most ecologically diverse plant and animal
    communities on public lands. Thousands of miles of riparian habitats
    along streams, rivers and wetlands in the West have been identified as
    severely degraded. Once restored, a healthy riparian zone provides
    vital fish and wildlife habitat, improves water quality, reduces soil
    loss and offers excellent recreational opportunities. The Wildlife
    Society is concerned that the Administration's $21.786 million budget
    request for Riparian Management, a $1 million (4.5 percent) reduction
    from fiscal year 2002, is insufficient to meet identified management
    needs. Reducing funding for this program will result in the continued
    degradation of the environment, and the continued inflation of
    restoration costs. The Wildlife Society requests that Congress provide
    an addition $3 million for this program to restore vital riparian
    habitats.
        The Wildlife Society supports the Administration's requested
    increase of $14.266 million for Resource Management Planning. These
    funds will expedite the development of 37 land management plans, a
    majority of which will address species issues in the BLM's 13 ecosystem
    initiatives.
        Thank you for considering the recommendations of wildlife
    professionals. We remain available to work with you and your staff
    throughout the appropriations process, to ensure adequate funding for
    wildlife and habitat conservation.
                                     ______

                    United States Fish and Wildlife Service

                 Letter From Jim Geringer, Governor of Wyoming

                                              State of Wyoming,
                                  Cheyenne, Wyoming, February 28, 2002.
    Re Statement of Support for Fiscal Year 2003 Upper Colorado Region
            Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Funding

    Hon. Robert C. Byrd, Chairman,
    Hon. Conrad Burns, Ranking Minority Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Senate Appropriations
            Committee,
    U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman Byrd and Ranking Minority Member Burns: I am writing
    to request your support and assistance in insuring continued funding
    for the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in
    the Upper Colorado River Basin (Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
    Recovery Program) and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation
    Program. These cooperative programs involving the States of Colorado,
    New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, federal agencies and
    water, power and environmental interests are ongoing in the Upper
    Colorado River Basin and have as their objective recovering four
    species of endangered fish while water development proceeds in
    compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, state law, and
    interstate compacts. We respectfully request support and action by the
    Subcommittee that will provide the following:
        The continued allocation of $700,000 in ``recovery'' funds
    appropriated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for fiscal
    year 2003 to meet its funding commitment to the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same amount that was
    appropriated in fiscal year 2002 for this program. Funding will be used
    for FWS' program management costs, population estimation, and
    monitoring/data management activities associated with this Recovery
    Program.
        The continued allocation of $344,000 in appropriated base operation
    and maintenance funds (``Fisheries Activity; Hatchery O&M
    Subactivity'') to support the current operation of the FWS' Ouray
    National Fish Hatchery in Utah for fiscal year 2003. If an additional
    $100,000 (total $444,000) were made available, the Service could
    achieve full production of endangered razorback sucker in 2003, in line
    with stocking needs to achieve recovery goals.
        The allocation of $154,000 in ``recovery'' funds appropriated to
    the FWS to meet its funding commitment to the San Juan River Basin
    Recovery Implementation Program for needed research and monitoring and
    program management activities in fiscal year 2003.
        During the 106th Congress, Public Law 106-392 was enacted which
    authorizes the Federal Government to provide up to $46 million of cost
    sharing for the remaining capital construction projects for the two
    recovery programs. Capital construction for these programs remains to
    be completed for additional hatchery facilities to produce endangered
    fish for stocking, restoring floodplain habitat and fish passage,
    regulating and/or supplying instream habitat flows, installing screens
    to prevent fish entrapment in canals, and removing and/or relocating
    nonnative fishes. The four participating states will contribute $17
    million and $17 million will be contributed from revenues derived from
    the sale of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) hydroelectric power.
    Subsection 3(c) of the law authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
    accept up to $17 million of contributed funds from Colorado, Wyoming,
    Utah and New Mexico, and to expend such contributed funds as if
    appropriated for that purpose. Each of the four participating states
    has appropriated non-federal cost sharing funding. These facts
    demonstrate the strong commitment and effective partnerships that are
    present in both of these ongoing programs.
        The above line item funding requests for the FWS are supported by
    the State of Wyoming and each of the participating States engaged in
    these Programs. The requested federal appropriations are critically
    important and will be used in concert with other federal and non-
    federal cost-sharing funding. The support of your Subcommittee in past
    years is gratefully acknowledged and genuinely appreciated, and has
    been a major factor in the success of these multi-state, multi-agency
    programs in progressing towards endangered fish species recovery in the
    Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins while necessary water use and
    development activities are occurring. We again request the
    Subcommittee's assistance to ensure that the FWS is provided with
    adequate funding for these vitally important programs.
                Best regards,
                                                  Jim Geringer,
                                                   Governor of Wyoming.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribe
        The Nez Perce Tribe requests the following funding amounts for
    fiscal year 2003, which are specific to the Nez Perce Tribe:
      --$100,000 through the United States Department of the Interior,
            Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Program to support
            the fisheries efforts of the Nez Perce Tribe and to enhance
            coordination with private, state and federal entities in
            response to the 2000 Federal Columbia River Power System
            Biological Opinion.
      --$600,000 (of a total $1.16 million joint appropriation request)
            through the Unites States Department of the Interior, Fish and
            Wildlife Service, Threatened and Endangered Species; Wildlife
            Services; Wildlife Services Operational Program Western Region
            for the continued operation of the Nez Perce Tribe's grey wolf
            recovery, monitoring, research and outreach programs in Idaho.
        The Tribe urges support for the full and adequate funding of tribal
    programs through the Department of Interior fiscal year 2003 budget,
    with the specific request discussed below.
     nez perce tribe department of fisheries resource management funding:
                                 bia, $100,000
        The Nez Perce Tribe requests $100,000 be added to its Bureau of
    Indian Affairs Public Law 93-638 contract for enhanced capabilities in
    its fish recovery effort. The Nez Perce Tribe's fisheries effort
    entails production, research, resident fisheries, habitat, and
    conservation enforcement. The Department of Fisheries Resources
    Management is responsible for implementing the Nez Perce Tribe's
    fisheries recovery effort throughout the Nez Perce Tribe's treaty
    territory in north central Idaho, northeast Oregon and southeast
    Washington.
        The recently released Federal Columbia River Power System
    Biological Opinion (FCRPS Bi-Op) lists various action items to aid the
    survival of listed salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
    Many of the action items will require intense coordination and
    monitoring. In particular, as a Columbia River Treaty Tribe, the Nez
    Perce Tribe will be required to meet various increased responsibilities
    in this effort and must be able to elevate our capacity to complete the
    necessary work to ensure salmon recovery in the Pacific Northwest.
        Extensive coordination is already required with regulatory agencies
    such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
    Fisheries Service. Moreover, the Tribe's efforts to enhance fish
    recovery in the region, such as the Tribe's successful coho
    reintroduction, require participation and coordination with local and
    state agencies, resource advisory committees, and industry-tribal
    partnerships to discuss ongoing water adjudication, and other issues
    directly and indirectly affecting fish recovery. Thus, while the Tribe
    already plays a leading role in Endangered Species Act coordination,
    interagency cooperation, and collaborative efforts with private
    entities and governmental agencies for restoration and other
    collaborative efforts leading to salmon and steelhead recovery,
    additional resources will be necessary to implement the requirements of
    the FCRPS Bi-Op .
        A majority of the Tribe's fisheries effort is currently funded
    through the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) in coordination with
    the Northwest Power Planning Council. This funding varies year-to-year
    depending upon Council priorities and the review of the Independent
    Scientific Review Panel. However, recent initiatives have required the
    Department to work outside the traditional BPA funded programs.
        The Tribe's extensive fishery recovery and management program is
    supported by the forest products industry, organized labor, businesses,
    and environmental organizations throughout Idaho and the Northwest. The
    Lewiston, Idaho and Clarkston, Washington Chambers of Commerce jointly
    passed a resolution advocating for increased funding for fish recovery
    efforts, specifically identifying tribal leadership in the effort.
    Members of the state legislature and local government have also spoken
    in support of the Tribe's fish production effort.
        The Nez Perce Tribe urges Congress to appropriate $100,000 through
    the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    Fish and Wildlife Program to support the fisheries efforts of the Nez
    Perce Tribe and to enhance coordination with private, state and federal
    entities in response to the 2000 Federal Columbia River Power System
    Biological Opinion.
    nez perce tribe's northern rocky mountain wolf recovery and monitoring
                        program funding: usfws, $600,000
        The Nez Perce Tribe requests that Fish and Wildlife Service
    allocate $600,000 for wolf recovery efforts by the Nez Perce Tribe,
    specifically identified by a cooperative agreement with the Fish and
    Wildlife Service as $400,000 for continuing efforts of previous years
    and $200,000 for expanded year-round, on the ground staffing efforts
    (approximately $80,000), operations (approximately $100,000), and
    equipment (approximately $20,000) to report activities electronically
    twice per month, hold informational public meetings in affected
    communities, and accomplish additional collaring, tracking of movements
    and locations, documenting new packs, and establishing a system of
    special effort to notify landowners, grazing permittees, agencies, and
    others who have particular needs for the information gathered.
        The Nez Perce Tribe has been the primary entity responsible for the
    day-to-day managing of wolf recovery in Idaho. During the wolf
    recovery, the Tribe has, in a very professional and successful way,
    provided such services as wolf monitoring, communications with affected
    and interested parties, and research. Yet, more effort is needed. The
    near tripiling of the population demonstrates the success of the
    program, but will also demand more effort of the Tribe during the
    remainder of its contract with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
    Furthermore, the Governor of Idaho has invited the Tribe into
    negotiations to determine a significant role for the Tribe after the
    responsibility for wolf management shifts to the State of Idaho, which
    will extend the need for adequate funding and lends importance to
    establishing an adequate base for funding now.
        This $600,000 appropriation request is part of a larger
    appropriation package prepared in consultation and negotiation with the
    State of Idaho Office of Species Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, and interested private organizations such as the Idaho
    Cattleman's Association for a total amount of $1.16 million in order to
    create a wolf recovery program in the state of Idaho that anticipates
    imminent delisting by adequately funding the coordinated and shared
    responsibilities of the Nez Perce Tribe, State of Idaho, and Fish and
    Wildlife Service.
        The Nez Perce Tribe requests that Congress support wolf recovery
    post-delisting by fully funding this unique multi-government and
    interagency joint appropriation request. At a minimum, however, the Nez
    Perce Tribe requests that Congress appropriate the $600,000 which is
    necessary for the Nez Perce Tribe to adequately monitor the expanding
    wolf population in Idaho and provide accountability to local citizens
    affected by wolf recovery activities.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Pacific Northwest Partnership
        Chairman Byrd and Members of the Subcommittee: The Pacific
    Northwest Partnership, a coalition of water user organizations in the
    states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho would like to offer the
    following testimony with regard to funding for the Fish Restoration and
    Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) (Public Law 106-502). Last year
    Congress provided $4 million for this program for the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service to undertake the work that was envisioned by the
    passage of that Act. We are greatly concerned that funding was not
    included in the Administration's fiscal year 2003 Budget request for
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to continue with this program. We
    are requesting that the full $25 million per year that was expected
    under the legislation be provided for this program as your Subcommittee
    undertakes its efforts on the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations bill for
    the Department of the Interior.
        As the water user associations representing those states who 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 Service to correct the problems associated
    with our diversions, our request for the full $25 million is critical
    if we are to prevent a ``Klamath-type'' occurrence from taking place
    elsewhere in our region. The water users were at the forefront in
    advocating for the passage of this legislation since there were no
    other comprehensive programs available to help us address our needs.
        FRIMA established this 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 our states. We
    have been waiting for implementation of this Act as well as the plans
    for using the $4 million that was provided for the program for this
    present fiscal year. We have districts that are ready to go to
    construction to address diversion problems with their systems and have
    identified cost shares from state and local government programs. We
    believe the full $25 million could be used for construction of projects
    in our three states in fiscal year 2003.
        Each participating state, to our knowledge, is assigning $150,00 to
    administrative and staff costs and $850,000 to projects. Nothing has
    occurred on the ground. The entire fiscal year has passed while the
    agency decided how to pursue the program. A year's planning effort was
    unnecessary as we already have existing state programs that could have
    implemented the Act.
        On behalf of our coalition, we appreciate your consideration of our
    request and look forward to having construction underway in the near
    future as was intended when the legislation was passed in the 106th
    Congress. Whatever money is made available, we still believe it is
    important to have language in the Committee Report stipulating it is
    for construction rather than agency staffing and administrative costs
    under Public Law 106-502.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Defenders of Wildlife
        Defenders of Wildlife has substantial concerns about the
    Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget and makes recommendations
    regarding these concerns and funding in the following priority areas.
              fish and wildlife service endangered species funding
        In its fiscal year 2002 budget request, the Administration
    requested a rider that would have significantly impacted the ability of
    citizens to secure protection for species under the Endangered Species
    Act (ESA) and that most likely would have led to extinction of many
    species awaiting listing. We are extremely grateful that the
    Subcommittee wisely rejected this damaging language.
        Fortunately, the Administration's budget does not repeat the
    request for this rider. However, despite the fact that the ESA is one
    of our nation's most important environmental laws, the budget request
    continues to grossly under fund the four main FWS accounts for ESA
    implementation: Listing, Recovery, Consultation, and Candidate
    Conservation. The total request is $125.7 million, virtually level with
    last year's enacted amount.
        Our highest priority for ESA funding is listing. The
    Administration's own FWS Budget Justifications acknowledge a
    substantial listing backlog that cannot be addressed due to
    insufficient funding: ``86 final listing rules and 12-month petition
    findings beyond their statutory deadlines; 249 candidate species for
    which the Service has determined that listing is warranted; about 33
    petitions from the public not yet acted upon; and about 180 past `not
    prudent' or not `determinable' critical habitat findings that need
    reconsideration and new findings.'' Given this considerable backlog, it
    is unconscionable that the Administration continues to request grossly
    insufficient funding for the ESA listing account. Species awaiting
    protection include the Washington ground squirrel, the southern Rocky
    Mountains population of the boreal toad, and the Gunnison sage grouse.
    The Administration has requested only $9.077 million for listing for
    fiscal year 2003, yet FWS has estimated it needs about $24 million per
    year over a 5 year period to deal with the current listing backlog. We
    tremendously appreciate the $2.6 million fiscal year 2002 increase
    provided by the Subcommittee and urge a $16 million increase for fiscal
    year 2003.
        At the same time, FWS is desperately short of funding needed to
    recover species. Due to lack of funding for recovery actions, more than
    200 currently listed species could become extinct sometime in the next
    5 years even though protected under ESA. These include the Columbia
    Basin pygmy rabbit, the Mississippi gopher frog, Attwater's greater
    prairie chicken, and a number of Hawaiian birds and plants. Moreover,
    there have been reports that a substantial amount of recovery funding
    is often diverted to the Consultation program. While consultation is a
    critical component of ESA implementation, recovery funding ought not to
    be siphoned off to pay for it. The journal Bioscience (February 2002,
    Vol. 52, No. 2) recently published a study, ``The Endangered Species
    Act: Dollars and Sense'' by Julie K. Miller, J. Michael Scott, Craig R.
    Miller, and Lisette P. Waits, that found a statistically significant
    relationship between species status and amount of recovery funding
    spent; based on this analysis the study found that at least $650
    million per year is needed for effective recovery activities. Yet the
    Administration proposes $60.2 million, a $3.4 million cut for recovery.
    We understand that FWS believes it could realistically spend an
    additional $50 million per year in recovery with current staffing and
    we urge the Subcommittee to provide such an increase and to take steps
    to ensure that meager recovery funding is not diverted to consultation.
     land, conservation, preservation, and infrastructure improvement fund
                                    (lcpii)
        We thank the Subcommittee for providing the dedicated $1.32 billion
    fiscal year 2002 level for the historic Land, Conservation,
    Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement Fund, keeping the momentous
    commitment made at the end of the 106th Congress when LCPII was
    established. We also appreciate the Subcommittee's refusal to dismantle
    and consolidate LCPII programs as requested by the Administration in
    fiscal year 2002. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2003 request again
    threatens LCPII by cutting the $1.44 billion dedicated fiscal year 2003
    level for the Interior appropriations subcommittee by $120 million and
    by eroding the original purpose of LCPII through: (1) cutting existing
    programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund by $88 million,
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants by $25 million, and the Cooperative
    Endangered Species Fund by $5 million; (2) substantially increasing the
    level in the fund for maintenance--originally intended to be
    complementary to amounts provided for maintenance under regular
    appropriations; (3) adding the new $100 million Cooperative
    Conservation Initiative; and (4) adding in the Forest Stewardship
    program, formerly funded under Forest Service Operations at $50
    million. Defenders urges the Subcommittee to provide the full dedicated
    funding level of $1.44 billion for fiscal year 2003 and to again
    protect the integrity of LCPII programs.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund.--The Administration claims to
    request full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at
    $900 million but instead is simply repackaging as LWCF other important
    programs already included under LCPII, such as State and Tribal
    Wildlife Grants and the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund,
    significantly undermining LWCF. Ostensibly, the LWCF request is $909
    million, but only $486 million of this is for authorized LWCF
    purposes--$336 million for land acquisition in National Wildlife
    Refuges, Parks, Forests and Bureau of Land Management lands and $150
    million for state LWCF. Federal land acquisition is reduced by 22
    percent below the fiscal year 2002 level and by 26 percent below the
    fiscal year 2001 level. To further dilute the federal LWCF, the budget
    says it will prioritize use of the funds as much as possible for
    easements and land exchanges rather than outright purchase. While the
    Subcommittee for the most part did not acquiesce to the
    Administration's fiscal year 2002 request to undermine LCPII and LWCF,
    it did place several non-LWCF programs under LWCF.
        Defenders urges Congress to maintain the integrity of LWCF by
    reversing this action and rejecting the Administration's proposal to
    fund even more conservation programs from it. We recommend a total of
    $660 million for authorized LWCF purposes for fiscal year 2003--$515
    million for federal LWCF and $145 million for the states. LWCF funding
    should increase to its full authorized $900 million level as LCPII
    ramps up to its full level by fiscal year 2006.
        State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program.--Defenders is extremely
    grateful for the Subcommittee's leadership and interest regarding the
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program and its critically important
    planning requirement. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants for the first
    time provide states and tribes with badly needed funds to develop and
    implement comprehensive, map-based state-wide wildlife and habitat
    conservation plans. These plans are blueprints to help states
    strategically and cost effectively conserve declining species and their
    habitats before listing under ESA is necessary. States are already
    making excellent use of this program. For example, the Washington
    Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) in cooperation with The Nature
    Conservancy and Washington Natural Heritage program is using State and
    Tribal Wildlife Grants to craft plans for Washington's 9 ecoregions--
    together these will add up to a statewide plan that will help prevent
    further declines of species like the Gunnison sage grouse and Columbia
    Basin pygmy rabbit, while guiding state land acquisition, growth
    management, and private landowner incentive programs. Yet the
    Administration's budget slashes State and Tribal Wildlife Grants by $25
    million below its fiscal year 2002 enacted level. Defenders urges a
    total of $150 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program
    for fiscal year 2003, an increase of $75 million.
        Cooperative Conservation Initiative and Landowner Incentive Grant
    Programs.--The Administration is proposing $100 million for its new
    Cooperative Conservation Initiative. While potentially innovative in
    concept, it is vaguely defined and should not be funded at the expense
    of mandated activities and existing programs that are crying for funds.
    Moreover, the Administration has yet to release information on how its
    new Landowner Incentive programs, funded at $50 million for fiscal year
    2002, will be implemented, yet it has requested an increase of $10
    million. Defenders is also concerned about reports that grant awards
    may be subject to a cumbersome process requiring recommendations from a
    panel of outside interests. Defenders is opposed to funding the CCI and
    the $10 million increase for the Incentives programs.
     fish and wildlife service national wildlife refuge system operations
                                and maintenance
        The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is an American treasure
    that will pass a landmark when it celebrates its centennial in 2003.
    Defenders continues to be a leader in the Cooperative Alliance for
    Refuge Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 20 organizations
    working to substantially increase funding for the System. CARE's goal
    for the Refuge System's Operations and Maintenance (O&M) budget is $700
    million--$560 million for Operations and $140 million for Maintenance--
    the funds to accomplish its mission as it embarks on its second century
    of wildlife conservation. The Administration has requested a
    substantial $56.5 million increase, a historic start to this goal.
    However, we have significant concerns with aspects of the request.
    About half of the increase is diverted from needed land acquisition for
    the Refuge System and more than half of the increase will go to
    maintenance. The bulk of the need is for operations funding to address
    protection of wildlife, management and restoration of habitat, public
    outreach, and the need for an additional 1,350 staff--nearly 200
    refuges have no staff on site. In addition, only $12 million of the
    $25.8 million increase in operations will go for high priority staffing
    and mission critical projects; yet the total unmet need is $315
    million. Defenders and the CARE group greatly appreciate the
    Subcommittee's past support and urge an fiscal year 2003 increase of at
    least $100 million for Refuge O&M--``100 for 100''--as a first step
    toward our goal; we further recommend that the bulk be directed toward
    operations where the need is greatest.
        bureau of land management (blm): resource protection and energy
                                  development
        Under the Bureau of Land Management, the Administration is
    requesting a $10.2 million increase to expand energy and mineral
    development on public lands including expedited permitting and
    increased leasing, energy related rights of way, and further
    development on Alaska's North Slope--including plans for drilling in
    the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The budget also includes
    assumptions of lease sale receipts from the Arctic Refuge in 2004. The
    Administration is requesting a $14 million increase for BLM Land Use
    Plans, some of which are for national conservation areas, but some for
    ``nationally significant energy development areas.'' At the same time,
    other important programs such as Threatened and Endangered Species
    Management, Riparian Management, and Rangeland Management are cut.
    Defenders urges rejection of the requested $10.2 million increase for
    expansion of energy and mineral development which includes plans for
    drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Instead, we urge increases for important
    resource protection needs including: Integrated Weed Management to curb
    the prolific spread of invasive species; Threatened and Endangered
    species to preserve the 306 listed, 59 candidate and 1,500 sensitive
    species on BLM lands; Sagebrush and Prairie Grassland Ecosystem
    Projects to apply multi-species conservation approach across large
    landscapes; Rangeland Management to help improve the health of grazing
    lands; and Recreation Resources Management to prevent off-road vehicle
    damage.
                                 forest service
        An extremely damaging proposal in the Forest and Rangeland Research
    budget devotes $37.8 million to Presidential initiatives but requests
    only $1.8 million in new funding, resulting in diversion of $35.9
    million from existing research. Wildlife, Fish, Water and Air Research
    (WFWAR) is already grossly underfunded for critical research on
    threatened, endangered and sensitive species (TE&S), watersheds,
    wetlands, grasslands, and forests. WFWAR funding will be slashed by
    17.7 percent or $9.1 million; hardest hit will be Wildlife Habitat
    research, cut by more than 23 percent. Yet the WFWAR program is in
    desperate need of $10 million in increases for research on TE&S species
    for which little information exists such as bats, forest carnivores,
    plants, amphibians, molluscs, and crayfish. We urge rejection of the
    proposed cut and instead a $10 million increase to WFWAR for important
    research on TE&S species.
        We urge significant reductions for Forest Products and Timber Road
    Construction, unneeded timber industry subsidies, and redirection of
    funds to recovery from prior timber sales, including to ecosystem
    restoration and Road Decommissioning (requiring removal of the $15
    million cap on decommissioning). Congress should also direct that
    National Fire Plan money be spent in the urban-wildland interface and
    on long-overdue fire plans for forests, which will make future fire-
    fighting efforts less costly and wasteful. Congress should limit Fire
    Plan money to non-commercial removal of small-diameter trees which
    create unnatural fire risks, and prohibit this money from being spent
    on any removal of commercial trees, which are the most fire-resistant
    and should remain for fire reduction. And more Fire Plan money should
    go to Cooperative Fire Protection to protect homes directly.
        Congress should reject the setting of arbitrary timber targets at 2
    billion board feet per year, and instead insist that the Forest Service
    manage for the health and sustainability of the land, letting outputs
    be a byproduct of good land management, not a goal in and of
    themselves. Congress should reject any proposals to fund or authorize
    stewardship contract projects, which the have potential to decrease
    accountability and vastly increase logging subsidies. And we urge
    Congress in the strongest possible terms to reject the ``charter
    forests'' proposal to remove management of national forests from the
    Forest Service, which would circumvent public participation and
    environmental laws, increase logging and other extractive activities,
    and devolve public lands to private hands.
      united states geological survey: biological research division (brd)
        BRD scientists provide critical information about fish, wildlife
    and plants and their habitats, and detect trends in our environment
    over time. This research is vital in detecting and responding to
    environmental problems and in sustainable management of natural
    resources, yet the budget proposes a 3.6 percent cut to BRD. Instead,
    the Administration should be proposing increases. When adjusted for
    Facilities and Science Support, the fiscal year 2003 request is about
    $185 million, well below the fiscal year 1994 inflation adjusted level
    of $220 million. We urge the Subcommittee to provide at least a $10
    million increase over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level for BRD as a
    first step in reaching the $220 million level. We also continue our
    strong support for the Gap Analysis Program, a collaborative effort
    among states and more than 500 business, non-profit, and government
    organizations to map the biological resources of all the states in the
    United States.
          botany on bureau of land management and forest service lands
        Nationwide, BLM employs only 1 botanist per 4 million acres the
    Forest Service only 1 botanist per 1.5 million acres, a serious problem
    preventing proper management of native vegetation. One full-time series
    430 botanist should be employed for each Forest Service Ranger District
    and for each 500,000 acres under BLM management.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Ocean Conservancy
        The Ocean Conservancy 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 record
    for the fiscal year 2003 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
    bill.
        The Ocean Conservancy (TOC) strives to be the world's foremost
    advocate for the oceans. Through science-based advocacy, research, and
    public education, we inform, inspire, and empower people to speak and
    act for the oceans. TOC is the largest and oldest nonprofit
    conservation organization dedicated solely to protecting the marine
    environment. Headquartered in Washington DC, TOC has regional offices
    in Alaska, California, Florida, and Maine.
                                  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 provide an estimated $3
    billion annually in economic benefits to the country from recreational
    tourism and fishing. Coral reefs are also extremely fragile and face
    serious threats from overutilizaiton and pollution around the world.
        The Department of the Interior serves on the Interagency Coral Reef
    Task Force and is responsible for implementing the National Action Plan
    to Conserve Coral Reefs. Unfortunately, its budget of $9 million is
    grossly inadequate to properly manage, monitor and protect the over two
    million acres of coral reefs under its jurisdiction. TOC respectfully
    requests that the subcommittee consider increasing the Department's
    coral reef budget to $15 million in fiscal year 2003 as follows:
        National Park Service.--From $3.6 million to $5 million, to improve
    management and protection of special reef areas, including the Dry
    Tortugas National Park in the Florida Keys, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
    Biscayne National Park in Florida, and parks in Hawaii and the Pacific
    Islands.
        Fish and Wildlife Service.--From $1.25 million to $2.5 million in
    recognition of the 2003 Refuge Centennial to increase protection,
    monitoring and management of coral reefs within the National Wildlife
    Refuge System, including the refuges in the Florida Keys and newly
    established units at Palmyra and Kingman atolls.
        U.S. Geological Survey.--From $3.5 million to $4.5 million to
    support research and monitoring of biological and environmental
    conditions, including activities in the U.S. Virgin Islands, fishing
    impacts and the role of marine protected areas, and causes of coral
    diseases.
        Office of Insular Affairs.--From $0.5 million to $3.0 million to
    support desperately needed coral reef initiatives in U.S. territories
    in the Caribbean and Pacific.
                           fish and wildlife service
    Endangered Species Program
                Listing and Critical Habitat
        The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) continues to face a backlog of
    species needing listing and critical habitat designation. TOC
    respectfully requests the subcommittee fund endangered species listing
    and critical habitat programs at $24 million in fiscal year 2003, $15
    million above fiscal year 2002 enacted levels.
        Over the last 8 years, the Northern sea otter has declined seventy
    percent. As few as 6,000 sea otters remain in the entire Aleutian Chain
    in Alaska. Despite the significant population decline and the FWS's
    designation in 2000 of the Northern sea otter as a candidate for
    listing, no funds are currently directed to list or recover this
    species. TOC requests the subcommittee specifically identify funds in
    fiscal year 2003 to list and recover the Northern sea otter.
                Consultation Program
        Each year, FWS reviews more than 62,000 federal actions under
    Section 7 consultations. TOC requests that the subcommittee increase
    funding by $10 million to $55.5 million in fiscal year 2003 to ensure
    timely completion of these consultations.
                Recovery Program
        TOC is extremely concerned about the Administration's proposed $3.4
    million cut to the endangered species recovery program. We urge the
    committee to reject this cut and support a significant increase in
    fiscal year 2003. Within this increase, TOC respectfully requests the
    committee specifically identify funds to recover sea turtles and the
    Southern sea otter.
                Sea Turtles
        All species of sea turtle species found in U.S. waters, including
    Pacific populations of leatherbacks, loggerheads and green turtles, are
    listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
    Adequate funding for the protection of their habitat, including nesting
    beaches, is critical to their survival. While we greatly appreciate
    this committee's past support for sea turtle conservation, additional
    funds are needed, especially for international efforts by FWS. To
    address the needs of these migratory, flagship species, we request that
    the subcommittee earmark funding for sea turtle conservation by
    providing a line item appropriation of $486,000 in fiscal year 2003 for
    domestic conservation and an additional $486,000 for international
    conservation.
                Southern Sea Otters
        The southern sea otter was listed as threatened under the ESA in
    1977. The current population of over 2,100 individuals represents a
    nine percent decline since 1995. More than 5 years of necropsy data
    indicates that nearly 40 percent of otters examined had an infection at
    the time of death. TOC respectfully requests funding to produce an
    epidemeology plan and conduct a health assessment workshop to reduce
    this source of mortality. In addition, sufficient funds are needed to
    implement the southern sea otter recovery plan.
    Manatee Law Enforcement
        TOC urges the subcommittee to continue funding manatee law
    enforcement at $1 million in fiscal year 2003. Heightened law
    enforcement efforts are necessary to protected the endangered Florida
    manatee and curtail motor-boat caused mortalities. Watercraft
    mortalities represent the single largest identifiable cause of death
    for Florida manatees each year. Past funding has enhanced compliance
    with manatee protection speed zones and has increased the number of
    National Wildlife Refuge System officers patrolling Florida waters. We
    greatly appreciate the $1 million provided by this subcommittee in
    fiscal year 2002 and request a renewed commitment of $1 million in
    fiscal year 2003, $0.5 million above the Administration's request, to
    promote recovery and minimize human caused mortalities.
    National Invasive Species Act--Ballast Technology Demonstration
        Nonindigenous species infestations degrade natural resources of
    virtually every U.S. waterway and coastal area. Free of natural
    predators, alien species which become established in our waters often
    out-compete native organisms, destroy habitat and alter physical/
    chemical conditions in our coastal waters. Invasive species are
    regarded as a leading cause of diminished biodiversity and cost our
    economy millions of dollars each year. The leading vector of
    unintentional introductions of aquatic pest species is the discharge of
    ballast water by oceangoing vessels.
        The National Invasive Species Act (Public Law 104-332) authorizes
    $2.5 million for the FWS to eliminate this source of aquatic invasives.
    While we appreciate the subcommittee's support of $0.25 million in
    fiscal year 2002, we urge the full $2.5 million be provided in fiscal
    year 2003 to help develop and demonstrate environmentally sound ballast
    water treatment technologies.
                            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.
        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. National Water Quality Assessment
    Program (NWQAP) is one of the few federal programs charged with
    systematically monitoring the status of the nation's water quality,
    evaluating trends, and assessing the sustainability of this critical
    resource. Data from NAWQA is absolutely essential if we are to make
    progress in reducing the impacts of excess nutrients in the marine
    environment.
        According to a recent National Research Council report, ``NAWQA has
    produced not only an unprecedented volume of quality data for use in
    the scientific community, but also unbiased information that is being
    used by decision makers, managers, and planners at all government
    levels. NAWQA has also assumed a vital leadership role, helping to
    improve environmental monitoring in many agencies from federal to
    local, both by its example and by technical assistance to others.''
        We request that the subcommittee reject the Administration's
    proposed budget cut of nine percent for NAWQA and restore full funding
    in fiscal year 2003.
                          minerals management service
    Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Moratoria
        Since 1981, Congress has included bill language in the Interior
    Appropriations legislation to protect sensitive coastal and marine
    regions from new offshore oil and gas leasing. Today the moratoria
    protects the East and West coasts of the United States, Alaska's
    Bristol Bay, and parts of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida. TOC
    applauds the subcommittee's continued support of this language and
    strongly supports its continued inclusion in fiscal year 2003.
        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 past support for these
    programs and your consideration of our fiscal year 2003 requests.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Society
        The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to submit comments
    regarding the fiscal year 2003 budget for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS). In particular we recommend $150 million for State and
    Tribal Wildlife Grants; $50 million for the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Fund; a $6.6 million increase for Migratory Bird
    Management; restoration of $3.4 million for endangered species recovery
    efforts; a $43.5 million increase for operations and maintenance of the
    National Wildlife Refuge System; a $15 million increase for the
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program; and a $4 million increase for
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Grants. The Wildlife Society is the
    association of professional wildlife biologists dedicated to
    responsible wildlife stewardship through science and education. The
    Society is interested in all aspects of federal programs that affect
    wildlife and habitat.
                        state and tribal wildlife grants
        The Wildlife Society believes that funding assistance for state
    wildlife agencies is one of the highest priority needs for wildlife
    conservation at this time. For this reason we are particularly
    concerned about the budget reductions proposed for state-administered
    fish and wildlife programs. The Administration's fiscal year 2003
    budget request for State Wildlife Grants is $60 million, a 29 percent
    reduction from the $85 million appropriated in fiscal year 2002. This
    will severely limit the ability of state agencies to proactively manage
    species of concern through long-term conservation projects. The
    Wildlife Society recommends that $150 million be appropriated for State
    Wildlife Grants in fiscal year 2003, apportioned to state fish and
    wildlife agencies under the distribution formula used in fiscal year
    2002. In addition, we recommend a 25 percent state match and 75 percent
    federal match for both planning and implementation projects. This will
    make it feasible for states to equitably allocate funds to both
    planning and implementation projects, instead of shifting the balance
    away from implementation projects that currently require a 50 percent
    state match.
                   north american wetlands conservation fund
        In the North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989, Congress
    authorized an annual appropriation of $50 million for this important
    conservation program; however, full funding has never been achieved.
    This cooperative program has been one of the government's most
    successful non-regulatory, incentive based programs, and has shown
    unprecedented success in restoring wetlands, waterfowl and other
    migratory bird populations. The Wildlife Society recommends that
    Congress appropriate the full $50 million authorized for the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Fund in the fiscal year 2003 budget.
                           migratory bird management
        The Wildlife Society is concerned about the level-funding request
    for the Migratory Bird Management program in fiscal year 2003. We
    believe that the FWS should continue to place a high priority and
    budget emphasis on migratory birds. Inflation and increased operating
    costs have absorbed enhanced funding in recent years. The Wildlife
    Society recommends appropriation of additional funds totaling $6.6
    million for Migratory Bird Management, to meet program objectives for
    migratory bird conservation in the future. We recommend these funds be
    allocated as detailed below.
        The FWS can cooperate with State fish and wildlife agencies to
    begin implementation of the Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan,
    Shorebird Conservation Plan and the Partners in Flight Plan. These
    plans will provide for proactive management actions to avoid listing
    wildlife populations as threatened or endangered. The Wildlife Society
    recommends an increase of $3 million in the Administration's request
    for FWS Migratory Bird Management to address these conservation plans.
        The fleet of aircraft used by FWS for waterfowl surveys is getting
    perilously old and outdated. It is only a matter of time before one or
    more of these aircraft fail and lives are lost. It costs approximately
    $1 million to replace one plane, and the FWS needs desperately to
    replace 9 of the aircraft used for the waterfowl surveys. The Wildlife
    Society recommends an increase of $2 million in the Administration's
    request for FWS Migratory Bird Management to begin replacing these
    hazardous aircraft.
        The joint ventures implemented under the North American Waterfowl
    Management Plan have been extremely successful at recovering migratory
    bird populations in North America. Despite the additional $420,000
    requested in fiscal year 2003 for these projects, several joint
    ventures lack the funds necessary to implement vital restoration
    projects for waterfowl and other migratory birds. The Wildlife Society
    recommends an increase of $1.6 million in the Administration's budget
    request for FWS Migratory Bird Management to fund existing and new
    Joint Ventures.
                           endangered species program
        The Wildlife Society supports the Administration's requested budget
    increases for Endangered Species candidate conservation ($1.06
    million), listing ($77,000), and consultation ($2.27 million). However,
    we are concerned about the reductions in the Endangered Species Act
    Recovery Program. Endangered species recovery efforts can result in
    significant benefits to species through state management efforts.
    Delisting of recovered species needs to receive priority attention. The
    Wildlife Society recommends that Congress restore the $3.4 million
    reduction in recovery efforts in the FWS budget request.
                        national wildlife refuge system
        The Wildlife Society supports the plan offered by the Cooperative
    Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) to substantially reduce the
    Operation and Maintenance (O&M) backlog of the Refuge System by 2003.
    Increases in the O&M budgets during the past several years have allowed
    the FWS to significantly reduce the Refuge System's maintenance
    backlog. However, the operations budget remains disconcertingly low,
    hampering FWS's ability to oversee maintenance projects and conduct
    daily operational work on refuges. We appreciate the Administration's
    O&M backlog request of $376.5 million in fiscal year 2003, a $56.5
    million increase over fiscal year 2002, but this amount falls far short
    of CARE's goal. The Wildlife Society recommends an increase of $43.5
    million over the Administration's O&M budget request to successfully
    meet the FWS's Refuge System mission of fish, wildlife and habitat
    conservation.
                         partners for fish and wildlife
        The Partners for Fish and Wildlife program (PFW) is one of the few
    programs administered by the FWS that uses partnerships with
    landowners, state wildlife agencies, and conservation organizations to
    improve wetlands, uplands, riparian areas and other habitats on private
    land. This program is highly effective and popular with farmers and
    ranchers, but the demand for PFW far exceeds the appropriated funds.
    More than 2,000 landowners who have submitted proposals to implement
    conservation on their lands have been turned away due to insufficient
    funding. These unmet needs are likely to increase with the
    Administration's proposed reduction of $7.3 million in the PFW program.
    At least $15 million in additional funds are needed to complete
    proposed projects, which, if implemented, would restore more than
    150,000 acres of upland habitat, 950 miles of riparian vegetation along
    steams and rivers, and 3,000 wetland basins on private land. The
    Wildlife Society recommends an increase of $15 million over the
    Administration's budget request for the PFW program.
                    neotropical migratory bird conservation
        The Wildlife Society is concerned about the Administration's
    proposal to zero funding for Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation.
    Many migratory bird populations are experiencing long-term declines,
    but very little is known about their biology and migratory behavior.
    The Wildlife Society recommends $4 million to collect the necessary
    information to maintain viable populations of these species throughout
    their historic range.
        Thank you for considering the recommendations of wildlife
    professionals. We look forward to working with you and your staff
    throughout the appropriations process.
                                     ______

         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
    7.3 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 2003 budget.
                     trapping on national wildlife refuges
        National Wildlife Refuges should not permit commercial and
    recreational trapping with inhumane traps. The National Wildlife Refuge
    System (NWRS) is the only category of federal 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 U.S. 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.''
        During fiscal year 2001, recreational trappers visited 80 units of
    the NWRS a total of 40,696 times (number of trapper visits per unit
    ranged widely from 4 to 9,563). ``Consumptive'' uses as a whole
    (including recreational trapping and hunting) are allowed on the
    majority of NWRS units according to data from the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service for fiscal year 2001. However, most of the people who
    enjoy the refuges are ``non-consumptive'' users, whose activities in
    the refuges include hiking, photography, and nature observation. In
    particular, in fiscal year 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    recorded over 36 million visits by non-consumptive users to the 485
    refuges open to the public. Clearly, an elimination of recreational
    trapping on the NWRS would have at most a negligible effect on the
    millions of Americans who use and enjoy the refuges every year.
        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 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.
        Neck snares are similarly inhumane and indiscriminate. Coyotes,
    foxes, and other animals trapped in neck snares often die slowly over
    hours or days by strangulation, as evidenced by necropsy data. Even
    when animals are anesthetized prior to snaring in laboratory tests of
    the snares' humaneness--a procedure that decreases the time to loss of
    consciousness--foxes often take several minutes (up to 45 minutes in
    one study) to lose consciousness. While some researchers have found
    that neck snares are more selective than leghold traps, their use
    nevertheless results in the capture and injury or death of a
    significant number of non-target animals. For example, of 91 deer (non-
    target animals) captured by neck snares in one study, 47 died in the
    snares.
        In 1999, the House of Representatives 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 Farr
    amendment in the Fiscal Year 2003 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 Farr amendment
    would not forbid the use of steel traps or neck snares. It would ban
    those two devices only for commercial and recreational purposes. We
    urge your favorable consideration of this language approved by the
    House.
           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 3-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 $7 million in fiscal year 2003. This increase
    will allow the lab to add scientists and staff, expand and improve its
    physical location, and continue its valuable work.
                            protection for walruses
        We urge this subcommittee to appropriate $500,000 in fiscal year
    2003 to fund much-needed research on the Pacific walrus. Walruses are
    targeted by Native hunters for subsistence, despite a paucity of data
    regarding their current population status or population structure.
    Hundreds of walruses are killed annually; in some years this number has
    climbed to as many as 7,000. Moreover, in some hunting villages,
    females and their calves are preferentially killed, against the
    recommendation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and standard
    management practice. A portion of these funds could also be used to
    assist and improve the Walrus Harvest Monitor Project, which collects
    basic management data.
                    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 for the five programs that
    constitute the MNSCF. Last year, Congress demonstrated its commitment
    to the Fund by appropriating $7 million for the five programs.
    Unfortunately, the Administration requested only $5 million for fiscal
    year 2003. We ask that you continue to support these highly threatened
    mammals and birds in fiscal year 2003 by appropriating $2 million each
    for the African Elephant Conservation Fund, the Asian Elephant
    Conservation Fund, and the Great Ape Conservation Fund, $3 million for
    the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, and $5 million for the
    Neotropical Migratory Birds Conservation Fund, for a total of $14
    million.
        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 would
    like to see grants made to projects that are consistent with the spirit
    of the law.
                          wild horse and burro program
        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 ensure the health of wild horse and burro herds and the public
    lands they inhabit, as well as the welfare of the horses and burros
    that go through the BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Program.
        During fiscal year 2002, the Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse
    and Burro Program received a substantial increase to their annual
    operating budget. This increase is to be used to implement BLM's 4-year
    plan to achieve appropriate management levels (AML's) in all herd
    management areas, principally through an increase in the number of
    horses and burros removed from the public lands. The HSUS supports in
    principle the BLM's attempt to establish a national, strategic approach
    to wild horse management. We strongly believe, however, that many of
    the AML's set by the BLM exaggerate the impact of wild horses on the
    public lands, and do not provide wild horses and burros with the fair
    share of public land resources to which they are entitled under the
    law. We also fear that the planned removals will threaten the short-
    and long-term viability of these populations. To adequately address
    these concerns, the BLM should carry out a programmatic environmental
    impact analysis that examines the impacts of wild horses, burros, and
    livestock on the conditions in herd management areas, and of the
    proposed population reductions on the viability of individual wild
    horse and burro populations and on the overall health of the wild horse
    and burro population on public lands.
        With the strong support of The HSUS and this committee, BLM-
    sponsored research has produced a one-shot, 1-to-2-year contraceptive
    vaccine for wild horses. The BLM is moving toward applying this
    vaccine, known as PZP, as a humane, cost-efficient tool for reducing
    the number of horses that must be removed from the public lands.
    Accordingly, we ask the committee to insert the following language into
    the fiscal year 2003 Interior Appropriations bill: ``The BLM is
    strongly encouraged to implement immunocontraception to help control
    populations of wild horses on the public lands.''
        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 the ``mad cow'' disease
    threat in Europe. The BLM documented that in 1999 hundreds of wild
    horses that had been adopted through the BLM's adoption program 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 once again include the following standard language in the fiscal
    year 2003 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.'' We also request $100,000 in additional
    funding to be allocated to the preparation of a comprehensive National
    Environmental Policy Act review (a programmatic Environmental Impact
    Statement). Finally, we urge this committee to allocate $500,000 in
    additional funding to the BLM for pre-titling compliance monitoring of
    adoptions, adopter mentoring programs, and other means of ensuring that
    adopted wild horses and burros are treated consistently with the intent
    of the Wild Horse and Burro Protection Act and are not sent to
    slaughter.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Friends of Back Bay
        I am Molly Brown from Virginia Beach, Virginia. I am the President
    of Friends of Back Bay, a group of over 400 dedicated volunteers who
    are committed to the protection of the Back Bay National Wildlife
    Refuge. Located in southeastern Virginia Beach, Back Bay National
    Wildlife Refuge was established on February 29, 1938, as a 4589-acre
    refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds. We thank Congress for
    their continued support of this project.
        The Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a
    Refuge boundary expansion on May 7, 1990. The expansion area includes
    6,340 acres of important wildlife habitat. To date the Fish and
    Wildlife Service has been able to acquire 4,313 acres. The Virginia
    Division of Natural Heritage has identified 14 natural areas within the
    Back Bay watershed, nine of which are within the Refuge boundary. These
    areas contain rare plant and animal communities, some of which are
    found nowhere else in Virginia. The Refuge annually supports tens of
    thousands of migratory birds including neotropical migrants, other
    songbirds, waterfowl, shore birds, wading birds and raptors. Submerged
    aquatic vegetation has begun to make reappearance in Back Bay, due in
    part to land protection efforts of the Service. Various wintering
    waterfowl (widgeons, green-winged teal, and gadwall) have wintered in
    Back Bay this year. This recent acquisition had been zoned to
    accommodate 3,000 homes; however, thanks to Congress, this area has
    been protected forever as a portion of the Back Bay National Wildlife
    Refuge.
        The Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge is truly a diversified
    ecosystem. The Refuge is the first undeveloped area south of the mouth
    of the Chesapeake Bay. The first successful bald eagle nest on Back Bay
    in over 30 years occurred on newly acquired Refuge lands in 1994. For
    the past 8 years, 13 eaglets were fledged from this nest. Again this
    year the eagles are nesting. Furthermore, additional adult Bald Eagles
    have been observed on the Refuge, as well as other area of the City of
    Virginia Beach. Also, loggerhead sea turtles nest on the Refuge beaches
    at the northern limit of their nesting range. Four loggerhead nests
    were successfully located and protected in 2001 and sea turtle
    management on the Refuge received significant media coverage during the
    summer. Peregrine falcons and piping plovers continue to use Refuge
    habitats during migration. Finally, owl research continues to be
    conducted on the Refuge. So far they have banded and studied the
    eastern screech, great horned, common barn and saw-whet owls.
        The threat to the Back Bay watershed continues. The primary threat
    is conversion of existing farmland and woodland into residential,
    commercial and recreational uses. The city of Virginia Beach
    Comprehensive Plan projects an estimated 100,000 additional residents
    in the Back Bay watershed. Current proposals include condo development,
    mineral extraction and golf course development. The present expansion
    of a grocery store and a strip mall in the area puts further pressure
    on the Back Bay watershed. As development restrictions are relaxed,
    land values are escalating and may soon be out of reach for
    conservation purposes.
        Since the metropolitan area of Southeastern Virginia is one of the
    fastest growing urban areas in the nation, natural havens such as the
    Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge are increasingly important to its 1.5
    million inhabitants. A survey of 500 registered voters conducted in
    2000 by the City of Virginia Beach and Trust for Public Lands revealed
    that 86 percent believed that it is important to protect the Back Bay.
    This in part led the City of Virginia Beach to adopt the Virginia Beach
    Outdoors Plan in February 2001. This plan is an initiative to preserve
    open space for physical and visual enjoyment. The Refuge provides
    public recreation, e.g. hunting, fishing, bird watching, photography
    and environmental education. Visitation at the Refuge is over 100,000
    per year. Environmental education is a major public use, with over
    5,000 schoolchildren utilizing the area in 2001. From the Refuge's
    visitor center, students can observe seven different habitats. These
    habitats are necessary for the survival of a wide variety of wildlife.
    In keeping with our environmental education opportunities, a group of
    local volunteers have worked with the Refuge staff to put the Back Bay
    Refuge on the Internet. This will enable people world wide to access
    information about the Back Bay ecosystem.
        Furthermore, the Back Bay Refuge is now part of the Charles Kuralt
    Trail, which includes eleven refuges in Virginia and North Carolina.
    Back Bay is designated for the osprey and has a handicap accessible
    trail to view these magnificent ``fish hawks''.
        The acquisition of lands on the west side of Back Bay, that are
    contiguous with Refuge property, will provide a more complete wildlife
    habitat unit that can be managed with the existing Refuge staff. In
    addition, in 1997 the Fish and Wildlife Service purchased a 17-acre
    tract on the west side of the Bay that is now serving as a new
    environmental education center for the Back Bay Refuge. This is helping
    to introduce school children and other interested citizens to the
    ecology of freshwater marshes and forested wetlands. The location of
    this facility is closer to the people and reduces the travel time by
    forty minutes.
        With money appropriated in fiscal year 2002, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service has purchased 210 acres from willing sellers. In August 2000,
    the City of Virginia Beach contacted the Refuge and asked the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service if they would help protect a wetland area that was
    slated to be developed. A private development group had plans to build
    215 condominium units on what is known as Lotus Creek but was willing
    to suspend their construction to entertain a buyout offer from the
    City. The Service worked with the City to develop an agreement that had
    the Service purchase the Lotus Creek property from a willing seller,
    and the Service and the City will exchange property of like value to
    enable improvements to the existing Sandbridge Road. This project will
    protect the Black Gut Natural Area, one of the most biologically
    sensitive areas of the Refuge, help prevent flooding in this part of
    the City, improve water quality in Back Bay and provide a safe scenic
    highway through a beautiful area that has been targeted for ecotourism
    improvements. We are hopeful that Congress will allocate additional
    funds to continue this important program.
        The enclosed map depicts the tracts where the Fish and Wildlife
    Service is currently negotiating with willing sellers. The two
    properties in the inserts are the Lehtonen (northern insert) and the
    R&L Development Corp. (southern insert) properties. These are the
    highest priority acquisitions for the Refuge.
        The Lehtonen tract is 61 acres of prior converted cropland. Mr.
    Lehtonen purchased the property several years ago with the intention of
    turning it into a horse farm. Later his interest turned to developing 3
    to 5 acre farmettes. This property is located in what locals call the
    ``Gateway to Sandbridge''. The road adjacent to this property to the
    north is Sandbridge Road. To the east is Newbridge Road. Sandbridge
    Road and Newbridge Road are part of what planners from the Hampton
    Roads Planning District Commission and the City of Virginia Beach call
    the ``Green Sea Scenic By-way'' which stretches from the beach
    community of Sandbridge on the east to the Great Dismal Swamp on the
    west. Several locations along the proposed Green Sea Scenic By-way have
    been included in the Commonwealth of Virginia Birding Trail. The Fish
    and Wildlife Service envisions this as the site of a relocated Refuge
    headquarters and visitor contact station. The headquarters relocation
    is necessary to protect the office from severe storm weather on the
    barrier beach. Developing a visitor contact station at the site will
    allow visitors to get oriented to the Refuge, the Bay, birding trail
    and canoe launches, and other Refuge properties as they begin their
    journey, as opposed to getting the explanation of what they missed if
    they drive to the only orientation location which is the existing
    contact station at the beach headquarters site. The Refuge does not
    want to see this important area developed as a golf course/residential
    community, which is a viable alternative for the owner.
        The second property is an 83.6-acre farmland. A swamp and marsh
    site that sits at the mouth of Muddy Creek. This tributary of Back Bay
    is one of the major contributors to nutrient and sediment pollution to
    the Bay. The Refuge has actively pursued this acquisition for over a
    decade. Recent circumstances have caused the aging owners of this
    property, acting through a trustee, to express an interest in selling.
    Acquisition will help the Refuge meet its goal to preserve and protect
    valuable wetlands on the west side of the Bay and promote improved
    water quality in the Bay. Without additional funding, acquisition will
    cease and habitat will be lost to housing. In order to continue the
    Back Bay Refuge expansion project, we respectfully request $2.0 million
    for fiscal year 2003.
        I wish to extend my appreciation for the funding that you have
    appropriated through fiscal year 2002. This money has purchased 4,313
    acres of the proposed 6,340-acre expansion. This means that this
    project is 68 percent completed in 11 years. Also, this project is
    ranked twenty eighth on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's LAPS list
    and is in the President's budget. Thank you for the opportunity to
    comment on this important project.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation
        The Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL) 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 $7 million for the Clark R. Bavin National
    Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, $10 million for certain funds
    under the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, and request
    protection for wild horses.
      united states fish and wildlife service division of law enforcement
        SAPL urges significant increased funding to enable the Law
    Enforcement Division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake
    its important, expanding work. These agents are responsible for
    enforcement of over a dozen conservation laws including the Lacey Act,
    Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal
    Protection Act, African Elephant Conservation Act, and Wild Bird
    Conservation Act. These vital special agents recently have been
    involved in a variety of wildlife trade cases involving illegal
    shipments of caviar, elephant ivory, shahtoosh, live reptiles, African
    finches, bear viscera, live turtles and turtle eggs, and many others.
    In fiscal year 2001, there were over 8,500 cases conducted by the
    Division of Law Enforcement. Special agents also conduct vital anti-
    poaching and wildlife law enforcement training for officials in
    numerous countries across the globe. This training is essential to
    protect threatened and endangered wildlife from being poached in these
    range states.
        Unfortunately, while illegal wildlife trade is increasing, the Fish
    and Wildlife Service's Law Enforcement Division is not fully funded
    and, therefore, is hampered in its efforts. Neither Delaware nor Rhode
    Island has a single special agent. Many other states have one agent
    unreasonably expected to perform all the work statewide: Connecticut,
    Indiana, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and West Virginia. A full
    complement of Special Agents is critical 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.
        The amount proposed in the President's budget would not adequately
    meet the basic needs of the Division, which is currently undergoing a
    rebuilding effort to get back to the number of authorized Special
    Agents it needs--253. The Service is expected to have only 237 agents
    by the end of fiscal year 2002 due to retirements. We urge an
    additional $9 million appropriation to enable the Service to hire 16
    additional law enforcement special agents to bring the total to the
    desired 253. This money will not only enable the new hires that are
    necessary for the Division to carry out its vital work, but it will
    also provide the $186,000 of funding per agent that is optimal for the
    agents to carry out their work (this includes salary and operations
    expenses). Currently, the proposed budget only allows for $162,100 per
    agent.
        Additionally, the illegal wildlife trade on the internet is a
    burgeoning problem that the Service is ill-equipped to address. We urge
    an additional $1 million appropriation to enable the Service to begin
    addressing this internet wildlife trafficking problem.
       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 and is the world's
    only forensic laboratory devoted specifically to wildlife crime. 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 has begun an important and significant
    rehabilitation and expansion project. We respectfully urge the
    Committee to appropriate an additional $7 million in fiscal year 2003
    toward the continuation of this rebuilding project. Additional security
    measures are required to ensure the security of the laboratory.
    $765,000 would enable the renovation of the entrance to the laboratory
    including bullet-resistant glass and walls, renovation of the evidence
    control area, and addition of Mylar coating on windows to reduce
    shattering in the event of explosions nearby. There is a vital need to
    construct a new Level III biocontainment area which would include
    storage space for hazardous waste, evidence, etc. This project requires
    $6,235,000. This new containment facility would enable the forensics
    laboratory staff to handle dangerous necropsy and toxicology work
    safely. Again, the Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics
    Laboratory is the only one of its kind and is a model for the world to
    follow. Every effort must be made to fund the laboratory sufficiently
    to enable it to function adequately.
                    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 2003 provides for total funding
    of $5 million for implementation of these funds. The Society for Animal
    Protective Legislation respectfully requests that this amount be
    increased to a total of $10 million, or $2.5 million per fund.
        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. 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 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.''
        SAPL is concerned that the Bureau is failing to fulfill this
    mandate, and instead is engaging in scientifically, ecologically and
    economically unsound practices under the guise of range protection,
    resulting in a program which favors the interests of the livestock
    industry over those of wild horses and burros. In fact, the Bureau
    recently presented a funding proposal to Congress where thousands more
    horses than can be adopted out to the public will be removed from the
    range, despite the fact that the Act specifically states that roundups
    are subject to the availability of homes to which the animals may be
    adopted.
        However, domestic livestock so dramatically outnumber wild horses
    on the range (the ratio is at least 50:1) that the removal of these
    wild horses will not make a significant difference on range vitality.
    As a GAO report from 1990 states: ``. . . the primary cause of
    degradation in rangeland resources is poorly managed domestic livestock
    (primarily cattle and sheep) grazing . . . wild horses are vastly
    outnumbered on federal rangelands . . . Even substantial reductions in
    wild horse populations will, therefore, not substantially reduce total
    forage consumption'' (Rangeland Management: Improvements Needed in
    Federal Wild Horse Program, GAO, 1990). It should be noted that less
    than 3 percent of American beef is produced on federal lands and
    contributes less than 1 percent to annual incomes in Western states.
        Earlier this year Congresswoman Connie Morella along with many of
    her colleagues introduced the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act
    to ban the slaughter of America's horses. To date this bill has the
    strong support of Congress, the horse and humane community and the
    American public. Each year thousands of federally protected wild
    horses, stolen horses, foals and abused horses are being slaughtered in
    a brutal industry to meet consumer demand abroad. ABC News recently
    reported that hundreds a year are still being slaughtered for human
    consumption.
        Congress must act quickly to ensure that our wild horses do not
    quietly disappear at the hands of a few self-serving individuals. SAPL,
    therefore, supports the President's language included in the fiscal
    year 2003 Department of Interior Appropriations Act:
        ``That appropriations herein made shall not be available for the
    destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care
    of the Bureau or its contractors.''
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
        The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
    organization created in 1981 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 $56.5 million
    for Refuge Operations and Maintenance in the President's fiscal year
    2003 budget, as a minimum. In fiscal year 2002, funding for the three
    refuges along the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers totaled $14.786
    million, nearly two-thirds of which was for special flood-related
    repair needs. Yet there continues to be a significant routine
    maintenance backlog and a critical need for additional personnel to
    address law enforcement, biological needs, floodplain forest
    management, technical assistance to private landowners, environmental
    education, and other refuge management needs.
        The UMRBA has watched with concern the inability of refuges to
    provide funding for the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of projects
    that the Corps of Engineers constructs under the authority of the
    Environmental Management Program (EMP). We are pleased that in fiscal
    year 2002, approximately $150,000 was allocated for this purpose.
    However, this amount is less than half of the expected need. Fully
    funding EMP project O&M needs is vital to ensuring that these habitat
    restoration and enhancement projects are fully operational and provide
    lasting environmental and public use benefits.
        The UMRBA also supports the fiscal year 2003 budget request of
    $71.1 million for Fish and Wildlife Service land acquisition. We are
    pleased that this includes $250,000 for acquisition of 190 acres for
    the Upper Mississippi River NWFR. We are aware of interest in
    increasing this amount and that $1 million is needed to satisfy all
    current interested willing sellers.
        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 2002, 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: $200,000 to support work on aquatic
    nuisance species; $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 2003. Approximately $700,000 is being
    provided for fisheries work on the Upper Mississippi River in fiscal
    year 2002. 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 42 projects
    totaling $3.6 million. Unfunded projects include those related to large
    migratory species such as paddlefish, aquatic nuisance species such as
    Asian carp, and the endangered Higgin's Eye mussel.
                             u.s. geological survey
        The USGS budget for fiscal year 2003 is proposed to be cut by
    nearly $47 million, of which 60 percent ($28 million) would come from
    reductions in the USGS Water Resources Division (WRD). The WRD cutback
    of 13.6 percent from fiscal year 2002 would have debilitating effects
    on this country's water data and science programs. Also of concern is
    the assertion in USGS budget documents that ``the first and most
    important customers of USGS science are the land and resource
    management bureaus of the Department of the Interior.'' This view of
    the USGS role is inconsistent with its history, current role, and the
    vision for its future put forth in last year's report of the National
    Research Council (NRC). 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 2003 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 Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessments and
    Research budget is proposed to be cut by 16 percent in fiscal year
    2003, eliminating the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology program and
    transferring funding instead to the National Science Foundation (NSF)
    for a research grant program. 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. A general NSF research grant program is not an
    appropriate substitute for the management-relevant research done by the
    USGS under its Toxics Program. The USGS must maintain its own capacity
    to provide unbiased scientific information in support of federal,
    state, and local government programs. Given the important work underway
    in the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, UMRBA urges Congress to
    restore the $13.9 million proposed cut and retain the toxics research
    program in USGS.
        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, assessing 42 major river basins and aquifers across the
    nation. Under the President's fiscal year 2003 budget, NAWQA funding
    would be reduced by $5.8 million, or 9 percent from the fiscal year
    2002 funding level. This decrease will result in the termination of 6
    of the 42 study units. While USGS has not yet identified which 6 units
    will be cut, the effects of the budget reduction will likely be felt
    throughout the NAWQA program. Such modifications are antithetical to
    the very purpose of NAWQA--i.e., providing a picture of the nation's
    overall water quality through the cyclical assessment of representative
    waterbodies. The Upper Mississippi River Basin includes four NAWQA
    study units (Upper Mississippi, Eastern Iowa, Lower Illinois, and Upper
    Illinois).
        The UMRBA is also deeply concerned about the proposed 14.6 percent
    reduction ($2.1 million) in funding for the National Streamflow
    Information Program (NSIP). 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 640 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 fiscal
    year 2003 proposed funding cuts will mean the loss of another 9 gages
    in the five basin states. 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. Toward that
    end, UMRBA recommends that, at a minimum, NSIP funding be restored to
    fiscal year 2001 and 2002 levels of at least $14 million.
        Finally, the UMRBA supports proposed funding of $64.3 million 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. In 2000, there were 173
    cooperators in the five basin states.
        Biological Resources.--The President's fiscal year 2003 budget
    proposes a 3.6 percent reduction for USGS' Biological Resources
    Division. Among the cuts of particular concern to the UMRBA are a
    reduction of $500,000 in Amphibian Research and Monitoring, including
    work being done at the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center
    (UMESC) in Wisconsin and the Columbia Environmental Research Center
    (CERC) in Missouri; a $748,000 reduction in the Mark Twain National
    Forest Mining Study; a $300,000 reduction in the pallid sturgeon study;
    and a $499,000 reduction in ballast water research. The UMRBA urges
    that funding for these studies be restored.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Frontera Audubon Society
        Frontera Audubon Society requests a total of $5 million from the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year 2003 for
    purchase of lands by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Lower
    Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Texas.
        The Lower Rio Grande Valley contains the Nation's most valuable
    lands for protecting biological diversity. The cost of purchasing land
    and water rights, while still relatively low, is rising. Now is the
    time to commit substantial funds to completing the ``wildlife
    corridor'' intended to protect this biological treasurehouse.
        Permanent protection of wildlife habitat in the Lower Rio Grande
    Valley National Wildlife Refuge will also improve life for the growing
    number of people residing in the Valley. By providing a sound
    foundation for expanded nature tourism, an enlarged refuge can ensure
    economic diversification, as well as improve the quality of life for
    residents and visitors in all socio-economic levels and perpetuate the
    region's immense biological heritage.
        The biological richness of the Lower Rio Grande Valley has been
    well documented in Fish and Wildlife Service documents and the
    testimony we have submitted in past years. The Valley is home to half
    of all bird species found in the United States. Sixty of the bird
    species live in no other part of the country. The 300 species of
    butterflies outnumber any other part of the country except the Florida
    Everglades. In addition, there are more than 200 species of mammals,
    reptiles, amphibians, and fish and 1,200 species of plants.
        The threats to this biological treasurehouse are also well known:
    rapid development. The McAllen-Edinburg-Mission and Brownsville-
    Harlingen-San Benito metropolitan areas have been among the ten
    fastest-growing metropolitan areas nation-wide for the past several
    years.
        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.
        When completed, the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife
    Refuge will protect nearly half of a planned 285,000 acre wildlife
    protection network--the ``Wildlife Corridor''--that reaches 275 miles
    along the Rio Grande River. 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 valley's area.
        Lands acquired for the refuge all come from willing sellers.
        Appropriation of $5 million for fiscal year 2003 would allow
    purchase of approximately 10,000 acres in 2002-2003. 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. Land acquisition lags
    badly for four of these habitat types; purchases should focus on these.
    Top priority should be placed on the Chihuahuan thorn forest biome.,
    also called Falcon Woodland, where less than 1 percent of the desired
    total acreage has been bought. This forest has great biological
    importance as a unique riparian zone and ecotone between the river and
    desert scrub. Birds found there include brown jay; green, ringed, and
    belted kingfishers; and ferruginous pygmy owl.
        Two other under-represented habitat types are also found in Starr
    County--Upper Valley flood forest (43 percent of the targetted acreage
    acquired) and ramaderos (38 percent of the goal). A third is the Sabal
    palm forest in Cameron County (30 percent of the goal).
        Acquiring land in Starr County is difficult for a variety of
    reasons, especially the complicated land titles. This is one
    explanation for the delay in spending funds appropriated to the Refuge.
    Other reasons have been slow processing of appraisals in the Regional
    office and disagreements about what prices to offer for lands that do
    not carry full water rights. The Regional director and his deputy are
    fully committed to finding solutions to the latter two problems, so we
    expect purchases can move ahead in the coming year--as long as funding
    is appropriated.
        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. Nature tourism is a
    rapidly growing segment of this industry. More than 65 million people
    nation-wide watch birds for recreation. Texans stand to benefit from
    increased birding and other recreational opportunities in the Valley
    because Texas is already the number one birding destination in the
    United States and the Rio Grande Valley is the number one birding
    destination in the state. More than 200,000 people watch birds or other
    wildlife in the Lower Rio Grande Valley every year. These visitors
    spend more than $100 million and create or sustain more than 2,000
    jobs. It has been calculated that each rare bird sighting accounts for
    approximately $100,000 per year in spending locally.
        Other public and private entities are committed to building up
    nature tourism in the Valley. In 1999, the Texas Parks & Wildlife
    Department issued a ``sustainable ecotourism strategy'' for the Lower
    Rio Grande Valley \1\ that was developed in partnership with local
    communities. The TP&WD and local Chambers of Commerce inform visitors
    about prime wildlife sites, including those incorporated in the Great
    Texas Coastal Birding Trail. TP&WD will soon open the World Birding
    Center. At the Center's three main interpretation sites--at Mission,
    Brownsville, and Weslaco--and seven satellite sites, visitors will
    learn more about how best to enjoy the many natural and cultural
    treasures of the Valley. It is estimated that 100,000 visitors would
    stop at one or more units of the World Birding Center; and that they
    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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Lower Rio Grande Valley needs the economic stimulus that nature
    tourism provide. The region is economically depressed, with
    unemployment chronically near 20 percent and a high proportion of
    residents living below the poverty level. Agriculture, which formerly
    dominated the economy, is in decline due to a prolonged drought,
    freezes that have discouraged the citrus industry, and other factors.
        Paradoxically, the rapid expansion of housing, manufacturing,
    transshipment facilities, and other urban infrastructure are not
    solving the economic problems.
        Furthermore, the increased recreational opportunities provided by
    the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge will contribute to
    a better quality of life for everyone. Already, the Refuge has opened
    40,000 acres to the public for recreation; more will be opened as the
    management funding is appropriated. In addition to birding and
    canoeing, these acres are available for public hunting of deer, feral
    hogs, nilgai, and white-winged doves.
        Completion of the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR is critical to
    providing the open space and wildlife viewing opportunities underlying
    the ecotourism economic development strategy.
                                     ______

                             National Park Service
                  Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society
        Mr. Chairman, The Wilderness Society (TWS) would like to thank you
    for the opportunity to provide recommendations and comments on the
    fiscal year 2002 Department of the Interior Appropriations bill. On
    behalf of the more than 200,000 members and supporters of TWS, I would
    like to focus our discussion on funding for the Land Conservation,
    Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement Fund, the historic
    bipartisan agreement formulated by this committee, and other
    appropriations issues related to the land management agencies.
      land conservation, preservation and infrastructure improvement fund
        Fiscal year 2003 represents the third year of the six-year funding
    agreement provided by the Land Conservation, Preservation and
    Infrastructure Improvement Fund (LCPII). This innovated conservation
    spending agreement was set up to provide dedicated funding for a broad
    menu of programs that address contemporary threats to our nation's
    natural and cultural heritage--loss of open space, wildlife habitat,
    wildlands, and cultural treasures threatened by uncontrolled urban
    sprawl and development. Over the past 2 years Congress has seen fit to
    honor its commitment to provide full funding for these conservation
    needs. We once again call upon the leadership of the Interior
    Appropriations Committee to provide and the dedicate amount of $1.44
    billion to these accounts which includes a $120 million increase for
    fiscal year 2002 for these programs.
        One of the most important funding priorities for The Wilderness
    Society is the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We strongly recommend
    the federal side of LWCF should be allocated $515 million in fiscal
    year 2003 to ensure each agency has enough funding for all of their
    acquisition needs. TWS recommends $120 million for Fish and Wildlife
    Service acquisitions for important wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat,
    and recovery of listed, endangered and threatened species. $148 million
    is need for National Park Service acquisition program. We believe this
    funding should be used only for acquisition of park land and not be
    passed through to states for their land acquisition projects. This has
    the serious effect of reducing the Park Service's ability to address
    their inholding needs. Furthermore, we recommend $85 million for
    critical habitat associated with wilderness, national monuments and
    other areas of importance management by the Bureau of Land Management.
    Finally, we recommend $160 million for acquisition of critical lands by
    the U.S. Forest Service. The state-side matching grant program of LWCF
    programs is recommended at $145 million.
        Two other accounts that TWS strongly supports are the Forest Legacy
    Program, administered through the Forest Service, and the Urban Park
    and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). Forest Legacy provides grants
    to states to help private landowners preserve some of the more than
    half a million acres of working forest lands lost each year to
    development. TWS recommends $100 million for Forest Legacy for fiscal
    year 2003, an increase of $35 million over the previous year. UPARR
    addresses the needs of inner city recreation through grants and
    technical assistance to urban communities and is recommended at $35
    million in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $5 million.
                     agency appropriations recommendations
        The Carhart Wilderness Training Center is a United States federal
    government inter-agency training center devoted to training federal and
    state land managers who have wilderness management responsibilities.
    The Carhart Center addresses challenges in wilderness management,
    training, and education identified by wilderness managers all across
    the country. This vital training tool helps the dedicated men and women
    who work for our land management agencies receive the necessary
    training and knowledge of how to effectively steward our national
    wilderness. Additionally, the center ensures that recent developments
    and tested practices in wilderness management are shared throughout the
    ranks of federal wilderness agencies. The Carhart Center is facing
    extreme underfunding in fiscal year 2003. TWS strongly recommends that
    all four of the land management agencies contribute adequate funding
    for the center to avoid drastic cuts in their facilities and training
    programs. Cuts would include reducing the number of courses the center
    can offer, eliminating opportunities for workstudy students, and
    reduction in basic administrative and office services. We strongly
    recommend that language associated with the Interior Appropriations
    bill directs each agency within the Department of Interior to
    contribute $180,000 and the Forest Service to contribute $235,000 to
    the Carhart Center for a total appropriation of $775,000 to support
    their critical funding needs.
                              u.s. forest service
        The Forest Service manages more than 191 million acres of lands,
    including national forests, grasslands, and monuments, and 35 million
    acres in the National Wilderness Preservation System. These lands
    provide endless recreational opportunities for millions of Americans.
    Outdoor recreation contributes more to the U.S. economy than any other
    use of the National Forest System, producing 31 times more jobs and 38
    times more economic benefits than logging. Despite the value of the
    land, many important conservation programs are chronically underfunded
    while programs that harm our national forests have traditionally
    received too much funding. TWS recommendations focus on three important
    accounts within the agency. Wildlife, Fish, Watershed and Atmospheric
    Sciences Research is recommended for a $25 million increase, bringing
    its total request to $76 million, $285 million for the Recreation,
    Heritage, and Wilderness Program is also recommended, an increase of
    $40 million, as well as $200 million for the Wildlife and Fisheries
    Habitat Management Program, an increase of $68 million.
        A serious concern with the proposed fiscal year 2003 President's
    budget is a major reduction in the Forest Service Research and
    Development account. The President proposes $243.1 million for this
    program, which falls $24 million short of the necessary level for
    adequate funding. The President's funding recommendation will have the
    impact of significantly redirecting both funding and personnel in the
    Forest Service Research Program. Specifically, 16 research work units
    will be terminated, 10 regional locations will be closed, and 275
    people will lose their positions. TWS strongly believes this program
    should be adequately funded at $292.1 million in fiscal year 2003 to
    prevent the further erosion of scientific capability within the FS.
        TWS strongly oppose the creation of Charter Forests and their
    inclusion in the legislative language associated with the Interior
    appropriations bill. Our national forests are a cherished part of
    America's natural landscape and social fabric. Under a charter forest
    or trust arrangement, local interests and concerns would take priority,
    and non-local viewpoints would take a back seat. We believe that
    federal management of our public lands ensures the necessary
    accountability for their condition, but the plan to denationalize by
    creating charter forests would result in the exclusion of the public
    from the decision-making process. This proposal would result in the
    Forest Service surrendering its management responsibilities to local
    interests. It would effectively repeal a federal management policy that
    goes back more than 100 years and is codified in both the National
    Forest Management Act and Federal Land Planning Management Act. Turning
    control over to individual interests or individual states would
    fragment management discretion and reduce environmental safeguards.
                           fish and wildlife service
        The National Wildlife Refuge System passes a significant milestone
    when it celebrates its 100th anniversary in 2003. Unfortunately, the
    Refuge System is suffering under nearly $2 billion backlog in
    operations and maintenance. TWS acknowledges the committee's faithful
    and consistent efforts to improve funding for the system and we
    continue our collaborative work with the Cooperative Alliance for
    Refuge Enhancement to this end. We recommend $700 million for the
    Operations and Maintenance Program, an increase of $384 million, to
    carry out necessary repairs, new staff positions, and the development
    of Comprehensive Conservation Plans. We also strongly recommend funding
    the Endangered Species Program at $275.7 million, an increase of $150
    million, to facilitate the Listing Program, Candidate Conservation, and
    Recovery Program.
                             national park service
        TWS continues to recommend the formation of a Wilderness Branch
    within NPS, as they are the conservators of the greatest amount of
    wilderness in the world. A $6 million budget would allow this new
    program to add among other things Wilderness Coordinators in each
    region, a full-time coordinator in each of the 75 parks with wilderness
    status and a much needed Director of Wilderness. TWS is grateful for
    the President's continued support of the National Resource Challenge,
    but an increase of $31 million is needed in this fourth and critical
    year of this program to bring its funding level to $80 million. We
    further recommend a $12 million to fund Rivers, Trails and Conservation
    Assistance Program, an increase of $4 million, and a total request of
    $4 million for the Soundscape Program. This program, which was
    established by Public Law 106-181, mandates the NPS to preserve and/or
    restore the natural soundscapes within the parks, as natural sounds are
    an intrinsic element of the park environment. This important new
    mandate has been plagued with profoundly insufficient funds, and must
    be fully supported to protect the natural resources of our parks. Park
    Operations is one area where significant increases are needed in order
    to adequately protect park resources. As a member of the steering
    committee for American for Our National Parks, we recommend an
    additional $280 million over the enacted fiscal year 2002 levels in
    park operations to protect the natural and cultural resources of the
    National Park System, bringing the NPS total budget to $1.76 billion.
                           bureau of land management
        The Bureau of Land Management's 264 million acres of federal land
    are no longer valued solely for the resources extracted from them, but
    are being utilized by a much broader audience including recreation
    enthusiasts and those seeking solitude from the fast pace of the
    growing urban environments. BLM's National Landscape Conservation
    System (NLCS) was established to preserve and designate new areas to
    assure proper stewardship of the cultural and environmental values
    within these designations. Operational funding for this program is
    critically needed to provide basic visitor needs and to ensure resource
    protection in the 15 new National Monuments, 14 National Conservation
    Areas, 148 Wilderness Areas, 36 segments of Wild and Scenic River, and
    the 11 Scenic and Historic National Trails managed by BLM. Funding for
    NCLS operations in fiscal year 2002 was not increased from fiscal year
    2001 despite the increased workload from the 19 newly established
    designations. To address resource protection and encourage scientific
    research, $70 million is needed in fiscal year 2003 for continued
    success. The BLM has a remarkable opportunity to highlight its new
    emphasis on land conservation through adequately funding the National
    Landscape Conservation System.
        Resource Management Planning will continue to become an
    increasingly important program that provides management direction for
    emerging national issues such as urban growth and collaborative
    involvement. A significant increase in funding is required to ensure
    effective public participation and outreach for new planning starts.
    TWS recommends an increase of $50 million for Resource Management
    Planning in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $10 million.
        Additionally, we encourage an increase of $15 million for the
    Integrated Weed Management Program, to fund the program at $24 million
    total, which stops the spread of invasive weeds that are causing the
    greatest accelerating adverse long-term health of the public lands.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the National Audubon Society
        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of over 1 million members and supporters of
    Audubon, thank you for the opportunity to testify on our
    recommendations for funding of specific programs and projects at the
    Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service that further our
    mission to protect birds, other wildlife, and their habitat.
                             everglades restoration
        We urge the Subcommittee to support the following funding needs for
    fiscal year 2003:
        National Park Service Land Acquisition Assistance to the State of
    Florida should be increased by $20 million over the Administration's
    request to a total of $40 million in fiscal year 2003.--The
    Administration's request of $20 million amounts to only one percent of
    the estimated $1.8 billion cost to acquire the remaining lands needed
    for restoration. Approximately $1 billion of land should be acquired by
    the year 2006 in order to keep CERP implementation on schedule. While
    the State of Florida has the primary responsibility for land
    acquisitions, the State needs federal assistance to acquire these lands
    quickly. South Florida continues to develop at a rapid pace and the
    price of real estate is increasing just as rapidly. If the purchase of
    the parcels targeted for acquisition is delayed due to lack of funding,
    the land needed to restore the Everglades may not be available or might
    only be available at a cost far exceeding the anticipated price. The
    integrity of the entire CERP rests on land acquisition.
        We urge the Committee to fund USGS and NPS Everglades science
    programs at $13.13 million. We are concerned by the $1 million
    reduction of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) budget for ongoing
    Everglades studies. Such proposed cuts would affect critical Everglades
    studies regarding the sheet flow of water across the Everglades, water
    quality, the levels of nutrients, mercury, and other contaminants, and
    the complex interaction of groundwater and surface water in South
    Florida. Research that directly supports implementation and monitoring
    of project effectiveness is vital to the success of CERP.
        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.
      land conservation, preservation and infrastructure improvement fund
                                    (lcpii)
        Enacted at the close of the 106th Congress, the fiscal year 2001
    Interior appropriations conference report established the LCPII fund to
    address loss of open space, wildlife habitat, wildlands, and cultural
    treasures endangered by urban sprawl and development. For fiscal year
    2003, the DOI appropriations portion of LCPII should receive of $1.44
    billion, an increase of $120 million for these programs.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
        A critical component of the LCPII is the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF). We urge this Committee to appropriate the
    full $900 million authorized for the (LWCF). Each year, we lose
    millions of acres of valuable habitat while bird and wildlife
    populations continue to decline. We must halt and reverse these
    destructive trends in order to provide a sound and reliable ecological
    infrastructure with which our nation can protect birds and other
    wildlife for future generations. Incorporating input from our 27 state
    offices and more than 500 chapters, we have developed a list of
    Audubon's priorities for funding under the LWCF for fiscal year 2003
    which will follow this testimony.
    State Wildlife Grants
        The Administration's request of $85 million (for combined State and
    Tribal grants) short-changes the important conservation goals of the
    State Wildlife grants program. Audubon supports an increase in fiscal
    year 2003 of $70 million to $150 million. At a minimum, last year's
    funding level of $80 million for State Wildlife Grants should be
    maintained. We also urge the Committee to include $5 million for Tribal
    grants in addition to the above fiscal year 2003 so that this important
    work takes place everywhere our precious biological heritage is
    imperiled.
                      u.s. fish and wildlife service (fws)
    National Wildlife Refuge System
        As we approach the 100th anniversary of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System, Congress has before it an historic opportunity to
    celebrate a century of conservation while addressing the needs of a
    natural treasure that has been historically neglected and underfunded.
    Although the Refuge System has enjoyed renewed attention from Congress
    in recent years, it still faces a backlog of nearly $2 billion in unmet
    operations and maintenance needs. Hundreds of refuges have no staff and
    no visitor center, no signs, brochures or restrooms, no way to serve
    the public and no aid for resident wildlife populations. As a result,
    the Refuge System is largely unequipped to address a range of serious
    threats. Limited water supplies, invasive species, and water pollution
    threaten birds and wildlife on refuges across the country. Some of
    these refuges are failing to protect bird species that are federally-
    listed as threatened or endangered, or are listed on Audubon's Watch
    List of species that could be headed for extinction.
        We urge you to appropriate an additional $100 million over the
    fiscal year 2002 budget for refuge operations and maintenance, as a
    down payment toward the long-term goal of eliminating the enormous
    backlog of needs facing our nation's refuges. We urge the Committee to
    ensure that this additional funding does not come at the expense of the
    FWS land acquisition budget.
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
        The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) should be
    funded at the fully authorized amount of $5 million for fiscal year
    2003. The NMBCA restores and conserves the wintering habitats of
    neotropical migratory birds, thus helping to ensure that our songbirds
    will safely return to our backyards each spring. Of the 800 bird
    species known to occur in the United States, approximately 500 migrate
    among countries, the large majority of which are the neotropical
    migrants that winter in Latin America and the Caribbean.
        Many neotropical migratory bird populations, once considered
    common, are in decline. Some have declined to the point that their
    long-term survival in the wild is in jeopardy. The primary reason for
    the decline in the populations of those species is habitat loss and
    degradation. Because neotropical migratory birds range across numerous
    international borders each year, their conservation requires the
    commitment and effort of all countries along their migration routes.
    The NMBCA established a fund which supports partnership programs to
    enhance habitat in the Caribbean and Latin America where neotropical
    migrants spend their winters. We strongly urge full funding of $5
    million for NMBCA for fiscal year 2003.
    Migratory Bird Management (MBM)
        The FWS is responsible for the conservation, protection, and
    enhancement of populations and habitats of the nation's migratory
    birds. The FWS Migratory Bird Management (MBM) budget has been
    essentially flat for the last 10 years; any increases to the budget
    have been absorbed by salary increases and inflation. The FWS needs
    more employees, particularly biologists, to carry out its
    responsibilities to more than eight hundred species of migratory birds.
    Unfortunately the President's budget for fiscal year 2003 proposes to
    cut Migratory Bird Management by over $300,000. The actual cut to MBM
    is over $1 million when one includes the Duck Stamp Program that has
    been newly transferred to MBM at a cost of $575,000, and inflation and
    salary increases.
        The FWS currently lacks reliable information on the status and
    distribution of the majority of migratory bird species. Increased
    funding is needed to enhance MBM's ability to conserve, protect and
    enhance populations and habitats of the nation's migratory birds by
    expanding the scientific basis for addressing migratory bird issues.
    This is critical to the successful implementation of on-the-ground
    management activities for the conservation of priority habitats for
    Birds of Conservation Concern and other migratory bird species and will
    allow the Service to better allocate its resources towards effective
    conservation initiatives.
        We urge the Committee to increase funding for MBM by $14.9 million,
    for a total of $43.5 million, with funding broken down in the following
    categories: Landbirds: $10M; Shorebirds: $7.5M; Waterbirds: $5.0M;
    Waterfowl: $11M; and Survey Aircraft: $10M.
                        bureau of land management (blm)
    Managing for At-Risk Species and Habitats
        We urge the Committee to increase the President's budget request
    for BLM Threatened and Endangered Species Programs to $38 million.
      --Wildlife Habitat Management Activity will work to implement the
            executive order of Migratory Bird Conservation by enhancing
            migratory bird populations and their habitat. We urge that an
            additional $7 million be authorized for this program.
      --Threatened and Endangered Species Management programs need an
            additional $6.1 million for direct conservation and management
            of at-risk species.
      --Riparian Area Management focuses on improving and restoring
            critical components of migratory bird habitat in the western
            United States. This program desperately needs an additional
            $6.3 million.
        These funds will give the agency the ability to implement some 200
    necessary recovery activities for listed species, and to conserve other
    species to avoid the listing of new species. Many of the species found
    on BLM land are birds, which the Wildlife Habitat Management, the
    Threatened and Endangered Species Management, and the Riparian
    Management programs work to conserve.
                         u.s. geological survey (usgs)
    Biological Research Division
        Audubon urges the Committee to appropriate $207.4 million, a total
    increase of $36 million, to the USGS for the Biological Research
    Division. Funding at current levels for the BRD, let alone the
    Administration's proposed $6 million cut, is not fully adequate to meet
    the science needs of the Interior agencies and the complex,
    interrelated natural systems they must manage.
        We recommend an increase of $6 million for the North American Bird
    Conservation Initiative (NCBCI). This program provides a framework for
    cooperation of partners involved in numerous plans for the conservation
    of neotropical migratory birds and other species. NABCI is critical to
    the support of bird conservation through regionally based,
    biologically-driven, landscape-oriented partnerships. The USGS helps
    meet these needs, and in particular, provides the scientific
    information necessary to support decision-making in avian conservation.
        We recommend an increase of $12 million for the Invasive Species
    program. Invasive species endanger the survival of native species and
    ecosystems. The United States is particularly vulnerable to invasions
    due to its great variety of climates and habitats. According to a
    recent Cornell University study, invasive species cost the United
    States more than $138 billion annually. The USGS has an historic
    opportunity to lead federal efforts to combat invasive species. Several
    USGS activities are needed, including the development of an information
    system to track invasives; methods for early detection and monitoring
    of invasions; models for predicting invasions and identifying
    vulnerable habitats; research on specific species and their detection,
    eradication and containment; and a comprehensive assessment of invasive
    species on DOI lands.
                           u.s. forest service (usfs)
    International Programs
        Audubon strongly urges the Committee to increase the total budget
    for International Programs to $10 million. Projects under the Migratory
    Bird Conservation program work to protect, conserve, and restore the
    wetland and forest areas that the 300 species of birds which migrate to
    the Caribbean and Latin America rely on as critical habitat.
    Unfortunately, many of these birds are experiencing rapid population
    declines due mainly to the loss of that habitat throughout North and
    South America.
        Several such species are currently listed under the ESA, but all
    face severe risks, including the Kirtland's Warbler, Swallow-Tailed
    Kite, Cerulean Warbler, Bicknell's Thrush, and the Mountain Plover.
    Without a vital increase of $3 million, to $4.2 million, Migratory Bird
    Conservation will not have the resources needed to assure that the
    federal government's interest in the stability of migratory bird
    populations is protected. Without such additional assistance, migratory
    bird species will likely continue to decline and may face extinction.
    Wildlife, Fish, Watershed and Atmospheric Sciences Research (WFWAR)
        We urge the Committee to give specific consideration to the
    importance of WFWAR, one of the four main components of the FS R&D
    program, which is grossly under-funded in the President's budget.
    Funding levels of $76 million will enable the Forest Service to carry
    out its crucial conservation research mission and to conduct critically
    important scientific research on threatened and endangered species,
    watersheds, wetlands, grasslands, and forests.
        Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to testify on the
    budget requests for the Interior Department and U.S. Forest Service.

          LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PRIORITIES, FISCAL YEAR 2003
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Audubon
                 Priority                       State             request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fish and Wildlife Service:
        Kenai National Wildlife Refuge  AK..................      $8,500,000
        Don Edwards National Wildlife   CA..................      17,000,000
         Refuge.
        San Diego National Wildlife     CA..................      10,000,000
         Refuge.
        Stewart McKinney National       CT..................       8,280,000
         Wildlife Refuge.
        Archie Carr National Wildlife   FL..................       1,000,000
         Refuge.
        Florida Panther National        FL..................      15,000,000
         Wildlife Refuge.
        Lake Wales Ridge National       FL..................         500,000
         Wildlife Refuge.
        Pelican Island National         FL..................       1,500,000
         Wildlife Refuge.
        Savannah National Wildlife      GA..................       4,000,000
         Refuge.
        Upper Mississippi National      IL..................       2,000,000
         Wildlife & Fish Refuge.
        Patoka River National Wildlife  IN..................       3,000,000
         Refuge.
        Marais des Cygne National       KS..................         160,000
         Wildlife Refuge.
        SE Louisiana National Wildlife  LA..................       2,500,000
         Refuge Complex.
        Wallkill River National         NJ..................       3,000,000
         Wildlife Refuge.
        Bitter Lake National Wildlife   NM..................       2,500,000
         Refuge.
        Bosque del Apache National      NM..................       1,475,000
         Wildlife Refuge.
        Wertheim National Wildlife      NY..................       1,000,000
         Refuge.
        Erie National Wildlife Refuge.  PA..................         240,000
        Lower Rio Grande Valley         TX..................       1,500,000
         National Wildlife Refuge.
        Dungeness National Wildlife     WA..................         500,000
         Refuge.
        Nisqually National Wildlife     WA..................       2,000,000
         Refuge.
        Ridgefield National Wildlife    WA..................       9,500,000
         Refuge.
    National Park Service: Great Sand   CO..................      10,000,000
     Dunes National Park.
    Forest Service: San Bernadino       CA..................      10,000,000
     National Forest.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition
        As you prepare the fiscal year 2003 Interior Appropriations bill,
    we respectfully request an increase to the operating budget for the
    National Park Service by $172 million above the President's request;
    $280 million above the enacted fiscal year 2002 level.
        Specifically, we request that you provide increased funding for the
    operations of Yellowstone National Park. America's first national park
    and its three million visitors each year are suffering from the impacts
    of insufficient funding:
                               natural resources
        The Park Service is unable to monitor Yellowstone's nonnative
    species, including lake trout. This fish is threatening the survival of
    the park's native cutthroat trout as well as the 42 bird and mammal
    species, including grizzly bear, that depend on the native trout for
    food. Recently introduced New Zealand mud snails are colonizing
    Yellowstone's waters at a rapid rate--endangering native aquatic
    species and the animals that depend on them. Yellowstone has never
    received sustained funding to minimize threats posed by invasive
    aquatic species. We ask that the Committee secure $400,000 in funding
    for this critically important program.
                               visitor education
        Expedition Yellowstone! is the park's residential education
    program, designed for students in grades 4-8 in Montana, Wyoming and
    Idaho. Due to funding limitations, the program currently serves less
    than .5 percent of eligible students. Yellowstone does not advertise
    the program, because the park already must turn away 66 percent of the
    classes that apply. Funding is needed to staff the program and to
    create appropriate educational facilities.
                               cultural resources
        Although less than 3 percent of Yellowstone has been inventoried
    for archeological sites, more than 1,100 sites have been documented in
    the park. These sites, representing more than 11,000 years of human
    presence, are at risk from natural erosion and vandalism. Yellowstone's
    archeological program has never received base funding and many sites
    have been irreparably damaged before they could be studied. $300,000 is
    needed to fund the park's archeology program.
        As caretaker of our nation's most valued resources, the Park
    Service manages 385 sites throughout the country. It is responsible for
    more than 83 million acres of land, and protecting and preserving 168
    threatened or endangered species, more than 80 million museum objects,
    1.5 million archaeological sites, and 26,000 historic structures. The
    awe-inspiring natural, cultural, and historic attributes of these
    special places draw nearly 300 million visits annually.
        While the operating budget of the national parks has increased in
    recent years, it has failed to keep pace with need. Research has shown
    that the Park Service's annual operating budget falls at least $600
    million, or a third, of what is needed to operate the parks effectively
    and protect resources, and to provide a top-quality experience for
    visitors.
        An increase of $280 million in the Park Service's operating budget
    this year is a critical step toward meeting the mission of the Park
    Service to preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and
    values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and
    inspiration of this and future generations.
        On behalf of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, I urge your support
    for increasing the operating budget of the National Park System so that
    our children--and our children's descendants--can enjoy the
    irreplaceable national treasures of Yellowstone National Park, and the
    entire National Park System.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association
        The National Parks Conservation Association (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 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 2003 Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. We
    appreciate 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 2003 budget.
                        national park service operations
        A top priority for NPCA in the budget of the National Park Service
    is to significantly increase funding for the operations of the Park
    Service. NPCA is requesting an increase of $280 million over the
    current fiscal year 2002 spending levels, $172 million above the
    President's request, for a total of $1.81 billion in fiscal year 2003
    for the operation of the National Park System.
        As you know, the Park Service has a tremendous responsibility as
    caretaker of some our nation's most valued natural, cultural, and
    historic resources, managing 385 sites throughout the country. The
    operations budget of the NPS is critical to enable the Park Service to
    meet its mission to preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural
    resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment,
    education, and inspiration of this and future generations. As the
    President's fiscal year 2003 budget justifications states, ``The
    primary source of funding for accomplishing this mission is the park
    operating base. The park-operating base allows the core mission
    responsibility of the parks to be accomplished.''
        While Congress has regularly increased the operating budget of the
    Park Service, it has failed to keep pace with increased needs of the
    parks. During the past 4 years, a series of detailed park studies by
    NPCA and the National Park Service have revealed an average 32 percent
    shortfall in operations funds needed to enable the Park Service to
    fulfill its mission and operate the parks effectively. This figure
    translates to a shortfall of approximately $600 million for the entire
    National Park System. An increase of $280 million in the park's
    operating budget this year represents a reasonable and manageable
    amount, and a critical step toward fulfilling the mission of the Park
    Service.
                          natural resources challenge
        NPCA strongly supports the Administration's continued commitment to
    fund the Natural Resources Challenge--a multi-year program to preserve
    and protect the natural resources of the national parks. This program
    calls for expanded natural resources inventory programs to give the
    Park Service critically needed information for resource management
    within the parks. NPCA requests an increase of $31 million above
    enacted fiscal year 2002 level, for a total of $80 million in fiscal
    year 2003 to keep the Challenge on tract to meet its 5-year $100
    million goal.
    Land Acquisition
        Mojave National Preserve, CA.--We request $2 million, $1 million
    above the President's fiscal year 2003 budget, is requested to purchase
    approximately 4,000-6,000 of the nearly 150,000 acres of privately held
    lands in the Preserve. Established in 1994 by the California Desert
    Protection Act, Mojave National Preserve encompasses 1.6 million acres
    of unique landscapes at the intersection of the Mojave, Sonoran, and
    Great Basin deserts, including the world's largest forest of Joshua
    Trees and the famous 500-ft high Kelso Dunes. Almost half of the park
    is designated wilderness, allowing for the preservation of a wide
    variety of plant and wildlife species, including tortoises and bighorn
    sheep and more than 200 species of birds.
        Obed Wild and Scenic River, TN.--We request $1.5 million in fiscal
    year 2003 to acquire approximately 1,000 acres of inholdings within the
    Obed Wild and Scenic River corridor in Tennessee. The Obed is one of
    the few free-flowing streams of its type remaining in the entire six-
    state Cumberlands region, and is the only National Wild and Scenic
    River in Tennessee. Significant development pressure has emerged as a
    primary threat as private landowners consider increasing offers for
    their property.
        Petrified Forest National Park, AZ.--We request $5 million in
    fiscal year 2003 as a down payment to complete the purchase of private
    lands next to the park from willing sellers. The Arizona delegation is
    expected to introduce legislation this year to expand the boundaries of
    Petrified National Forest. A significant portion of lands within the
    proposed expansion area currently are in private or state ownership.
    Acquiring this land of nationally significant paleontological,
    archeological and scenic resources is important to the long-term
    protection of these valuable resources.
        Valley Forge, PA.--We request $8 million in fiscal year 2003 to
    begin the purchase a portion of the approximately 300 acres within the
    park boundary that remains privately-owned and threatened by
    development. This is $6 million above the President's request.
        Established on the 4th of July, 1976, Valley Forge National
    Historical Park preserves, protects, and maintains the cultural and
    natural resources associated with the encampment of Gen. Washington's
    Continental Army. Spanning over 3,400 acres, Valley Forge NHP preserves
    the history of the American Revolution through 190 historic structures
    and more than 600 archeological sites, various wetlands, grasslands,
    woodlands, and wildlife, including over 200 species of birds and
    several state-listed rare plants.
                national underground railroad network to freedom
        $1 million is requested in fiscal year 2003 for the National
    Underground Railroad Network (UGRR) to Freedom program. $500,000 is
    requested for operations of the program, and $500,000 for National
    Underground Railroad to Freedom Grants.
        The National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program,
    authorized by Congress in July 1998, incorporates the broadest range of
    elements possible to tell the story of the Underground Railroad. It is
    comprised of a diverse collection of historic sites, facilities and
    programs that have a verifiable association to the Underground
    Railroad. The grant program, which was authorized by Congress on
    October 11, 2000, amends the National Underground Railroad Network to
    Freedom to grant the Secretary of the Interior authority to make grants
    in accordance with this section for the preservation and restoration of
    historic buildings or structures associated with the Underground
    Railroad, and for related research and documentation to sites,
    programs, or facilities that have been included in the national
    network. The grant program was authorized at $2.5 million.
        The Park Service has already begun to accept UGRR sites and
    programs in to the Network to Freedom. Many of the sites and structures
    of the UGRR have been lost to time, ignorance, and circumstance, and a
    vast number of the remaining site are in imminent danger of being lost
    to us forever. Most of these sites are in traditionally African-
    American neighborhoods, which were more subject to urban renewal and so
    may not have retained their historical integrity. The UGRR grant
    program is critically needed to enable the National Park Service to
    address these needs and preserve these important places for future
    generations.
                    national park marine reserves monitoring
        We request $3.2 million in fiscal year 2003 to implement a long-
    term monitoring program in the Dry Tortugas, Biscayne and Virgin
    Islands National Parks and Buck Island National Monument. Marine
    reserves are being established to save our ocean resources, such as
    coral reefs. A long-term monitoring program is critical to the
    management of these marine reserves. The data this monitoring program
    would produce is critically needed to augment other data collected at
    National Marine Sanctuaries, and to help manage, evaluate, and design
    current and future Marine Protected Areas.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Greater Yellowstone Coalition; Western Native
       Trout, Trout Unlimited; Federation of Fly Fishers; National Parks
      Conservation Association; American Wildlands; Montana Council Trout
         Unlimited; Wyoming Council Trout Unlimited; Montana Wildlife
                  Federation; and Wyoming Wildlife Federation
        On behalf of the undersigned fishing and conservation groups, I am
    writing to ask for your assistance in protecting one of Yellowstone
    National Park's most treasured natural assets--the native cutthroat
    trout fishery in Yellowstone Lake and the Upper Yellowstone River.
        As you may be aware, Yellowstone National Park biologists
    discovered in 1994 that non-native lake trout were illegally introduced
    into Yellowstone Lake in the mid-1980s. A blue ribbon panel of
    scientists subsequently convened by the park determined that if the
    lake trout population was allowed to expand unchecked, the lake's
    native cutthroat trout population would likely decline by 90 percent.
    Not only would this have catastrophic ecological impacts--42 bird and
    wildlife species have been found to depend on the lake's cutthroat
    trout as an important seasonal food source--but it would also have
    significant economic impacts on nearby gateway communities such as
    Gardiner and West Yellowstone, Montana where sportfishing generates
    millions of dollars in revenue and helps to sustain hundreds of jobs. A
    1994 economic study found that the cutthroat fishery in Yellowstone
    Lake and its tributaries was worth an estimated $36 million. If that
    fishery were to crash due to the lake trout invasion, it would result
    in a staggering economic loss of $640 million over 30-years.
        Currently, the Park Service is doing everything it can to keep
    Yellowstone Lake's lake trout population in check. Last year, the park
    purchased a commercial fishing boat that has allowed park crews to
    implement an aggressive lake trout gillnetting program. This program,
    which costs approximately $100,000 per year to run, has proven very
    successful at removing lake trout. The goal of the program is to reduce
    the lake trout population by half each year. Unfortunately, because it
    would be impossible to ever totally eradicate lake trout from
    Yellowstone Lake, this program must continue indefinitely.
        The reason we are writing you now is because the funding that
    Yellowstone National Park has used for lake trout control expires in
    September 2002, and President Bush has not requested money for this
    program in his 2003 budget. Consequently, we respectfully ask that you
    help to secure funds for this critically important program. An
    appropriation of $400,000 would allow the park to redouble its efforts
    to protect Yellowstone Lake's valuable cutthroat fishery for the next 4
    years.
        If you would like me to send you any informational materials in
    addition to the enclosed report to the Director of the National Park
    Service, please let me know. Likewise, please don't hesitate to contact
    me if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for helping to
    protect this priceless piece of America's natural heritage.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Partnership for the National Trails System
        The Partnership for the National Trails System appreciates your
    support over the past several years, through operations funding and
    earmarked Challenge Cost Share funds, for the national scenic and
    historic trails administered by the National Park Service. We also
    appreciate your increased allocation of funds to support the trails
    administered and managed by the Forest Service and your support for the
    trails in the Bureau of Land Management's National Landscape
    Conservation System. 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 2003
    through these appropriations:
      --National Park Service.--$10.901 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.--$2.689 million to administer four trails and
            $750,000 for portions of 13 trails managed through agreements
            with the Park Service and Bureau of Land Management;
            Construction: $1.8 million for the Continental Divide Trail,
            $600,000 for the Florida Trail and $862,000 for the Pacific
            Crest Trail.
      --Bureau of Land Management.--$900,000 to administer the Iditarod
            National Historic Trail, $587,000 to administer the Camino Real
            de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail, and $4.03 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 $7.5 million for the National Park
            Service Challenge Cost Share Program and continue to earmark $5
            million for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects and one-third
            of the remaining $2.5 million (approximately $830,000) for the
            other 16 national scenic and historic trails it administers.
      --We ask that you appropriate $1.253 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:
      --to the Forest Service.--$5 million to acquire land for the Pacific
            Crest Trail, $6 million to acquire land for the Florida Trail,
            $5.6 million to acquire land for the Appalachian Trail in
            Georgia and Tennessee, $1 million to acquire land for the Lewis
            & Clark Trail in Idaho and Montana;
      --to the Bureau of Land Management.--$1 million to acquire land for
            the Pacific Crest Trail, $584,000 to acquire easements for the
            Continental Divide Trail in Wyoming, $2 million to acquire land
            for the Lewis & Clark Trail in Idaho and Montana, $800,000 to
            acquire land for the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail in Arizona,
            $200,000 to acquire sites along national historic trails in
            Wyoming;
      --to the Park Service.--$4 million to acquire land for the authorized
            interpretive site for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail;
      --$3 million to the State of Wisconsin to match state funds to
            acquire land for the Ice Age Trail.
                             national park service
        We request $1.253 million to fund the first year of a 5 year
    interagency effort to develop a consistent GIS for all 22 national
    scenic and historic trails. This initiative is described in the August
    2001 report (requested by Congress in the fiscal year 2001
    appropriation) ``GIS For The National Trails System'' and is built 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 requested funding will be shared with the
    Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
        The $10.901 million we request for Park Service operations includes
    increases for many of the trails that 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. $224,000 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 $280,000 will enable the Park Service to
    begin managing the two new national historic trails--Ala Kahakai and El
    Camino Real de Tierra Adentro--the latter administered cooperatively
    with the Bureau of Land Management. These funds will provide full-time
    management and support projects for each of these trails.
        We request an increase of $50,000 for the Overmountain Victory
    Trail to enable the Overmountain Victory Trail Association to continue
    and expand the first comprehensive survey of historically significant
    sites along the trail and plan for their preservation. An increase of
    $52,000 will fund interpretive projects and the trail corridor study
    along the Potomac Heritage Trail in Washington, D.C. The increase of
    $249,000 requested for the Appalachian Trail will strengthen Park
    Service law enforcement capability and its collaborative resource
    management programs with the Appalachian Trail Conference.
        We request an increase of $325,000 to continue and expand Park
    Service efforts to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200
    significant sites along the Santa Fe Trail and to fund public outreach
    and educational programs of the Santa Fe Trail Association. We also
    request an increase of $112,000 to expand cooperative interpretation
    with schools and Latino communities along the Juan Bautista de Anza
    Trail. An increase of $250,000 for the Trail of Tears will enable the
    Park Service to work cooperatively with the Trail of Tears Association
    to protect the Trail's critical historical and cultural heritage sites
    and interpret them for visitors. The $150,000 increase we request for
    the interagency Salt Lake City Trails office will enable the Park
    Service to collaborate with CALTRANS to mark the California and Pony
    Express Trails auto routes and with the BLM and Forest Service to
    revise the feasibility studies for these and Oregon and Mormon Pioneer
    Trails.
        We request $2 million to fund the operation of ``Corps II,'' a
    major component of the Federal government's commemoration of the
    Bicentennial of the Lewis & Clark Expedition. This interagency mobile
    interpretive exhibit is designed to follow the route of the Lewis &
    Clark Trail, stopping in communities along the way to provide state-of-
    the art, interactive interpretation of the Lewis & Clark ``Corps of
    Discovery.''
        All of these trails are complicated undertakings, none more so than
    the 4,000 mile North Country Trail. With more than 650 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 $780,000
    we request will give them that ability for the first time while also
    providing greater support for the local trail building and management
    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 1,200 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 $999,000 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.
        The Challenge Cost Share program 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 $7.5 million in Challenge
    Cost Share funding to the Park Service for fiscal year 2003 as a wise
    investment of public money that will generate public benefits many
    times greater than its sum. We ask you to continue to direct $5 million
    for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects and one-third of the other $2.5
    million for the national scenic and historic trails to continue the
    steady progress toward making these trails fully available for public
    enjoyment.
                              usda--forest service
        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 $2.689
    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. Full-time managers have been assigned
    for each of these trails by the Forest Service. Recognizing the on-the-
    ground management responsibility the Forest Service has for 838 miles
    of the Appalachian Trail, more than 650 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 $750,000
    specifically for these trails.
        Work is underway, supported by funds you provided for the past 3
    years, to close several major gaps in the Florida National Scenic
    Trail. The Florida Trail Association is building Trail across Eglin Air
    Force Base, in the Ocala National Forest, Big Cypress National Preserve
    and along Lake Kissimmee, adding about 100 miles to the completed
    Florida Trail. The Partnership requests an additional $600,000 for
    trail construction in fiscal year 2003 by the Forest Service on these
    and other segments of the Florida Trail and an additional $600,000 to
    support a land acquisition team to continue 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 $500,000 to plan 190 miles of new trail and
    $1.8 million to build or reconstruct 160 miles of the Continental
    Divide Trail and 3 new Railheads in fiscal year 2003.
        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 2,650
    mile Pacific Crest Trail located on 227 narrow easements across private
    land or on the edge of dangerous highways. We request $250,000 to
    continue the work of the lands team and $114,000 for Optimal Location
    route planning. We also request $862,800 for new trail construction and
    reconstruction of fire-damaged bridges along the PCT by the Forest
    Service and the Pacific Crest Trail Association in fiscal year 2003.
                           bureau of land management
        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. The
    significance of these trails was recognized by their inclusion in the
    National Landscape Conservation System and, for the first time, in
    fiscal year 2002, by provision of specific funding for each of them.
    The Partnership applauds the decision of the Bureau of Land Management
    to include the national scenic and historic trails in the NLCS and to
    budget specific funding for each of them. We ask that you continue to
    support the funding for the National Landscape Conservation System and
    that you appropriate for fiscal year 2003 $900,000 for the Iditarod
    National Historic Trail, $587,000 for El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro
    National Historic Trail and $4,030,000, as requested by the
    Administration, for management of the portions of the nine other trails
    under the care of the Bureau of Land Management. We also request $2
    million for construction of the California Trail Interpretive Center in
    Elko, Nevada, $100,000 for maintenance of the Pacific Crest Trail, and
    $385,000 for a feasibility study for the Iditarod Trail interpretive
    center.
                        land and water conservation fund
        The Partnership requests that you fully appropriate the $900
    million annual authorized appropriation from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund and that you make the specific appropriations for
    national scenic and historic trails detailed at the beginning of this
    statement and in Attachment #2. The funding we request for the Florida
    and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails will continue acquisition
    underway by the Forest Service. The first tracts to help close gaps in
    the Florida Trail have been acquired with LWCF money provided in
    previous years. Necessary Optimal Location Planning and appraisal work
    have been completed for acquisition to begin in earnest for the Pacific
    Crest Trail. The requested funding for the Appalachian National Scenic
    Trail will help complete its protection in Tennessee and Georgia.
        The $584,000 requested for the Bureau of Land Management to acquire
    easements for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail will help
    close the remaining major gap in the Trail in Wyoming.
        The National Park Service has acquired the first of the several
    parcels that comprise the authorized interpretive site for the Ice Age
    National Scenic Trail with previous year's LWCF funding. The money
    requested for fiscal year 2003 will fund purchases now under
    negotiation with willing sellers.
        The National Trails System Act encourages states to assist in the
    conservation of the resources and development of the national scenic
    and historic trails. Wisconsin has committed millions of dollars to
    help conserve the resources of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. With
    fiscal year 2001 LWCF funding, matched more than 2:1 by State funds,
    Wisconsin has purchased 5 parcels and now has another 16 parcels under
    appraisal or option to purchase. The requested $3 Million Land and
    Water Conservation Fund grant to Wisconsin will continue this very
    successful Federal/State partnership for protecting land for the Ice
    Age Trail.
        The essential funding requests to support the trails are detailed
    in Attachment #2.
        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 private trail organizations commitment to the success of these
    trail sustaining partnerships grows even as Congress' support for the
    trails has grown. In 2001 the trail organizations channeled 621,615
    hours of documented volunteer labor valued at $9,566,652 to help
    sustain the national scenic and historic trails. This is a 5 percent
    increase over the volunteer labor reported for 2000. The organizations
    also applied private sector contributions of $6,652,079 to benefit the
    trails. These contributions are documented in Attachment #1.

     ATTACHMENT 1.--CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 2001 TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM BY NATIONAL SCENIC AND HISTORIC
                                                   TRAIL ORGANIZATIONS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Estimated
                                                                         Volunteer       value of        Financial
                              Organization                                 hours         volunteer     contributions
                                                                                           labor
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Appalachian Trail Conference....................................         186,475      $2,869,850      $4,200,000
    Continental Divide Trail Society................................       \1\ 1,500          23,085  ..............
    Continental Divide Trail Alliance...............................      \1\ 30,700         472,473         420,000
    Florida Trail Association.......................................          59,496         915,643         167,000
    Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation.................................          70,364       1,082,902         314,615
    Iditarod National Historic Trail, Inc...........................      \1\ 17,900         275,481      \1\ 75,000
    Heritage Trails/Amigos De Anza..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Juan Bautista De Anza Trail.....................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona.................................           3,041          46,801  ..............
    Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation.........................      \1\ 28,733         442,201         223,330
    Mormon Trails Association.......................................           8,236         126,752          12,700
    Iowa Mormon Trails Association..................................       \1\ 2,003          30,826       \1\ 6,000
    Natchez Trace Trail Conference..................................       \1\ 2,883          44,369       \1\ 3,000
    National Pony Express Association...............................          23,115         355,740         118,621
    Pony Express Trail Association..................................           4,799          73,856          20,785
    Nez Perce Trail Foundation......................................       \1\ 1,350          20,776  ..............
    North Country Trail Association.................................          26,325         405,142         225,461
    Oregon-California Trails Association............................          50,021         769,823         303,902
    Overmountain Victory Trail Association..........................           9,963         153,330          12,195
    Pacific Crest Trail Association.................................          40,005         615,677         352,370
    Potomac Trail Council...........................................       \1\ 2,350          36,166          66,900
    Santa Fe Trail Association......................................      \1\ 19,500         300,105          68,200
    Trail of Tears Association......................................          32,856         505,654          62,000
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Totals....................................................         621,615       9,566,652      6,652,079
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Estimate.

      ATTACHMENT 2.--PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM, REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2003 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
                                                 NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Fiscal year               Fiscal year
                                     2002 cong.  Fiscal year      2003      Project/programs possible with increased
             Agency/trail             approp.    2003 admin.    partners                    funding
                                      request      request      request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Park Service:
        Ala Kahakai...............     $180,000     $180,000     $180,000  Begin preparation of Comprehensive
                                                                            Management Plan for new trail;
        Appalachian...............    1,042,000    1,045,000    1,294,000  Increased law enforcement and resource
                                                                            management by NPS Park staff and
                                                                            increased support for volunteer-based
                                                                            trail and land management guided by ATC;
        Natchez Trace.............       26,000       26,000      250,000  Planning & building new trail & bridges;
                                                                            backlog maintenance with NTTC & SCA;
        El Camino Real............  ...........  ...........      100,000  Begin collaborative management of new
                                                                            trail with Bureau of Land Management;
        California................      201,000      201,000      351,000  Four Trails interagency MOU collaboration
                                                                            field trial; Enhance Four Trails GIS
                                                                            database; Mark and interpret additional
                                                                            auto tour routes with California DOT;
        Ice Age...................      499,000      500,000      999,000  Trail corridor and acquisition planning
                                                                            and GIS mapping; Support for Trail
                                                                            construction, maintenance and resource
                                                                            management by IAP&TF & local agencies;
        Juan Bautista de Anza.....      188,000      188,000      300,000  Coordination of Trail site protection,
                                                                            interpretation & development projects
                                                                            with local agencies & organizations;
                                                                            Outreach to schools and Latino
                                                                            communities;
        Lewis & Clark.............    1,731,000    1,734,000    3,734,000  Planning, coordination & support for
                                                                            local Bicentennial projects and ``Corps
                                                                            II'';
        Mormon Pioneer............      128,000      128,000      128,000  Four Trails interagency MOU collaboration
                                                                            field trial; Enhance Four Trails GIS
                                                                            database; Interpret additional auto tour
                                                                            routes;
        North Country.............      550,000      550,000      780,000  Assistance to States to establish new
                                                                            trail segments and to preserve
                                                                            continuity and scenic integrity of the
                                                                            Trail; Increased trail construction and
                                                                            management by NCTA
        Oregon....................      215,000      215,000      215,000  Four Trails interagency MOU collaboration
                                                                            field trial; Enhance Four Trails GIS
                                                                            database; Interpret additional auto tour
                                                                            routes;
        Overmountain Victory......      136,000      136,000      186,000  Fulltime trail administration; new route
                                                                            signs & interpretive exhibits; mapping
                                                                            Trail sites for protection inventory,
                                                                            and archaeology in Cherokee County,
                                                                            North Carolina;
        Pony Express..............      181,000      181,000      181,000  Four Trails interagency MOU collaboration
                                                                            field trial; Enhance Four Trails GIS
                                                                            database; Interpret additional auto tour
                                                                            routes;
        Potomac Heritage..........      198,000      198,000      250,000  Assistance to local agencies &
                                                                            organizations for planning & educational
                                                                            projects;
        Santa Fe..................  \1\ 590,000  \1\ 594,000      919,000  Cultural resource preservation, design &
                                                                            distribute interpretive media with
                                                                            partners;
        Selma to Montgomery.......      261,000      261,000      261,000  Comprehensive management plan developed
                                                                            and trail interpretation begun in
                                                                            collaboration with citizen support
                                                                            organizations & local agencies;
        Trail of Tears............      248,000      248,000      498,000  Preserve & interpret critical Trail sites
                                                                            & provide new visitor facilities with
                                                                            TOTA;
        NTS-Washington Office.....      220,000      220,000      275,000  Program coordination and special projects
                                                                            funding
                                   ---------------------------------------
          National Trails System..    6,594,000    6,605,000   10,901,000  Total National Trails System operations
                                                                            funding
                                   =======================================
    Challenge Cost Share..........  \2\ 6,980,0  \3\ 6,980,0    7,500,000  $5 M for Lewis & Clark; one-third of
                                             00           00                remaining $2.5 M for rest of National
                                                                            Trails System
    Interagency GIS Pilot Project.      ( \4\ )  ...........  \5\ 1,253,0  Development of GIS for National Trails
                                                                      005   System starting with Ice Age, Florida,
                                                                            Appalachian, Oregon-California, Mormon
                                                                            Pioneer & Pony Express Trails;
    BLM:
        Iditarod Trail............      516,000      266,000      900,000  Coordination and support for
                                                                            collaborative management with other
                                                                            Federal agencies, Iditarod Trail
                                                                            organizations and State of Alaska;
                                                                            bridges and cabins;
        El Camino Real............      465,000      587,000      587,000  Collaborative trail planning ($172,000)
                                                                            and management with National Park
                                                                            Service;
        Continental Divide........      455,000      455,000      455,000  Marking 230 miles of CDT in Wyoming;
                                                                            Interagency management collaboration;
        Pacific Crest.............       65,000       65,000       65,000  PCT maintenance in California;
                                                                            Interagency management collaboration;
        Juan Bautista de Anza.....      160,000      160,000      160,000  Interpretive exhibits for Anza Trail at
                                                                            Painted Rock, Arizona;
        California................      150,000      150,000      150,000  California Trail resource inventories in
                                                                            Wyoming and California;
        Lewis & Clark.............    2,765,000    2,765,000    2,765,000  Lewis & Clark Bicentennial preparations
                                                                            in Idaho and Montana;
        Mormon Pioneer............       65,000       65,000      135,000
        Nez Perce.................       40,000       40,000       90,000  Lewis & Clark Bicentennial preparations
                                                                            in Idaho and Montana;
        Oregon....................      130,000      130,000      130,000  Interagency management collaboration;
        Pony Express..............       80,000       80,000       80,000  Archaeology at Little Sandy and Dry Sandy
                                                                            Pony Express Stations, Wyoming and
                                                                            marking 120 miles of Pony Express Trail
                                                                            in Nevada;
                                   ---------------------------------------
          National Trails System..    4,891,000    5,013,000    5,517,000  Total National Trails System operations
                                                                            funding.
                                   =======================================
    Iditarod Trail................  ...........  ...........      385,000  Feasibility study for Iditarod Trail
                                                                            Interpretive/visitor Center.
    Construction of:
        California Trail              2,000,000  ...........    2,000,000  Continued funding for construction of
         Interpretive Center--NV.                                           California National Historic Trail
                                                                            interpretive center in Elko, Nevada.
        Pacific Crest Trail.......  ...........  ...........      100,000  Annual maintenance of sections of the
                                                                            Pacific Crest Trail on BLM land.
    Forest Service:
        Continental Divide........      370,000  ...........      870,000  Assumption of full administrative
        Florida...................      300,000  ...........      900,000   responsibility and leadership for
        Pacific Crest.............      695,000  ...........      584,000   consistent interagency collaboration for
        Nez Perce Trails..........      335,000  ...........      335,000   each trail; support for consistent
                                                                            management with trail organization and
                                                                            local agency partners; trail brochures,
                                                                            signs, project planning etc.; Also
                                                                            $500,000 for planning 190 new miles of
                                                                            CDT; $250,000 for land acquisition team
                                                                            and $114,000 Optimal Location Planning
                                                                            for PCT; $600,000 for land acquisition
                                                                            team for Florida Trail;
                                   ---------------------------------------
          Total Forest Service....  \6\ 1,700,0    1,000,000    2,689,000
                                             00
                                   =======================================
    Appalachian, North Country,         650,000      350,000      750,000  Improved trail maintenance, marking,
     Ice Age, Iditarod,                                                     interpretation, archaeological studies,
     California, Juan Bautista de                                           historic site protection and trailhead
     Anza, Lewis & Clark, Oregon,                                           facilities for trail segments in
     Mormon Pioneer, Overmountain                                           National Forests; $200,000 to address
     Victory, Pony Express, Santa                                           deferred maintenance, make improvements
     Fe, Trail of Tears.                                                    and provide liaison for collaborative
                                                                            management of the North Country Trail
                                                                            with National Park Service;
    Continental Divide Trail......    1,000,000  ...........    1,800,000  Trail construction projects along the
                                                                            Continental Divide Trail: 80 miles of
                                                                            new trail, 82 miles of trail
                                                                            reconstruction and 3 new Trailheads;
    Florida Trail.................      500,000  ...........      600,000  Trail construction projects in Eglin Air
                                                                            Force Base, Ocala National Forest, Big
                                                                            Cypress National Preserve and along Lake
                                                                            Kissimmee;
    Pacific Crest Trail...........  ...........  ...........      862,800  Trail construction projects along the
                                                                            Pacific Crest Trail, including
                                                                            reconstruction of fire and storm damaged
                                                                            bridges and structures in California and
                                                                            Washington;
                                   ---------------------------------------
          National Trails System..    3,850,000    1,350,000    6,701,800  Total: National Trails System funding
                                   =======================================
    Nat. Forest System Trail         40,434,000  ...........  ...........  Trail maintenance throughout the National
     Maintenance.                                                           Forest System.
    Nat. Forest System Trail         26,955,000  ...........  ...........  New trail construction and trail re-
     Construction.                                                          construction throughout the National
                                                                            Forest System.
    Nat. Forest System Capital       70,075,000   73,000,000  100,000,000  Trail maintenance and new trail
     Improvement & Maintenance--                                            construction throughout the National
     Trails.                                                                Forest System.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Fiscal year
                                    Fiscal year  Fiscal year      2003
            LWCF for trails          2002 cong.  2003 admin.    Partners   Projects possible with LWCF appropriation
                                      approp.      request      request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    LWCF grant--FS Pacific Crest..   $2,000,000   $3,000,000   $5,000,000  USDA--Forest Service acquisition of lands
                                                                            in southern California, Oregon and
                                                                            southern Washington to preserve the
                                                                            scenic integrity of the Pacific Crest
                                                                            Trail.
    LWCF grant--BLM Pacific Crest.  ...........  ...........    1,000,000  BLM acquisition of lands in California to
                                                                            preserve the continuity and scenic
                                                                            integrity of the Pacific Crest Trail.
    LWCF grant--FS Florida........    4,000,000      500,000    6,000,000  USDA--Forest Service acquisition of lands
                                                                            to protect 62 miles of threatened
                                                                            Florida Trail corridor and connect trail
                                                                            segments across private land between
                                                                            National Forests, St. Marks Wildlife
                                                                            Refuge & Eglin Air Base and in central
                                                                            Florida.
    LWCF grant Ice Age--Wisconsin   ...........  ...........    3,000,000  Assistance provided to State of Wisconsin
     \7\.                                                                   to protect threatened Ice Age Trail
                                                                            corridor and connect trail segments
                                                                            across private land in Dane, Chippewa,
                                                                            Columbia, Polk, Portage, Walworth,
                                                                            Washington, Waupaca and Waushara
                                                                            Counties.
    LWCF grant--NPS Ice Age.......    3,000,000  ...........    4,000,000  NPS will purchase one interpretive site
                                                                            for the Ice Age Trail.
    LWCF grant--FS Appalachian....  ...........    5,600,000    5,600,000  USDA--Forest Service acquisition of part
                                                                            of Rocky Fork Tract (``Tennessee
                                                                            Mountains'')--Cherokee NF--and Springer
                                                                            Mountain (Little Glover) Tract
                                                                            (``Georgia Mountains'')--Chattahoochee
                                                                            N.F.
    LWCF grant--BLM Continental         320,000      536,000      584,000  BLM acquisition of easements for the
     Divide.                                                                Continental Divide Trail in Wyoming.
    LWCF grant--FS Lewis & Clark..    1,500,000    1,000,000    1,000,000  USDA--Forest Service acquisition of land
                                                                            along the Lewis & Clark Trail in Idaho
                                                                            and Montana.
    LWCF grant--BLM Lewis & Clark.    1,000,000    2,000,000    2,000,000  BLM acquisition of land along the Lewis &
                                                                            Clark Trail in Idaho and Montana.
    LWCF grant--BLM National        ...........      200,000      200,000  BLM acquisition of land to protect sites
     historic trails.                                                       along national historic trails in
                                                                            Wyoming.
    LWCF grant--BLM Juan Bautista   ...........      800,000      800,000  BLM acquisition of land at Sears Point
     de Anza.                                                               Area of Critical Concern along the Juan
                                                                            Bautista de Anza Trail in Arizona.
                                   ---------------------------------------
          Total...................   11,820,000   13,636,000   29,184,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes $261,000 for operations of Santa Fe Park Service office, not related to the Santa Fe Trail.
    \2\ Includes a $2 million increase over fiscal year 2001 funding earmarked for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial
      projects. One-third of the remaining funds (about $664,000 of $1.987 million) are earmarked for National
      Trails System projects.
    \3\ Administration request does not allocate any funds for the National Trails System. The Congressional earmark
      is needed to accomplish this.
    \4\ Congress tells NPS to report on progress of GIS development and future funding needed by January 31, 2001
      and to request increased GIS funding for fiscal year 2002.
    \5\ Funding request reflects budget detailed in Park Service GIS report delivered to Congress in January 2002.
    \6\ Appropriation includes: $1.5 million for administration of the Continental Divide, Florida, and Pacific
      Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail, funding for full-time administrators
      for each trail and land acquisition teams for the Florida and Pacific Crest Trails and $200,000 for
      maintenance of the Pacific Crest Trail.
    \7\ This would be a grant to the State of Wisconsin to be matched at least 1:1.

                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Big Sky Brewing Co.; International Wildlife
     Film Festival; Northern Rockies Ethnobotany Center; and the Mountain
                                 View Ventures
        Last year an event of unprecedented terror occurred on our soil. It
    shook the confidence of air travelers significantly. It also added
    instability to an already uncertain national economy. Prior to the
    events of September 11, 2001, I was involved with a committee to create
    a new National Park Unit, whose headquarters would be in Missoula,
    Montana. The Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail has been being
    researched and discussed for over a decade by many dedicated
    individuals. The final Study of Alternatives and Environmental
    Assessment for the Ice Age Floods was printed and released in February
    2001, and given to Secretary Norton the first week of September. The
    events of September 11 have probably changed the time-table for any new
    unit of the National Parks. However, our current Parks are in desperate
    need of repair and renovation. America is probably going to see a
    significant increase in domestic travel for the next few years, in part
    because of September 11, the Bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark
    Expedition, and the general aging of the Baby Boom generation. Our
    parks need help right now to be able to withstand the onslaught and
    President Bush promised to rebuild the National Parks in May of 2001.

        ``My administration will make a major investment in our national
    parks to preserve the legacy of protection for future generations. We
    will spend $5 billion over 5 years to clean up the backlog in
    maintenance, and make our parks more inviting and acceptable to all
    citizens.''----President George W. Bush, in announcing the National
    Parks Legacy Project. Giant Forest Museum, Sequoia National Park,
    California, May 30, 2001.

        I am committed to doing what I can to see to it that the people
    hold him to his promise. The idea that we can't have ``guns and
    butter'' is an excuse that came from America's past. Two generations
    ago that was the case, it is not now. Rather than give big corporations
    further tax relieve, the President and his cabinet need to put the
    people of America first. Congress needs to hold the President
    accountable on his promise to the people that he will put a real and
    significant effort into rebuilding America's recreational resources.
    This, too, is in the best interest of the American people during a time
    of crisis.
        President Bush has shown himself not to be humble as he promised
    during his campaign, he has chosen to go forward against popular
    opinion and refuse to support International Treaties, both military and
    otherwise. He has a tenuous at best hold on the Senate and House with
    regards to domestic affairs. I urge everyone on Capitol Hill to support
    a full commitment to reinvesting in America's recreational landscape.
    America's National Parks are the cornerstone of conservation. The
    Republican Party has abandoned it conservative roots in favor of
    Corporate Politics. Theodore Roosevelt dedicated the Northern Entrance
    to the World's first National Park in Gardiner, Montana in 1903.
    Richard Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act in 1973. The best thing
    that George W. Bush can do right now to restore faith is rebuild the
    parks that his Party worked to create.
        I join hundreds of millions of Americans every year in visiting at
    least one of our National Park units. I urge you to ask the President
    to uphold his campaign promise and fund the National Parks to allow
    them to continue to be the best in the World. America deserves this
    reinvestment in its cultural and social fabric.
        I hope that you understand that the majority of people want the
    parks protected and that you will vote the will of the people.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of Americans for National Parks
        Americans for National Parks is a growing coalition of people who
    care deeply about these awe-inspiring places. Today, we have 175
    members, including nonprofit organizations, private businesses,
    government municipalities, and trade associations, working together to
    encourage Congress and the administration to address the needs of the
    National Park System.
        Americans for National Parks 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 2003 Interior and
    Related Agencies appropriations bill. We appreciate 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 2003
    budget.
        Americans for National Parks requests an increase of $280 million
    over the current fiscal year 2002 spending levels, $172 million above
    the president's request, for a total of $1.81 billion in fiscal year
    2003 for the operation of the National Park System.
        As you know, the National Park Service has a tremendous
    responsibility as caretaker of our nation's most valued natural,
    cultural, and historic resources--managing 385 sites throughout the
    country. How many among us have explored a rocky trail at Zion? Looked
    for finbacks surfacing beyond Acadia's Bass Harbor Light? Camped in
    Yosemite; discovered the ruins at Mesa Verde; paddled the Chattahoochee
    River; or watched the sun set over a forest of saguaro cactus?
        How many? Nearly 300 million each year! Americans do love our
    national parks. But the parks are in jeopardy, struggling to operate
    with only two-thirds of the funding needed.
        While Congress has regularly increased funding for the Park
    Service, the budget has failed to keep pace with need. The experience
    of millions of park visitors, as well as the plants, wildlife, and
    cultural and historical artifacts preserved in our national parks, is
    threatened by insufficient funding.
        At Acadia National Park, in Maine, for example, despite the best
    efforts of park staff, endangered species go unmonitored, education
    programs have been cut, and private vehicles crowd the narrow roadways
    and cause parking problems and pollution. All because the park's annual
    budget is half the required amount.
        Examples of the dire needs of the national parks can be found
    across the system: At Great Smoky Mountains National Park, a small
    staff of preservationists is struggling to preserve the park's many
    historic structures. One out of every four schools is denied access to
    Gettysburg's educational programming. The Grand Canyon--one of the
    geological wonders of the world--does not have a geologist on staff.
    The Cascades frog is disappearing from Lassen National Park. Historic
    structures and archaeological sites are deteriorating at Mount Rainier
    and Glacier national parks. And many of the Civil War-period and early
    twentieth-century buildings at Harper's Ferry National Historical Park
    in West Virginia are in need of significant restoration to ensure their
    preservation and visitor safety.
        During the past 4 years, the National Parks Conservation
    Association and the National Park Service have completed a series of
    detailed studies in more than 40 parks that have revealed that the
    operating budget of the Park Service falls one third short of need.
    This figure translates to a shortfall of more than $600 million
    annually. An increase of $280 million represents a reasonable and
    manageable amount and is a critical step toward fulfilling the mission
    of the Park Service to preserve these precious places unimpaired for
    future generations.
        As the President's fiscal year 2003 budget justification states,
    ``The primary source of funding for accomplishing this mission is the
    park operating base. The park-operating base allows the core mission
    responsibility of the parks to be accomplished.''
        The national parks inspire all who treasure the best of our nation
    to stand up as stewards for their protection. Please support a $280
    million increase for our national parks, because there's just too much
    to lose.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Association of National Park Rangers
        I write to you today as President of the Association of National
    Park Rangers, a professional association of over a thousand rangers and
    other park professionals from the National Park Service. Our
    organization, now in its third decade, is neither a union nor a
    lobbying organization, but a voice in support of effective management
    of the National Park System and its professional employees. We provide
    information and insights into issues pertaining to the National Park
    Service to the public, the Congress and other interested parties.
        It has come to our attention that your subcommittee will soon be
    reviewing the fiscal year 2003 appropriations for the National Park
    Service, and that there is a real prospect for a substantial increase
    in the operating budget for the agency, possibly an addition of $172
    million above the President's request. We strongly endorse such an
    increase, and have joined the other 175 organizations allied under the
    Americans for National Parks initiative in asking that you and your
    colleagues add this sum to the NPS budget. As the only organization in
    that alliance comprised wholly of professionals from the National Park
    Service, we are in a unique position to truly understand the serious
    impacts of years of chronic operational funding shortfalls on the day-
    to-day operations of the Service, and, consequently, on the natural and
    cultural assets under its charge.
        Although there have been modest increases to the Service's
    operational account (ONPS) over past years, they have not kept up with
    inflation, increased park and programmatic responsibilities, and
    substantial increases in personnel costs. In many of our parks,
    personnel costs now run from 85 to 90 percent, and in some smaller
    units run as high as nearly 100 percent. That means that there is
    little or no money for equipment or training or materials, and, more
    seriously, that managers are forced to come up with money for non-
    personnel costs by leaving positions open or lapsed--a practice that's
    come to be known as ``management by lapse.'' As time goes on, more and
    more positions are left open. Since old responsibilities continue and
    are augmented by new programs and initiatives, the net result is more
    and more work being laid on fewer and fewer people. The cumulative
    impact is that we now have a seriously stressed workforce that finds it
    increasingly difficult to keep up with tasks assigned to it.
        Funding of basic operations is not glamorous and is therefore often
    overlooked. This same rule applies to funding cyclic maintenance and
    infrastructure repairs, but, as you know, the Congress and
    Administration are now taking steps to rectify the serious maintenance
    backlog in the parks. We vigorously applaud your efforts and those of
    President Bush in taking this long-needed step toward resolving a
    serious problem. But we also need to adequately fund the operation of
    the National Park Service. We can not adequately protect and perpetuate
    our parks or provide services to our visitors without sufficient
    funding and staffing.
        The national parks are more than just areas for recreation and
    refreshment. They contain and perpetuate America's priceless natural
    and historic legacy, our collective heritage. At a recent meeting of
    Americans for National Parks, Senator Fred Thompson spoke about the
    importance of the parks. He said that he believed that many things the
    Federal government oversees could be better done by the states, but
    added that we should fully support those undertakings which we have
    collectively agreed are our shared responsibility. Among those
    undertakings, he said, is the National Park Service.
        The employees of the National Park Service are an extraordinarily
    dedicated group of women and men who put their hearts and souls into
    their work. They do a great deal with the resources they've been given,
    but are stretched very thin and are beginning to fray at the edges.
    It's time that they received more support.
        Thank you for your leadership and commitment to our national parks.
    We stand ready to provide whatever support you deem appropriate or
    necessary.
                                     ______

                            Letter From Brian Scherf
                                                         April 5, 2002.

    Hon. Robert Byrd, Chairman,
    Hon. Conrad Burns, Ranking Member,
    Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee

        Dear Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Burns: As you prepare the
    fiscal year 2003 Interior Appropriations bill, I respectfully request
    an increase to the operating budget for the National Park Service by
    $172 million above the President's request; $280 million above the
    enacted fiscal year 2002 level.
        Specifically, I am requested that you provide increased funding for
    the operations of Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida. The
    Preserve's sensitive natural resources have been ravaged by 23,000
    miles of off-road vehicle trails. The Preserve requires half a million
    dollars in additional funding to implement it's new Off-road Vehicle
    Management Plan for fiscal year 2003.
        As caretaker of our nation's most valued resources, the National
    Park Service manages 385 sites throughout the country. It is
    responsible for more than 83 million acres of land, and protecting and
    preserving 168 threatened or endangered species, more than 80 million
    museum objects, 1.5 million archaeological sites, and 26,000 historic
    structures. The awe-inspiring natural, cultural, and historic
    attributes of these special places draw nearly 300 million visits
    annually.
        While the operating budget of the national parks has increased in
    recent years, it has failed to keep pace with critical needs. Research
    has shown that the Park Service's annual operating budget falls at
    least $600 million, or a third, of what is needed to operate the parks
    effectively and protect resources, and to provide a high quality
    experience for park visitors.
        An increase of $280 million in the Park Service's operating budget
    this year is a critical step toward meeting the mission of the Park
    Service to preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and
    values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and
    inspiration of this and future generations.
        I urge your support for increasing the operating budget of the
    National Park System so that our children--and our children's
    descendants--can enjoy the irreplaceable national treasures of Big
    Cypress National Preserve, and the entire National Park System.

                Sincerely,
                                                          Brian Scherf.
                                     ______

                        Prepared Statement of ParkWatch
        We respectfully request an increase in the fiscal year 2003
    Operating Budget for the National Park Service (NPS) by $172 million
    above the Administration's request, which is $280 million above the
    enacted level for fiscal year 2002.
        While our nation faces other important funding needs, shortchanging
    the NPS operating budget now will cause escalating costs in the future.
    Though the budget has increased in recent years, it has failed to keep
    pace with increases needed to sufficiently protect valued natural,
    cultural and historic resources, and to provide the expected quality of
    visitor experiences.
        Adequate Congressional funding in this and succeeding years will
    reduce the need for increased fees, which always exclude from our
    public parks those who can least afford to pay. And adequate funding
    will insure that forces abroad in the land with the intent of
    privatizing and commercializing our precious heritage shall NOT take
    their success from weak Congressional funding of our parks.
        An increase of $280 million this year is a reasonable and
    manageable amount, a small price to pay for keeping these priceless
    assets protected and affordable. We urge your support so that these
    irreplaceable national treasures shall be available for the enjoyment
    of future generations.
                                     ______

                        Prepared Statement of Bob Jovick
        Thank you for your past support of the national parks--I know this
    has been a particular concern of Senator Burns as we Montanans have
    seen a deterioration of conditions at Glacier and Yellowstone National
    Parks.
        Please support an increase of $172 million in the park's operations
    budget for the next fiscal year beyond what is recommended in the
    President's budget.
        The infrastructure has attracted attention, but the operations side
    of the budget was especially strained even before the recent national
    security participation that has been added to park operational
    concerns. A recent article in Montana discussed that rangers from
    Glacier and other parks helped in security assignments at the
    Olympics--this is well and good but illustrates the added pressures.
        There is no geologist in Yellowstone, largely due to budget
    pressures--many vacancies go unfilled.
        I traveled all the way to Washington DC and met with a well
    informed staff member about 3 weeks ago to help provide information on
    this need. Senator Burns's office was as busy as a bee and I was happy
    to see a number of Montanan's on visits.
        Thank you for your support.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of American Rivers
        This year, American Rivers was joined by over 600 local, regional
    and national conservation organizations \1\ from all 50 states in
    calling for significantly increased funding for the following programs
    in the Interior Appropriations bill. I urge that these requests be
    incorporated in the Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ These groups have endorsed ``The River Budget 2003'', a report
    of national funding priorities for local river conservation. A list of
    groups endorsing the River Budget can be viewed at http://
    www.americanrivers.org/riverbudget/default.htm
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             wild and scenic rivers
        The Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) Act protects free-flowing rivers
    with remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife,
    cultural, or other similar values. Four Department of Interior agencies
    are responsible for administering designated rivers, conducting studies
    to determine if rivers qualify for WSR designation, and developing wild
    and scenic river management plans: the Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
    Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service. Unfortunately, none of these agencies receives
    sufficient funding to adequately protect our nation's WSR System and to
    ensure that it represents a broad diversity of river types. Although
    84,500 stream miles are potentially eligible for designation, only 160
    rivers covering 11,292 miles are currently designated. With increased
    funding, these agencies could better manage and protect designated
    rivers. Following are our requests for the four agencies responsible
    for the WSR program:
        The National Park Service.--NPS manages 36 WSRs and is responsible
    for studying rivers both in National Park areas and outside of federal
    lands. Congress should appropriate $18.5 million to the NPS for WSRs.
    Of this total, $1.5 million should go toward partnership wild and
    scenic rivers, which are managed in partnership with state, local, and
    private entities.
        The Bureau of Land Management.--BLM is responsible for managing 36
    WSRs and evaluating some 200 segments for eligibility and suitability.
    Congress should appropriate $6.5 million to the BLM for WSR management
    and $2 million for completion of WSR studies.
        U.S. Forest Service.--Of all four agencies responsible for WSRs,
    the USFS has responsibility for the largest number--97 in all.
    Currently, the USFS budget does not include funding for wild and scenic
    rivers, and up to 20 percent of USFS-managed WSRs lack adequate
    management plans. Congress should direct the USFS to create a special
    staff unit and budget for WSRs and should appropriate $9 million for
    USFS WSR management and $3 million for completion of WSR studies.
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.--The FWS manages nine WSRs and must
    study rivers located on national refuge lands for potential
    designation. Congress should appropriate $1,787,000 to FWS for WSR
    management, restoration and studies.
               rivers, trails and conservation assistance program
        The National Park Service's Rivers Trails and Conservation
    Assistance (RTCA) program has helped produce some of the best examples
    of conservation based on local-federal partnerships by providing
    communities with assistance to help revitalize riverfronts, protect
    open space, and build trails and greenways. Last year the RTCA program
    helped create more than 2,000 miles of trails, protect over 500 river
    miles, and preserve almost 50,000 acres of open space. The RTCA is a
    good taxpayer value because its projects help leverage substantial
    local funding. Last year the committee recognized RTCA's achievements
    by providing an increase of $335,000, but in conference these increases
    were rejected. If funded at $15 million, RTCA could expand to assist
    approximately 250 additional projects in some 25 new and currently
    underserved locations. Congress should fund the RTCA program at $15
    million in fiscal year 2003.
       operations and maintenance of the national wildlife refuge system
        Many of 93 million acres within the National Wildlife Refuge System
    were acquired for the protection of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds,
    and most refuges embrace rivers and their adjacent wetlands for this
    reason. Wildlife refuges do more than protect riparian acreage from
    development--they frequently acquire less-than-pristine habitat and
    nurse it back to health. Because funds for these activities have not
    kept pace with habitat acquisition, many benefits that refuges could
    provide have been forgone.
        Interest in river recreation is growing steadily, and public lands
    provide crucial access to public waters. With demand rising, the
    shortfall in refuge maintenance funding means that visitor centers,
    bathrooms, boat launches, fishing piers, hunting blinds, maps, and
    brochures are increasingly inadequate. Increased operations and
    maintenance (O&M) funding will allow refuges to hire needed staff to
    meet demand for educational programs.
        We applaud the president's call for increased funding for refuge
    O&M. We urge Congress to go even further, ensuring that this year's
    100th anniversary of the founding of the first refuge can be the
    celebration it deserves to be. Congress should appropriate $700 million
    for O&M of the National Wildlife Refuge system.
                             hydropower relicensing
        The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and various Department of the
    Interior (DOI) agencies need additional funding to address the growing
    number of hydropower dams that need renewal of their operating licenses
    from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Under the Federal
    Power Act, these agencies must set license conditions to protect and
    conserve natural resources. Licenses are nearing expiration at over 400
    dams. This will affect hundreds of rivers, and hydropower workloads for
    some agencies will increase by 300 to 500 percent. Doubling these
    agencies' limited funds would assure a more efficient licensing
    process, benefit the hydropower industry, and assist efforts to protect
    and restore environmental, recreational, and cultural resources.
    Congress should appropriate the following amounts to DOI agencies and
    the USFS:
      --Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Conservation, Project Planning:
            $2.35 million
      --Bureau of Indian Affairs, FERC Activities, Trust Services: $2
            million
      --Bureau of Land Management, Land Resources/Wildlife and Fisheries:
            $1,125,000
      --National Park Service, Hydropower Recreation Assistance: $1.5
            million
      --USFS, Lands Budget: $11.6 million
       abandoned mine land program--appalachian clean streams initiative
        The Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (APCI), administered
    through the Office of Surface Mining's Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
    Program, awards grants to local groups in the Appalachian region for
    the restoration of streams damaged by abandoned mines. According to the
    Interior Department, acid leaking from long-empty mines is the leading
    cause of aquatic habitat destruction in Appalachia. Unfortunately, over
    one-fourth of reclamation funds collected from coal producers through
    the AML Program have gone to the Treasury instead of for their intended
    purposes, including the APCI. Congress should appropriate $300 million
    to the AMLP. Of this, $20 million should be earmarked for the ACSI.
                            elwha river restoration
        Glines Canyon and Elwha dams on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington
    state have nearly wiped out once abundant salmon and steelhead
    populations in the Elwha River, fisheries to which the Elwha Klallam
    Tribe are guaranteed rights in perpetuity through an 1855 treaty
    agreement. When the dams were built in the early 1900s they cut off the
    vast majority of spawning grounds for native salmon and sea-run trout
    species. One of the dams, Glines Canyon Dam, is located inside Olympic
    National Park. In 1992, Congress approved federal purchase of the dams
    and directed the Department of Interior to study how the river and
    native fisheries could be completely restored. DOI reported that only
    dam removal could fully restore the ecosystem. Congress has
    appropriated funds for the National Park Service (NPS) to purchase the
    dams, and NPS now owns them. NPS has received funding to complete the
    engineering and design phase, as well as the first deconstruction
    phase, but it awaits the funding needed to complete the project.
    Congress should provide the National Park Service $45 million to
    complete the restoration of the Elwha River ecosystem and its
    fisheries.
                        u.s. geological survey programs
        The following U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) programs are vital to
    assessing and monitoring the health our nation's rivers and water
    supply, but they are at risk of significant cuts or elimination this
    year. Congress should fund these USGS programs at the following levels:
      --Streamflow Information Program: $28.4 million
      --National Water Quality Assessment Program: $65 million
      --Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: $13.9 million
      --Water Resources Research Institutes: $6 million
                                coastal program
        Healthy coastal wetlands provide many benefits to people and
    wildlife and support recreation, tourism, and fishing industries.
    Thousands of acres already have been lost or degraded by commercial and
    residential development, polluted runoff and waste disposal, shoreline
    modification, and over-harvesting of resources. The Fish and Wildlife
    Service's (FWS) Coastal Program is an effective partnership that brings
    together FWS experts, land trusts, biologists, and other conservation
    partners to protect and restore habitat in coastal regions. These
    partnerships allow the Coastal Program to turn every Federal dollar
    into at least three project dollars for on-the-ground work. The Coastal
    Program has reopened 3,300 miles of coastal streams for anadromous fish
    passage; restored 54,160 acres of coastal wetlands, 19,670 acres of
    coastal upland habitat, 645 miles of riparian habitat; and protected
    230,000 acres of habitat through conservation easements since 1994.
    Congress should fund the FWS's Coastal Program at $13,099,000.
                       national parks dam safety program
        Dams that have outlived their average life expectancy now threaten
    the health of rivers inside the National Park System. Of the 482 dams
    in the Park System, some 330 are in poor or fair condition. While dams
    can be beneficial, the failure of unsafe dams may result in property
    destruction and loss of life. Dam failure also poses a risk to the
    downstream river environment due to the sudden and uncontrolled
    increase in flow. The National Park Service (NPS) has a dam safety
    inspection and maintenance program designed to ensure protection of
    public safety, health, property, and natural resources. This program
    has not only eliminated safety hazards but also restored rivers and
    streams. Unfortunately, many dams within the NPS still pose a risk and
    are in need of deactivation or repair. Congress should fund the NPS's
    Dam Safety Program at $2 million.
                     national fish and wildlife foundation
        The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) fosters the
    involvement of communities in restoring habitat. Through challenge
    grants, NFWF helps fund projects that promote sustainable communities
    through conservation and education. NFWF also forms partnerships with
    federal, state, and local governments, corporations, private
    foundations, individuals, and non-profit organizations. Through its
    grant programs, $165 million in federal NFWF funds have delivered more
    than $500 million for conservation. Congress should fund the NFWF at
    $32.5 million.
             federal salmon plan for the columbia and snake rivers
        Interior Department programs constitute a substantial portion of
    the federal funding necessary to implement the multi-agency 2000
    Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power System. Under
    this plan, the federal government must undertake a variety of measures
    to mitigate for the mortality imposed on Endangered Species Act--listed
    salmon and steelhead by the large dams on the Snake and Columbia
    rivers. If these recovery measures are not funded and implemented, or
    if they are ineffective, the salmon plan calls for reconsidering
    removing four dams on the lower Snake River as soon as 2003, with
    actual removal as soon as 2005. Congress should fund the following
    agencies at the following amounts to give the federal salmon plan the
    best chance to succeed:
      --Fish and Wildlife Service: $18.7 million
      --Bureau of Land Management: $13 million
      --Bureau of Reclamation: $19.7 million
      --U.S. Geological Survey: $9.8 million
      --Bureau of Indian Affairs: $8.2 million
      --U.S. Forest Service: $121.9 million
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
                             Preservation Officers

    Historic Preservation Fund

    Fiscal Year 2003 Principal Request: State Historic
        Preservation Offices................................     $47,000,000
    Save America's Treasures................................      30,000,000
    Tribal grants...........................................       6,000,000
    National Trust for Historic Preservation Properties
        endowment...........................................       2,500,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Historic Preservation Fund Total..................      85,500,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Partners:
        Advisory Council on Historic Preservation...........       4,000,000
        Heritage Partnership Programs, Natl. Rec. and Pres
          NPS...............................................      21,500,000
             justification of request of $47,000,000 for the states
        The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
    urges the Appropriations Committee to withdraw $47,000,000 from the
    Historic Preservation Fund for the States for fiscal year 2003.
    Congressional commitment
        This request is well within the Appropriations Committee promise of
    $160,000,000 to urban and historic preservation programs in the Land
    Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement Trust Fund.
    (Public Law 106-291)
        The $47,000,000 for the States fits within the Senate Budget
    Committee resolution for 2003.
    Congressional mandate
        Thirty-three years ago the National Historic Preservation Act
    established a system for the preservation of all of America's heritage.
    The Secretary of the Interior opted to carry out that program in
    partnership with the States. Further, State governments agreed to
    donate State funds toward implementing this federal program. The
    Historic Preservation Fund powers the national historic preservation
    program to function. The Historic Preservation Fund does not go for
    optional or discretionary activity, it funds federally mandated
    programs. Congress and the Administration decided that the States shall
    conduct historic preservation for the federal government. Further,
    although this is a federal program, the States donate roughly half of
    the operational costs.
    The people rely on the States
        Americans count on the State Historic Preservation Offices to
    provide the infrastructure that enables them to succeed in preserving
    historic places. With the support of the Historic Preservation Fund,
    State Historic Preservation Offices provide the opportunity for
    communities and individuals to recognize historic places through the
    National Register, to generate incentives for rehabilitation through
    the investment tax credit, and to voice their concerns in federal
    project planning when a beloved landmark is threatened.
    Conservation continuum
        Several methods exist to preserve America's heritage. The benefit
    and cost to the federal government vary with each option. The most
    expensive method is to create a national park. While this guarantees
    preservation of the resource, it also establishes a perpetual
    entitlement on federal revenues. The fiscal year 2003 budget request
    for operating the 384 park units is $2,644,510,000, a 7.1 percent
    increase over 2002. Over the past two decades, heritage areas have
    emerged as another way for communities to celebrate their history while
    preserving historic places and promoting economic development through a
    coordinated interpretive and marketing scheme. The twenty-two federal
    heritage areas received over $13,000,000 in 2002.
        The national historic preservation program funded by the Historic
    Preservation Fund through the State Historic Preservation Offices
    relies on incentives and persuasion to convince the private sector (and
    public agencies) to preserve the historic places they own. A
    $47,000,000 Historic Preservation Fund allocation would help more
    Americans get the national recognition of the historic places they
    value through National Register listing. (1,500 listings at
    $47,000,000; 1,000 at $34,000,000) A $47,000,000 appropriation would
    also increase the assistance to the 1,000,000 current National Register
    property owners.
        Each approach is essential to insure America's heritage is
    conserved for future generations. Balanced support is important for
    each method.
        Under funding of the Historic Preservation Fund, at levels such as
    $34,000,000, limits the ability of State Historic Preservation Officers
    to assist property owners with preservation projects. At $47,000,000
    States will have some resources to help historic property owners with
    repair issues at an early stage. The fiscal year 2001 funding level
    allows States to assist in planning restoration projects and making
    smaller subgrants to address small problems, rather than leaving them
    un-addressed, leading to structural crises.
    Enables private sector investment
        Historic Preservation Fund withdrawals to the States establish the
    framework for the private sector to invest in the rehabilitation of
    historic buildings with the federal investment tax credit. The Historic
    Preservation Fund provides the fuel to run the National Register
    nomination process--listing is a requirement for credit eligibility.
    Further, the Fund puts professionals in State offices who advise owners
    on rehabilitation design. This investment of Federal dollars, matched
    by the States, makes possible $2,000,000,000 in private sector dollars
    in the rescue of historic buildings for economically productive uses.
    Historic places are assets
        The National Historic Preservation Act leads Americans to see their
    historic places, the physical embodiment of our history, as assets.
    Americans rely on State Historic Preservation Offices (made possible by
    the Historic Preservation Fund) to provide professional advice on
    restoration methodology.
        Historic places clearly provide Americans with homeland pride and
    patriotic connection to essential values and an appreciation of our
    country. How do American's learn about historic places? Through
    Historic Preservation Fund supported historic inventories that find and
    elucidate the previously unknown or undiscovered treasures of our past.
        The multi-billion dollar tourism industry's heritage sector exists
    because of historic places. These assets draw Americans from next door
    or visitors from around the world to see the authentic place where
    America's history occurred. The Historic Preservation Fund not only
    supports the survey effort to find these places, it also makes national
    recognition possible through the National Register nomination process.
    Further, the $47,000,000 level will allow for some restoration funds to
    insure authentic restoration of sites open to the public.
    Capital investments in infrastructure with long-term benefits
        In fiscal year 2001, when Congress appropriated $46,495,000 from
    the Historic Preservation Fund for the States, Historic Preservation
    Officers used the increase to fill long-standing infrastructure gaps.
    According to the National Park Service's ``SHPO Success Stories 2001,''
    States made capital investments in two areas: restoration and
    databases. Following the outline of statewide historic preservation
    plans, some States, such as Alaska and Washington, made funding
    available for restoration projects addressed long-standing needs to
    preserve endangered National Register sites. Other States such as
    Pennsylvania and Texas used Historic Preservation Fund increases to
    invest in digitizing information on historic places including locations
    through geographic information system data layers. Digitization is
    essential to modernize accessibility to historic property information
    for project planning. Accessibility to site location data in electronic
    formats allows planners to make decisions from their desk tops, saving
    time and money.
        Continuing the Historic Preservation Fund appropriation at
    $47,000,000 will allow States to maintain these needed capital
    investments.
    Treading water
        Declining Historic Preservation Fund appropriations--the 2003
    budget proposes a 26 percent cut from the 2001 level--will not stop
    historic preservation in America. Thirty years of the operation of the
    National Historic Preservation Act has made historic preservation a
    core American value. Cuts retard the growth of historic preservation
    infrastructure to meet public demand. Uncontrollable costs, clearly
    identified in the National Park Service budgets--cost of living
    increases, indirect cost rates, pension changes--affect State Historic
    Preservation Offices ability to deliver service. For some States, like
    Connecticut, such proposed cuts mean mandatory staff reductions,
    eliminating services that citizens count on.
        Which potential future landmark will face demolition in 2003
    because the HPF funding did not exist to verify its significance
    through a National Register nomination? Which historic attraction will
    face a major crisis in 2005 because there was no HPF funding in 2003 to
    fix the roof?

            EFFECT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND APPROPRIATIONS ON SELECTED STATES AT $47 MILLION AND AT THE
                                          ADMINISTRATION'S LEVEL OF $34 MILLION
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      At $47,000,000  At $34,000,000
                                  State                                   (est.)          (est.)      Amount of loss
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AK..............................................................      $1,000,000        $725,000        $275,000
    CA..............................................................       1,437,000       1,000,000         437,000
    CO..............................................................         870,000         630,000         240,000
    HI..............................................................         568,000         411,000         157,000
    MS..............................................................         736,000         532,000         204,000
    MT..............................................................         784,000         568,000         216,000
    NV..............................................................         716,000         518,000         198,000
    NH..............................................................         629,000         456,000         173,000
    NM..............................................................         771,000         558,000         213,000
    ND..............................................................         689,000         499,000         190,000
    SC..............................................................         746,000         540,000         206,000
    UT..............................................................         757,000         548,000         209,000
    VT..............................................................         587,000         425,000         162,000
    WA..............................................................         904,000         655,000         249,000
    WV..............................................................         713,000         516,000         197,000
    WI..............................................................         961,000         696,000         265,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the City of Newark, NJ
        Mr. Chairman 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. The City of Newark is seeking $3,000,000 from the Urban Park
    Restoration and Recovery program in order to take the conceptual design
    to an implementable plan, and construct the Nat Turner Field. It will
    serve as the recreation focus for thousands of students and families in
    a redeveloping neighborhood, as part of a comprehensive revitalization
    plan.
                          nat turner field development
        Nat Turner Field is an undeveloped tract of land that the City of
    Newark acquired with NJ Green Acres funding so that it would be
    preserved as parkland rather than undergo development. It is surrounded
    by newer housing developments on the west, a City pool/recreation
    center and elementary school on the east, and an elementary school to
    the south. To the north was a large abandoned factory, which was a
    troublesome brownfield site for many years. It has recently been
    demolished, and has been selected by the Newark Public Schools as the
    site of a new high school, to be built through the State Abbott
    District program. This activity presents a unique opportunity for
    partnership between the Schools and the City.
        It is proposed that Nat Turner Field be developed into a
    recreational facility that will jointly serve the needs of the two
    elementary schools and the new high school, as well as the community-
    at-large beyond school hours. The existing pool and recreation center
    could be renovated to be part of a larger, more comprehensive complex,
    and serve the schools as well. The schools will educate approximately
    1800 students. The summer recreation program will serve over 2,000 low
    to moderate income families from the neighborhood.
        The consideration of this committee will be greatly appreciated by
    the citizens of the City of Newark.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Alachua County, FL
        Thank you for allowing the Alachua County Board of County
    Commissioners to submit this written testimony before your Subcommittee
    regarding two innovative projects that are important to Alachua County:
    (1) a land conservation project and (2) a heritage preservation
    initiative. The County is seeking $10 million for the Emerald Necklace
    Land Conservation Initiative and $2.5 million for the Lake Pithlachocco
    Heritage Preservation Initiative. Following are highlights of both
    initiatives:
                 emerald necklace land conservation initiative
        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)
      --Newnan's 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 acquisitions are
    currently timberlands. 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 has identified four priority restoration areas:
      --Newnan's 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 Newnan's 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 Floridian 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 waste-water.
      --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
            Floridian 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.
        The Emerald Necklace initiative, with federal assistance, can serve
    as a model land conservation program, demonstrating a successful local,
    state, and federal environmental partnership as well as effective
    conservation alternatives to fee simple acquisition.
               lake pithlachocco heritage preservation initiative
        For thousands of years, the indigenous people in the north Florida
    area adjacent to the current City of Gainesville Florida, in Alachua
    County enjoyed and based their life styles around a body of water
    called Pithlachocco. The word ``Pithlachocco'' translates from the
    Miccosukee language to mean ``big boat'' in English. Today, the lake is
    known as Newnan's Lake and has been designated as a National Historic
    Landmark.
        For years, Newnan's Lake has been a prominent fishing location for
    area anglers and more recently, and somewhat ironically, has become
    internationally recognized as an excellent site for the sport of crew.
    This historical lake played a prominent role in the history and
    development of the State of Florida from the earliest time periods
    through the settlement of Florida and Civil War era history. In 1774
    British naturalist William Bartram visited the Alachua region twice and
    described the region's natural beauty and scenic wonders. The Lake was
    later named after revolutionary war soldier Col. Newnan whose forces
    were routed by Seminole war chief King Payne in a week long battle by
    the present day lake.
        Recently, during an unusual drought period, the lake was discovered
    to be the home of potentially the largest repository of Indian dug out
    canoes and artifacts in the United States. Some of these canoes are the
    largest that has ever been found in the world. The site was recently
    designated on the national register of historic places and has been
    termed a unique cultural heritage site by the Seminole and Miccosukee
    Tribes who have visited this ancient tribal site.
        The purpose of this appropriation request is to provide the
    resources for the investigation, preservation and interpretation of
    these prehistoric canoes and artifacts. This site lies east of the City
    of Gainesville, Florida home of the University of Florida whose
    faculty's expertise has indicated that this site is simply ``world
    class'' in terms of it's potential as an educational and archaeological
    interpretative facility. The Lake continues to be preserved in its
    natural state with little surrounding development. In addition, the
    setting of this unique historical and environmental site lies adjacent
    to the Paynes Prairie State Preserve and the Lochloosa Wildlife
    Management area. Nearby, dating from the 1930's is the former home of
    Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, author of numerous books including The
    Yearling and Cross Creek. This building has also been designated as a
    State Historic Site.
        An appropriation of $2.5 million in fiscal year 2003 would allow
    Alachua County to acquire land and construct an interpretive center to
    highlight these nationally significant resources. Participation has
    been or will also be sought from the State of Florida, the St. Johns
    Water Management District, other local governments as well as private
    funding. Recent meetings have been held with Chiefs and Elders
    representing the Seminole and Miccosukee Nations who have expressed
    interest to support this project which is essential on preserving the
    cultural heritage of their people in Florida.
        It is the belief of Alachua County Board of County Commissioners
    that with assistance of the Federal government, the necessary land
    acquisition and construction of a interpretive site adjacent to
    Pithlachocco/Newnan's Lake would link its current use as a recognized
    center for crew competition to its distant past as an original native
    American settlement and canoe based culture.
        Thank you for your consideration of these two very worthwhile
    projects. Your support would be appreciated.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association
        This statement is to share with the Subcommittee views of the
    National Recreation and Park Association on fiscal year 2003
    appropriations for selected programs within its jurisdiction. We
    appreciate the opportunity to comment on programs administered
    principally by the National Park Service.
        We recommend the following:
      --Not less than $200,000,000 from the Land and Water Conservation
            Fund for state assistance, and additional funds necessary to
            meet the land conservation priorities of eligible federal land
            systems. Funds should be allocated to the states as authorized
            by current law. The secretary of the Interior should be
            directed to continue to utilize population-based ``need''
            criteria for distribution of State funds.
      --Not less than $30,000,000 to address the most distressed urban
            recreation resource conditions and deficiencies identified and
            aided through the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program.
      --Sufficient funds to enable the National Park Service to effectively
            collaborate with state and local recreation and park agencies
            and other federal agencies on such matters as conservation and
            use of excess and surplus federal real property, conservation
            of the nation's cultural heritage and rivers and trails.
      --Sufficient funds to support site-appropriate and sustainable public
            recreation use of national forests, parks, refuges, and public
            lands.
      --Necessary funds to continue U.S. Geological Survey technical and
            professional activities in support of local and state planning.
        The National Recreation and Park Association especially commends
    the Subcommittee for the positive, incremental restoration of
    appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and for the
    Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program. The value of state and
    local recreation and park resources are fundamentally essential to
    quality recreation experiences for all people. Collectively, these
    systems and their human resources provide the majority of the nation's
    public recreation destinations and services. Until all people have
    appropriate access to recreation and parks our collective missions will
    remain unfinished. We urge the subcommittee to quickly move toward
    annual full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and
    sufficient, predictable funds to aid restoration of urban park and
    recreation sites.
        Distribution of LWCF State Grant Funds.--The administration's
    budget proposes that the request for $200 million for state assistance
    will be ``managed in two segments, including $150 million for the
    traditional state grants program and $50 million for a proposed
    Cooperative Conservation Initiative''. Investment of the latter amount
    would be restricted to ``natural area'' activities, with proposed
    projects presumably submitted to the secretary for approval. We commend
    and support the Administration for its request for increased LWCF state
    assistance and urge the Subcommittee to recommend at least this amount.
    However, we urge the Subcommittee to not agree to the proposal to
    earmark $50 million of the requested total for LWCF state assistance
    for ``natural area'' activities. The Subcommittee's denial should be
    expressly stated in report language.
        The effect of the proposal would be similar in nature to the
    Administration's fiscal year 2002 proposal to substantially change the
    nature of the LWCF program from its recreation access purposes to
    wildlife conservation by changing the LWCF state apportionment formula
    from population-based ``need'' to one based on a state's relative land
    area. We commend the Subcommittee for not agreeing to that proposed
    change.
        The Administration's present proposal to set aside fully one-fourth
    of the budget request is contrary to its insistence that priorities,
    choices and decision-making be vested in individuals and entities
    outside of the federal government. Administration officials, including
    Interior, have said repeatedly that ``most good ideas reside in
    communities'' across the nation. While budget documents suggest that
    the secretary of the interior will select from ``natural area''
    applications submitted by the respective governors, the fact remains
    that the proposal assumes that the federal government should, in
    effect, dictate to the states (and local governments) the type of
    priorities each state should address.
        The proposed set aside could also result in significant distortions
    in the actual distribution of funds. For example, the only LWCF
    statutory requirement beyond that of ``40 percent distributed equally
    among all states'' (with an ancillary formula for territories and the
    District of Columbia) and 60 percent based on ``need'' is the limit
    that no single state can receive more than 10 percent of the total
    apportionment. Thus, if permission for the proposed set aside is
    granted by the Congress, it would presumably be within the secretary's
    discretion to select any number of ``natural area'' proposals from only
    a limited number of states. A lesser populated state with a modest
    regular apportionment could suddenly be the recipient of, say, a $5
    million ``natural area'' windfall. Under the long-held belief that the
    American people equally own the nation's natural assets (including OCS
    resources) and thus should benefit equally, the Administration's
    proposal leads quickly to a perception of ``well, not exactly''.
        We are aware of no objective evidence that supports any particular
    priority of funds for ``natural areas'', or any other categorical
    earmark. In fact, the American people and state and local decision
    makers have and likely will continue to place appropriate priority on
    LWCF projects apparently of the nature envisioned by the
    administration.
        The following examples are representative of many projects funded
    since LWCF state assistance was recommenced in fiscal year 2000.
      --Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve Acquisition, Alaska LWCF: Acquisition
            of a 115-acre in-holding at Alaska's Chilkat Bald Eagle
            Preserve. The preserve is a visitor attraction of local,
            national and international significance. It supports recreation
            and tourism uses, including eagle viewing, sport fishing,
            snowmobiling, skiing, hiking, hunting, and photography.
      --Elkhorn Slough Acquisition, Watsonville, Calif.: Acquisition of 559
            acres within the watershed of Elkhorn Slough, in accordance
            with the Elkhorn Slough Watershed Conservation Plan, will
            protect critical riparian, upland, wetland habitats, cultivated
            farmlands and provide scenic public view-sheds. Elkhorn Slough
            is an official Scenic Waterway with public recreation that
            includes kayaking and canoeing.
      --Whistle Path Woods, Provincetown, Massachusetts: LWCF Grant:
            Acquisition by the Town of Provincetown of 6.8 acres known as
            Whistle Path Woods located between downtown Provincetown and
            Cape Cod National Seashore. The property is within a designated
            Priority Site of Rare Species Habitats and Exemplary Natural
            Communities.
      --Bastrop State Park, Texas: LWCF Grant: The Texas Parks and Wildlife
            Department, with LWCF assistance, acquired 1,000 acres of land
            to expand Bastrop State Park to 3,500 acres. The property
            provides additional recreation/conservation opportunities, and
            additional habitat for the endangered Houston Toad.
        In the larger context, about one in 12 projects in the LWCF data
    bank contain some degree of natural area protection. For example, over
    2,050 projects are characterized as wetlands' (302), or floodplain''
    (1,766). Projects also include natural area' (3,027), ``passive'' areas
    (2,295), and ``hunting'' areas (680). A review of project names
    includes hundreds of references to ``wildlife, natural, habitat,
    conservation, management, gamelands, and preservation.''
        State and Local Use of LWCF State Assistance and Urban Park
    Funds.--State and local governments continue to request, and put to
    appropriate public use, funds appropriated for LWCF state and local
    projects. For fiscal year 2000, LWCF funds ($40 million) are
    essentially all obligated, that is, assigned to specific acquisition or
    development projects that are either completed or in progress. This was
    the first year that funds were made available after a 5-year hiatus.
    Thus, the grant-in-aid management infrastructure in at least some
    states had to be augmented. Fiscal year 2001 LWCF assistance ($90
    million) is about sixty percent obligated against specific projects,
    according to the National Park Service. At the present rate of
    obligation it is reasonable to anticipate that most fiscal year 2001
    funds will be largely obligated within its first full year of
    availability.
        While the President signed the fiscal year 2002 Interior
    appropriations bill (Public Law 107-63) on November 5, 2001, the
    secretarial certification officially apportioning $140 million to the
    governors was not signed until February 1, 2002, with subsequent
    distribution about February 15. Accordingly, there has been
    insufficient time to establish any useful obligation record for these
    funds. Despite a degree of fiscal stress impacting some state and local
    governments as a direct or indirect result of terrorist activities or
    economic conditions there is no information that suggests that our
    recommended LWCF assistance minimum of $200 million and urban parks
    request for not less than $30 million will not be fully utilized.
        Demand for Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program assistance is
    similarly high as reflected in both the number of requests for
    assistance and the quality and objectives of projects. In fiscal year
    2000 ($2 million available) only 14 projects were selected for
    assistance. In fiscal year 2001 187 local jurisdictions applied ($28.8
    million available) and 95 projects were selected. The application
    deadline for fiscal year 2002 funds was March 29. A national panel will
    recommend potential grantees by May. Approved fiscal year 2001 (and
    fiscal year 2002 proposals) will emphasize the national importance of
    bringing recreation opportunities to children, youth and families in
    distressed environments. Unlike most investments for federal lands that
    exhibit high scenic, ecological or other values UPARR sites are
    typically not esthetically pleasing. Rather, they address a national
    imperative to build or rebuild sustainable, healthy communities through
    recreation and parks. As examples: The renovation of the 68-year old
    Downtown Recreation Center in Charlottesville, Virginia will restore 35
    percent of public recreation services that were lost when health and
    safety factors forced closure of the center in 2000. The facility will
    serve 23 percent of the population. Renovation of Cincinnati, Ohio's
    Hanna Playground and pool will include redesign and redevelopment of
    this strategically located multipurpose community park. It will become
    fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. The restoration and
    upgrading of the Monica Roybal Center in Santa Fe, New Mexico will
    substantially diversify public recreation services available at that
    site.
        Partnerships for Conserving Wildlife Diversity.--The fiscal year
    2002 Interior appropriations act makes $80.5 million available from the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund for wildlife planning and
    conservation. The President requested $60 million for those purposes in
    fiscal year 2003. Fiscal year 2002 funds are available principally to
    state wildlife agencies. While state fish and wildlife agencies have
    been and remain eligible to participants in the LWCF state assistance
    program, too. Accordingly, NRPA strongly prefers that funds be provided
    through the on-going LWCF program. However, if the Subcommittee
    determines that separate funds should be available for wildlife
    conservation activities it should also direct that local and state
    public recreation and park agencies specifically engaged in species
    conservation also have access to funds.
        Local and state park systems are often significant contributors to
    species diversity. Nationwide, over 5,000 local park systems contain
    millions of acres, and hundreds of systems have more than 5,000 acres.
    Many other systems have in excess of 15,000 acres. An estimated 80 to
    85 percent of larger systems are typically undeveloped and thus
    contribute to an array of conservation outcomes. Larger systems also
    provide extensive environmental awareness or experiential education.
    Eligibility of agencies with these resources and programs will
    contribute importantly to wildlife diversity, particularly non-game
    species.
        For further information on this statement contact: Barry Tindall,
    NRPA Director of Public Policy, 202-887-0290.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
        The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) strongly supports the
    appropriation of $15 Million in fiscal year 2003 for the Rivers and
    Trails Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program of the National Park
    Service. Locally owned and operated trails provide recreation and
    conservation close to home for millions of Americans. They supplement
    the nations renowned national park units and provide are a low cost the
    same preservation and enjoyment values. The RTCA is a vital partner
    with RTC in bringing trails to urban and rural communities throughout
    the country. Their work is outstanding and deserves support at the
    levels requested.
                                   what we do
        Trails don't just happen. Everything we do at Rails-to-Trails
    Conservancy supports local efforts to transform the dream of a trail
    into a tangible community asset.
        We promote policy at the national and state levels to create the
    conditions that make trail building possible. RTC is a leader in the
    fight to protect the federal Transportation Enhancements program, which
    is the largest source of funding for trail development. We steadfastly
    defend the federal railbanking statute in the Congress and the courts
    as an essential tool to preserve unused rail corridors.
                                  our partners
        Organizations are created when people conclude that a shared goal
    can be better accomplished by working together in partnership than
    pursuing it alone as individuals. Likewise, successful organizations
    often join together in ``strategic alliances'' with like-minded groups
    to further their mission. This is certainly true of Rails-to-Trails
    Conservancy. Since our creation in 1986, building partnerships has been
    an essential ingredient in our success. We never could have helped to
    transform thousands of miles of unused rail corridor into trails
    without the partnerships we have forged with our members, our funders
    and our local and national colleagues.
                                      rtca
        As a leading national trails organization, Rails-to-Trails
    Conservancy enjoys productive partnerships with federal agencies with
    responsibility for supporting local trail building efforts. RTCA is one
    of our most important partners.
        In partnerships, RTC and the RTCA bring the benefits of trails to
    hundreds of communities across the country.
                           trail benefits--recreation
        The growing popularity of outdoor recreation activities, such as
    cycling, inline skating, walking and running, combined with the loss of
    community open space, has increased the need for quality recreational
    facilities such as rail-trails.
        Trails provide places for cyclists, hikers, walkers, runners,
    inline skaters, cross-country skiers and physically challenged
    individuals to exercise and experience the many natural and cultural
    wonders of the nation's urban, suburban and rural environments. Rail-
    trails not only serve as independent community amenities, they also
    enhance existing recreational resources by linking neighborhoods and
    schools to parks, waterfronts, recreational centers and other
    facilities.
        There is no doubt about the strong link between exercise and good
    health. By providing a place for so many types of recreational use,
    rail-trails can greatly help to improve public health.
                          trail benefits--conservation
        Trails are invaluable tools for conservation and preservation.
    Expanses of land that has rarely seen development, rail-trails provide
    countless Americans reconnection with the natural environment, a
    renewed sense of community, a restored appreciation for historical and
    cultural artifacts and nostalgia for the ``golden age'' of rail
    transportation.
        As tools for ecology and conservation, rail-trails help preserve
    important natural landscapes, provide needed links between fragmented
    habitats and offer tremendous opportunities for protecting plant and
    animal species. They also can be useful tools for wetland preservation
    and improvement of air and water quality. More than just, say, an
    isolated 12-foot-wide patch of sidewalk, a rail-trail can have a much
    larger value as preserver of natural space. When a trail-developing
    organization or agency acquires an abandoned rail corridor, they often
    get a 100-foot-wide linear space to work with that is virtually
    unobstructed by buildings and other man made features aside from the
    rail line itself. The corridor can become a linear habitat or
    ``greenway'' that connects wildlife areas isolated by expansive
    development, with only a minimal intrusion by trail users.
        As tools for conservation or preservation of historic and cultural
    resources, rail-trails provide a window into our history and culture by
    connecting people to the past. They often link, provide access to and
    incorporate historic features such as battlefields, bridges, canals,
    historic buildings, and rail depots. Trails play a prominent role in
    the history of America, and rail-trails continue to serve as important
    threads in our social fabric.
                             trail benefits--health
        Rail-trails create healthy recreation and transportation
    opportunities by providing people of all ages with attractive, safe,
    accessible, and no (or low) cost places to cycle, walk, hike, jog or
    skate. In doing so, they make it easier for people to engage in
    physical activity. Trails can help people incorporate exercise into
    their daily routines by connecting people with places they want or need
    to go. In addition, they provide natural, scenic and safe areas that
    make it easy and desirable to be outside and active.
        Most Americans make the connection between exercise and health, but
    many people still lead sedentary lives. There is little argument over
    the fact that exercise reduces the incidence of a myriad of illnesses,
    including heart disease, asthma, diabetes, colon cancer, high blood
    pressure and obesity. Exercise has also been shown to raise self-esteem
    and increase our bodies' energy levels, and more and more studies
    continue to show a connection between exercise and mental well-being.
        Individuals must choose to exercise, but communities can make that
    choice easier. Many people don't exercise regularly because they don't
    have time, or access to convenient outlets for healthy transportation
    and recreation activities. Many communities use trails and greenways as
    tools to help make exercise more convenient. By doing so, they can help
    change bad habits into healthy ones.
                         trail benefits--transportation
        In addition to providing a safe place for people to enjoy
    recreational activities, trails also function as viable transportation
    corridors.
        Trails can be a crucial element to a seamless urban or regional
    multi-modal transportation system. Many areas of the country
    incorporate rail-trails and similar facilities into their transit
    plans, relying upon trail facilities to ``feed'' people in to and out
    of transit stations in a safe and efficient manner. Rail-trails tend to
    be flat and direct, and often connect residential and business-
    districts, so many people find rail-trails convenient as a primary
    means of getting safely to and from work, school, shopping areas and
    other destinations.
        Regarding trails as both transportation and recreation facilities
    encourages the melding of recreation and exercise with our daily
    routine, making it easier to stay healthy and fit. According to
    statistics derived from the 1995 National Personal Transportation
    Survey, 43 percent of cycling trips are made for purposes other than
    just recreation (such as work, shopping, school, and personal
    business), and that cycling on an off-road trail facility is generally
    safer than riding on sidewalks or streets without bike lanes. Surveys
    continue to indicate that the more safe facilities are available, the
    more people are willing to use non-motorized transportation for many
    daily trips that would otherwise be made by car. The implications of
    this trend are tremendously positive for public health, the environment
    and the general livability of America's communities. Trails are a key
    element of this expansion of transportation choices.
                         trail benefits--revitalization
        One of the greatest challenges many local governments face is how
    to revitalize urban environments and attract people back to the cities
    from the suburbs (or back to the suburbs from the extended suburbs).
    Trails and greenways are valued for their ability to connect people
    with places and enhance the beauty of urban centers. Multi-use trails
    built on abandoned rail corridors are a key component of the greenway
    systems in many cities, and figure prominently in greenway plans many
    cities are counting on to revive urban cores and improve quality of
    life.
        Cities and towns across America are finding that converting
    abandoned rail corridors is an economically wise choice. Rail-trails
    often bring job growth in construction and maintenance fields, as well
    as in tourism-related areas like bike shops, restaurants and lodging. A
    National Park Service study revealed the total economic impact of a
    trail involves a combination of new trail-related jobs and the
    expansion of existing businesses related to travel, equipment, clothes,
    food, souvenirs and maps. Trails can even have a direct impact on a
    community's ability to attract jobs--many companies seeking to relocate
    or establish a corporate headquarters have cited the availability of
    trails as a significant factor in their decision to choose one locale
    over another.
        Trails increase the natural beauty of communities. They also have
    been shown to bolster property values and make adjacent properties
    easier to sell. More and more real estate advertisements proclaim the
    proximity of the property to a rail-trail, demonstrating that agents
    are recognizing that rail-trails are an asset and key attractor to
    neighborhoods.
                 trail benefits--reconnecting people and places
        When thousands of miles of rail corridor were abandoned in recent
    decades, it became a symbol of lost connections--the fraying of
    community--that has been an unfortunate byproduct of modern American
    life. But America has always had a remarkable capacity for self-
    healing. And rail-trails can bind communities together as effectively
    as the railroads did before them. Proof of that is found in the
    hundreds of communities now reconnected by unused rail corridors
    transformed into vital community assets.
                              reconnecting places
        Imagine living in a place where you can walk, bike or skate to
    work, school, shops, or to visit friends and family using a seamless
    network of trails that are a natural part of the local transportation
    system. In the 16 years since Rails-to-Trails Conservancy was founded,
    we have worked in partnership with local communities and helped build
    more than 11,655 miles of rail-trail in all 50 states. We also have
    learned that the many benefits of individual rail-trails--recreation,
    transportation, health, conservation, revitalization--are multiplied
    when trails are connected to regional systems of trails and greenways.
    Linking the places where we live, work, learn and play with trails and
    greenways is a crucial element of our nation's efforts to build safer,
    healthier, more livable communities.
                              reconnecting people
        The value of rail-trails in reconnecting America extends far beyond
    linking together destinations on a map. Rail-trails also have a
    remarkable capacity to connect people.
        When the opportunity to build a new rail-trail arises, something
    remarkable often happens to a community. Well-funded public agencies
    that build roads do not exist for creating trails. Instead,
    individuals, state and local government, the private sector and
    community-based groups must unite in the common purpose of improving
    their community. By reconnecting people, the process of trail building
    also becomes a process of community building.
        Opportunities to reconnect people don't stop when a trail is built.
    Trails and greenways reconnect us to our neighbors by creating common
    ground for social interaction. They reconnect us to our families by
    providing safe and healthy recreation areas for children, parents and
    grandparents. Trails reconnect us to nature by giving us access to
    green space for recreation and relaxation. And, with the restoration of
    old railroad trestles and tunnels, we are reconnected to the rich
    period of history when previous generations helped build and connect
    America by rail.
        By reconnecting America with trails and greenways, we create a
    valuable legacy that honors the past, enriches the present and provides
    a precious gift to the future.
        The Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program is a valued
    ally and partner with the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy in providing to
    local communities the technical assistance so vital to bringing these
    benefits of trails close to home for all Americans. RTCA fully deserves
    funding at the $15 million for fiscal year 2003.
                                     ______

                        United States Geological Survey
          Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
        The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
    life science organization in the world, comprised of more than 40,000
    members, appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on
    the fiscal year 2003 budget of $867 million for the U.S. Geological
    Survey (USGS) research programs. The ASM represents scientists who work
    in academic, medical, governmental and industrial institutions
    worldwide and are involved in research to improve human health and the
    environment.
        The USGS supports microbiological research on water contamination
    and quality, climate change, and new and re-emerging wildlife diseases.
    A unique aspect of USGS is its ability to carry out large scale, mufti-
    disciplinary studies on a national scale and to sustain long-term
    monitoring and assessment programs of the nation's natural resources.
    USGS programs provide the impartial science that federal, state and
    local governments need in order to respond to rapidly changing
    environmental conditions.
        The USGS's environmental monitoring capabilities also make it the
    lead science provider for accessing information and facts for resolving
    complex natural science problems across the nation and around the
    world. For instance, the USGS is initiating studies in collaboration
    with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to learn the
    current geographic extent of the West Nile virus. This collaboration
    hopes to understand how West Nile moves between birds, mosquitoes, and
    humans, and to predict future movements of the virus in an effort to
    protect human health. The USGS is also cosponsoring with the National
    Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation research on
    the ecological changes that affect infectious diseases such as
    biodiversity loss, habitat transformation, environmental contamination,
    and climate change. This type of research can only be accomplished with
    USGS's extensive environmental monitoring data and its expertise in
    analyzing complex environmental phenomena.
        The ASM is concerned that the fiscal year 2003 budget request
    proposes cuts that will severely restrict the USGS's ability to provide
    scientific support for the Department of Interior and other agency
    research needs. The proposed cuts result in a decrease of $47 million
    for the USGS, or 5.1 percent, to $867 million for fiscal year 2003.
    Within the USGS budget, the Biological Resources Division (BRD) would
    be cut by 4 percent to $160 million, the Water Resources Division by 14
    percent to $178 million and the Geologic Division by 4 percent to $225
    million. The ASM would like to submit the following comments and
    recommendations for adequate funding levels for research in the Water
    Resources Division and the BRD for fiscal year 2003.
                   national water-quality assessment program
        The National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NWQAP) is the
    primary source of long-term, nationwide information on streams, ground
    water, and aquatic ecosystems. Made-up of 42 sites nationwide, the
    NWQAP evaluates water resource quality over the long-term, rather than
    simply assessing known problems or specific geographic areas at a
    particular point in time. These assessments provided critical
    information that is otherwise unavailable, and involves extensive
    collaboration between government, research institutions and other
    partners for responding to local, state, regional, and national efforts
    to protect, improve, and manage water resources.
        The Administration's budget proposes a $57 million budget for the
    NWQAP, a 9 percent reduction from fiscal year 2002. The ASM recommends
    that Congress restore the program's funding to the fiscal year 2002
    level of $64 million.--This level of funding will prevent the proposed
    termination of water quality assessments in 6 of the 42 study units.
    This level of funding will also allow the program to initiate new
    microbial sampling initiatives, designed to identify possible
    bacterial, protozoan and viral threats in the nation's water systems.
        The ASM applauds USGS's leadership in addressing existing and
    future water quality needs through multidisciplinary research teams.
    The ASM urges Congress to support this critical program that plays such
    an important role in public health and safeguarding our water supply
    from unexpected biological hazards.
                       toxic substances hydrology program
        The Toxic Substances Hydrology Program (Toxics) conducts long-term
    research to improve our understanding of the behavior of contaminants
    in the nation's ground and surface waters. The Toxics Program
    complements the water-quality monitoring and assessment programs of the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other DOI agencies by identifying
    new issues and emerging contaminants, and developing the knowledge and
    methods needed to direct their future activities. This collaboration
    ensures that current and future research priorities across federal
    agency obligations are addressed. For instance, the Toxics Program is
    involved in the restoration of the Florida Everglades ecosystem (i.e.,
    bioremediation) and the development of new real-time sensors capable of
    detecting biological or chemical contamination.
        The President's budget proposes to eliminate this program in fiscal
    year 2003. The ASM recommends that Congress restore the program's
    funding to the fiscal year 2002 level of $14 million.--The ASM supports
    the focus and mission of this program within the USGS and requests that
    Congress fully support the research program. Furthermore, the ASM
    believes the Toxics Program is a critical component of the nation's
    efforts to combat increasing levels of toxic substances and water-borne
    pathogens in our drinking water supplies.
                state water resources research institute program
        The ASM is concerned that the Administration's budget proposes to
    eliminate this program in fiscal year 2003. The funding level for the
    program in fiscal year 2002 was $6 million. Therefore, the ASM highly
    recommends that the Subcommittee allocate the necessary funds ($6
    million) to keep the SWRRIP program viable. The Water Resources
    Research Act of 1984 established the State Water Resources Research
    Institute Program (SWRRIP) to coordinate State and federal research on
    water quality and water supply problems. This program is also one of
    the federal government's principal mechanisms for training the next-
    generation of water scientists and engineers.
                          wildlife disease initiative
        The Wildlife Disease Initiative (WDI) is currently an unfunded
    program within the BRD. The USGS anticipates the cost of the program in
    its first year, which would be fiscal year 2003, to be $10 million. The
    ASM supports this level of funding for the WDI. The WDI would focus
    research on the recent emergence of major diseases affecting wildlife,
    such as, the West Nile virus (WNV), Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD),
    bovine Tuberculosis (TB), and the potential introduction of Foot and
    Mouth Disease. While several of these diseases (TB, CWD, and FMD) can
    have a devastating effect on domestic animals, their potential impact
    upon human health is less understood. The WDI would allow the USGS to
    assist the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention in bridging this knowledge gap. Such a
    partnership would provide the critical wildlife expertise necessary for
    studying the effects of these emerging diseases on wildlife; improve
    our understanding of wildlife's role as reservoirs; and improve our
    ability to prevent and control outbreaks.
        No other agency has the capabilities or expertise to address
    disease detection, control and prevention in wildlife. Therefore, the
    ASM fully supports this integrative, inter-agency program that combines
    animal and human health as elements of public health. Furthermore, the
    ASM urges the Subcommittee to consider the importance of tracking and
    responding to wildlife diseases, such as, WNV that can move freely
    between animal host and humans.
        Interactions between the environment, its biota and people are
    highly complex and solutions require integrative, multidisciplinary
    approaches and an adequately funded and staffed USGS. The ASM
    encourages Congress to maintain its commitment to U.S. Geological
    Survey research programs, which are vital to continued discovery of
    geological, hydrological, geographical, and biological processes that
    are so important to the well being of the environment and protecting
    public health.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
        On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    (UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
    research and related education, training and support activities, I
    submit this written testimony for the record of the U.S. Senate
    Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior and Related
    Agencies. I would like to comment on the fiscal year 2003 budget
    request for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
        UCAR is a university membership consortium composed of 66 North
    American research universities. Our mission is to support, enhance, and
    extend the capabilities of the university community, nationally and
    internationally; to understand the behavior of the atmosphere and
    related systems and the global environment; and to foster the transfer
    of knowledge and technology for the betterment of life on earth. UCAR
    manages and operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research
    (NCAR) and the UCAR Office of Programs (UOP) and is supported by the
    National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal agencies. In
    addition to its member universities, UCAR has formal relationships with
    approximately 100 additional undergraduate and graduate schools
    including several historically black and minority-serving institutions
    and 40 international universities and laboratories.
                                  introduction
        The U.S. Geological Survey was created by an act of Congress in
    1879 and is, today, the sole science agency for the Department of the
    Interior. With no regulatory mandate, the USGS is able to serve the
    nation as an independent fact-finding agency that collects, monitors,
    analyzes, and provides scientific understanding about natural resource
    conditions, issues, and problems. Its vast earth and biological data
    sets that are used by a broad array of customers in the academic,
    public, and private sectors to help resolve complex natural resource
    problems across the nation and around the world.
        USGS information and data concerning our nation's hydrologic
    systems are of particular importance to the atmospheric sciences
    community for research and research applications addressing the earth's
    water budget, climate change, and precipitation prediction, including
    information on flooding and severe storms. It is essential that the
    scientific community and emergency managers have long term and
    consistent, nationwide hydrologic data sets. Application of these data
    is critical, not only for the safety of our citizens, but because the
    potential threat of weather and climate disruptions is significant to
    our economy. Both the federal government and the private sector
    estimate the impact of weather and climate events to be $2.0 trillion
    of the approximately $10.0 trillion U.S. economy. I would like to
    comment on the following USGS programs that are of vital importance to
    our national hydrologic record:
                         water resources investigations
        Reliable and accurate water data are of paramount importance in
    understanding climate trends and in making daily, critical decisions
    that impact public health and safety. Whether pertaining to droughts,
    floods or water quality, basic hydrologic data collected by the USGS
    are vitally important to water resource planning and the design,
    construction and operation of many projects. As we witnessed last year
    in the Houston area, for example, flooding is obviously a significant
    natural hazard to life, property and the environment, and will become
    even more significant as our population increases. Within Water
    Resources Investigations, two programs in Hydrologic Monitoring,
    Assessments and Research are of vital importance to society; both are
    cut in the Administration's fiscal year 2003 Budget Request as detailed
    below:
    National Streamflow Information Program
        The National Streamflow Information Program within Water Resources
    Investigations provides data from 7,000 USGS streamgages on the quality
    and flow of water within the nation's rivers. This information meets
    the needs of many diverse users including the National Weather Service,
    which uses it to produce flood warnings and drought forecasts, and the
    research community which uses the data to study long-term trends. The
    long-term record is necessary for researchers and managers to
    understand climate change and to validly assess regional vulnerability
    to changing water supplies.
        The fiscal year 2003 request for this small, but critical program
    is below the fiscal year 2002 allocation. The $2.1 million proposed
    decrease would necessitate the elimination of approximately 130
    streamgages in operation nationwide. In order to have a comprehensive,
    long-term, viable national record, data coverage and flow must not be
    uninterrupted. An accurate understanding of our nation's water
    resources simply cannot be produced if the observation system is turned
    off and on. I urge the Committee to appropriate fiscal year 2003
    funding for the National Streamflow Information Program at the fiscal
    year 2002 level of $14.31 million, at a minimum, thereby allowing the
    continuation of this vital data collection system at current levels.
    Hydrological Networks and Analysis
        The Hydrologic Networks and Analysis program within the Water
    Resources Investigations Program provides extensive data and analytical
    studies on the quantity and quality of water in the nation's aquifers,
    lakes and streams. Again, the long-term record is critical to our
    understanding of climate change and to our ability to validly assess
    regional vulnerability to changing water supplies and water quality.
    Particularly important for water resource protection following the
    events of September 11, this program is a vital component in our
    country's efforts to protect life, property, and the national economy.
    Instead of being expanded as might be called for in these times, the
    fiscal year 2003 request for this program represents a $1.0 million cut
    from fiscal year 2002 levels. I urge the Committee to appropriate
    fiscal year 2003 funding for Hydrological Networks and Analysis at the
    fiscal year 2002 level of $24.88 million, at a minimum, thereby
    allowing the continuation of this vital activity at current levels.
                                   conclusion
        At the proposed budget levels, the agency will not be able to hold
    constant, much less expand or modernize, the observing stations that
    are critical for accurate and consistent, national hydrologic data
    sets. Last year Congress rejected proposed cuts to the science programs
    of the USGS. I urge you to demonstrate that support this year, and
    again reject these cuts. Thank you for your attention to the
    recommendations of our community concerning the fiscal year 2003 USGS
    budget.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Council for Science and the
                                  Environment
                                    summary
        The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) thanks
    the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
    for the opportunity to provide testimony on the U.S. Geological Survey
    budget request for fiscal year 2003.
        NCSE urges Congress to restore full funding for the U.S. Geological
    Survey at or above fiscal year 2002 levels (after adjusting for
    inflation and changes in employee benefits) and to provide new funding
    to support the agency's critical role in homeland security. Our
    national interests will be served if Congress provides adequate
    resources for the USGS to fulfill its mission of providing unbiased
    scientific information that benefits every citizen.
        NCSE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that has been working
    since 1990 to improve the scientific basis for environmental
    decisionmaking. Our work is endorsed by nearly 500 organizations,
    ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the Sierra Club, including
    the National Association of Attorneys General, National Association of
    Counties, some 300 colleges and universities, and more than 80
    scientific and professional societies. As a neutral science-based
    organization, NCSE promotes science and its relationship with
    decisionmaking but does not take positions on environmental issues
    themselves.
        We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's sustained support for the
    U.S. Geological Survey. NCSE is especially grateful for the
    Subcommittee's leadership in restoring past cuts in the USGS budget.
                    federal investments in environmental r&d
        Federal investments in R&D and science education are essential to
    the future well-being and prosperity of the nation and deserve the
    highest priority of the Congress. The long-term prosperity of the
    nation and the maintenance of our quality of life depend on a steady
    and growing commitment of federal resources to science and technology.
        Environmental R&D is a critical component of the nation's R&D
    portfolio and plays a major role in homeland security. Based on NCSE's
    Handbook of Federal Funding for Environmental R&D, we estimate that
    federal funding for environmental R&D in fiscal year 2002 is
    approximately $7.5 billion, an increase of $315 million or 4.4 percent
    relative to fiscal year 2001 (Table 1). Federal funding for
    environmental R&D grew at less than one-third the rate of total R&D,
    which increased by 13.5 percent to $103.7 billion in fiscal year 2002.
        More than 120 business, scientific and environmental leaders as
    well as university and college presidents signed a letter to President
    Bush calling for significantly increased funding for scientific
    programs about the environment at the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
    Forest Service, Department of Energy, and other agencies. We encourage
    Congress to support this initiative.
                homeland security and the u.s. geological survey
        The USGS has tremendous strength in areas that are critical to
    homeland security, such as protecting water resources and producing
    digital maps that are needed for assessing terrorist threats and
    responding to terrorist attacks. The significance of USGS research to
    homeland security is reflected by the fact that its report on ``Source-
    Area Characteristics of Large Public Surface-Water Supplies in the
    Coterminous United States,'' has been withdrawn from approximately 300
    federal depositories. FBI agents visited several libraries to ensure
    that the document was truly removed from circulation.
        After September 11, the USGS provided more than 100,000 topographic
    maps as well as digital geospatial information and Landsat images to
    emergency response, law enforcement, intelligence, and defense
    agencies. The USGS produces a set of 55,000 topographic maps that
    provides the nation's only comprehensive coverage of the nation's
    infrastructure, including highways, bridges, dams, power plants,
    airports, railroads, and major buildings. The average age of the
    topographic maps is 23 years. The USGS National Map would bring this
    asset into the 21st century. Accelerated investments in the National
    Map--which involves partnerships with federal, state, and local
    agencies and the private sector--will pay dividends to homeland
    security, economic development, natural resource management, and many
    other national needs.
        Unlike many other federal agencies, the USGS did not receive
    supplemental emergency appropriations following September 11 and its
    fiscal year 2003 budget request contains no new funding related to the
    President's top priorities of homeland security and the war on
    terrorism. Some of the largest cuts in the USGS budget request are in
    areas related to homeland security, such as the dispersal of toxic
    substances in lakes, streams, and aquifers. At a time when the Federal
    Government is allocating tens of billions of dollars in emergency
    supplemental appropriations for homeland security, we urge Congress to
    explore the role of the USGS in homeland security and counterterrorism
    and to provide full funding for its responsibilities in these critical
    areas.

                                      TABLE 1.--ENVIRONMENTAL R&D BY FEDERAL AGENCY
                                        [Budget authority in millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Environmental R&D               Change from fiscal
                                                   --------------------------------------------  year 2001 (percent)
                                                                    Fiscal year                ---------------------
                        Agency                     --------------------------------------------      Fiscal year
                                                                                               ---------------------
                                                       2000       2001       2002       2002       2002       2002
                                                      actual    estimate   request    enacted    request    enacted
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    National Aeronautics and Space Admin..........     $1,690     $1,716     $1,515     $1,573      -11.7       -8.3
    Department of Energy..........................      1,502      1,774      1,398      1,862      -21.2        5.0
    National Science Foundation \1\...............        671        752        829        829       10.2       10.2
    Environmental Protection Agency...............        558        609        569        702       -6.5       15.4
    Department of Defense.........................        399        450        382        410      -15.1       -9.0
    Department of Commerce--NOAA..................        643        726        772        836        6.4       15.3
    Department of the Interior....................        618        631        593        673       -6.1        6.5
    U.S. Department of Agriculture................        370        410        411        451        0.2        9.9
    National Institutes of Health.................         60         63         70         81       11.7       28.4
    Department of Transportation..................         37         41         61         71       47.0       72.2
    Smithsonian Institution.......................         14         14         14         14        1.4        1.4
    Corps of Engineers............................         11         10         11         11        1.4        1.4
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...................................      6,573      7,197      6,624      7,512       -8.0        4.4
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NSF Environmental R&D provided by NSF.
    Source: AAAS/NCSE estimates of environmental R&D based on enacted appropriations bills, OMB R&D data, Budget of
      the United States Government, agency budget documents, and information from agencies.

           u.s. geological survey budget request for fiscal year 2003
        The National Council for Science and the Environment urges Congress
    to restore full funding for the U.S. Geological Survey at or above
    fiscal year 2002 levels (after adjusting for inflation and changes in
    employee benefits) and to provide new funding to support the agency's
    critical role in homeland security. The President's fiscal year 2003
    budget request for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is $867 million, a
    decrease of $47 million or 5.1 percent relative to fiscal year 2002.
    Maintaining and increasing the USGS budget is especially important in
    light of the events of September 11. Our national interests would be
    served if Congress provides adequate resources for the USGS to fulfill
    its mission of providing unbiased scientific information that benefits
    every citizen.
        At a congressional hearing on March 7, 2002, members of the House
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies expressed
    a strong desire to restore funding for the USGS. Chairman Joe Skeen (R-
    NM) said that the ``whole subcommittee'' shared his concern over the
    proposed cuts. Ranking Minority Member Norman Dicks (D-WA) said he was
    ``extremely disappointed'' with the proposed cuts and added that
    Congress ``wisely rejected'' cutting the USGS budget last year. NCSE is
    grateful to the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Interior and Related Agencies for their efforts to restore funding for
    the USGS.
        The President's fiscal year 2003 budget request would cut nearly
    every major line item in the USGS's budget. The budget request would
    cut funding for Water Resources by 13.6 percent, Biological Research by
    3.6 percent, Geologic and Mineral Resources by 3.5 percent, and
    Mapping, Remote Sensing and Geographic Investigations by 3.0 percent.
    The proposed cuts would have negative impacts related to homeland
    security; natural hazards mitigation; water, energy, and mineral
    resources; invasive species; the national spatial data infrastructure;
    and other areas.
        Water Resources programs would receive a disproportionate share of
    cuts in the USGS budget request. The budget request calls for cutting
    the Toxic Substances Hydrology Research Program by 28.2 percent from
    $13.9 million to $10.0 million and transferring the funds from the USGS
    to the National Science Foundation for a water quality research grants
    program. The Toxic Substances Hydrology Research Program is integral to
    the success of numerous USGS projects across the United States. In the
    absence of a fully vetted plan that meets the needs served by the Toxic
    Substances Hydrology Research Program, NCSE opposes the proposed budget
    cut and transfer of the program.
        The National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) would
    decrease by $5.8 million or 9.2 percent to $57.3 million. The decrease
    in funding would terminate activities in several large river basins and
    aquifers. The USGS proposes to ``offset this decrease with funding
    contributions from NAWQA customers and beneficiaries,'' but it is not
    clear if other agencies, especially state agencies, would have the
    funds needed to offset the cuts in the USGS budget.
        The budget request would also cut the National Streamflow
    Information Program by 14.6 percent, which would eliminate funding for
    130 streamgages that are used for predicting floods and droughts, as
    well as other purposes. As in past years, the budget request would
    eliminate all funding for the Water Resources Research Institutes. Full
    funding for USGS water resources programs will help maintain access to
    safe drinking for all Americans.
        Thank you very much for your interest in improving the scientific
    basis for environmental decisionmaking.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
        The American Institute of Biological Sciences appreciates the
    opportunity to submit this written testimony to the Senate Subcommittee
    on Interior and Relation Agencies Appropriations. AIBS is an umbrella
    organization for 86 scientific societies with a collective membership
    of over 240,000 scientists who studies all facets of the biology of the
    natural world--from basic to applied, from molecular to organismal,
    from agronomy to zoology.
        The agencies, programs, and amounts involved in this request are:
      --U.S. Geological Survey.--We recommend a funding increase of 4
            percent over fiscal year 2002 and full funding of
            uncontrollables
        --USGS Biological Resources Division: 4 percent plus
                uncontrollables
        --Retain the Toxics Hydrology Research Program within the USGS
      --USDA Forest Service, Forest and Rangeland Research.--We recommend
            an increase of 4 percent over fiscal year 2002, full funding of
            uncontrollables, and additional increases as are needed to
            mitigate the Administration's requested re-directs
      --Smithsonian Institution.--We recommend an increase of 4 percent for
            the research program, and we request language prohibiting the
            transfer of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center and
            the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute to the National
            Science Foundation
        United States Geological Survey.--The U.S. Geological Survey is
    facing a proposed decrease of $47 million (5.4 percent) from fiscal
    year 2002. We are opposed to a decrease in the USGS budget. We urge the
    Committee to instead fund a modest increase of 4 percent over fiscal
    year 2002 for USGS, in part because many USGS research programs
    contribute to homeland security, but generally because the USGS
    provides the nation with research vital to the well-being of our
    watersheds, biological diversity, and human health.
        We also oppose:
        The proposed transfer of the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program to
    NSF.--The Toxic Substances Hydrology program focuses on the fate and
    effect of toxic substances. These biogeochemical are critical
    components of biological restoration programs such as those in the
    Everglades and the CALFED Bay Delta. We oppose this proposed transfer
    to the National Science Foundation (NSF), together with the proposed
    decrease from $14 million to $10 million. We of course have great
    respect for NSF, but NSF is not a suitable home for this kind of
    research. At NSF, grant duration is much shorter than the necessary
    duration of a study of the transport and fate of toxic substances and
    there is no assurance that the funds will remain segregated at NSF for
    this research. We would also point out that this kind of research is a
    critical component of homeland security, in that an attack on our water
    supply would, in terms of detection, monitoring, and remediation, be
    based upon the research conducted under this program.
        The reduction in the State Water Resources Research Institutes of
    $6 million, which would eliminate all federal support (a match of one
    Federal dollar for $2 from non-federal sources) for the 54 State Water
    Resources Research Institutes. Studies on key phenomena of ecological
    systems, such as hydrodynamics, salinization, and eutrophication, along
    with research on soil and water microorganisms, plants, and other biota
    typify the interdisciplinary nature of this program. This peer-
    reviewed, competitive research program yields high-quality research
    vital to the management of the our most important natural resource.
        The proposed $5.8 million reduction to the National Water Quality
    Assessment Act funding, which will result in the elimination of 6 of 42
    study units, and will result in a decrease in this program's collection
    of data on stream habitat and aquatic life. NWQA monitoring data are
    fundamental to a wide variety of federal and state water quality
    programs.
        The proposed $2.1 million reduction in the National Streamflow
    Information Program.--Streamgaging provides critical information for
    flood alerts, flood management, drought warnings, and water-supply
    planning. There is no justification for a reduction in this program.
        For the USGS Biological Resources Division (BRD), we oppose the
    following cuts:
      --$0.5 million added by Congress in fiscal year 2002 to the BRD's
            existing amphibian research and monitoring program, which would
            continue, but at slower pace. The decline of amphibians is an
            urgent problem; the research should continue as rapidly as
            possible, especially given that it may be found that the causes
            for the declines are also a threat to human health or the
            health of other life on earth. This funding should be regarded
            as an addition to base.
      --$0.5 million fiscal year 2002 appropriation for ballast water
            research, which studies ways to prevent the introduction of
            non-native invasive species through ballast water, would be
            eliminated. This kind of research is critical for every state
            with coastal or inland ports. It is far less expensive to
            prevent and control invasive species than it is to eradicate
            them once they have become established. We see no valid reason
            for eliminating this funding; it should be regarded as addition
            to base.
      --The single largest cut would transfer $2.8 million in fire science
            research funding to a Wildland Fire Management account in the
            Bureau of Land Management budget. Placing research funding
            under the control of a management agency could make it more
            difficult for the USGS to access funding for the fire research
            priorities identified by USGS. We would suggest that the
            Committee include a directive to the Department of the Interior
            that these funds are to be used only for fire science.
        Two non-research aspects of the USGS budget would affect the
    research program. First, the proposed budget would continue to erode
    programs by absorbing part of the ``uncontrollables'', which consist of
    inflationary costs such as salary increases. For fiscal year 2003, BRD
    is being asked to absorb 54 percent of these costs in its budget for
    Biological Information Management and Delivery. This will obviously
    result in a reduction in the transfer of information to federal land
    and natural resource managers and other users of USGS research. The
    transfer of information is as critical as the generation of
    information. Further, a $214,000 reduction in travel and transportation
    costs will limit the ability of BRD scientists to participate in
    scientific meetings. The ability of USGS scientists to attend
    scientific meetings is already greatly reduced. We ask the subcommittee
    to fully fund USGS uncontrollables and provide an appropriation that
    will allow a reasonable level of participation in scientific meetings
    and other, related travel, by USGS scientists.
        Second, the USGS budget includes a $6 million ($967,000 for BRD)
    reduction for management reform, although the specifics of this reform
    had apparently not been developed at the time of the budget release.
    The management savings apparently entails, in part, the establishment
    of target goals for reduction in staffing. It is not known if the
    staffing reduction effort mandated by the competitive sourcing
    process--a key element of President Bush's management agenda--will
    include research positions. Whether or not research positions will be
    subject to competitive sourcing, the establishment of an a priori
    target suggests that the real goal is actually staff reduction, rather
    than (as claimed) an improvement in performance. It cannot be assumed
    that a program will lose to an outside competitor, so there is no basis
    for setting a target for staff reductions. Further, it is not a genuine
    savings, because all or substantially all of this funding would be
    needed to pay outside contractors. We respectfully ask the Committee to
    reject this reduction.
        We support the continued appropriation for several increases from
    fiscal year 2002, including the $3.4 million allocated for priority
    research for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Funding increases in
    fiscal year 2002 for the National Biological Information Infrastructure
    and the GAP Analysis program are also retained. We support the
    continued appropriation for these programs.
        Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Research.--The Administration
    has requested $254 million for FS Forest and Rangeland research, a net
    increase of $1.9 million over fiscal year 2002, an increase of under 1
    percent. This will not even cover inflationary costs, so research
    programs will be eroded unless a larger increase is appropriated.
    Moreover, five new initiatives comprise $37.8 million of this funding,
    meaning that $35.9 million (14 percent) of existing research would be
    terminated. We recognize the importance of the work to be done with the
    redirected funds, particularly the forest inventories, but we have
    strong concerns about the likely effects of these redirects. Specific
    reductions in just the Southern and Pacific Northwest research stations
    include termination of 16 research work units, workforce reduction of
    325 full-time permanent employees, closure of the Coweeta Hydrologic
    Laboratory in North Carolina (which is also an NSF-funded Long-term
    Ecological Research site), elimination of three labs that conduct
    research on longleaf pine ecology, management, and restoration, and the
    elimination of another dozen programs in Vegetation Management and
    Research and Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air Research across the
    country, along with a half-dozen projects in Resource Valuation and Use
    Research. We urge the Committee to increase fund the mandated forest
    inventory and assessment separate and apart from any increase for
    Forest and Rangeland Research, in order to blunt the effect of the
    redirects. We doubt that it was the intent of the Forest and Rangeland
    Renewable Resources Act of 1978 to conduct forest inventories at the
    expense of other valuable forest research.
        We also urge the Committee to increase funding for Forest and
    Rangeland research. In fiscal year 2002, the only increase appropriated
    for this program (4.7 percent) covered inflationary increases. To fund
    the administration's initiatives, apart from the forest inventories, an
    increase of 6.6 percent is needed. Together with a modest increase for
    inflationary expenses, an increase of approximately 10 percent is
    needed to maintain the current level of Forest and Rangeland Research.
        Smithsonian Institution.--Although the Smithsonian's budget request
    shows an increase of $30 million over fiscal year 2002, the research
    programs stand to be cut under the proposed budget. The administration
    is proposing a cut in the research programs to below fiscal year 2001
    levels. Funding for the Smithsonian`s research programs increased by
    only 0.75 percent in fiscal year 2002. A small decrease for collections
    is also proposed. These are programs of national prominence and should
    not be permitted to deteriorate. Moreover, there are likely to be
    additional decreases that have not been allocated to specific parts of
    the Smithsonian budget at this point, because the overall Smithsonian
    budget includes a $12.75 million shortfall that results from a failure
    of the administration to request funding to cover inflationary
    increases (which the Smithsonian calls ``mandatories''). We therefore
    request that the Committee reject these proposed cuts, fully fund the
    mandatory increases, and appropriate a modest increase to the
    Smithsonian research programs.
        In December, the administration considered transferring the
    Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) and the Smithsonian
    Tropical Research Institute(STRI) to the National Science Foundation.
    Although the administration`s budget request does not, in fact, propose
    these transfers, the administration is apparently still considering
    this option, as evidenced by the language it the budget message: ``An
    outside groups will be appointed to recommend how much of the funds
    directly appropriated to the Smithsonian for scientific research should
    be awarded competitively. Following the review, if appropriate, the
    Administration will submit its request to transfer necessary amounts
    from the Smithsonian to the National Science Foundation. Any
    transferred funds would be available directly to the Smithsonian to
    ease the transition in 2003 and then made available for competition in
    future years.'' We suggest the Administration's justification is not
    supported by the facts. Virtually all of the research funding at SERC
    and 90 percent of STRI's research funding is obtained from competitive
    research programs. The funding derived from appropriations is base
    funding for these research centers, which will have to significantly
    increase overhead rates (currently at an extremely low 28 percent) to
    replace the lost base funding, meaning that there is no savings of
    federal funds. Further, if they are unable to replace a sufficient
    amount of base, the programs will be destabilized and there is likely
    to be a loss of research staff. The Smithsonian researchers are
    certainly among the nation's best and brightest. If federal research
    positions are perceived as unstable career options, researchers of this
    caliber are unlikely to consider federal service as a viable option.
    For STRI, a transfer of the base funding is far more problematic,
    because 90 percent of STRI's base funding is provided by direct federal
    support through the Smithsonian Institutions' budget. We wish to point
    out that STRI--which has trained countless leading biologists and
    ecologists in the United States--is invaluable as a long-term
    ecological research center, as it dates back to 1923. Therefore, STRI
    is of unique value for ecological and biological research. We
    respectfully request that the Committee prohibit the Administration
    from using transferring appropriated funds for these research programs
    to the National Science Foundation.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Society
        The wildlife society appreciates the opportunity to submit
    testimony on the fiscal year 2003 budget for the U.S.G.S. Biological
    Resources Division (BRD). The Wildlife Society is the association of
    professional wildlife biologists dedicated to responsible wildlife
    stewardship through science and education. The Society is interested in
    all aspects of federal science programs that affect wildlife and
    habitat management.
        The Wildlife Society believes that management of our nation's
    public lands and wildlife resources should be based on the best
    available science. As space and habitats are lost to urban and suburban
    sprawl, agriculture, and as our nation's needs for energy and natural
    resources grow, it is more critical than ever that we maintain a strong
    research agency in biological sciences, to meet the information needs
    of federal and state resource managers. It was with this intent that
    the U.S.G.S. Biological Resources Division was established.
        Since fiscal year 1994, the base level of funding for BRD has
    lagged approximately $36 million behind the rate of inflation,
    preventing BRD from meeting the basic research needs of the natural
    resources community. Assuming a 3 percent annual inflation rate, fiscal
    year 2003 appropriations for BRD would need to be $218 million just to
    be equivalent to 1994 appropriated levels. The Administration's fiscal
    year 2003 budget request for the BRD however is only $160.481 million,
    a decrease of $5.908 million from fiscal year 2002. Thus the
    President's request for BRD is $58 million below 1994 levels in real
    dollars, continuing the reduction in budgetary support for high
    priority national biological research.
        In addition to budget cuts, BRD is proposing to absorb
    approximately $2 million of $3.7 million in ``uncontrollable costs.''
    This $2 million reduction will result in significant losses in
    operational funds. The Wildlife Society recommends that Congress
    provide an additional $2 million to fully fund uncontrollable costs in
    BRD.
        The Wildlife Society is concerned about the proposed $2.8 million
    reduction in fire science research. This research program focuses not
    only on prescribed fire, fire prevention, and restoration of habitats,
    but also on long-term studies of fire-prone ecosystems and the wildlife
    dependent upon them. It is the intent of USGS to rely on the
    Interagency Fire Science Fund for continuation of this work. We do not
    believe this represents an effective approach for long-term funding, as
    these funds must be negotiated annually. Research of this nature is too
    crucial to the health of our public lands, human safety and property to
    be without stable and predictable funding. The Wildlife Society
    recommends that Congress restore $2.8 million for this effort.
        The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRU) provide
    federal-state-private partnerships, and leverage federal funds for
    important fish and wildlife research. Many state and federal natural
    resource managers depend on the CFWRUs for their science information
    needs. In the mid-1990s, continuing shortfalls in appropriations to
    cover mandated salary increases forced the CFWRUs to leave staff
    positions vacant. A 5-year strategy to fill those critical vacancies
    resulted in full staffing of the CFWRUs in 2002. However, we are now
    facing the second consecutive year of funding shortfalls to cover
    ``uncontrollable costs,'' and once again the CFWRUs will be faced with
    loss of critical staff positions. The Wildlife Society recommends
    appropriating an additional $1 million above the President's request
    for fiscal year 2003 for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
    Units.
        The Wildlife Society is pleased that the President has proposed
    continued funding for the GAP Analysis and the National Biological
    Information Infrastructure (NBII). These joint partnerships with state
    fish and wildlife agencies and others are resulting in the compilation
    of environmental data from a variety of sources into one comprehensive
    database, and are excellent illustrations of the partnering efforts
    intended when BRD was created.
        There are also several emerging issues that require research
    attention and deserve startup funds for pilot studies, in order to
    illustrate the merit in making them primary initiatives in the future.
    These include research in integrated bird conservation to advance the
    North American Bird Conservation Initiative; research on invasive
    species; research on the increasing episodes of wildlife disease
    outbreaks; and monitoring the impacts of accelerated energy development
    on wildlife habitats and migration corridors. To address these critical
    issues, The Wildlife Society recommends that Congress appropriate for
    the BRD $1 million for integrated bird conservation, $1 million for
    invasive species, $1 million for research in wildlife disease, and $2
    million for research on the impacts of accelerated energy development
    on wildlife habitats and migration corridors.
        Finally, for several years there has been discussion about the
    savings projected for fiscal year 2003 as a result of ``organizational
    restructuring and workforce balancing'' in BRD and other USGS
    divisions. The Wildlife Society would applaud any improvements in
    efficiency, but is concerned that resources simply would be shifted
    from one operational program to another, or from operational programs
    to administration or overhead, with no actual improvements resulting
    from the exercise. Since this restructuring may occur by the time the
    2003 budget is enacted, we urge you to determine whether it will result
    in changes to biological research programs, recommend that you instruct
    USGS to report to you and stakeholders on these efforts.
        Thank you for considering the views of wildlife professionals.
                                     ______

       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. This
    statement requests the Subcommittee to provide $7,354,000 to the U.S.
    Geological Survey for the state water resources research institutes
    program.
        First, 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. In addition, I want to acknowledge the
    leading role you and your colleagues have played in efforts to ensure
    that the U.S. Geological Survey remains the nation's natural resources
    science agency.
        As you know, Public Law 106-374, passed in 2000, reauthorizes
    appropriations for The Water Resources Research Act through fiscal year
    2005. In passing this reauthorization, Congress recognized 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
    2003 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 $84,000. In addition, it would provide for a modest
    increase in the highly popular competitive grants program.
                                 justification
        The events of September 11, 2001, have justifiably turned the
    nation's attention to Homeland Security and reordered many of our
    national priorities. Yet, we must not lose sight of the importance of
    our natural resources--especially our water resources--to national
    security. Both our physical survival and our economic survival depend
    on an adequate supply of high quality water.
        Like September 11, some of the greatest threats to our water
    resources have taken us by surprise. It was a revelation when MTBE
    began turning up in high levels in groundwater across the country. The
    additive was heralded as a protector of air quality, but its mobility
    and persistence in the environment and its ability to spoil the odor
    and taste of our groundwater and perhaps even render groundwater toxic
    was unforeseen. It was a shock when the great hypoxic zone in the
    Northern Gulf of Mexico, caused by nutrient overloading in the
    Mississippi River Basin, manifested itself in decreased shrimp harvests
    and other impacts on fisheries. It was a shock to many when toxic forms
    of algae began despoiling shellfish and attacking finfish in our
    coastal rivers and estuaries.
        Gone unchecked, such unexpected and unintended consequences of
    human activity threaten our security as surely, though not as overtly,
    as purposeful terrorism. How can we hold unintended threats to water
    resources in check? We can try to predict more often and more carefully
    the results of our activities, and we can try to stop the harmful
    processes we have already put into motion. Both require targeted
    research. It is precisely such targeted research that the water
    resources research institute program fosters and supports.
        While threats to water security such are often national in scope
    and are frequently the result of activities that take place far away
    from the people they impact, the effects are always local. MTBE
    contamination may be spread across the country, but its impacts on
    sources of drinking water and water for commercial and industrial uses
    are felt at the community level. It is at the community, the watershed,
    the region, and the state levels that water resources issues must be
    researched and addressed, and that is what water resources research
    institutes do.
        For instance, in my state, North Carolina, there are three distinct
    physiographic regions--the mountains, the piedmont, and the coastal
    plain. Name any water resource issue, and that issue will have a
    different look in each of the three regions. Therefore, research on
    best management practices to control erosion and sedimentation
    pollution of streams in the piedmont, cannot be transferred unmodified
    to the mountain region, where slopes are steeper, weather is wetter,
    and soils are different. To protect the pristine quality of our
    mountain streams--and the tourist business they bring--we at the North
    Carolina WRRI must target research on erosion and sediment control best
    management practices for that growing region.
        Similarly in Washington where restoration of economically valuable
    salmon fisheries is such a major local issue, research on ways to
    restore salmon habitat must be highly region-specific. In locations in
    New Mexico where saline water is more plentiful than freshwater, highly
    site-specific research is needed to take economic advantage of the
    available water resource--as through brackish water aquaculture and
    growth of nutritional marine algae. In Pennsylvania, where Appalachian
    streams have not responded as expected to reduced sulfur emissions,
    research must be highly targeted to understand why the lag has occurred
    and what the consequences might be. In Ohio, where abandoned coal mines
    are leaking acid drainage into surface waters, highly targeted research
    promises a way to seal the mines with a grout made of flue gas
    desulfurization waste that would otherwise go to landfills.
        State water resources research institutes are able to focus
    research on local issues like these because they keep their ears to the
    ground, maintaining close ties to state, regional, and local agencies
    that recognize emerging problems, and because they can marshal local
    research expertise from universities throughout their states.
        Funding for water resources research institutes provides the
    incentive that states and others need to investigate local problems. In
    2001, every dollar appropriated to the state institutes through the
    section 104(b) grants was matched with $21.33 from other sources,
    including $11.73 from state, local, and private sources. An investment
    of $3.5 million by Congress resulted in total revenues to institutes of
    $75.3 million The state institute program does not provide any indirect
    costs to universities, unlike most federal research programs. All of
    the funding goes to support the goals set forth in the Water Resources
    Research Act. In 2001, institutes devoted 61 percent of their total
    funds to research and sponsored 927 research projects across the
    nation.
        The work of the water resources research institutes is not limited
    to identifying local, regional, and state water problems and arranging
    research to address the problems. Once research is completed,
    institutes also see that the results are transferred to people in
    federal, state, and local agencies who will put the results to work. In
    fiscal year 2001, 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 and the
    public.
        Institutes also help support workforce development for agencies
    such as the USGS, the EPA, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
    Service, and state environmental and conservation agencies by educating
    future water scientists. In fiscal year 2001, state institutes provided
    research support for more than 1,289 undergraduate, graduate, and post-
    graduate students.
        Finally, the state institute program, through the 104(g) grants,
    also helps to address critical water resources issues of national and
    regional significance that might not otherwise be investigated. For
    instance, here are some of the emerging issues in our area: As the
    population grows and demands on water resources become heavier, how
    will our ability to reuse water be limited by low-levels of
    pharmaceuticals, insect repellants, anti-microbials, and other
    compounds in wastewater? Can we replenish our reservoirs with highly
    treated effluent or will this practice concentrate drugs and other
    compounds to levels that are health threatening? Will wastewater
    treatment plants need to begin removing pharmaceuticals during the
    treatment process, and if so, how will they do it, and what will be the
    cost? Or consider the explosive growth over the last 2 to 3 years of
    combustion turbine electric generating plants that tend to cluster in
    locations where gas pipelines and high voltage electrical transmission
    lines intersect. Will this development have impacts on regional water
    supplies?
        Very little happens in our society that does not impact water
    resources in one way or another, and impacts are often felt far from
    the activities that cause them. However, many effects of human activity
    on water resources manifest themselves locally before the regional or
    national implications become clear. State water institutes are the
    monitors of emerging water resources problems and the best mechanism
    for addressing these problems.
        The water resources research institute program contributes
    substantially to our country's water resources security. However, our
    ability to address water resources threats is limited by the amount of
    funds available. Since the inception of the Water Resources Research
    Act, funding has decreased roughly 80 percent from the 1970s and 50
    percent from the 1980s. In constant 1996 dollars appropriations have
    plummeted from a high of $45 million in 1975 to less than $5 million
    today. For the past 10 years, appropriations for the state institute
    program have been stagnant.
        Because of the importance of state water institutes to the security
    of our water resources, the National Institutes for Water Resources
    respectfully recommend this Subcommittee provide $7.3 million to the
    U.S. Geological Survey for the state water resources research institute
    program authorized by the Water Resources Research Act.
        In addition to urging support for the state water resources
    research institutes program, I would like to discuss three very
    important water resources programs that have been eliminated or
    curtailed in the fiscal year 2003 USGS budget: the National Streamflow
    Information Program, the National Water Quality Assessment Program, and
    the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program.
        The President's budget proposes a reduction of $2.1 million for the
    National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP). This would result in
    the loss of 129 streamgaging stations across the United States,
    creating more gaps in the nation's gaging network and continuing a
    trend that seriously threatens the nation's information base for water
    management decisions and emergency warning systems. Streamgages are
    used by communities, citizens, state and federal agencies, and
    scientists for a wide variety of purposes, including flood warning
    systems, floodplain management, drought management, water supply
    planning, infrastructure design, recreational planning, and scientific
    research on climate and environmental change. The National Institutes
    for Water Resources urge the Subcommittee to provide $14.3 million the
    NSIP for fiscal year 2003.
        The National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA), which
    describes the status and trends of surface water and groundwater in
    large, representative parts of the nation, and is the only nationally
    consistent source of long-term data on U.S. water quality, provides
    important information on the status of water quality, long-term trends
    in water quality, and natural and human factors influencing these
    trends. As a result, proposed reductions, the NAWQA program would be
    forced to reduce its water quality investigations and would be unable
    to initiate planned microbial sampling designed to identify possible
    bacteria and viruses in surface-water and groundwater resources. The
    National Institutes for Water Resources urge the Subcommittee to
    maintain funding for NAWQA at $63.1 million or greater for fiscal 2003.
        The Toxic Substances Hydrology Program conducts long-term research
    to improve understanding of the behavior of contamination in rivers and
    aquifers. Programs focuses include: the efficacy of natural attenuation
    for groundwater cleanup, watershed assessments of abandoned mine
    impacts, nutrient transport in the Mississippi River basin, mercury
    contamination in the Everglades ecosystem, restoration of the San
    Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem (CALFED), transport of MTBE and
    radioactive water in groundwater, and security issues related to the
    development of sensors for detecting toxic spills or intentional acts
    of contamination that threaten water supplies. The budget proposes to
    eliminate funding for the program and to transfer its mission
    responsibilities to the National Science Foundation (NSF). As water
    science professionals the water institute directors believe that it is
    far more desirable to retain the existing USGS program and maintain
    current funding level of $13.9 million.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Weston Observatory of Boston College
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am most
    appreciative for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
    Weston Observatory of Boston College in support of the National
    Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) and the Advanced National
    Seismic System (ANSS). These programs are vital for efforts in the
    northeastern United States to mitigate the damaging effects of future
    earthquakes in the region. It is my recommendation that the U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS) appropriation for fiscal year 2003 be $75.7
    million. Of this $45.0 million should be appropriated for the base
    NEHRP program, while $33.7 million should be appropriated for ANSS. The
    former amount allows the NEHRP program to continue activities at
    current levels, while the latter amount is needed for the ANSS to make
    a real step forward toward its goals of modernizing earthquake
    monitoring in the United States and providing fast and accurate
    information for earthquake hazards mitigation. Of the $33.7 million for
    ANSS, I urge that $475 thousand be targeted for upgrades of seismic
    stations in New England and the development of a rapid seismic
    information system in the region. Such funding is necessary if Weston
    Observatory is to meet the expectations of emergency response officials
    and the general public for rapid, accurate and detailed information
    concerning earthquakes in the New England region and surrounding areas.
        As the Director of Weston Observatory and a Professor of Geophysics
    at Boston College, I oversee Weston Observatory's program to study the
    causes and effects of earthquakes in the northeastern United States, to
    quantify the seismic hazard in the region, to predict the probabilities
    and consequences of future earthquakes, and to promote earthquake
    hazard mitigation measures throughout the six New England states and
    beyond. The primary support for this vital work in natural hazards
    study and reduction comes from NEHRP funding through the USGS. I
    strongly urge you to continue this program and to expand its scope
    through increased funding for NEHRP and the ANSS.
                   earthquake monitoring needs in new england
        Weston Observatory of Boston College has been engaged in monitoring
    earthquakes in New England and vicinity for over 70 years. Since 1975,
    Weston Observatory has operated a regional network of earthquake
    monitoring stations throughout New England for the purpose of
    detecting, accurately locating and measuring magnitudes of all
    earthquakes in the region. At its height in the early 1980s, this
    network consisted of 36 seismic stations. Today, the Weston Observatory
    network consists of 12 seismic stations with at least one station in
    each of the six New England states. This regional network, combined
    with other data from about a half-dozen other seismic stations in New
    England, provides the primary data for earthquake monitoring in this
    heavily populated and economically important region of our country.
        The expectations from earthquake monitoring in the northeastern
    United States are high. In March 2001 a workshop in Hartford, CT was
    held for public officials, scientists, engineers, and representatives
    of private industry to get their input for future earthquake monitoring
    activities in the northeastern United States. Another workshop on the
    same topic was held for earthquake engineers at Weston Observatory in
    May 2001. At both of these workshops, the participants were polled
    concerning what they viewed to be the most important earthquake hazard
    mitigation needs in the northeast region of our country. The groups
    gave the highest priorities to the continued acquisition of earthquake
    data in the region, date concerning both the small earthquakes that
    occur regularly and the strong ground motions generated by the rarer,
    larger earthquakes. Also rated as a very high priority was the rapid
    dissemination of information concerning the location, magnitude, damage
    and felt effects of all earthquakes in the region. The full poll
    results from these two workshops can be found under the links called
    ``survey'' at the ANSS-Northeast Region web site http://
    www.ldeo.columbia.edu/ANSS-NE/.
        Current levels for earthquake monitoring in the northeastern United
    States are inadequate to meet these priorities specified by the
    stakeholders in the region. For example, in 2001 Weston Observatory
    received the same amount of funding for earthquake monitoring as it
    received in 1981. In 1981, Weston Observatory supported three full-time
    staff members and several students for this work. Today, earthquake
    monitoring in New England at Weston Observatory is carried out by a
    part-time seismologist (one day a week) along with an engineer to keep
    everything running, and no students are involved. Today, the complexity
    of operating and using a modern, digital seismic network is
    dramatically increased over that from 20 years ago, and the
    expectations by our stakeholders for rapid earthquake information are
    much higher now. Unfortunately, Weston Observatory is no faster at
    locating earthquakes than it was 20 years ago, simply because there has
    not yet been the investment in developing better and faster earthquake
    monitoring systems for the region. ANSS is needed to provide the extra
    funding for the required new seismic systems for New England, but this
    can only happen if there is a great increase in ANSS appropriations
    over those of the last 2 years. To date, ANSS funding has provided one
    new seismic station in New England, a welcome addition but a far cry
    from what is really needed. Let me also point out that the shortcomings
    at Weston Observatory are also faced by many other regional earthquake
    monitoring centers throughout the country.
     reducing earthquake hazard and risk in the northeastern united states
        People are becoming increasingly aware of the threat of earthquakes
    in the northeastern United States. The population is no longer
    surprised when small earthquakes are felt in the region, and the
    possibility of strong earthquakes in the region is generally
    acknowledged. An example of this is the widespread interest in a new
    map released by the USGS last year. The map is entitled ``Earthquakes
    In and Near the Northeastern United States, 1638-1998'' and is an
    attractive and informative summary of the earthquakes and earthquake
    history of the northeast. Many people understand that the probability
    of a damaging earthquake in the region is much lower than in California
    but that the probability of such an earthquake is not insignificant.
    The increased awareness of the earthquake threat in the northeast has
    stimulated the adoption of new and better earthquake provisions in
    building codes and many public agencies and private firms to include
    earthquakes in their natural hazard mitigation planning. In my opinion,
    this increased awareness in the region is a major success of past and
    current NEHRP work.
        The public need for rapid and accurate earthquake information, even
    for small earthquakes, is extremely great. For example, on October 27,
    2001 there was a small (magnitude 2.6) earthquake that was felt late at
    night in New York City. Coming just over a month after the World Trade
    Center disaster, there was a great deal of concern and confusion about
    what caused the shaking that was felt. It took a couple of hours before
    seismologists in the region were able to confirm that a small
    earthquake had occurred under the city. While New Yorkers were relieved
    that there had not been another terrorist attack, many were concerned
    because this was the second felt earthquake under New York City in less
    than a year. For government agencies that must make instant decisions
    about whether or not to deploy emergency personnel (and where), it is
    vital that accurate verification of an earthquake along with its
    epicenter and magnitude be available within minutes after an event
    occurs. This is not now possible, but it is one of the primary goals of
    the ANSS system in the northeastern part of our country.
        Increased funding for the ANSS in the northeast may also help
    scientists give better information about the possibilities of future
    earthquakes. New research at Weston Observatory indicates that felt
    earthquakes in the northeastern United States tend to cluster in time.
    When one felt earthquake of magnitude 2.7 or greater occurs somewhere
    in the region, there appears to be an enhanced chance that another felt
    earthquake will occur in New England and vicinity during the next 7
    days. Weston Observatory is now routinely updating felt earthquake
    probabilities for New England on its web page http://www.bc.edu/
    bc__org/avp/cas/wesobs/probability/earthquake__prob.html. While not an
    earthquake prediction, this type of information does give residents in
    the region an idea of when earthquakes are more likely to occur.
    Automated processing of earthquake information coupled with
    identification of times of enhanced earthquake potential will help
    people better prepare for the potential of future earthquakes since
    they will know the times when earthquakes are more likely to occur.
       the benefits of increased anss funding in the northeastern united
                                     states
        Increased NEHRP and ANSS funding in fiscal year 2003 is necessary
    if Weston Observatory is to meet the expectations of the stakeholders
    in New England and to fulfill the goals of the ANSS as outlined in USGS
    Circular 1188. Here are some of the products that would be developed at
    Weston Observatory with additional ANSS funding:
      --A system for the rapid identification, location and magnitude of
            all earthquakes in New England and vicinity.--While such
            systems already operate in other parts the United States, they
            cannot be transported without change and testing to New
            England. The changes are needed because of the widespread
            nature of both the seismic stations and the earthquakes in the
            region. Also, earthquake waves from local earthquakes often
            look somewhat different on seismic stations in New England than
            seismic waves from California earthquakes on their local
            seismic stations. Thus, automated earthquake location and
            magnitude systems that work well in California must be tuned
            and tested to work well in New England. It is our goal at
            Weston Observatory to put into place an automated system that
            can detect, identify, locate and assign the magnitude to all
            earthquakes in the region, within a few minutes of when those
            earthquakes occur. Such a system would also be useful to
            emergency management officials for cases where ground shaking
            is caused by something other than an earthquake.
      --A system for the rapid estimate of earthquake ground shaking and
            potential earthquake damage in New England and vicinity.--In
            California, such a system has already been developed. It is
            called ShakeMap, and it generates a map of estimated ground
            shaking within several minutes of when an earthquake occurs. It
            is the Weston Observatory goal to develop a ShakeMap system for
            the New England region. If coupled with an automated earthquake
            location and magnitude determination, an automated New England
            ShakeMap system could alert emergency responders about which
            areas may have been damaged when an earthquake in the region
            occurs.
      --A system for the rapid dissemination of earthquake information.--
            The two items above will only be useful to government officials
            and the general public if the information they produce is
            widely disseminated as soon as possible after an event. There
            are a large number of states in the region (six in New England
            plus New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and
            Delaware), and earthquakes in the region can affect areas in
            Canada as well as in the United States. In fact, it is likely
            that a strong earthquake centered in New England would
            simultaneously affect all of these areas in one way or another
            simultaneously. Thus, a rapid earthquake information
            dissemination system in the northeast must be capable of
            delivering its information in a coherent manner to a multitude
            of agencies and organizations. Because of the large number of
            entities involved, the development and testing of such a system
            in the northeast region requires adequate resources and time
            not currently available.
      --An automated system for estimating the probabilities of future
            earthquakes.--There are two aspects to this. The first is the
            estimation of earthquake probabilities after a significant
            earthquake occurs. All strong earthquakes, including those in
            the northeastern United States, are followed by aftershocks.
            Each aftershock itself is an individual earthquake, and while
            most aftershocks are small, some can be large enough that they
            can cause additional damage, especially to weakened structures.
            It is possible to develop a system that makes estimates of the
            probabilities of strong aftershocks following a damaging
            earthquake. This is one product that the ANSS system in the
            northeastern United States can produce. The other aspect is the
            rapid assessment of the probability of a second felt earthquake
            in New England within a week or so following a felt earthquake
            in the region. While such a system is currently in place, it is
            not yet automated. An automated system would better warn the
            public about times and places where earthquakes might be more
            likely to occur.
        As always, it is important to remember that these new products of
    ANSS funding would serve two purposes. First, they would provide
    immediate information to decision-makers at times when they need it
    most. Second, they would serve as important education and outreach
    items. It is becoming increasingly clear that the public is looking for
    web-based information about important events as soon as possible when
    they occur. Putting out all of the proposed automated earthquake
    information on web pages with links from familiar web sites like those
    of Weston Observatory and of the USGS National Earthquake Information
    Center would help educate the public about earthquake hazard and
    motivate them to take actions to minimize the potential losses from
    future earthquakes.
                                     ______

                          Minerals Management Service
                 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 will
    approach $150 million this year in research awards.
        FSU has initiated a new medical school, the first in the United
    States in over two decades. Our emphasis is 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 345 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 an institute to address Florida Coastal Marine issues.
        A Memorandum of Agreement has been signed between the Department of
    Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS), the Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection (DEP), and Florida State University (FSU) to
    create the Florida Coastal Marine Institute. The Institute, located at
    FSU, will develop and fund projects with MMS funds based upon the MOA
    with MMS. The goals of the Florida Coastal Marine 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. In addition to project
    support, funding will be used to support FSU graduate student and post-
    doctoral students in activities related to coast issues and research
    problems. Support will be matched by state funding and will be utilized
    to provide a data repository at FSU for such coastal and environmental
    data.
        In fiscal year 2003, FSU is seeking $750,000 to initiate and 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.
                                     ______

             Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforecement
         Prepared Statement of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission
        My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I am Executive Director of the
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to
    present this statement to the Subcommittee regarding the views of the
    Compact's member states concerning the fiscal year 2003 Budget Request
    for the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) within the U.S. Department of
    the Interior. In its proposed budget, OSM is requesting $57.6 million
    to fund Title V grants to states and Indian tribes for the
    implementation of their regulatory programs and $126.5 million for
    state and tribal Title IV abandoned mine land (AML) program grants. Our
    statement will address both of these budgeted items.
        The Compact is comprised of 20 states that together produce some 60
    percent of the Nation's coal as well as important noncoal minerals.
    Participation in the Compact is gained through the enactment of
    legislation by the member states authorizing their entry into the
    Compact and they are represented by their respective Governors who
    serve as Commissioners. The Compact's purposes are to advance the
    protection and restoration of land, water and other resources affected
    by mining through the encouragement of programs in each of the party
    states that will achieve comparable results in protecting, conserving
    and improving the usefulness of natural resources and to assist in
    achieving and maintaining an efficient, productive and economically
    viable mining industry.
        Over the past several years, the Commission has alerted the
    Subcommittee to a potentially debilitating trend in Title V grant
    funding. As you know, these grants support the implementation of state
    regulatory programs under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
    Act (SMCRA) and as such are essential to the full and effective
    operation of those programs. Ever since fiscal year 1995, the
    appropriation for these grants has either decreased or remained
    stagnant. Following an encouraging increase by Congress in fiscal year
    2001, OSM has failed to provide any increase for Title V grants for
    fiscal year 2003, despite the states' projected need for additional
    moneys to meet actual program expenses. In fact, OSM's fiscal year 2003
    budget request decreases available money for state Title V grants by $1
    million.
        Each year, OSM requests and receives increases in its own budget to
    meet ``uncontrollable costs'' (such as workers' compensation,
    unemployment compensation, retirement costs and pay rate increases) and
    ``fixed overhead costs''. In estimating its projected program operating
    costs, the states face these same annual increases, in addition to the
    costs associated with the escalating cost of travel and replacement of
    equipment (especially vehicles and computers). And yet, a trend has
    emerged over recent federal fiscal years where states have received no
    significant increases in the grants that are intended to support their
    programs and address inflationary concerns, with the notable exception
    of fiscal year 2001 when the states received a much-needed and well
    justified $3 million increase over OSM's proposed amount.
        For fiscal year 2003, the states (and tribes) have projected a need
    for $61.3 million for Title V grants based on a new and improved budget
    forecasting methodology. Interestingly, this forecasted amount is $1
    million less than last fiscal year's forecasted amount, which
    demonstrates the states' efforts to hold the line and to budget
    frugally and responsibly. And yet we are repaid for our efforts with an
    OSM proposal that provides for a decrease in Title V grants in fiscal
    year 2003.\1\ This is very discouraging and reflects either a lack of
    appreciation for the states' Title V funding needs or a
    misunderstanding of the Title V dilemma facing the states, and
    ultimately, OSM.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Although OSM's fiscal year 2003 budget proposes an amount of
    $57.6 million for state Title V grants, $2 million of this total has
    been specifically earmarked for the West Virginia program, leaving
    $55.6 million to allocate among all of the states and tribes (including
    West Virginia's baseline regulatory grant amount). See page 12 in the
    ``Introduction'' and page 18 in the ``Environmental Protection''
    portions of OSM's Budget Justification Document.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is essential that the states be made whole in fiscal year 2003
    and thus we are requesting Congress to appropriate the full amount
    requested by the states and tribes of $61.3 million. If not, the
    consequences of further reductions will be immediate and far-reaching
    and will result in the classic ``SMCRA Catch-22'' situation: where
    there is inadequate funding to support state programs, some states will
    be faced with either turning all or portions of their programs back to
    OSM or, in other cases, will face lawsuits from environmental groups
    for failing to fulfill mandatory duties in an effective manner, not
    unlike the present situation in West Virginia and what previously
    occurred in Kentucky and Oklahoma. Of course, where a state does, in
    fact, turn all or part of its Title V program over to OSM (or if OSM
    forces this issue based on an OSM determination of ineffective state
    program implementation), the state would be ineligible for Title IV
    funds to reclaim abandoned mine lands. This would be the height of
    irony, since the states have recently worked diligently to convince the
    Interior Department, OMB and Congress about the need to increase
    funding for state Title IV AML work.
        OSM's own Budget Justification Document acknowledges the likely
    outcome should states not receive adequate funding:

        ``Primacy States have the most direct and critical responsibilities
    for conducting regulatory operations. The States have the unique
    capabilities and knowledge to regulate the lands within their borders.
    Providing a 50 percent match of Federal funds to primacy States in the
    form of Administration and Enforcement (A & E) Grants results in the
    highest benefit and the lowest cost to the Federal Government. If any
    State relinquished primacy, OSM would have to hire sufficient numbers
    and types of Federal employees to implement the program. The cost to
    the Federal Government would be significantly higher.'' [OSM Budget
    Justification Document, ``Environmental Protection'', page 6.]

        Should the Subcommittee desire more specific information regarding
    the types of typical impacts to state programs across the Nation if
    adequate funding is not provided for state regulatory program
    implementation, please do not hesitate to contact us. Suffice it to say
    that should the proposed reductions come to pass, one of the more
    distressing outcomes resulting from inadequate Title V grant funding is
    that it will pit the states and OSM against one another as they compete
    for limited funds. Given the commitment of the states to their
    respective regulatory programs, and their role as front-line regulatory
    authorities under SMCRA, it is difficult for the states not to urge
    full funding of their programs. We believe that there should be a way
    for Congress to fund both OSM and the states, thereby assuring that the
    mandates of SMCRA are met.
        For years now, we have tried to impress upon OSM and your
    Subcommittee the value and importance of the states' estimates of
    program costs and the necessity of meeting the states' funding needs.
    Under OSM's proposed fiscal year 2003 budget, it will require all of
    the states' fiscal ingenuity and belt-tightening efforts, together with
    some difficult trade-offs, to manage our programs and resources in such
    a way that we can achieve the same level of performance that has been
    expected from us in the past. We are especially concerned about the
    impacts of this funding crisis on OSM's evaluation of state programs
    pursuant to federal oversight. How ironic it would be for the states to
    receive something less than the high marks we have consistently
    received from OSM due to reduced grant funding.
        With regard to funding for state Title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
    program grants, OSM's proposed decrease of $17 million from last year's
    amount of $144 million for non-Clean Streams/non-emergency state grants
    is very disheartening. For 3 years now, OSM has been working with the
    states and Congress toward full funding for the AML program, whereby
    the amount of receipts paid into the Fund from reclamation fees by coal
    operators each year is appropriated and then allocated to the states
    and tribes to address the myriad problems remaining in the AML
    inventory. Last year we saw the President's budget propose a $34
    million reduction for state AML grants, which Congress ultimately (and
    thankfully) restored. This year, we see a continued attempt (albeit
    less drastic) to reverse the trend once again--without justification or
    rational explanation. While we are well aware of the Administration's
    efforts to reduce the overall budget by some percentage in order to
    meet other priorities related to Homeland Security and the War on
    Terrorism, this is not the time or place to exercise such reductions
    and back track on the promise to provide adequate funding to the states
    to address AML problems.
        As the states recently reiterated to Congressional staff, OSM and
    OMB, significant progress has been made by the states in remediating
    outstanding AML problems and sites. As of September 30, 2001, the
    states have obligated 94 percent of all funds received and $1.3 billion
    worth of priority 1 and 2 problems have been reclaimed. Another $319
    million worth of priority 3 problems have been funded or completed and
    $309 million worth of noncoal problems have been funded or reclaimed.
    Of the $3.2 billion provided to the states in Title IV grant moneys,
    $2.4 billion has been used for construction or project costs and only
    an average of 15 percent of Title IV moneys were spent on
    administrative costs. However, 45 percent of priority 1 and 2 sites in
    the AML inventory remain to be reclaimed and the cost of completing
    this reclamation now approaches $6.4 billion. We would be pleased to
    present the Subcommittee with more information and analysis regarding
    these figures.
        Suffice it to say that major AML problems remain to be addressed
    and are only getting more expensive, and in some cases more extensive,
    with the passage of time due to inflation, deterioration of the sites
    and urban sprawl. The health and safety of the public is also
    increasingly at risk. It is absolutely critical to release additional
    moneys from the AML Trust Fund now in order to allow the states to
    address these problems today. The states are prepared to deliver the
    expected benefits and services to our customers under the Title IV AML
    program in a cost-effective and efficient manner and welcome the new
    opportunities presented by increased AML funding. The inventory of
    existing AML problems clearly presents the states with a challenge to
    direct whatever AML grant moneys are available to the remediation of
    these remaining problems. The states welcome that challenge and stand
    ready to proceed expeditiously as moneys continue to be allocated from
    the Trust Fund. We urge the Subcommittee to continue its commitment to
    full funding for the AML program and to increase OSM's budget by $37
    million--a $20 million increase for state Title IV (non-Clean Streams/
    non-emergency) grants over last years's amount of $144 million, for a
    total of $164 million for state/tribal grants in fiscal year 2003. This
    amount would allow ``minimum program'' states to be funded at $2
    million, the authorized allocation level established by Congress for
    these states in 1990, which we again urge the Subcommittee to restore.
    Given the fact that receipts into the AML Fund this year should average
    $285 million (exclusive of interest), we believe the suggested increase
    is a modest and appropriate one, and is clearly justified given the
    amount of AML work remaining to be done.
        We also urge the Subcommittee to support adequate funding for OSM's
    training program, including moneys for state travel. These programs are
    central to the effective implementation of state regulatory programs as
    they provide necessary training and continuing education for state
    agency personnel. Additionally, the states are key players in OSM's
    training program, providing instructors for many of the courses. IMCC
    also urges the Subcommittee to support adequate funding for TIPS and
    SOAP, two programs that directly benefit the states by providing needed
    upgrades to computer software and hardware and assistance to small
    operators in permit preparation.
        Finally, IMCC requests continuing support for the Acid Draining
    Technology Initiative (ADTI), a nationwide technology development
    program with a guiding principle of building consensus among Federal
    and State regulatory agencies, universities and the coal industry to
    predict and remediate acid drainage from active and inactive coal and
    metal mines. This collaborative effort receives funding and other
    support from industry and several federal agencies for specific
    projects. OSM has provided 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 mines and has been instrumental
    in accomplishing ADTI's goals. If each of the Interior Department
    agencies involved (OSM, BLM, and USGS) could commit $200,000 toward
    ADTI, together with other federal agencies (such as EPA, DOE and the
    Corps of Engineers), about $1 million would be available to support the
    work of this vital initiative.
        In conclusion, we want to reiterate that adequate Title V grants
    are the lifeblood of effective state regulatory programs. Should states
    be unable to operate these programs due to funding constraints, the
    federal government will be faced with the burden of operating
    regulatory programs at a substantially increased cost (generally 30 to
    50 percent more). Further, without Title V programs in place, states
    are unable to access Title IV funds. In the final analysis, it behooves
    everyone--OSM, the Congress and the states--to commit the resources
    necessary to assure strong and effective state programs that will
    achieve the purposes and objectives of SMCRA, thereby protecting the
    environment where active mining operations occur and enhancing the
    environment through remediation of past problems associated with
    abandoned mines.
                                     ______

                            Bureau of Indian Affairs
            Prepared Statement of the Tribal Law & Policy Institute
        On behalf of the Tribal Law & Policy Institute (TLPI) I am pleased
    to submit this testimony on the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations for
    Interior Department funding of the Indian Tribal Justice Act (Public
    Law 103-176) and Tribal Courts (under the Tribal Priority Allocations).
        The Tribal Law & Policy Institute (see http://www.tri,bal-
    institute.org) is an Indian owned and operated non-profit corporation
    organized to design and deliver education, research, training, and
    technical assistance programs which promote the improvement of justice
    in Indian country and the health, well-being, and culture of Native
    peoples. The Tribal Law & Policy Institute (TLPI) seeks to facilitate
    systemic change for tribal court systems while operating with minimal
    staff and overhead costs. TLPI focuses upon collaborative programs that
    provide critical resources for tribal court systems, victims assistance
    programs, and others involved in promoting the improvement of justice
    in Indian country.
                          interior department funding
    Indian Tribal Justice Act and Tribal Court Funding
        (1) +$58.4 million. Full Funding for Indian Tribal Justice Act:
    TLPI 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 reauthorized the
    Indian Tribal Justice Act for 7 more years of funding at a level of
    $58.4 million per year (see Public Law 106-559, section 202). TLPI
    strongly supports FULL FUNDING of the Indian Tribal Justice Act as
    promised in 1993. TLPI 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--nearly 10 years ago.
        (2) Tribal Courts--at least $15 million (under the Tribal Priority
    Allocations Account): TLPI 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 7 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 nonIndians, 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 10 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.
        Nearly 10 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 7 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
    fiscal year 2003 Budget Request for the Indian Tribal Justice Act and
    Tribal Courts (under the Tribal Priority Allocations). Thank you very
    much.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
                              Commission (GLIFWC)
        BIA Treaty Rights Protection/Implementation: $4,063,000 (enacted
    fiscal year 2002 plus $112,000)--Operation of Indian Programs, Other
    Recurring Programs, Resources Management, Rights Protection/
    Implementation, Great Lakes Area Resource Management.
        GLIFWC seeks to restore $285,000 that the Administration proposes
    to cut from what Congress provided in fiscal year 2002. Congress
    recognized that ``flatline'' funding, especially when coupled with
    perennial contract support costs shortfalls, threatened core
    biological, enforcement, tribal court, and public information programs.
    It provided the $285,000 to help: (a) meet rapidly increasing
    uncontrollable costs, particularly health insurance and equipment/
    vehicle repair and operational costs; and (b) restore a number of
    programs and activities that had been cut, including funding for
    fishery assessments and tribal courts. Without the $285,000, GLIFWC's
    required functions under a number of federal court decisions will again
    be jeopardized, as will its ability to participate in a number of
    conservation partnerships.
        GLIFWC seeks an additional $112,000 to equalize its law enforcement
    salaries with those of surrounding agencies. It has been losing
    officers, particularly new and recent recruits, to other higher-paying
    agencies. This results in: (a) wasteful duplicative costs for
    recruiting, training, and basic issue items (e.g. uniforms and body
    armor); and (b) loss of on-the-job knowledge and experience that
    threatens GLIFWC's role in regional emergency services networks.
        BIA Contract Support Costs: GLIFWC seeks full funding of its
    contract support costs, as it has experienced a $234,000 shortfall
    since 1995. This shortfall cuts into program funding, and the lack of
    funding certainty throughout the year further compounds its effect.
    GLIFWC's indirect cost rate has always been below 15.25 percent, and
    was 13.8 percent in fiscal year 2001. Such a low rate is difficult to
    maintain when actual funding is not known until the end of the fiscal
    year.
        BIA ``Circle of Flight'' Program: GLIFWC supports restored funding
    to Operation of Indian Programs, Other Recurring Programs, Resources
    Management, Tribal Management Development Programs, Wetlands/Waterfowl
    Management. The Administration proposes to eliminate this long-standing
    tribal contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
    Over the past 10 years, the $6.7 million provided to Tribes, including
    to GLIFWC and its member Tribes, has leveraged another $18 million--
    almost a 3 to 1 ratio--in matching federal, state, private, and other
    tribal funding for cooperative wetland enhancement projects.
        Ceded Territory Treaty Rights and GLIFWC's Role: GLIFWC was
    established in 1984 as a ``tribal organization'' within the meaning of
    the Indian Self-Determination Act (Publi Law 93-638) to assist its
    member Tribes in:
      --securing and implementing 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.
        It exercises authority delegated by its member Tribes to implement
    federal court orders and various interjurisdictional agreements related
    to their treaty rights. It serves as a cost efficient agency 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.
        Congress has funded GLIFWC for the past 15 years to meet specific
    federal obligations under: (a) a number of U.S./Chippewa treaties; (b)
    the federal trust responsibility; (c) the Indian Self-Determination
    Act; and (d) various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme
    Court case, affirming the treaty rights of GLIFWC's member Tribes.
        Under the direction of its member Tribes, GLIFWC operates a ceded
    territory hunting, fishing, and gathering rights protection/
    implementation program through its staff of biologists, technicians,
    conservation enforcement officers, and public information specialists.
    Its activities include: natural resource population assessments and
    studies; harvest monitoring and reporting; enforcement of tribal
    conservation codes into tribal courts; funding for tribal courts and
    tribal registration/permit stations; development of natural resource
    management plans and tribal regulations; negotiation and implementation
    of agreements with state, federal and local agencies; invasive species
    eradication and control projects; biological and scientific research;
    and development and dissemination of public information materials.
        Why GLIFWC's Funding Base Needs to be Restored and Increased:
    GLIFWC faces an eroding funding base that threatens its core programs.
        1. ``Flatline'' Appropriations: Prior to fiscal year 2002, GLIFWC's
    base BIA funding had remained constant since 1995. Based upon the
    Consumer Price Index, GLIFWC would need over $400,000 more today to
    equal the buying power it had in 1995.
        2. Rapidly Increasing Fringe Benefit Rates: GLIFWC faces rapidly
    increasing uncontrollable payroll costs and fringe benefit rates. For
    example, GLIFWC's health insurance costs have increased 91 percent over
    the last 5 years.
        3. Increasing Staff Seniority: GLIFWC is a mature agency. Much of
    its staff, including all of its division heads and lead biologists,
    have 10 to 15 or more years of seniority. It faces about $40,000 each
    year in uncontrollable salary ``seniority step'' increases and
    associated fringe costs.
        4. Budget Reduction and Other Cost-Saving Options Have Been
    Exhausted: To address the de facto reductions caused by ``flatline''
    funding, GLIFWC: (i) cut staff; (ii) cut back on 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.
        5. Ensure Participation in Regional Emergency Services Networks:
    GLIFWC's officers are integral partners in regional emergency services
    networks. They not only enforce the Tribes' conservation codes, but
    also work cooperatively with surrounding authorities in detecting
    violations of state or federal criminal and conservation laws.
    Moreover, they are certified medical emergency first responders,
    including in CPR and in the use of defibrillators, and are trained in
    search and rescue.
        How the Restored Base Funding Would Be Used: The $285,000 would be
    used the same in fiscal year 2003 as it was in fiscal year 2002:
        (1) Restore Cut or Reduced Programs ($145,000); \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ $100,000 to restore fall juvenile walleye recruitment surveys
    to previous levels; $30,000 to restore tribal court and registration
    station funding cuts; $10,500 to restore Lake Superior lamprey control
    and whitefish assessment programs; and $4,500 to restore GLIFWC's share
    in cooperative wildlife and wild rice enhancement projects with state
    and federal agencies, as well as with non-profit conservation
    organizations and other partners.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        (2) Replace Ageing Vehicles and Field Equipment ($100,000); \2\ and
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ With fiscal year 2002 funds, GLIFWC established a $100,000
    vehicle/equipment replacement capital fund and replaced 4 of Biological
    Services' oldest vehicles. This fund would be replenished with fiscal
    year 2003 funds to cover some of the over $200,000 in other vehicle/
    equipment replacement needs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        (3) Meet Increased Seniority ``Step'' Salary and Fringe Costs
    ($40,000).
        The additional $112,000 would be used to equalize GLIFWC's law
    enforcement salary structure (including associated fringe benefit and
    payroll expenses \3\ with those of surrounding agencies for 20
    officers, 7 that have been hired within the last 6 years and 4 that
    will be hired to fill existing openings.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ The fringe rate for GLIFWC's Conservation Enforcement Division
    is approximately 35 percent for health insurance, unemployment
    insurance, workers compensation insurance, employer's share of FICA/
    medicare contributions, disability insurance, and retirement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Public Benefits From GLIFWC's Funding: With the requested funds,
    GLIFWC will:
        1. Remain a constructive, stabilizing natural resource management
    and public safety institution: 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. It is a recognized and valued partner in
    natural resource management, in emergency services networks, and in
    providing accurate information to the public.
        2. Retain an Experienced Professional Staff: 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.
        3. Maintain cooperative, cost-effective partnerships: GLIFWC has
    built partnerships with:
      --Federal, state, and local government agencies (e.g. State DNR's,
            USFWS, USDA-FS, USDA-NRCS, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, U.S.
            Coast Guard, EPA, ATSDR, and Canadian federal and provincial
            governments);
      --Schools and Universities (e.g. University of Wisconsin-Madison,
            University of Wisconsin-Superior, Northland College, University
            of Minnesota, and Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe Community
            College); and
      --Conservation groups (e.g. Ducks Unlimited, the Sharp-Tail Grouse
            Society, the Natural Resources Foundation, the Nature
            Conservancy, and local lake associations).
        Through these partnerships, the parties have achieved public
    benefits that no one partner could have achieved alone by:
      --Identifying mutual natural resource concerns, and implementing
            joint conservation and enhancement projects (e.g. wild rice
            restoration, waterfowl habitat restoration and improvement
            projects, and exotic species control projects);
      --Providing accurate information on state and tribal harvests and on
            the status of natural resource populations (e.g. joint fishery
            assessment activities and jointly prepared reports);
      --Maximizing financial resources to avoid duplication of effort and
            costs (e.g. coordinating annual fishery assessment schedules
            and sharing personnel/equipment);
      --Contributing scientific research and data regarding natural
            resources and public health (e.g. furbearer/predator research,
            fish consumption/human health studies, and other fish
            contaminant research particularly regarding mercury); and
      --Engendering cooperation rather than competition (e.g. cooperative
            law enforcement and emergency response, joint training
            sessions, mutual aid emergency services arrangements, and
            cross-credential agreements).
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Association of Navajo Community Controlled
                                 School Boards
                          summary of anccsb's requests

                            [In millions of dollars]

    Indian School Equalization Formula................................ 359.5
    Administrative Cost Grants........................................  61.4
    Student Transportation............................................  50.0
    Facilities Operations.............................................  70.0

        Chairman Byrd and Members of the Subcommittee: This statement is
    submitted on behalf of 16 schools operated by tribally-sanctioned
    school boards of the Navajo Nation in New Mexico and Arizona who are
    members of the Association of Navajo Community Controlled School Boards
    (ANCCSB). The School Boards who support this testimony are identified
    at the end of the statement.
        Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF).--ANCCSB schools were
    alarmed and disappointed to learn that the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    (BIA) has requested a $2 million decrease in ISEF program funds.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NOTE: The information supplied by BIA regarding its ISEF
    request is incomplete. The chart showing ISEF funding history has no
    entry for either SY2002-2003 or SY2003-2004, although the BIA's
    practice has been to display its estimates for the upcoming school year
    and the school year to be funded by the budget request. Failure to
    provide data on which estimates are based makes it impossible for the
    Committee and the public to fully evaluate the BIA's budget request.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ISEF is the primary source of funds for the instructional and
    residential programs at the 185 schools and dormitories in the BIA
    system, and the budget we depend on to recruit and retain teachers and
    dorm supervisors.
        In the recent No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Congress and the
    President confirmed the federal government's trust responsibility for
    the education of Indian children in the BIA system. Yet less than one
    month after President Bush signed this law, his Administration
    submitted a budget that will make it very difficult for our schools to
    keep pace with ever-increasing costs of educational programs. How can
    our small, isolated schools compete with public schools for
    experienced, qualified teachers, buy up-to-date textbooks and provide
    the instructional services needed for Indian children with learning
    disabilities and limited English proficiency if they receive
    insufficient funds?
        In a September 2001 report, the General Accounting Office revealed
    that the BIA school system enrolls a far higher percentage of children
    who require the highest level of resources: children from low-income
    families (twice the percentage of public schools); special education
    students (40 percent higher than the national average); and children
    with limited English proficiency (seven times higher than public
    schools nationwide). While the GAO found that the BIA system has a
    higher per-pupil expenditure than the public school average, GAO did
    not examine (and therefore made no comment on) whether the funding
    supplied to the BIA system is sufficient to meet the high cost of
    educating these children. In fact, Congress, in the No Child Left
    Behind Act ordered GAO to go the next step and look at the adequacy of
    funding supplied to these federal schools.
        In past years, this Committee and BIA have both acknowledged the
    need to increase the ISEF so our schools can not only ``stay even'' but
    can actually enhance the educational programs we must offer. We urge
    the Committee to reject the BIA's proposed program decrease and to
    provide at least $10 million more for the ISEF budget to carry out the
    responsibilities established in the No Child Left Behind Act.
        Privatization Initiative.--BIA's budget proposes a new initiative
    to turn over the 64 schools still operated by BIA to tribes or to
    private management companies by 2007. The Bureau wants to start with 16
    schools in SY2003-2004. BIA says tribes will first be asked to take
    over these schools, but if the tribes do not elect to do so, BIA plans
    to hire outside managers to operate them.
        Existing tribally-operated schools are affected because the funds
    BIA seeks for the Initiative are essentially diverted from our critical
    on-going programs such as ISEF. Thus, we must ask this Committee to
    carefully consider the following questions about this Initiative:
      --$3 million requested by BIA for implementation of Initiative.--BIA
            states only that this money would be used ``to facilitate an
            aggressive plan for conversion''. This is a woefully
            insufficient description of the use of these funds, especially
            in view of the long-standing need for funding for a Tribal
            Education System for the Navajo Nation.
          BIA plans to offer financial incentives to private contractors if
            they run successful programs, presumably with money from this
            $3 million request. Why should financial incentives be offered
            only to outsiders, not to tribal school boards who are already
            operating schools under contracts and grants? Our school boards
            work very hard under difficult conditions to improve our
            students' achievement levels. If financial incentives are to be
            offered to outsiders with no connection to tribal governments
            based on the success of their programs the same opportunities
            should be made available to tribal school boards who are doing
            the same job. There is no justification whatsoever for reducing
            ISEF funds to pay extra compensation to outsiders. This would
            violate the law that directs all funds appropriated for
            instructional purposes to be distributed to all schools by
            formula.
      --$2 million for employee displacement costs--Again, full information
            is lacking. This $2 million must cover the federal employees
            who will be displaced by conversions to grant and to private
            contracting. Even if private contractors retain federal
            teachers, they will doubtless replace the federal
            administrative employees. Thus, the cost of privatization will
            consume funds that would be better used for classroom programs
            through the ISEF formula.
          It is highly unlikely $2 million will cover employee displacement
            costs at all 16 schools targeted for conversion in SY2003-2004.
            And it certainly will not cover these costs if several or all
            16 schools convert to tribal operation, which BIA says is its
            first choice. In order to properly evaluate the plan, the
            Committee should require BIA to specifically identify the
            displacement costs for each of the 16 schools it wants to
            convert. For example, Wingate School in NM (likely grant
            conversion) is a relatively large school whose employee
            displacement costs would be very high and could consume the
            lion's share of the $2 million requested for this purpose.
      --Will the small increases requested in other programs be reserved
            only for schools that must convert to tribal operation or be
            turned over to private contractors? The BIA's budget materials
            repeatedly indicate that some $11 million in its request is
            connected to the Privatization Initiative, which includes
            increases requested for Administrative Cost Grants, Facilities
            Operation and Student Transportation.
          In the case of AC Grants, we ask the Committee to assure that AC
            Grant funds are supplied ONLY to tribally-operated schools--as
            required by law--not to any school operated by a private
            contractor, and that the full appropriation for AC Grants be
            supplied to ALL tribally-operated schools, not just to the new
            ones that may convert to tribal operation under the BIA's
            Initiative.
          All funds supplied for Facilities Operations and Student
            Transportation should be available for all schools in the
            system, not just for the schools BIA wants to convert.
        Administrative Cost Grants.--BIA admits it is now paying only 70
    percent of need for AC Grants. The $3 million requested increase would
    bring that level up to only 75 percent of need. Budget p. 98-99.
        BIA says conversion to grant is its first choice. Why then does it
    create a disincentive for tribes to elect grants? Why would a school
    want to convert to grant when it knows it will receive funding to cover
    only 75 percent of its administrative costs? It appears BIA is
    advancing its desire to put schools in the hands of private managers
    rather than tribes by consciously underfunding AC Grants. All tribally-
    operated schools are at risk of failure with such insufficient funding.
        Recommendations.--Since the budget request of $46,065,000
    represents only 75 percent of need, AC Grants should be funded at
    $61,420,000 to meet 100 percent of need. If more that 3 schools convert
    to grant (the BIA's current expectation), the Committee should direct
    BIA to submit a supplemental budget request to cover the costs of
    additional conversions.
        Student Transportation.--This account funds our school bus system--
    or at least a portion of it. BIA seeks only a $2 million increase
    despite its own estimate last year that this account is $11 million
    short of need. The amount requested will produce only $2.37/mile, a 7
    cent increase over the current funding level. What the budget request
    does not reveal, however, is that the average expenditure for public
    schools was $2.97/mile 6 years ago!
        The GAO study showed that the average number of miles traveled by
    each BIA student--296 in SY1999-2000--is close to twice the distance
    traveled by a public school student (165 in SY1998-1999). And our buses
    must travel on miles of unimproved roads which tremendously increases
    our bus maintenance costs. Clearly, the $2 million requested increase
    will not begin to cover the funding shortfall in this program.
        Recommendation.--Student transportation funding should be set at
    $50 million.
        Facilities Operations.--This account is intended to cover
    utilities, heating fuel, janitorial, communications, refuse collection,
    water/sewer, fire protection, pest control and technology maintenance.
    Rarely, if ever, has enough funding been supplied to cover all these
    costs.
        Funding for this program is based on the total square feet of
    education space, but a review of the past 2 budget requests shows that
    BIA's figures on total square feet of this space do not add up. In its
    fiscal year 2002 request (p. 85), BIA said that it would support 17.8
    million sq. ft. of education space (excluding quarters) during fiscal
    year 2001. New space is added each year, and some space gets deducted
    due to demolition. A close examination of these ``adds'' and
    ``deductions'' calls into question the fiscal year 2003 statement (p.
    92) that 17.9 million sq. ft. of educational space is being supported
    in fiscal year 2002, and that 18.338 million sq. ft. will be supported
    in fiscal year 2003 (p. 98):

                                                                  Squre feet

    [Fiscal year 2001 total space, per fiscal year 2002
        budget re-
        quest]..............................................      17,800,000
    [Demolition of non-quarters space in fiscal year 2001;
        per fiscal year 2002 request, p. 222-23]............        -186,805
    [New space added in fiscal year 2002, per fiscal year
        2003 request, p. 92]................................       + 641,622
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
    [Corrected total space supported in fiscal year 2002]...      18,254,817
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    [Corrected total space in fiscal year 2002, from above].      18,254,817
    [Demolition of non-quarters space in fiscal year 2002;
        per fiscal year 2002 request, p. 245-46]............         -86,968
    [New space to be added in fiscal year 2003, per p. 98]..       + 617,375
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
    [Corrected total space to be supported in fiscal year
        2003]...............................................      18,785,224

        Even if we accept BIA's statement that it will support only 18.338
    million sq. ft. of education space in fiscal year 2003, the budget
    request is inadequate. For the past 2 years, BIA reported the per-
    sq.ft. cost as $3.37.
        At this rate, the budget request should be $62 million, not $57.7
    million. Using the more accurate total square footage of 18.8 million
    sq. ft., the budget request should be at least $63.3 million, but we
    believe the Navajo Nation's request of $70 million is more realistic.
        If all 185 schools in the federal BIA school system ever needed the
    help of this Committee it is NOW. Please make sure that Congress and
    the President keep the commitment made to Indian tribes and Indian
    children in the No Child Left Behind Act:

        ``It is the policy of the United States to fulfill the Federal
    Government's unique and continuing trust relationship with and
    responsibility to the Indian people for the education of Indian
    children and for the operation and financial support of the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs-funded school system to work in full cooperation with
    tribes toward the goal of ensuring that the programs of the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs-funded school system are of the highest quality and
    provide for the basic elementary and secondary educational needs of
    Indian children, including meeting the unique educational and cultural
    needs of those children.''----No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Title
    X, Part D, Sec. 1120.

        This statement is sponsored by the following tribally-operated
    schools of the Navajo Nation:
        Stanley Herrera, President, Alamo Navajo School Board
        Wilson Gilmore, President, Black Mesa Community School, Inc.
        George Tolth, President, Borrego Pass Community School, Inc.
        Ross Smallcanyon, President, Kayenta Community School, Inc.
        Marge Begay, President, Lukachukai Community School, Inc.
        Kavin S. Begay, Vice President, Pinon Community School, Inc.
        Jamie Henio, President, Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.
        James W. Begay, President, Rock Point Community School, Inc.
        Betty Dailey, President, Rough Rock Community School, Inc.
        Richard T. Begay, President, Shiprock Alternative Schools.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the
    record regarding the fiscal year 2003 Bureau of Indian Affairs
    education budget. I am the Executive Director of the Ramah Navajo
    School Board, Inc. (``RNSB'') located in Pine Hill, New Mexico. The
    RNSB is responsible for operating the K-12 Pine Hill School, one of the
    185 BIA-funded schools. This testimony will focus on our request for an
    additional $918,000 in the BIA's Education Facilities Improvement and
    Repair budget to complete the Pine Hill replacement dormitory project.
        The RNSB wholeheartedly supports the written testimony submitted by
    the Association of Navajo Community Controlled School Boards (ANCCSB).
    The issues discussed in the testimony of ANCCSB are critical to the
    continued operation of the tribally-controlled BIA-funded schools who
    rely 100 percent on federal funds for their operation.
        I would like to further comment specifically on the BIA's Education
    Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R) budget request with regard to
    our dormitory replacement project. The RNSB is in the unfortunate
    position of undertaking to build a replacement dormitory on its school
    campus, without the full funding the RNSB and the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs agree is needed for the project.
        Summary of the Issue.--In its fiscal year 2002 budget, BIA
    requested and received $3.8 million for a 100-student dorm. But, as BIA
    facilities personnel soon acknowledged in a letter dated August 31,
    2001, the amount needed was miscalculated, resulting in a $918,000
    funding shortfall. The square footage costs for a 72-student dorm had
    been used instead of the intended 100-student capacity. Unfortunately,
    this letter was not issued until the fiscal year 2002 appropriations
    process was nearly completed, so Congress appropriated $3.8 million as
    requested in fiscal year 2002.
        The Ramah Navajo School Board had every expectation that the BIA
    would cure the dorm funding deficiency in its fiscal year 2003
    Facilities Improvement & Repair budget request. Inexplicably, however,
    BIA did not request supplemental funding for the Pine Hill dorm in the
    fiscal year 2003 budget. The only mention of the Pine Hill dorm appears
    in the summary of the FI&R projects currently underway this year for
    which funding has already been supplied. On p. 230, the ``Pine Hill
    Dormitory'' summary reports that $3,844,000 has been supplied for a
    replacement dormitory ``to accommodate approximately 72 students, in
    grades 1-12.'' While the amount of funding appropriated is correctly
    stated, the intended dormitory size is not. The BIA and the Ramah
    Navajo School Board both agree that the Pine Hill replacement dorm must
    be able to accommodate 100 students, as stated in the fiscal year 2002
    budget request.
        The Bureau's FI&R budget seeks $164.4 million to perform several
    education-related construction projects. It is extremely unfair that
    projects at other locations have leaped ahead of RNSB's project which
    was higher in the FI&R funding queue. All we can conclude is that
    completion funding for the Pine Hill replacement dorm project fell
    through the cracks!
        We hope the Chairman and the Committee can cure this error in the
    fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill by directing the BIA to supply the
    $918,000 the BIA acknowledges is needed to complete the dorm project
    properly. Children in need of dorm housing to receive an education
    should not be the victims of an erroneous agency calculation.
        Justification for the Replacement Dorm.--BIA describes the
    condition of the existing 50-year-old dorm facility as ``dilapidated''
    and creating ``life-threatening situations''. The RNSB agrees. Our
    children deserve better.
        Our dorm facility is located 20 miles from the Pine Hill School
    where the children attend classes. Thus, we must incur daily
    transportation costs to bus students to/from their dorm. Constructing
    the new dorm on the school campus will save considerable transportation
    and facility maintenance costs as well as provide habitable living
    space for our children.
        While the existing dorm was built to hold 80 students, demand for
    residential space routinely far exceeds this capacity. We have housed
    as many as 86 students in the facility but, due to health and safety
    considerations, we try to limit dorm enrollment to 80 or 81.
        It makes little sense to build a replacement dorm that will
    accommodate fewer students than we now house, and far fewer than demand
    dictates. The funding supplied so far, however, would only meet 72
    percent of need.
        Status of the Dormitory Project.--The additional funding for the
    replacement dorm is needed in the fiscal year 2003 budget because the
    Ramah Navajo School Board has already begun the planning and design
    phase for the dormitory project. The Organizational Capability Review
    of the School Board's management and fiscal systems is complete and a
    perfect score was awarded. The BIA has supplied $296,000 for the
    planning and design phase of the project. RNSB is in the process of
    selecting a design/build contractor and expect the design phase to
    begin in April, 2002.
        Because the RNSB is utilizing a design/build method of
    construction, the actual construction of the project will begin before
    the planning and design phase is completed. The RNSB expects
    construction of the Pine Hill replacement dorm to begin in June, 2002
    with a target completion date of February 2003. Thus, we can
    immediately put to use the $3.8 million appropriated last year.
        Securing the additional $918,000 in the fiscal year 2003 budget
    will allow the RNSB to plan and design for the needed 100-student dorm.
        Overview of the Ramah Navajo School Board. In the 1970's the Ramah
    Community was one of the first Indian-run entities to take over
    operation of a defunct public high school. Eventually, a complete new
    K-12 school was established. Located on an isolated, non-contiguous
    portion of the Navajo Reservation in west-central New Mexico, the Ramah
    Community must be self-sufficient. Through the Indian Self-
    Determination Act, the Ramah Navajo School Board has used every
    opportunity to provide services to and improve the quality of life for
    the Navajo people it serves.
        Over the past 32 years, the RNSB has earned the reputation of an
    exemplary tribal organization. For decades it has successfully operated
    a K-12 school (current enrollment is 550), a dormitory housing 80
    students, a Head Start program, an IHS-funded health clinic, and
    numerous other federal programs that benefit the Ramah Navajo community
    people.
        The high quality of the RNSB's operation was most recently
    recognized when the BIA's Organizational Capability Review team awarded
    it a perfect score. The OCR evaluates the management and fiscal
    accountability systems of tribes/school boards who seek to perform BIA-
    funded school/dorm construction projects. The OCR team indicated that
    RNSB is the first school board to achieve a perfect score.
        We thank you for considering our request and hope that your
    Committee can assist us in securing the additional $918,000 that BIA
    acknowledges is needed to provide for an adequate replacement dormitory
    for our students.
                                     ______

        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
    2003 appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Specifically, we
    wish to urge the Subcommittee's favorable consideration of increased
    funding in fiscal year 2003 for the Branch of Acknowledgment and
    Research (BAR). We ask that funding be increased from a projected level
    of $1,050,000 in fiscal year 2002 to a level sufficient to provide BAR
    with at least three full research teams.
        The Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation has 150 members and a
    224-acre reservation in North Stonington, CT. The reservation was
    established in 1683 and is known as the Lantern Hill Reservation.
    Historically, however, the Tribe occupied and controlled a much larger
    land area in what is now southeastern Connecticut. Our Tribe and our
    reservation have been continuously recognized by the Colony and the
    State of Connecticut. The Tribe has been known by a number of names
    over the years: Stonington Pequots, North Stonington Pequots, Eastern
    Pequots and Paucatuck Eastern Pequots. At all times, the Tribe's
    leaders have been recognized as chiefs by the State of Connecticut and
    by other New England tribes. All of the current members of the
    Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Tribe descend from the historic tribe through
    three individuals who were members of the Tribe and resided on the
    North Stonington Reservation in the 19th century.
        As this Subcommittee knows, in 1978, a formal administrative
    process was established within the Department of the Interior for
    tribes to petition the federal government to be acknowledged as an
    Indian tribe eligible for the benefits and services accorded all
    federally recognized tribes. 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 in 1989. The Tribe submitted an extensively documented
    petition in 1994, and submitted additional supplemental documentation
    in 1996. This material includes historical, anthropological and
    genealogical data and documents; newspaper and other articles written
    over many decades which talk about the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot; oral
    histories of tribal members; information about the Paucatuck Eastern
    Pequot's tribal council meetings, governing documents and membership
    criteria; and descriptions of tribal activities and events, and issues
    in which Paucatuck tribal leaders have been active both historically
    and to the present.
        On April 2, 1998, the petition of the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot
    Tribe was placed on ``active consideration.'' On March 24, 2000,
    Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin Gover signed a positive
    Proposed Finding, recommending that the United States affirm that a
    government-to-government relationship exists between the federal
    government and the Tribe.
        On January 19, 2001, the State of Connecticut and the Towns of
    North Stonington, Ledyard and Preston filed suit against the Department
    of the Interior in the federal district court for Connecticut
    (Connecticut v. Interior). Among other things, the plaintiffs are
    seeking the unprecedented remedy of having the federal court direct the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs to set aside the Proposed Finding, and of
    forcing the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Tribe back to the start of the
    acknowledgment process.
        The Tribe sought to intervene in the litigation. On March 27, 2001,
    Judge Covello issued an order acknowledging the right of the Paucatuck
    Eastern Pequot Tribe to intervene in the litigation as a matter of
    right based on the implications of the case for our rights and
    interests.
        On March 30, 2001, Judge Covello entered a scheduling order in the
    case, which set out a schedule for the completion of the consideration
    of our petition. The scheduling order called on the BIA to comply with
    all FOIA requests filed under federal and state law by the parties to
    the litigation by May 4, 2001. This deadline was met. By August 2,
    2001, all interested parties and the petitioners submitted to the BIA
    their comments on the March 24, 2000, Proposed Findings. By September
    4, 2001, the petitioners submitted their responses to the comments on
    the Proposed Finding to the BIA. On October 4, 2001, the BIA commenced
    consideration of all of the evidence before it on the petitions, and on
    October 25, 2001, the BIA requested that Judge Covello extend the date
    for the issuance of a Final Determination from December 4, 2001 to June
    4, 2002. The Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Tribe supported the BIA's request
    for additional time to review the evidence and prepare the Final
    Determination. Judge Covello granted the BIA's request and he has
    retained jurisdiction over the processing of the Paucatuck petition and
    will do so until the process has been completed.
        In addition to Judge Covello's order, the federal courts have
    directed that BAR and BIA comply with schedules for the processing of
    four other petitions (Muwekma, Schaghticoke, Mashpee and Golden Hill
    Paugussett). If these orders remain in place, the BIA will be required
    to issue four Proposed Findings and four Final Determinations in the
    period between July, 2002 and October, 2003. Since its inception in
    1978, the BAR has issued about one Proposed Finding or Final
    Determination per year. We do not see how BAR will be able to issue the
    court ordered Proposed Findings and Final Determinations during that
    time period without a significant increase in staff and resources.
        The Tribe appreciates the efforts of members of Congress, including
    several members of the Connecticut congressional delegation, who have
    worked to provide increased funding for the BAR. We know firsthand how
    understaffed BAR is. One of our Tribe's great frustrations in the
    acknowledgment process, even when we were under ``active
    consideration,'' 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 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.
        The lack of adequate resources directly affects the timeliness and
    quality of the decisions made by the BAR staff. When we filed our
    documented petition in 1994, the BAR was operating with three full
    research teams and they were able to provide us a technical assistance
    letter in about six months. To our knowledge, that was the last year
    that the BAR was fully staffed by three research teams. In 1996, we
    filed the documentation called for in the technical assistance letter
    and were placed in the status of those petitioners who were ready and
    awaiting active consideration.
        When we were placed on active status in April 1998, we asked the
    BAR staff if they needed any additional documentation and were told not
    to file anything because they had all of the information needed. Under
    the regulations, the BAR staff and the Assistant Secretary had a year
    to issue a Proposed Finding. It took an additional year for the
    Proposed Finding to be issued. After the Proposed Finding was issued,
    Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal requested that the BAR staff
    conduct a technical assistance meeting to explain the Proposed Finding.
    At the technical assistance meeting in August, 2000, the BAR staff
    stated for the record that they had not been provided adequate time to
    review the documentation for our petition prior to the issuance of the
    Proposed Finding.
        Clearly, BAR needs additional staff in order to facilitate the
    processing of recognition determinations. While funding for additional
    staff will not necessarily make the administrative process for
    recognition less burdensome for petitioners, or 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 2003
    appropriations for the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Lukachukai Community School Board, Inc.
        This statement is submitted on behalf of the Lukachukai Community
    School Board, Inc., a tribally controlled school authorized pursuant to
    the Navajo Nation Education Committee of the Navajo Nation Council,
    Resolution No. IRGC-11-97. The School Board would like to submit the
    following requests regarding the fiscal year 2003 BIA education budget:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    Indian School Equalization Formula................................ 359.5
    Administrative Cost Grants........................................  61.4
    Student Transportation............................................  50.0
    Facilities Operations.............................................  70.0
                   indian school equalization formula (isef)
        Lukachukai Community School Board has learned that the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) has requested a $2 million decrease in the ISEF
    program. Although, the BIA's ISEF request shows an increase over the
    fiscal year 2002 appropriated level, further examination of the budget
    chart shows that the BIA actually reduced the ISEF program by $2
    million once the pay increases required by law are taken into account.
    No upward adjustments were made to keep pace with inflation or other
    costs, and these costs must now be borne by the schools.
        ISEF funds are our primary source of funds for instructional and
    residential programs, with approximately 85 percent of our ISEF funds
    being used to cover our academic and residential staff salaries. These
    mandatory salary costs leave little funds left to cover our remaining
    educational needs, such as purchasing books and classroom supplies.
        President Bush recently signed Public Law 107-101, the No Child
    Left Behind Act of 2001. Through this Act, the President and the
    Congress pledged to devote greater federal resources to improving our
    nation's schools. Yet, we find the President wants to cut the budget
    for Indian schools, which obtain 100 percent of their funding from the
    federal sources. This is very disheartening for all Native Americans.
    Since the BIA has not released the details of their budget request, we
    do not know what reasons were provided for cutting the ISEF program
    funding, but we believe the decision to make the funding cut cannot be
    justified.
        The cut in the ISEF budget will force some of our schools to expend
    90 percent of their ISEF funds solely on personnel salaries causing
    schools to be unable to purchase other resources necessary to provide
    quality instruction to enhance student achievement.
        The General Accounting Office conducted a comparative analysis
    between the BIA, DOD and Public Schools in 2001. In their report, they
    acknowledged the need to increase the ISEF so the Bureau funded schools
    can ``catch up'' and stay even with other schools and to enhance the
    education programs they offer. This acknowledgement by the GAO Report
    validates our concerns with decreasing the ISEF funds.
        We urge the Committee to reject the BIA's proposed program decrease
    and provide at least $359.5 million to the ISEF budget to fulfill the
    responsibilities established in the No Child Left Behind Act.
                            privatization initiative
        The Bureau of Indian Affair's has developed a worrisome initiative
    to resolve the problem of Indian student achievement lagging behind
    national averages. This new initiative proposes to convert the
    remaining 64 BIA operated schools to tribal management (either through
    a Public Law 100-297 grant or Public Law 93-638 contract) or to private
    management companies by year 2007.
        Though this proposal will not affect us directly--as our school is
    already a tribally operated grant school--it is unclear to us how we
    will be affected by this proposal indirectly. We hope that your
    Committee will be able to obtain some clarifications that the BIA has
    failed to provide in its budget request.
        We are concerned about the requested funding increases for three
    school operations accounts. Will these small increases in funding be
    reserved only for the schools that convert to tribal operation or are
    turned over to a private manager, or will all schools in the BIA-funded
    system share in these requested increases in program funding? We hope
    that your Committee will clearly state that any increases in funding
    must be properly distributed to all the BIA-funded schools, not just
    those that are part of the privatization initiative. The following
    budget accounts are the ones we are referring to:
      --Administrative Cost Grants.--Our school is completely dependant
            upon the Administrative Cost Grant for the daily administrative
            operations of the school. We have not had an increase in
            Administrative Cost Grants for 4 years, and the BIA's budget
            request justification states that Administrative Cost Grants
            are currently only being funded at 70 percent. We are thankful
            that the President's budget request asks for a $3 million
            increase for the Administrative Cost Grant program and ask that
            your Committee ensure that the increase in funding is available
            to all tribally controlled schools, not just the new schools
            that will convert under the Privatization Initiative. The No
            Child Left Behind Act 2001 requires that AC Grant funding is
            distributed pro-rata to all tribally-operated schools. We hope
            that the President will follow the law that his Administration
            whole-heartedly supported.
      --Student Transportation.--This account funds a portion of our school
            bus system. It is suppose to fund all of it, however, the
            appropriations for the Student Transportation budget since
            Public Law 95-561 was enacted (the Act that created the Student
            Transportation program) has never fully covered the
            transportation programs of the tribally-controlled schools.
            Consequently, for the past 24 years our school and many other
            Bureau-funded schools have been forced to utilize portions of
            the ISEF budget to supplement their transportation programs.
            This puts schools in the unfortunate position of having to
            choose between transporting students to-and-from school or
            providing updated classroom materials, such as books.
        We have been getting around $2.30 per mile for years, compared with
    the $2.97 per mile supplied to public schools in SY97/98 (latest figure
    available).
        While we are grateful that the President asked for a $2 million
    increase for student transportation we hope that your Committee can
    further assist in decreasing the dramatic shortfall in the Student
    Transportation budget. We are thankful for any increase in funding as
    BIA has estimated that the shortfall in funding for this program is at
    least $11 million.
        Our school is located 110 miles from the nearest town. The nearest
    place we can go to get fuel for our school vehicles is 15 miles from
    the school. In addition, we were just informed last week that the
    General Services Administration site we use to service our vehicles has
    been changed to the site located in Farmington, New Mexico. This change
    in site will cause our vehicles to have to travel further (240 miles
    round trip) to be serviced by the GSA.
        We ask that your Committee please ensure that any increases in
    funding for the Student Transportation budget be distributed to all the
    schools in the BIA-funded school system, and not be reserved only for
    the schools BIA wants to convert to tribal or private operation.
      --Facilities Operations.--Funds from this account covers school
            utilities, heating fuel, janitorial, communications, refuse
            collection, water/sewer, fire protection, pest control and
            education technology maintenance. Like the Administrative Cost
            Grant, we have not received 100 percent of the funds generated
            by the statutory formula established in past years. We have
            always received only 80 percent of our actual need, which
            causes us to prioritize our funds where most needed.
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs requests an additional $2.2 million
    for facilities' operations funds. This amount will finally cover some
    of the needs that have been neglected for years. We ask that all
    schools share in the additional funding, and that the increase not be
    reserved solely for the schools BIA wants to convert to tribal or
    private management.
        We in Indian country have awaited legislation like the No Child
    Left Behind Act 2001 for decades. The President has made some wonderful
    commitments to Native Americans. Please make sure that Congress and the
    President keep their word and do not breach the commitments they have
    enacted in the No Child Left Behind Act:

        ``It is the policy of the United States to fulfill the Federal
    Government's unique and continuing trust relationship with and
    responsibility to the Indian people for the education of Indian
    children and for the operation and financial support of the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs-funded school system to work in full cooperation with
    tribes toward the goal of ensuring that the programs of the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs-funded school system are of the highest quality and
    provide for the basic elementary and secondary educational needs of
    Indian children, including meeting the unique educational and cultural
    needs of those children.''----No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Title
    X, Part D, Sec. 1120.

        I thank you from the bottom of my heart for taking the time to
    consider these views.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Pinon Community School Board
        The Pinon Community School Board is a tribal organization of the
    Navajo Nation which operates the Pinon Dormitory for Indian students in
    grades 1-12 who attend the local public school, and a kindergarten
    instruction program for young Navajo children. Our School Board offers
    the following comments on the fiscal year 2003 Education Budget for the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Health Care Facilities Constructionn
    Budget for the Indian Health Service.
        BIA Education Budget.--Pinon School Board supports the unified
    testimony submitted by the Association of Navajo Community Controlled
    School Boards (ANCCSB) regarding the BIA budget request for Education--
    School Operations. Pinon is a member of ANCCSB and assisted in the
    prepartion of the Association's statement. To help the Subcommittee
    with paperwork management, we will not repeat the ANCCSB comments here,
    but ask you to give serious considertion to the views expressed in that
    statement.
        IHS Health Facilities Construction--$13.9 million for Pinon
    Clinic.--The Pinon School Board urges the Committee to approve the IHS
    budget request of $13.9 million to continue construction of the
    desperately needed outpatient clinic in the Pinon Community of the
    Navajo Reservation. Our Community has waited a long time to rise to the
    top of the priority list so we can finally get a decent clinic to serve
    the population of one of the fastest-growing regions of the Navajo
    Nation.
        Our current small, old clinic can only provide limited services to
    our residents. For most care, our people have to travel to the Chinle
    Hospital 50 miles away from the center of Pinon--provided they have
    access to transportation. This makes it very difficult to obtain
    routine and emergency care for the children who live in our Dormitory.
    We do not have access to doctors, dentists, eye doctors, speech and
    physical therapists and other vital health care providers at the local
    level like schools in cities and towns have. We must depend on the
    Indian Health Service to supply health care to our people, including
    our children.
        We eagerly await completion of a local clinic in Pinon. It will
    tremendously enhance the School's ability to assure that children in
    our Dorm receive the early screening, diagnostic and treatment every
    child needs for a healthy life.
        Please approve the $13.9 million IHS request for the Pinon
    Outpatient Clinic construction.
        Thank you for your consideration of these views.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Jeehdeez'a Academy
        This statement is submitted on behalf of the Jeehdeez'a Academy
    incorporated, a tribally controlled school that recently converted from
    a BIA-operated school to a tribal grant school. The Executive Board
    Members of the Jeehdeez'a Academy would like to take this opportunity
    to express their gratitude for the School Replacement Construction
    Funds that are being requested to replace the Jeehdeez'a Academy, Inc.
    The school has long been in need of replacement and we are thankful
    that the replacement construction costs were included in the fiscal
    year 2003 budget. We also wish to highlight several aspects of the
    BIA's fiscal year 2003 education budget that we hope will obtain some
    increase in funding:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    Student Transportation............................................  50.0
    Administrative Cost Grants........................................  61.4
    Facilities Operations.............................................  70.0
    Indian School Equalization Formula................................ 359.5

        The Jeehdeez'a Academy, Inc. is located in Low Mountain, Arizona
    fifty miles southwest of Chinle, Arizona in a remote part of the State.
    This community does not have a post office, store, gas station, or
    hospital. The school serves 240 students from kindergarten to fifth
    grade (K-5). Sixty of our students reside on campus in the dorm due to
    the fact that their homes are difficult to reach and/or their parents
    do not have transportation. Moreover, because some of our students live
    so far from the campus it is practically impossible to bus them on a
    daily basis.
        The Jeehdeez'a Academy employs fifty-three staff members most of
    whom live on the reservation, but off campus. This because staff
    housing on campus is in such poor condition. In fact, the staff housing
    is so dilapidated that the school has difficulty recruiting and
    retaining high quality staff from off the reservation.
        Due to the above conditions that our school faces daily, we ask
    that the Committee consider our comments on the following aspects of
    the BIA's education budget:
                             student transportation
        Because of the remote location of our school, our students must
    travel an average of thirty miles a day on dirt and unimproved roads.
    This causes a great deal of wear and tear on our school buses, which is
    compounded during the winter months when harsh weather makes the road
    conditions even worse. To obtain maintenance and service, our buses
    must travel 260 miles roundtrip to Gallup, Mexico.
        Despite the fact that last year the BIA acknowledged that the
    Student Transportation budget for BIA-funded schools is $11 million
    short of need, the BIA's budget request asked for only a $2 million
    increase for student transportation. While we are thankful for any
    increase in the budget that is provided, we note that the $2 million
    requested increase would only produce a 7 cents increase over the
    current funding level. This increase will provide funding to the
    tribally controlled schools at a level of $2.37/mile, which is still
    far below the $2.97/mile public schools received 6 years ago.
        The requested increase will not begin to cover the dramatic funding
    shortfall of the student transportation program.
        We ask that the committee providing funding for the Student
    Transportation program at $50.0 million.
                           administrative cost grants
        The Jeehdeez'a Academy, like other tribally controlled schools,
    relies on the funds provided by the Administrative Cost Grants to
    provide for the daily cost of operating our school. Therefore, it is
    important that the BIA does not continue to pay only 70 percent of the
    Administrative Cost Grant amount that is generated through statutory
    formula. The $3 million requested increase would bring the level of
    funding for Administrative Cost Grants to only 75 percent of need.
        We ask that the Committee fund Administrative Cost Grants at 100
    percent of the amount generated by statutory formula, which according
    to the BIA's calculations would be $61.4 million.
        We are also concerned that a portion of the requested increase in
    funding for Administrative Cost Grants will be used only for those
    schools that are part of the President's Privatization Initiative.
        We ask the Committee assure that the increase in funding is
    available to all tribally controlled schools, as required by law, and
    not just for the schools that are converting to tribal or private
    control under the Privatization Initiative.
                             facilities operations
        The account for facilities operation is intended to cover
    utilities, heating fuel, janitorial, communications, refuse collection,
    water/sewer, fire protection, pest control and technology maintenance.
    Funding for this program remains inadequate and is often insufficient
    to cover even basic utility costs. Adequate funding for everyday upkeep
    of schools is a critical element in assuring that schools will last
    longer and remain safe for students. Our school is currently operating
    at only 80 percent of the amount needed to adequately cover our
    facility operations costs.
        We ask that the Committee fund this program at $70.0 million.
      --Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF)
        The ISEF funds provide basic instructional funding for students in
    BIA-funded schools. The Jeehdeez'a Academy, Inc. has learned that the
    BIA's budget requested a $2 million decrease in ISEF funding. This
    funding is Jeehdeez'a Academy, Inc.'s primary source of funding for the
    school's instruction and residential program. Eighty-5 percent of the
    ISEF funds we receive are spent solely on academic and residential
    staff costs. This leaves very little left in ISEF funds to purchase
    educational materials for the students. We hope that the Committee will
    reject the BIA's request to decrease ISEF funding and instead provide
    an increase in this program.
        We ask that the Committee provide funding for the ISEF at $359.5
    million.
        Three days after taking office in January, the President of the
    United States, George W. Bush signed Public Law 107-110, the ``No Child
    Left Behind Act of 2001''. Through this Act, Congress and the President
    pledged to commit greater federal resources to improving our nation's
    schools. Yet, less than a month later, the President submitted a budget
    that will make it very difficult for our school to keep pace with
    public schools for experienced qualified teachers, buy up-to-date
    textbooks, provide the instructional services needed by our students,
    and maintain the daily operation of our school.
        We at Jeehdeez'a Academy, Inc. are concerned about the educational
    needs of our students and their future. We hope that the Committee will
    help us in ensuring that Congress and the President keep the commitment
    made to Indian tribes and Indian children and that no Indian child is
    left behind.
        We thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on
    BIA's fiscal year 2003 budget request and for considering our requests.
    Should you have any questions, please call us at (928) 725-3178. Thank
    you.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
        This testimony addresses the fiscal year 2003 budget request for
    programs in the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    Specifically, the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska urges the Subcommittee's
    favorable consideration of the following: $9 million in fiscal year
    2003 to complete construction of the new Winnebago hospital and to
    replenish contingencies for unanticipated costs ($759,000 over the
    budget request); maintaining funding for operating grants for Tribally
    Controlled Community Colleges within the Bureau of Indian Affairs at
    the fiscal year 2002 enacted level of $41.1 million ($2 million over
    the budget request); and support for the Administration's requested
    level of $159 million in fiscal year 2003 for the BIA component of the
    Law Enforcement Initiative in Indian Country, of which $3 million is
    requested for new detention centers.
        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 4,039 enrolled
    members, with about 1,290 residing 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 Company A
    Convenience Mart and Pony Express gas station 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. 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.
        In the town of Winnebago, the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital
    serves the basic health care needs for the area. Critical and
    specialist care is available in Sioux City, Iowa. Currently, the PHS
    hospital has 30 general beds and 3 Pediatric beds. It has a staff of
    102, 4 of whom are Doctors and 20 of whom are R.N.'s. 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 Winnebago Reservation, and 7
    (.06 percent) are from South Dakota. The new Comprehensive Health Care
    Facility is expected to employ an additional 100 professionals.
        The Winnebago Tribe received $950,000 in fiscal year 1999 through
    the Indian Health Service to complete the Architecture and Engineering
    phase of our Hospital. In fiscal year 2000, we received $9,714,000 for
    phase one construction, in fiscal year 2001, $12.3 million for phase
    two construction, and in fiscal year 2002, $15 million was
    appropriated. The Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget request
    includes $8,241,000 for the remaining construction costs. However, the
    Tribe requests an fiscal year 2003 appropriation of $9 million,
    $759,000 over the request, to replenish contingencies for unanticipated
    costs.
        Little Priest Tribal College.--Currently, enrollment at the Little
    Priest Tribal College on the Winnebago Reservation has reached an all-
    time high of 204 students. The College is an important facility for
    insuring that the new Hospital will have well-trained nurses and other
    health care professionals. For fiscal year 2003, the Winnebago Tribe of
    Nebraska requests this Subcommittee's support for maintaining funding
    for operating grants for Tribally Controlled Community Colleges within
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the $41.1 million fiscal year 2002
    level. We urge the Congress to oppose the Administration's proposal to
    reduce funding for Tribal Colleges by $2 million.
        Law Enforcement Initiative.--The Winnebago Tribe supports the
    proposed level of $159 million in fiscal year 2003 for the BIA
    component of the Law Enforcement Initiative in Indian Country, of which
    $3 million is requested for new detention centers. The Tribe has need
    of $11.8 million in Federal dollars to help construct a Criminal
    Justice Complex, which will include all adult and juvenile detention
    facilities, as well as law enforcement and tribal court components.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
                                request summary
        On behalf of this nation's 32 Tribal Colleges and Universities,
    which comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC),
    we thank the Subcommittee for allowing us this opportunity to present
    our fiscal year 2003 appropriations requests for the 25 colleges funded
    under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act
    (Public Law 95-471). The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, administers this program. AIHEC ultimately seeks full
    funding for all of the Act's authorized programs; however, we realize
    step-by-step increases are a way we can meet that goal over time. Our
    top priority is to increase funding for the institutional operations
    grants under Titles I and II, we specifically request $46,629,000 an
    increase of $6.6 million over fiscal year 2002 funding and $8.6 million
    over the president's budget request. Additionally, we seek: $500,000
    for technical assistance to help address emerging technical assistance
    needs and to comply with a Congressional request of the BIA to provide
    additional funding data; and $2 million for endowments under Title III
    of the Act.
        AIHEC's membership also includes five other tribal colleges funded
    under separate authorities within the Interior Appropriations Act, and
    AIHEC fully supports their independently submitted funding requests.
    These include Haskell Indian Nations University; Southwestern Indian
    Polytechnic Institute; the Institute for American Indian Arts; United
    Tribes Technical College and Crownpoint Institute of Technology.
                       background and funding disparities
        In 1972, six tribally controlled colleges established AIHEC to
    provide a support network for member institutions. Today, AIHEC
    represents 32 Tribal Colleges and Universities in 12 states created
    specifically to serve the higher education needs of American Indian
    students. Collectively, they serve approximately 30,000 full- and part-
    time students from over 250 federally recognized tribes.
        Tribal colleges offer primarily 2-year degrees, although in recent
    years some institutions have begun to offer baccalaureate and graduate-
    level degrees. The 29 of the tribal colleges are accredited by
    independent, regional accreditation agencies.\1\ In addition to college
    level programming, tribal colleges provide much needed high school
    completion (GED), basic remediation, job training, college preparatory
    courses, and adult education. Tribal colleges fulfill additional roles
    within their respective communities functioning as community centers,
    libraries, tribal archives, career and business centers, economic
    development centers, public-meeting places, and child care centers. An
    underlying goal of tribal colleges is to improve the lives of students
    through higher education and to move American Indians toward self-
    sufficiency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Tribal Colleges and Universities are accredited by regional
    accreditation agencies and like all institutions, must undergo
    stringent performance reviews on a periodic basis. The higher education
    division of the respective regional accreditation agency accredits
    twenty-seven of the TCUs. Two TCUs are at the pre-candidate stage as
    they complete work to attain candidate status; one TCU is at candidate
    status. Two TCUs are accredited as Vocational/Adult Schools by the
    ``schools'' division of the respective regional accreditation agency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act
    authorizes funding for the basic operating budget of one qualifying
    institution per federally recognized tribe based on a full-time
    American Indian student enrollment formula. Despite a greatly
    appreciated increase in our appropriation of $3 million in fiscal year
    2002, the tribal colleges are currently operating at a dramatically
    less than average level of $3,916 per full-time Indian student (ISC).
    This is less than two-thirds of the current authorized level of $6,000
    per ISC. This is not simply a matter of appropriations falling short of
    an authorization; it effectively impedes our institutions from having
    the necessary resources available to provide the educational services
    afforded students at mainstream institution.
                                 justifications
        (a) Tribal colleges provide access to critical postsecondary
    education opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach.--Tribal
    college reservations are located in remote areas, and their populations
    are among the poorest in the nation. On average, median household
    income levels are only half of the level for the U.S. population as a
    whole. As a result, the cost of attending a mainstream institution is
    usually prohibitively high, especially when tuition, travel, housing,
    textbooks, and all other expenses are considered. In addition, for many
    reservation communities, the nearest mainstream institution is several
    hours away, making attendance virtually impossible.
        (b) Tribal colleges are producing a new generation of highly
    trained American Indian contributors: teachers, tribal government
    leaders, engineers, nurses, computer programmers, and other much-needed
    professionals.--By teaching the job skills most in demand on their
    reservations, tribal colleges are laying a solid foundation for tribal
    economic growth, with benefits for surrounding communities. In contrast
    to the high rates of unemployment, 75 percent of recent tribal college
    graduates were employed and using the skills gained through their
    educational experiences. Of these graduates, a significant percentage
    are employed in ``high need'' occupational areas such as elementary and
    secondary school teachers and nurses/health care providers. Just as
    important, the overwhelming majority of tribal college graduates
    (almost 85 percent) remain in their tribal communities, applying their
    newly acquired skills and knowledge where they are most needed.
        (c) Tribal colleges meet the strict standards of mainstream
    accreditation boards and offer top-quality academic programs.--Several
    tribal colleges have attained a 10-year accreditation term--the longest
    term granted for any higher education institution. The quality of the
    colleges' programs is reflected in the high rates of satisfaction
    reported by their graduates: about 90 percent of tribal college
    graduates reported being very satisfied or satisfied with courses in
    their major field of study and with overall instruction.
        (d) Tribal colleges serve as highly effective bridges to 4-year
    postsecondary institutions.--While most tribal colleges are 2-year
    institutions offering associate's degrees and certificates, their
    transfer function is significant. A recent survey indicated that almost
    50 percent of tribal college graduates continued their education during
    the year after their graduation, with the majority pursuing bachelor's
    degrees. This compared nationally to about 35 percent of other
    community college graduates who enroll in higher education the year
    after receiving an associate's degree. The overwhelming majority of the
    continuing tribal college graduates felt that the programs at tribal
    colleges had prepared them well for further education and greatly
    enhanced their success rates.
                             some additional facts
        (a) Enrollment Gains.--Compounding existing funding disparities is
    the fact that although tribal college enrollments have dramatically
    increased since 1981, appropriations have increased at a
    disproportionately low rate. Title I tribal colleges have recorded a
    remarkable 1,300 percent increase in enrollments from 1981 to 2001.
    Tribal colleges, in many ways, are victims of their own successes(the
    dramatic enrollment increases, coupled with a growing number of
    tribally controlled colleges, have forced Title I colleges to slice an
    already inadequate pie into even smaller pieces. Our funding request
    for Title I would amount to just $4,500 per full-time Indian student,
    only 75 percent of the $6,000 authorized, and still significantly less
    than the average amount under which mainstream community colleges
    operate.
        (b) The Absence of State Funds for Institutional Operations.--While
    mainstream institutions have a foundation of stable state support,
    tribal colleges must rely on the Federal government for their operating
    funds. Because tribal colleges are located on Federal trust lands,
    states have no obligation to fund them. In fact, most states do not
    even provide funds to tribal colleges for the non-Indian state-resident
    students who account for approximately 20 percent of our enrollments.
    Yet, if these same students attended any other public institution in
    the state, the state would provide basic operating funds to the
    institution.
        (c) Local Tax and Revenue Bases.--Tribal colleges cannot rely on
    local tax base revenue. Although tribes possess the sovereign authority
    to tax, high reservation poverty rates, the trust status of reservation
    lands, and the lack of strong reservation economies, impede the
    creation of a reservation tax base. Unemployment for American Indian
    residents on-or-near reservations averages about 43 percent. In
    comparison, the current national unemployment rate is just 5.5 percent.
        (d) Trust Responsibility--The emergence of tribal colleges is a
    direct result of the special relationship between American Indian
    tribes and the Federal government. Tribal colleges are founded and
    chartered by their respective American Indian nations, which hold a
    special legal relationship with the Federal government, actualized by
    more than 400 treaties, several Supreme Court decisions, prior
    Congressional action, and the ceding of more than one billion acres of
    land to the Federal government. Beyond the trust responsibility, the
    fact remains that tribal colleges are providing a public service to all
    American people that no other institutions of higher education are
    willing to or can provide. We are helping the Federal government
    fulfill its responsibility to the American people, particularly in
    rural America. Tribal colleges have open enrollment policies and do not
    discriminate based on race or ethnicity. They are simply and
    effectively removing barriers that have long prevented equal access to
    higher education for reservation community residents.
        (e) High Priority Areas of Need.--Like mainstream institutions,
    each tribal college strives to fully develop its institution and to
    expand services to address the needs of its student body. One critical
    area is to address the emerging technical assistance needs, and to
    comply with BIA reporting requirements. Despite the colleges' steady
    growth and an increased demand for accountability, technical assistance
    funding has remained level. Of critical importance is adequate
    institutional operating funds in fiscal year 2003, allowing tribal
    colleges to better focus on high priority areas of need, such as
    maintaining accreditation by stabilizing basic operations budgets and
    moving away from piecemeal operating budgets; improving instructional
    capabilities and enhancing student support services; expanding library
    services and collections; maintaining and improving facilities and
    enhancing laboratory facilities; expanding advanced technology access
    and application; expanding child care facilities, and constructing
    community or cultural centers.
                president's budget request for fiscal year 2003
        The fiscal year 2003 budget recommendation provides for an
    appropriation of only slightly over one-half of the authorized level to
    operate our reservation based colleges, or about $3,500 per full-time
    Indian student, and eliminates funding for our two vocational colleges.
    Should this cut in funding be enacted, some tribal colleges may no
    longer be able to meet minimum requirements for stable funding to pay
    faculty and staff. This could jeopardize their accreditation status.
    Northwest Indian College in Bellingham, Washington would reportedly
    experience a decrease of approximately $152,750 in its basic
    institutional operating funds, and therefore might have to eliminate
    four administrative positions or nine clerical/support positions at the
    college to make up for the loss in operating funds. Salish Kootenai
    College in Pablo, Montana, might have to eliminate six full-time
    faculty members, which is 30 percent of its faculty. Only when full
    funding is attained will equal educational opportunities begin to exist
    for American Indians, and only then will tribal colleges have the
    resources to ensure that the quality of their educational services is
    not compromised. We respectfully request Congress increase the funding
    under Titles I and II for institutional operations by $6.6 million over
    the fiscal year 2002 level, and $8.6 million over the President's
    fiscal year 2003 budget request, bringing this funding to $4,500 per
    ISC, which still represents just 75 percent of the $6,000 authorized.
                                   conclusion
        Tribal colleges work hard to make every dollar count. They are
    extremely responsible with the federal support received over the last
    21 years. These institutions have proven themselves to be a sound
    federal investment. We respectfully request your continued support and
    serious consideration of our fiscal year 2003 appropriations requests.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the United Tribes Technical College
        For 33 years, United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has been
    providing postsecondary vocational education, job training and family
    services to Indian students from the throughout the nation. We have
    received funding through the Bureau of Indian Affairs every year since
    1981, and were shocked at the Administration's request of zero funding
    for UTTC in fiscal year 2003 Department of Interior budget.
        The request by the United Tribes Technical College Board for the
    fiscal year 2003 Bureau of Indian Affairs budget is:
      --$4 million in BIA funds for UTTC, which is $1 million over the
            fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
      --$3 million in BIA funds for phase one of student housing
            construction, a need identified in the 2000 Department of
            Education study.
      --Requirement that the BIA place more emphasis on funding and
            administrative support for job training and vocational/
            technical education. The Adult Vocational Training program,
            funded at $9 million in fiscal year 2002 is but a shadow of its
            former self. There is no BIA Leadership or advocacy for job
            training or vocational/technical education at the central or
            area levels.
        United Tribes Technical College.--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. Last year we enrolled 490 students from 44
    tribes and 17 states. The majority of our students are from the Great
    Plains states, an area that, according to the 1999 BIA Labor Force
    Report, has an Indian reservation jobless rate of 71 percent. UTTC is
    proud that we have an annual placement rate (placement in jobs or in
    higher education) of between 85-90 percent.
        In addition, we serve 155 children in our pre-school programs and
    175 children in our Theodore Jamerson elementary school, bringing the
    population for whom we provide direct services to 820.
        While this testimony does not address funding for the Theodore
    Jamerson elementary school, we do report with pride that the most
    recent BIA report card shows that the students and faculty of Jamerson
    school are performing a levels significantly higher than many other
    schools in the BIA system. For instance, 78 percent of Jamerson
    students perform at a proficient or advanced level in math (a 9 percent
    increase over the previous year), and 81 percent perform at a
    proficient or advanced level in language arts (a 9 percent increase
    over the previous year). The percentage of elementary school staff who
    are proficient or advanced in the use of technology is 83 percent (a 2
    percent increase over the previous year), and the percentage of staff
    proficient or advanced in the use of new assessments is 95 percent (a
    28 percent increase over the previous year). Our goal, of course, is
    100 percent proficiency.
        UTTC Course Offerings/Partnerships with Other Educational
    Institutions.--UTTC offers 14 vocational/technical programs and awards
    a total of 24 2-year degree and 1-year certificate areas. We are
    accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and
    we were re-accredited in 2001 for the longest period of time
    allowable--10 years--and with no major stipulations.
        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
      --Technology Distance Learning
      --Nutrition and Dietary Management
      --Tribal Government Management
      --Tourism
        --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.
        Technology and 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.
        High demand exists for computer technicians. In the first year of
    implementation, the Computer Support Technician 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.
        --Nutrition and Dietary Management.--UTTC will meet the challenge
    of fighting diabetes in Indian Country 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 Nutrition and Dietary Management
    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.
        --Tribal Government Management/Tourism.--Another of our new program
    is tribal government management designed to help tribal leaders be more
    effective administrators. We continue to refine our curricula for this
    program.
        A newly established education program is tribal tourism management.
    UTTC has researched and developed core curricula for the tourism
    program, and five other tribal colleges will begin using our curricula
    (with modifications to suit their specific needs) this fall. The
    development of the tribal tourism program is well timed to coincide
    with the national Lewis and Clark Bicentennial in 2003. As you may
    know, Lewis and Clark and their party spent one quarter of their
    journey in North Dakota. Last year, UTTC art students were commissioned
    by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation to create historically accurate
    reproductions of Lewis and Clark-era Indian objects using traditional
    methods and natural materials. Our students had partners in this
    project including the National Park Service and the Peabody Museum at
    Harvard University. The objects will be part of a major exhibition
    about the Lewis and Clark expedition.
        --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.
        We are excited by the recent receipt of an Economic Development
    Administration grant that will allow UTTC to develop a Center for
    Economic Excellence. The UTTC Center for Economic Excellence is
    expected to evolve into a regional ``University Center'' for Economic
    Development. Most states have such centers, and ours would be the first
    such tribal center.
        Department of Education Study Documents our Facility/Housing
    Needs.--The 1998 Vocational Education and Applied Technology Act
    required the U.S. Department of Education to study the facilities,
    housing and training needs of our institution. That report, conducted
    for the Department 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. We have a
    huge waiting list of students some who wait from 1 to 3 years for
    admittance. 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.
        Classroom and office 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.
        We were able to piece together three sources of funds to raise $1
    million to renovate a building to create a new student life and
    technology center. Funds came from the Economic Development
    Administration, USDA's Rural Development program, and the Department of
    Education's Title III program.
        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 short-range plans to serve 2,000 Indian students
    from throughout the nation.
        We described elsewhere in this statement some activities for which
    we accessed non-Department of Interior funds (injury prevention
    program, economic center of excellence, tribal tourism curricula,
    renovation of the Student Life and Technology Center). Other
    competitive non-DOI funds include the Department of Education funded
    Plains Alliance Bilingual Education (PABE) Project, an early childhood
    bilingual/bicultural project in which we are in partnership with Sinte
    Gleska University, and a DOE computer technology grant for our
    elementary school.
        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 that come through the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        Thank you for your consideration of our request.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT)
        This testimony addresses appropriations to U.S. Department of
    Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Activity: Special Programs and
    Pooled Overhead: Subactivity: Community Development. As authorized by
    Public Law 84-959, ``The Adult Vocational Training Act.''
        The Crownpoint Institute of Technology requests $2.3 Million
    appropriated through the authorizing statute Public Law 84-959, ``The
    Adult Vocational Training Act.'' Public Law 84-959 authorizes
    appropriations when tribally-controlled vocational/technical colleges
    are not eligible to participate under Public Law 95-471, ``The Tribally
    Controlled Community Colleges and Universities Assistance Act.'' It is
    our understanding that only two such tribal colleges exist: the
    Crownpoint Institute of Technology, in Crownpoint, New Mexico and
    United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) in Bismarck, North Dakota.
        CIT's most urgent request regards contract support funds already
    appropriated but not received. Contract support was approved for CIT at
    what we understand to be the highest decision-making levels of the U.S.
    Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Yet, CIT continues to
    await receipt of this contract support. The subsequent more than 2 year
    delay has caused severe financial hardship on our institution. CIT
    requests that the contract support be retroactive to the date of
    approval which is not only appropriate but also absolutely necessary.
    As of April 1, 2002, CIT is still unable to obtain any indication that
    this contract support is being processed anywhere in the BIA. CIT
    respectfully requests the Subcommittee's assistance and intervention in
    making the contract support approval a reality.
        CIT urges that this Subcommittee reverse the Department's request
    to terminate CIT's funding. In addition, CIT requests that this
    Subcommittee appropriate funds sufficient to provide equal educational
    opportunity to its students. 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 2001-2002, CIT enrolls 526
    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. CIT is gradually
    but steadily increasing its student housing through HUD to begin to
    accommodate the long-standing waiting list. CIT contributes to the
    Navajo Nation and the Department of Interior's goal that ``Education,
    job training . . . are essential to Tribal people to allow them to gain
    the skills and knowledge necessary to obtain and keep jobs and achieve
    economic stability.'' CIT's employment placements contribute to the
    Department's goal of reducing unemployment among Tribal people. CIT's
    vocational programs and employment placement advance the Department's
    goal of providing quality technical expertise to the Tribes from
    Justice, with CIT Legal Advocate programs, to Resources Management,
    with CIT Environmental Technology programs. All of CIT's thirteen
    vocational programs, seven Associate of Applied Science Degree Programs
    and non-degree continuing education respond to high demand employment
    fields. 84 percent of CIT's 2001 graduates were job placed by
    graduation, 86 percent of which were full-time employments. Of this 54
    percent were off-reservation, 46 percent on. CIT has a 91 percent
    student retention rate and an average 86 percent job placement rate
    over 9 years. In 2001, the average annual entry-level wage upon
    graduation was $17,160, although some CIT graduates earned as much as
    $23,920 (Veterinary Technician) and up to $18 hourly (Commercial Driver
    License) at entry level. CIT is in the process of developing Dental and
    Health Technician programs to respond to the personnel shortages and
    good wages in these fields as well. 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 for single
    parent families and parenting skills courses are required for
    participation.
        The Department of Interior's proposed elimination of CIT has been
    justified by the assertion that ``the majority of the funds to operate
    the facility (CIT) and administer the education programs are authorized
    by special legislation under the Carl Perkins Act, Public Law 105-
    332.'' In reality, the majority of these funds authorized by special
    legislation under the Carl Perkins Act (Section 117) are awarded to the
    United Tribes Technical College in Bismarck, North Dakota which has a
    significantly smaller enrollment than CIT and an Interior appropriation
    more than double CIT's, not including UTTC's additional contract
    support. An additional $14.750 Million under this same special
    legislation under the Carl Perkins Act (Section 116) goes to tribal
    grantees among which are thirteen tribal colleges also funded under
    Interior appropriations. All of the tribal colleges including United
    Tribes Technical College receive several million dollars in federal
    funding from other Departments in addition to their Department of
    Interior appropriations. There is no reasonable justification to single
    out and terminate CIT from among all the tribal colleges and UTTC which
    all receive varying amounts of additional federal funding from other
    Departments. If additional sources of federal funding are considered
    for CIT; additional sources of federal funding should be considered for
    all tribal colleges as well as the other vocational college, United
    Tribes Technical College, which all also receive Interior
    appropriations.
        CIT understands that the Balanced Budget and Deficit Control Act
    necessitates that appropriations increases have appropriations offsets.
    In order for the Department of Interior to increase appropriations
    requests for tribal colleges or to CIT's North Dakota companion tribal
    vocational college, UTTC, the Department must request decreased
    appropriations elsewhere. CIT requests that the Subcommittee evaluate
    appropriations merit with equal criteria. The funding CIT receives from
    Carl Perkins is competitive, unstable and dramatically insufficient to
    meet operational costs. Critically-needed administrative support funds
    have been absent from both Carl Perkins and Interior.
        Since the 1978 enactment of Indian education reform laws, this
    Subcommittee has appropriated school operations funds by considering
    institutional enrollment from the K-12 through the tribal colleges'
    level. This method equalizes per student Indian educational funding.
    Postsecondary Vocational Institutions are the only remaining vestiges
    of an Indian education funding system that was rendered obsolete more
    than two decades ago because it was so blatantly unfair to Indian
    students. Tribally-controlled Postsecondary Vocational Colleges remain
    the only tribal educational institutions in the nation for which
    student enrollment is not even an appropriations consideration. In
    instances where the federal budget precludes any tribal vocational
    college from receiving its full appropriation request, considering the
    size of enrollment is the only fair method toward enabling equal
    educational opportunity for all students affected.
        While operational funds to vocational postsecondary tribal colleges
    do not occur on an enrollment basis, it is unfair to students to
    completely ignore enrollment as a cost factor. Size of enrollment is
    the most significant cost factor. Indian Student Count (ISC), usually
    the same as Full-Time Equivalency (FTE), is the commonly accepted
    method of reducing enrollment to a common denominator. This
    Subcommittee has used ISC for over 20 years to provide equitable
    appropriations to Tribal colleges. For their K-12 counterparts,
    Weighted Student Units (WSU) is the appropriations equivalent for BIA
    and tribal elementary schools.
        ``Headcount'' can yield a far different number than ISC or FTE
    because headcount is subject to boundless interpretations. Headcount
    can include one-time participants in an afternoon Seminar or a
    distance-learning workshop. Educational costs for the various
    classifications of students differ significantly from full-time in-
    residence students. While ``headcount'' yields the highest possible
    number, ISC/FTE computes headcount by a common denominator. CIT urges
    the Subcommittee to at least consider the size of enrollment in
    determining tribal vocational colleges' appropriations needs.
        An additional significant appropriations consideration is whether
    or not the tribal college's students require room and board as a
    condition of attendance. CIT and Dine College in Tsaile, Arizona are
    the only two tribally-chartered postsecondary institutions serving
    26,897 square miles Navajo Reservation and the 225,298 Navajo
    populations, of which 173,987 reside on trust land according to the
    U.S. Census. This Subcommittee appropriates funds to operate seventeen
    tribal colleges in three States (MT, ND, SD) serving a sixteen tribe
    population that combined does not equal that of the CIT and Dine
    College service area. Most of the tribal colleges do not have
    residential facilities or residential costs. CIT must incur residential
    student costs due to the vast size of the service area. CIT is in the
    process of completing sixteen additional HUD married student residences
    for academic year 2002-03, complementing the same number that was added
    last year. This continued accommodation of in-residence students is
    reflected in the ISC increase, has decreased the waiting list and
    enabled further educational opportunities and job placement Tribal
    citizens.
        An important consideration that artificially skews CIT
    appropriations considerations is the misunderstanding that a tribally-
    chartered vocational college has special additional costs because of
    being open to all tribes. This misunderstanding affects CIT students
    because it precludes CIT from this justification. All tribally-
    chartered colleges are open to all tribes. With 10,000 students
    graduating from Navajo area high schools each year and 200 otherwise
    qualified applicants wait-listed each year, CIT has no reason to
    recruit from other tribes. The distance traveled by some Navajo
    students across the Navajo reservation to attend CIT is a nine-hour
    drive. This distance is not unlike traveling from another tribe, but
    ultimately a student's Tribal affiliation does not drive the cost of
    attendance up or down. This year CIT has an Alaska Native student. The
    costs to educate this student are the same as the costs of educating
    his Navajo counterpart. The multi-tribal cost factor must be clarified
    in order that it not continues to be a factor that results in unequal
    educational opportunity for CIT students.
        Appropriations should consider numbers completing as well as
    numbers entering tribal educational institutions. In its Budget
    Justification to the Congress, the Department of Interior states that
    its goals are ``outcome'' based. The Department's own goal of outcomes
    should be considered in determining appropriations for CIT. Graduating
    and job-placed ISC are CIT outcomes. This number is as significant a
    measure for appropriations as the number of entering ISC. The
    Department states that the lack of readily available data to measure
    these outcomes is a primary obstacle to meeting its goals. CIT's
    graduation, other completion and job placement rates are readily
    available outcome data. As indicated above, CIT's has high retention,
    graduation and placement.
        The fact that CIT is categorized and funded under ``non-recurring
    programs'' seems to contribute further to confusion about CIT's
    appropriation need and merit. Not only does CIT contribute to BIA
    mission and goals, but CIT is also a tribally-chartered college. CIT
    meets all but one of the criteria to receive funding under the Tribal
    Colleges Public Law 95-471 for which appropriations are acknowledged as
    needing to recur every year. CIT is disqualified because the law allows
    one college per tribe. This criterion is not applied to any other realm
    of federal educational funding which is not appropriated on the number
    of States, or the number of cities: it is based on size of the
    population. CIT is a necessary second Navajo college and provides
    essential education to the population it serves.
        Interior appropriates Endowments to Public Law 95-471 tribal
    colleges on a two-to-one matching basis. By not being eligible for
    Public Law 95-471, CIT is excluded from endowment appropriations.
    Interior also appropriates planning grants and technical assistance
    under other provisions of the Tribal Colleges Act from which CIT is
    also excluded because it is not a 471 college. CIT requests that the
    subcommittee consider these categories from which CIT is excluded when
    considering CIT's appropriations request.
         However inadvertent, tribal educational institutions vested by the
    Federal Government with the greatest resources are elevated to
    privileged positions by virtue of those superior financial resources.
    This enables them to acquire even more financial resources. These
    institutions then compete among themselves for competitively-awarded
    Indian set-asides, and those with the greatest financial resources
    perpetuate the funding advantage. Ample financial resources translate
    directly into superior development initiatives and other advantages. If
    allowed to perpetuate, this can only result in unequal educational
    opportunity for students attending under-funded tribal institutions.
    This Subcommittee must not allow this injustice to befall CIT.
        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 Intertribal Timber Council
                                    summary
        Mr. Chairman, I am Nolan Colegrove, Sr., President of the
    Intertribal Timber Council. I hereby submit the following requests for
    BIA fiscal year 2003 appropriations:
        (1) Provide a total increase of $8.6 million in Tribal Priority
    Allocation Forestry, earmarked for distribution among tribal/BIA
    Forestry programs.
        (2) Restore $2,814,000 to Endangered Species in Resources
    Management, Non-Recurring Programs, and add $3 million to partially
    fulfill the unfunded mandates for tribal/BIA ESA management.
        (3) In Forestry under Resources Management, Non-Recurring
    Programs--
        (A) Add $25 million for Forest Development backlog elimination,
        (B) Add $6 million for Inventories and Plans to provide current
                management plans for all trust forest land,
        (C) Add $500,000 for Woodlands management, and
        (D) Add $1 million for Integrated Resource Management Plans.
        (4) Add $1 million to Environmental Management in Non-Recurring
    Trust Services for cultural resources surveys.
        (5) Withhold redistribution of BIA funds for trust reform until the
    Trust Reform Task Force and Interior put forward a plan.
        (6) Within Wildland Fire funding in the Bureau of Land Management,
    direct BIA to develop a Native American fire crew leadership training
    program.
                     intertribal timber council background
        The Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) is a 26 year old organization
    of 70 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 BIA trust management. These lands provide vitally important
    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 their proper
    management is our foremost concern.
        At a time when the Interior Department, Congress, and the tribes
    are focused on the need for trust reform, it is essential that the
    United States recognize and meet its fiduciary obligations for the
    effective management of trust natural resources. It is the resource
    base that generates the trust funds, and the United States trust
    responsibility must assure the natural resource base is productive,
    sustained, and properly valued. To fail to do so both denies the Indian
    people the full benefit of their resources and potentially exposes the
    United States to substantial liabilities.
    (1) Provide a total increase of $8.6 million in Tribal Priority
            Allocation, earmarked for distribution among tribal/BIA
            Forestry programs
        The ITC supports the $1,500,000 increase proposed for BIA Forestry
    in Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), its first program increase since
    fiscal year 1995. We ask, however, that the $1.5 million be increased
    to $8.6 million to reflect cost of living adjustments since fiscal year
    1992 and the increase in trust forest land acres. We also ask that any
    TPA Forestry increase be distributed directly to the TPA and Self-
    Governance Forestry programs.
        For the period December 1991, to February 2002, the consumer price
    index rose 28.9 percent. The fiscal year 1992 BIA TPA Forestry and
    estimated Self-Governance Forestry budget of $26.3 million, when
    adjusted to reflect that change, should be $33.9 million. That figure
    should also be adjusted to reflect the 7.5 percent increase in trust
    forest land acres over about the same period (15.9 million acres to
    17.1 million acres), producing a total of $36.4 million, or $8.6
    million over the fiscal year 2003 TPA Forestry and Self-Governance
    Forestry base of $27.8 million (excluding the $1.5 million fiscal year
    2003 increase). We note that an increase to $36.4 million will only
    restore these Forestry programs to the current equivalent of their
    fiscal year 1992 status, at which time the IFMAT report documented BIA
    Forestry funding as still insufficient, receiving only 63 percent of
    the funding for timber production on National Forests, and only 35
    percent of that for coordinated resources management. It is inequities
    such as these that must be addressed if trust reform is to be truly
    effective.
        Next, we request that, in either bill or report language, any
    programmatic increase for Forestry be specifically applied to tribal/
    BIA forestry budgets in TPA and Self-Governance. Without such specific
    direction, any TPA Forestry increase would be spread throughout the
    overall TPA budget, losing its application to Forestry.
    (2) Restore $2,814,000 to Endangered Species in Resources Management,
            Non-Recurring Programs, and add $3 million to partially fulfill
            the unfunded mandates of tribal/BIA ESA management
        We request that $2,814,000 be restored to the Endangered Species
    item in the BIA's Non-Recurring Programs Natural Resources budget,
    bringing it back to its fiscal year 2002 level of $3 million. This
    budget item includes $1.8 million for northern spotted owl and marbled
    murrelet requirements under the Endangered Species Act for Northwest
    timber tribes and $1.2 million for recovery of the black footed ferret
    on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. Congress started the owl and
    murrelet program within the Forestry program in 1991 to enable the BIA
    to comply with the increased management requirements necessitated by
    the owl and murrelet ESA listings. BIA subsequently combined it with
    the ferret program, which the Administration tried to eliminate in
    fiscal year 2002. Now for fiscal year 2003, the Administration is
    proposing to eliminate both activities, reportedly because they apply
    to specific tribes. The fact is, these funds deal with each of these
    species across their entire range, and are distributed to tribes in
    that range. We ask that the funds be restored. They are essential for
    compliance with Endangered Species management requirements, and are the
    only funds that have ever been specifically provided in the BIA's
    budget for addressing these listed species. For more than a dozen
    timber tribes, the elimination of these funds would threaten the
    performance of surveys and protocols required by the ESA listings,
    which in turn could restrict or shut-down the timber harvesting that is
    essential to their reservation economies. It is astounding that, at the
    very time the Interior Department is stressing the need for trust
    management improvement, it is yanking funding that is critical to the
    performance of these federal mandates in our forests.
        We further request that a separate $3 million increase be added to
    the Endangered Species budget item for management of other ESA-listed
    species throughout Indian Country. To the best of our knowledge, other
    than the owl, murrelet, and ferret funds, the BIA has never requested
    any funds to specifically address the growing number of ESA-listed
    species on Indian reservations.
    (3) In Forestry under Resources Management, Non-Recurring Programs
                (A) Add $25 million for Forest Development backlog
                        elimination
        Forest Development, one of four components in Non-Recurring
    Forestry, provides for thinning and planting on the 6 million acres of
    commercial trust forest land. The fiscal year 2003 Forest Development
    request of $9.6 million will only provide treatment on 50,000 acres,
    which is about the annual accrual of commercial forest acres in need of
    thinning and planting. This budget request provides nothing for
    reducing the backlog of 1.3 million acres--or 22 percent of the trust
    commercial forest land base--now in need of thinning and planting.
    These acres, nearly one quarter of all trust commercial forest land,
    are either underproductive or out of production altogether. To fulfill
    the federal government's fiduciary obligation that all trust commercial
    forest land is effectively utilized, we request an fiscal year 2003
    increase of $25 million to treat 130,000 backlog acres and to initiate
    a program to eliminate the backlog in 10 years.
                (B) Add $6 million for Inventories and Plans to provide
                        current management plans for all trust forest land
        Forest Management Inventory and Planning (FMI&P), another component
    of Non-Recurring Forestry, covers the special project costs associated
    with the development of new forest inventories and management plans for
    trust forests. Today, only 43 percent of all Indian trust forest land,
    including woodlands, has current management plans. A November 13, 1998
    Interior Solicitors' Opinion holds that ``Indian timber may not be
    harvested until an approved forest management plan has been
    established.'' The absence of current management plans for more than
    half of all Indian trust forest land could damage the resource or even
    foreclose harvest on those lands, posing the loss of tribal jobs and
    financial and subsistence resources. To prevent such occurrences and
    for the United States to fulfill its trust responsibilities, we request
    that $6 million be added to the $2 million fiscal year 2003 FMI&P
    request to begin providing current management plans for all trust
    forest lands.
                (C) Add $500,000 for Woodlands management
        We request the addition of $500,000 to Woodlands Management,
    another component of Non-Recurring Forestry. Funding for the management
    of 9.4 million acres of Indian Woodlands has not changed since the
    program's start in 1988, and only provides three woodlands managers in
    the Southwest and a very limited number of on-the-ground projects. Just
    one quarter of these lands, often vital for subsistence purposes, have
    any management plans, and less than one half have any resource
    inventory. An addition of $500,000 would increase inventory and
    planning, provide staff for improved oversight, and enable an increase
    in management projects.
                (D) Add $1 million for Integrated Resources Management
                        Plans (IRMPs)
        The fourth component of Non-Recurring Forestry is Integrated
    Resource Management Planning, an essential element in modern forest
    management planning that is regularly and substantially funded in other
    federal land management agencies. But BIA, despite its trust
    responsibility, is only requesting about $200,000 for IRMPs for its 56
    million total acres in trust, including 17.1 million forest land acres
    in trust. To begin to redress this glaring discrepancy, we ask that $1
    million be added to the IRMP program.
    (4) Add $1 million to Environmental Management in Non-Recurring Trust
            Services for cultural resources surveys
        Indian lands are rich in historic artifacts and sensitive sites,
    making complying with the Historic Preservation Act, NAGPRA, and other
    federal mandates in the NEPA process an exacting task. These cultural
    surveys are also an essential task in developing management plans for
    forest lands, supplying information critical to both the broad
    parameters and the details of those plans. Yet, to the best of our
    knowledge, the BIA has never requested, nor has Congress provided, any
    funding to help meet those federal mandates. To begin correcting this
    shortcoming, we request that $1 million be added to Environmental
    Management in Non-Recurring Trust Resources for cultural resource
    surveys.
    (5) Withhold redistribution of BIA funds for trust reform until the
            Joint Tribal-Interior Trust Reform Task Force puts forward a
            plan
        Meaningful trust reform for the Interior Department is an
    exceptionally complex undertaking that will fail without the support of
    the tribes. We believe a good faith cooperative effort by Interior with
    the tribes will both help assure reform's ultimate success and incur
    the patience and goodwill of the Cobell Court. Such an effort may take
    longer than Interior would like, but it is essential. The Joint
    Tribal--Interior Trust Reform Task Force is the best means identified
    to date for pursuing that effort, and all parties, including Congress,
    must support its work. Congress's support would help dissuade Interior,
    already on edge about trust reform, from abruptly pursuing trust reform
    unilaterally on its own terms, which could produce a true crisis that
    we believe would ultimately be unproductive. So, we ask the Congress to
    urge Interior's full and dedicated engagement in the Task Force by
    making it clear that any significant reprogramming of appropriations
    for trust reform will be withheld until the Task Force and Interior
    develop, examine, and put forward a unified trust restructuring plan.
    (6) Within Wildland Fire funding in the Bureau of Land Management,
            direct BIA to develop a Native American fire crew leadership
            training program
        There is an increasing need for fire crew leadership training that,
    if not addressed, could hinder deployment of otherwise fully trained
    and able crews to fight wildland fires. A crew leadership training
    program in the BIA would be of particular interest to Native American
    crews, which constitute about 25 percent of the line fire fighter work
    force. To help address this need, we ask that the BIA develop a Native
    American fire crew leadership training program.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
        On behalf on the National Congress of American Indians and its more
    than 200 member tribal nations, we are pleased to have the opportunity
    to present written testimony on fiscal year 2003 appropriations for the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
        The tragic events of September 11 brought forth the strength and
    the determination of our nation to survive in the face of adversity. It
    is this same spirit that has carried Indian Country through years of
    annihilation and termination. It is this same spirit that has propelled
    Indian Nations forward into an era of self-determination and self-
    governance. And it is in this same spirit of resolve that Indian
    Nations come before Congress to talk about honoring the federal
    government's treaty obligations and trust responsibilities throughout
    the fiscal year 2003 budget and appropriations process.
        On February 4, President Bush proposed a $2.13 trillion budget for
    fiscal year 2003 that included largely level funding for Indian
    programs, continuing the trend of consistent declines in federal per
    capita spending for Indians compared to per capita expenditures for the
    population at large. This trend demonstrates the abject failure of the
    federal government to commit the serious resources needed to fully
    honor its trust commitment to Indian tribes.
        The federal trust responsibility represents the legal obligation
    made by the U.S. government to Indian tribes when their lands were
    ceded to the United States. This obligation is codified in numerous
    treaties, statutes, Presidential directives, judicial opinions, and
    international doctrines. It can be divided into three general areas--
    protection of Indian trust lands; protection of tribal self-governance;
    and provision of basic social, medical, and educational services for
    tribal members.
        NCAI realizes that Congress must make difficult budget choices this
    year. As elected officials, tribal leaders certainly understand the
    competing priorities that you must weigh over the coming months.
    However, the fact that the federal government has a solemn
    responsibility to address the serious needs facing Indian Country
    remains unchanged, whatever the economic climate.
        We at NCAI urge you to make a strong across-the-board commitment to
    meeting the federal trust obligation by fully funding those programs
    that are vital to the creation of vibrant Indian Nations. Such a
    commitment, coupled with continued efforts to strengthen tribal
    governments and to clarify the government-to-government relationship,
    truly will make a difference in helping us to create stable,
    diversified, and healthy economies in Indian Country.
        The President has requested a $22.9 million increase for the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs, from $2.25 billion to $2.27 billion. The funding
    increase is primarily dedicated to trust management activities. Other
    key areas of the BIA budget, such as Tribal Priority Allocations,
    public safety, and economic development, remain deeply under-funded.
        Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) provide tribes with the resources
    for governmental services at the local level. Because we are able to
    prioritize TPA funds according to our unique needs and circumstances,
    providing adequate TPA resources is one of the most important and
    practical things that the federal government can do to further the
    goals of tribal self-governance. Unfortunately, the Administration's
    proposed budget requests only a $23.4 million increase to this account,
    with nearly $18 million of that amount going toward trust-related
    activities.
        The Census Bureau's Poverty in the United States for 2000 showed
    that American Indians and Alaska Natives remain at the bottom of the
    economic ladder, with 25 percent of our population falling below the
    poverty line. This compares to an 11.9 percent poverty rate for all
    races combined. Simply put, tribal governments cannot continue to
    provide essential government services to our growing--and
    disproportionately poor--population without a substantial increase in
    our TPA funds.
        Today, unemployment rates in Indian Country are the highest in the
    nation, sometimes topping 50 percent. The development of new and
    diverse businesses in Indian Country is one cornerstone of self-
    sufficiency. The Indian Financing Act of 1974 contains loan guaranty
    and insurance features that are designed to encourage commercial
    lenders to provide capital to Indian businesses that might otherwise be
    denied funding. The BIA has requested a $500,000 increase to implement
    the insured loan portion of the Indian Guaranteed Loan program into new
    markets to finance small Indian businesses and to develop equity
    financing opportunities for tribes and individual Indian entrepreneurs.
    This increase is expected to provide approximately $7 million in
    additional loan subsidies for fiscal year 2003 above the expected $65
    million in loan subsidies provided from the base funds of $4.5 million
    for the program. NCAI is encouraged by the BIA's desire to expand the
    Loan Guaranty Program, and we urge the Subcommittee to substantially
    increase funding for it and other BIA economic development programs.
        According to statistics provided the by the National American
    Indian Housing Council, 40 percent of the homes in tribal communities
    are overcrowded and have serious physical deficiencies. The comparable
    national average is 5.9 percent, almost six times lower. These types of
    conditions have a very real and detrimental impact. Respiratory
    illness, skin conditions, head lice, sleep deprivation that affects
    schooling, and a lack of privacy that sometimes leads to child physical
    and sexual abuse can all be traced back to the housing crisis that
    plagues some of our reservations. The Housing Improvement Program (HIP)
    improves the quality of life of the poorest Indians by eliminating
    substandard housing and homelessness in or near reservation
    communities. HIP is a last resort ``safety net'' program that is
    targeted for those families who are able to meet even minimum HUD
    income guidelines. According to the BIA's budget documents, $362.5
    million would be required just to meet the needs of those eligible HIP
    applicants that have been determined eligible. However, the budget
    requests only $19.6 million for this program. We request that you
    increase funding to a minimum of $33 million to help better address the
    outstanding housing needs in Indian Country.
        The President's budget request also includes a troublesome proposal
    that would authorize the privatization of the 64 schools directly
    operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, unless tribes decide to
    operate these schools under contracts or grants. Of course, tribal
    operation of schools is a fundamental principle of self-determination,
    and NCAI firmly supports the right of tribes to privatize schools if
    they so desire--a subcontracting power that tribal governments already
    have when they contract to operate BIA schools.
        That being said, the budget request fails to provide adequate
    funding to cover the costs of tribal administration of BIA-funded
    schools, especially the lowest performing ones slated for transfer. The
    small increase in funding proposed for Administrative Cost Grants does
    not come close to addressing the drastic shortfalls that exist in this
    account, which is currently funded at a dangerously low level of only
    70 percent of the level required under federal law. Additional school
    conversions to tribal operation would decrease the already too-small
    slice of the pie going to each school even more. Likewise, the $2
    million increase proposed for student transportation is completely
    inadequate compared to the $21.5 million needed just to bring tribally-
    operated schools up to a funding level that equals the national average
    of 5 years ago.
        Moving beyond elementary and secondary education, the President's
    budget request also inexplicably cuts funding for tribally controlled
    community colleges and universities. More than 30,000 Native American
    students from 250 federally recognized tribes attend these schools,
    which are located in isolated areas and which often are the only
    accredited institutions of higher education in their service area.
    Tribal colleges serve students of all ages, a majority of whom are
    first-generation college students and approximately 20 percent of whom
    are non-Indian. Today, per-Indian student funding for tribal colleges
    in $3,915, less than two-thirds of the $6,000 authorized for
    institutional operations. While annual appropriations for tribal
    colleges has increased modestly in recent years, the President's budget
    includes no increase in operating funds, which actually would result in
    a cut of $390 per student once annual enrollment increases and reduced
    federal funding are factored in.
        NCAI recognizes that alcohol and substance abuse is more than a
    health problem--it is a serious social, education, law enforcement,
    tribal justice, domestic violence, and economic problem. The 1999
    National Household Survey on Drug Abuse shows a major decrease in
    alcohol and substance abuse among the general population, but an
    increase in its prevalence among Native American populations, a major
    threat to the future of Indian children and youth. For the past several
    years, federal appropriations have failed to adequately support funding
    levels for tribal substance abuse prevention programs. We urge that you
    reverse this trend by increasing funding for prevention and treatment
    programs within both the BIA and the Indian Health Service.
        Last, but certainly not least, NCAI is extremely concerned that a
    large portion of the requested increase for trust management activities
    within the BIA and the Office of Special Trustee would go toward
    implementing the new Bureau of Indian Trust Assets Management that is
    strongly opposed by tribes. NCAI believes that a large funding increase
    is key to reversing the hundreds of years of gross mismanagement that
    continues to plague tribal and Indian trust accounts. As Secretary
    Norton herself has pointed out, it will cost ``hundreds of millions''
    of dollars to remedy the problem. However, any such increases must be
    targeted for workable, well-planned reform initiatives developed in
    close consultation with tribes and individual beneficiaries.
        Thank you for this opportunity to present written testimony
    regarding the fiscal year 2003 appropriations for the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs. The National Congress of American Indians calls upon Congress
    to fulfill the federal government's fiduciary duty to American Indians
    and Alaska Native people. This responsibility should never be
    compromised or diminished because of any political agenda or budget cut
    scenario. Tribes throughout the nation relinquished their lands and in
    return received a trust obligation, and we ask that Congress maintain
    this solemn obligation to Indian Country and continue to assist tribal
    governments as we build strong, diverse, and healthy nations for our
    people.
                                     ______

              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 2003 request for funding from
    programs in the Department of the Interior (DOI). The Tribe requests
    that Congress:
      --Continue to provide $399,000 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for
            water quality and quantity studies by the Seminole Tribe of
            Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, to be equally
            divided between the Tribes; and
      --Provide $761,000 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Water Management
            Planning and Pre-Development account for the Seminole Tribe for
            water quality studies and other ecosystem restoration studies,
            as a part of the Seminole Tribe's Everglades restoration
            efforts.
        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, as
    implemented on the Big Cypress Reservation, is designed to mitigate the
    degradation the ecosystem has suffered through decades of flood control
    projects and urban and agricultural use. 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. This Initiative will contribute to the overall success of the
    Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as authorized by the
    Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000).
        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. Initial construction activities on this project are underway. 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
    Critical Ecosystem Study Initiative (CESI) funds from NPS and the BIA
    funds will be applicable to other CERP projects.
                                funding history
        The DOI, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), has provided
    the Seminole Tribe with $199,500 in each of the fiscal years 1994
    through 2002, half of the $399,000 line item. 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.
        Through the NPS's CESI program, Interior provided the Tribe with
    $390,000 in fiscal year 1997, $920,000 in fiscal year 1998, $684,125 in
    fiscal year 1999, $230,000 in fiscal year 2000, and $220,000 in fiscal
    year 2001. The Tribe did not receive any fiscal year 2002 CESI funds.
    The Seminole Tribe uses CESI 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 studied 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.
                   detail on fiscal year 2003 funding request
        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 (the NPS CESI
    account) 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;
      --Developing Vegatative Bioindicators of Hydropattern and Nutrient
            Levels on the Big Cypress Reservation for the purpose of
            developing appropriate biotic performance measures to assess
            the success of the Tribe's CERP-related construction projects
            with the COE and the NRCS;
      --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.
        Most of this research is likely to be applicable to most areas of
    the Big Cypress Basin where similar forested wetland bio-regions exist.
                                   conclusion
        The Tribe understands that the President's government-wide
    management plan issued in August directed the Energy Department to
    align its applied-research projects to performance goals. We also
    understand that, eventually, the results of the Energy Department's
    efforts will be used as a model for examining the effectiveness of
    research and development programs throughout the government. The
    Tribe's research projects for which this testimony requests funding
    support the performance goals of the ecosystem restoration projects the
    Tribe is building with other federal agencies. Further, the results of
    the applied research for which the Tribe seeks funding will enhance the
    effectiveness of the physical projects.
        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, and the Tribe's role in this historic ecosystem
    restoration effort.
        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 American Indian Court Judges
                                  Association
        On behalf of the National American Indian Court Judges Association
    (NAICJA), I am pleased to submit this testimony on the fiscal year 2003
    budget for the Interior Department's funding for the Indian Tribal
    Justice Act and Tribal Courts (under the Tribal Priority Allocations).
        The National American Indian Court Judges Association (NAICJA) was
    incorporated in 1969. NAICJA is the largest organization representing
    Tribal Judges and Tribal Courts in the United States. NAICJA has
    approximately 138 member Judges. The mission of NAICJA is to strengthen
    and enhance Tribal justice systems through improvement and development
    of Tribal Courts and Tribal Court Judges.
    interior department funding indian tribal justice act and tribal courts
        NAICJA respectfully requests that, for the first time, Congress
    appropriate full and adequate funding for Indian Tribal Justice Act:
    NAICJA recommends a funding level of $58 million for the Indian Tribal
    Justice Act. While NAICJA supports the Interior Department's fiscal
    year 2001 budget request, the Act (reauthorized in 2001) has never been
    sufficiently funded. The good intentions of the Act are never achieved.
    A the same time, the number of Tribal Courts and their needs have
    substantially increased since the Act was first made law in 1993--more
    than 9 years ago.
        Regarding Tribal Courts (under the Tribal Priority Allocations):
    NAICJA strongly supports increased funding for Tribal Courts under the
    Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA). While we support the Interior
    Department's fiscal year 2001 budget request (which includes a $4
    million increase) this represents only a first step toward meeting the
    vital needs of Tribal justice systems. It is important to note that
    funding has steadily decreased since the passage of the Indian Tribal
    Justice Act. The needs (as recognized by Congress), however, have
    steadily increased with the passage of time, the increase in tribal
    courts, the increase of caseloads, Indian population growth, and rise
    in crime rate in Indian country.
        Tribal Courts must deal with a wide range of difficult criminal and
    civil justice problems on a daily basis, including the following:
      --The crime rate, especially the violent crime rate, has increased
            substantially in Indian Country. (At the same time, it has been
            declining nationally.) Tribal court systems are grossly under-
            funded to deal with increasing criminal justice problems.
      --Number/complexity of tribal civil caseloads have also been rapidly
            expanding. Tribal Courts are expected to deal with the same
            complex civil cases as state and Federal Courts with less than
            one half the funding.
      --Congress acknowledged the need for better funded Tribal Court
            systems when it enacted the Indian Tribal Justice Act in 1993.
            Congress specifically found that ``tribal justice systems are
            an essential part of tribal governments and serve as important
            forums for ensuring public health and safety and the political
            integrity of tribal governments'' and ``tribal justice systems
            are inadequately funded, and the lack of adequate funding
            impairs their operation.''
      --The Indian Tribal Justice Act promised more than $58 million per
            year in additional funding for Tribal Court systems starting in
            fiscal year 1994. Tribal Courts have yet to see ANY funding
            under this Act.
      --Since Congress enacted the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the needs of
            Tribal Court systems have continued to increase, but there has
            been no corresponding increase in funding for Tribal Court
            systems. In fact, the Bureau of Indian Affairs funding for
            Tribal Courts has actually decreased substantially since the
            Indian Tribal justice Act was enacted in 1993.
        The vast majority of the approximately 350 Tribal court systems are
    located in rural communities. These Tribal justice systems face many of
    the same difficulties faced by other isolated 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 lack sufficient jurisdiction over non-
    Indians, have complex jurisdictional relationships with Federal and
    state criminal justice systems, inadequate law enforcement, are a great
    distance from the few existing resources, face a lack of detention
    staff and facilities, have a lack of sentencing or disposition
    alternatives, lack of access to advanced technology, lack substance
    abuse testing and treatment options, etc.
        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 justice systems are the primary and most appropriate
    institutions for maintaining order in Tribal communities.

        ``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 Courts must deal with the very same issues state and Federal
    courts confront in the criminal context, including, child sexual abuse,
    alcohol and substance abuse, gang violence and violence against women.
    Tribal Courts, however, must address these complex issues with far
    fewer financial resources than their Federal and state counterparts.
    Judicial training that addresses the existing problems in Indian
    Country, while also being culturally sensitive, is essential for Tribal
    Courts to be effective in deterring and solving crime in Indian
    communities.
                  inadequate funding of tribal justice systems
        There is no question that Tribal justice systems are, and
    historically have been, under-funded. 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 . . .'' More than 10 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.''
        With 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). Congress
    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.
        Nine years after the Act was enacted into law, and even after
    reauthorization, no funding has been appropriated. Only minimal funds,
    at best, have been requested. Yet, even these minimal requests were
    deleted prior to passage. Even more appalling is the fact that BIA
    funding for Tribal Courts has actually substantially decreased
    following the enactment of the Indian Tribal Justice Act in 1993.
                                   conclusion
        Tribal justice systems are the primary and most appropriate
    institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities. They are key
    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 respectfully request that Congress consider the
    funding increases we have commented on, above.
        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). Please contact me at (715)
    369-1850, or NAICJA Executive Director Chuck Robertson, at (605) 342-
    4804 or naicja@rushmore.com with questions or comments. Thank you.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
                               Indian Reservation
                                  introduction
        The Fort Peck Tribes are pleased to present testimony on the fiscal
    year 2003 BIA and IHS Budget. We have included a budget sheet outlining
    the current levels of funding at Fort Peck and the level of need
    remaining in these programs.
        The Tribes previously submitted to the Subcommittee a proposal to
    effectuate real trust reform in Indian Country. The thrust of the
    Tribes' proposal is to return the operation of trust programs back to
    the agencies and the people who are impacted by the trust program
    operations. This proposal would cost approximately $5 million in the
    first year to implement at Fort Peck. The adequate funding levels shown
    on the attached budget sheet reflect the funding needs of the proposed
    demonstration program. We urge the Subcommittee to fund this proposal,
    which we believe is the only way Indian country will have true trust
    reform.
                          tribal priority allocations
        The Tribal Priority Allocations system is intended to give tribes
    an additional measure of flexibility in determining how to use
    available funds to best meet local needs. The Administration has
    requested an increase of $23 million for programs under TPA. While we
    support this request, it would still fall far short of allowing the
    Fort Peck Tribes to meet the needs of our people in key areas
    including, education, agriculture and tribal courts. We urge the
    Congress to do all it can to increase TPA above the level requested by
    the President.
        In particular, we are very concerned with the Administration's $4
    million cut proposed for General Assistance. This cut is premised on a
    purported decline in caseloads. It is difficult to believe this is in
    fact true on a national level, since we at Fort Peck have experienced
    an increase in requests for General Assistance. This increase is
    largely the result of the Welfare Reform law and the strict work and
    benefit restrictions placed on individuals. People, who have had the
    benefits terminated, are returning home to take advantage of tribal
    work, educational and housing programs. As a result, the GA shortfall
    at Fort Peck alone is $800,000. Thus, as Congress seeks to reauthorize
    the Welfare Reform law we would urge the Subcommittee not to cut GA,
    which is an important part of tribal assistant programs.
                                   education
    Higher Education
        We urge the Committee to support the education needs of Indian
    people. The President's budget requests $28 million for scholarships
    for Indian students to attend accredited post-secondary schools.
    Obtaining a degree in higher education--particularly for those
    individuals from families that have not previously sent anyone to
    college--takes courage and often considerable personal sacrifice. We
    believe it is our responsibility to support the efforts of our people
    to attend college. The Tribes provide scholarship funds available
    through the BIA program. However, the current levels of funding are
    already far too inadequate. For example, this year the Tribes have
    identified 230 students who are eligible for scholarship benefits for
    higher education but who cannot be served because of lack of funding.
    The BIA itself reports that the level of unmet requests for
    scholarships nationwide has increased steadily over the last 3 years.
    Tribal Colleges
        We oppose the Administration's proposal to cut tribal colleges
    funding by $2 million. The twenty-six tribal colleges are important
    institutions in the remote tribal communities that they serve. On our
    Reservation, we operate the Fort Peck Tribal College, a fully
    accredited institution, offering Associate Degrees in arts, science and
    applied sciences. We have 341 students enrolled this year.
        The College offers our students an opportunity to obtain a higher
    education without having to leave their homes and families. This is
    critical for many of our students, especially our our single parent
    students, who need family members to provide child care. These students
    do not have the resources or the network to attend school in Billings
    or Great Falls and if it weren't for our Tribal College they would have
    no opportunity to improve their lives, through higher education.
        We strongly urge the Subcommittee to increase funding for this
    vital program that is improving the lives of Indian people.
                             indian health service
        The President's budget requests a total of $2.9 billion for IHS
    services and construction. While this represents an increase on paper,
    it will not translate into any program improvements or expansions. This
    increase does not even keep pace with medical inflation rates.
        The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to provide health
    care to Native Americans, an obligation that was paid with millions of
    acres of land and resources. This Federal responsibility has been
    reaffirmed through treaties, legislation, executive orders and policies
    by Congress and Presidential Administrations. The Indian Health Service
    budget must include consideration for medical inflation, population
    increases and mandatory payroll increase. The IHS has adsorbed over $1
    billion mandatory cost increases over the past 10 years causing the
    loss of purchasing power that has led to insufficient funding for
    medical services putting lives and health of Native people at risk.
    This is not acceptable. The same allowance given to federal programs,
    Medicaid and Medicare, for inflation and population adjustments should
    be applied to the IHS fiscal year 2003 Budget.
        The health indicators in Indian communities consistently
    demonstrate higher infant mortality, teenage suicide, accident,
    alcoholism, diabetes, and heart disease rates among Indian people when
    compared with other minorities and the general American population.
    Yet, money directed to health care, especially preventative care, such
    as routine checkups and health education, that clearly improve the
    quality of life and help avoid more expensive health care costs in the
    future is not included in the Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget
    request. This is unacceptable.
        Tribes are particularly concerned that the Administration failed to
    request an increase for contract health care. This program is critical
    in places like Fort Peck where our members do not have access to an IHS
    hospital or physicians. Currently, contract health services are funded
    only at the highest priority level. This means that only those that are
    threatened with life or limb are referred out to receive health care.
    Thus, people waiting on critical surgery like a gall bladder removal
    must wait until a doctor can certify that the patient's life is in
    danger, before that person may receive care. This is very costly in not
    only dollars, but lives. We urge the Subcommittee to provide an
    increase in Contract Health Care.

    LEVEL OF DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BUREAU OF INDIANS AFFAIRS AND IHS INDIAN
                   HEALTH SERVICE FUNDING TO FORT PECK TRIBES
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year
                                             -------------------------------
                                               2002 current    2003 adequate
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fort Peck Agency Funding:
        Aid to Tribal Gov't.................  ..............        $805,162
        Contract Support....................        $189,860         295,860
        Social Services.....................         523,189         608,957
        Welfare Assistance..................       1,045,924       1,800,000
        Community Fire Protection...........  ..............         280,000
        Economic Development................         147,843         268,138
        Probate \1\.........................         117,827       1,576,920
        Natural Resources...................          88,618         783,521
        Other Rights Protection.............         157,250         422,016
        Real Estate Services................         703,775         876,176
        Trust Services, Gen.................          51,543          90,487
        Executive Direction \1\.............         110,105         194,981
        Administrative Services \1\.........         285,209       1,066,441
        Trust Financial \1\.................  ..............       1,485,896
        Legal Services \1\..................  ..............         549,267
        Facilities..........................         183,000         329,741
        Facilities/Other one time \1\.......  ..............         700,000
        Road Maintenance....................         415,000         931,888
        Irrigation O&M......................  ..............         461,000
        Safety Management...................  ..............           7,500
        Noxious Weed Eradication............          24,439         234,000
        Water Management/Development........  ..............          30,000
        Facilities Mgmt./ Maintenance.......  ..............          90,000
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................       4,043,582      13,887,951
                                             ===============================
    Tribal Public Law 93-638 Contracts &
     Grants:
        Scholarships........................         341,331         730,075
        Adult Vocational Training...........         199,254         254,400
        Direct Employment...................          85,395         117,000
        Johnson O'Malley Program............         161,753         450,000
        Housing Improvement Program.........         155,738         346,110
        Indian Child Welfare Act............          67,509          97,500
        Sexual Abuse Victim. Prog...........         150,600         200,000
        Water Resources.....................         182,276         200,000
        Wildlife & Parks....................         114,000         493,980
        Tribal Courts.......................         235,562         250,000
        Law Enforcement/criminal invest.....         737,517       2,000,000
        Detention Services/juvenile services       1,042,116       2,000,000
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................       3,473,061       7,139,065
                                             ===============================
    IHS--service unit:
        Hospitals & Clinics.................       4,443,800       6,247,500
        Dental..............................         529,100         819,000
        Mental Health.......................         433,800         525,000
        Contract Health.....................       5,404,800       6,000,000
        Public Health Hearing...............         314,900         420,000
        Maintenance & Improvements..........          60,700          80,000
        Environmental Health................         293,500         308,175
        Facilities..........................         310,200         325,500
        Quarters............................          14,100          50,000
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................      11,804,900      14,775,175
                                             ===============================
    Public Law 93-638 IHS TRIBAL:
        Tribal Health Administration........         147,174         183,967
        Community Health Rep................         768,524         960,655
        Environmental Health Program........         107,382         134,227
        Health Education....................         165,699         207,123
        Nutritionist........................          75,455          94,318
        Janitorial Services.................         130,714         163,392
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................       1,394,950       1,743,682
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Denotes programs to be include in the Fort Peck Tribes' Trust Reform
      demonstration program.

                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
                                  Reservation
        On behalf of the Colville Tribes, I am presenting the Tribes' top
    priorities for the President's fiscal year 2003 Budget for Interior &
    Related Agencies. The Tribes priorities are:
        1. Colville Tribes Detention Facility (BIA).-- The Colvile Tribes
    are concerned that the Bureau of Indian Affairs' total request for
    Operation & Maintenance of Detention Facilities is inadequate to meet
    the needs for facilities. Our facility is scheduled for opening in
    November of 2003. Our operations and maintenance budget alone is
    estimated at $2,509,734.
        2. Lake Roosevelt Management (BIA).--Funding of $630,000 in the
    BIA's Parks and wildlife Account for Colville and Spokane Tribes'
    management of their interests in the Indians zones of Lake Roosevelt
    has been stripped out in the President's fiscal year 2003 Budget. We
    are asking that this money be restored.
                          colville detention facility
        Purpose of Funding.--The Tribes request a $2,509,734 add on for the
    Operation & Maintenance costs associated with the Colville Tribal
    Detention Facility scheduled for opening in November of 2003.
        Justification of Funding.--The Colville Tribes were put on the
    BIA's PONI Process in fiscal year 1990. Since 1999, funding for new
    detention centers in Indian Country has been provided within the
    Department of Justice's (DOJ) appropriation. DOJ funding in the total
    amount of $7,079,550 for construction of the Tribes' Detention Facility
    has now been provided.
        With technical assistance provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs'
    Office of Law Enforcement Services in Albuquerque, N.M., the Colville
    Tribes scheduled construction to begin on its estimated 30,000 square
    foot facility by October 2002.
        The projected occupancy is 24 Juvenile and 30 Adult beds.
        Colville is 1 of 10 facilities scheduled to come on line at various
    times in fiscal year 2003. The BIA now plans to partially funded
    operations for the Colville facility at $638,000. However, the
    estimated operational costs alone for the facility is $501,947. The
    total personnel costs is an additional $2 million.
        The Tribes strongly urge Congress to fully fund the operation of
    these important facilities.
                           lake roosevelt management
        Purpose of Funding.--The Tribes request that the $630,000 in Lake
    Roosevelt Management Funds be restored to the President's BIA Budget
    for fiscal year 2003. These funds are provided to the Spokane and
    Colville Tribes to carry out our governmental responsibilities in our
    respective zones in the Lake Roosevelt Management Area pursuant to the
    1990 Cooperative Management Agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation,
    National Park Service and the BIA.
        Justification of Funding.--In 1988 Congress directed the Interior
    Department to negotiate a new management agreement for Lake Roosevelt
    with the Spokane and Colville Tribes that recognizes the respective
    rights of these tribes to manage areas of Lake Roosevelt within the
    Indian zones of each of the two reservations. After negotiations among
    the Bureau of Reclamation, National Park, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    and the parties reached an agreement in April of 1990.
        While Reclamation has jurisdiction over the Lake's Reclamation
    Zone, including Grand Coulee Dam and associated Project facilities and
    the National Park Service manages and regulates all activities and
    development in the Lake's Recreation Zone, the Colville and Spokane
    Tribes plan, manage, and regulate activities in our respective tribal
    zones on the Lake.
        Since the Agreement was signed by the parties and the Secretary of
    the Interior, the BIA has provided annual funding to the tribes to
    carry out our management responsibilities. We urge Congress to restore
    the $630,000 to the BIA Budget for this important program.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
        This testimony is submitted by the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
    regarding our concerns and requests for fiscal year 2003 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 recommendations
        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;
      --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; and
      --Not consider any re-programming of funds to implement the
            Department of Interior's proposed Bureau of Indian Trust Asset
            Management (BITAM) trust reform proposal, unless supported by
            the Tribal Leader Task Force.
                    tribal-specific appropriation priorities
        1. $162,000 one-time funding for start-up and equipment cost for a
    Tribal 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;
        3. $35,000 increase in BIA Tribal base funding for unfunded
    Operations & Maintenance programs; and,
        4. $100,000 increase in BIA Tribal base funding to cover Tribal
    share of Point-no-Point Treaty Council for fisheries management and law
    enforcement operations.
                  local/regional requests and recommendations
        1. Restore $500,000 in Western Washington (Boldt) for tribal
    shellfish resource management programs in Washington State (Northwest
    Region);
        2. Restore $3,041,000 in the Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program for
    tribal participation in a forest practices review program in Washington
    State (Northwest Region);
        3. Restore $320,000 in Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights for
    tribal management of shellfish resources and associated treat harvest
    in Washington State; and,
        4. 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 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 $314,000,000 increase for IHS unfunded mandatory,
    medical inflation, pay costs and population growth needed to maintain
    existing health care services; and
        5. Support all requests and recommendations of the National
    Congress of American Indians.
                    tribal-specific appropriation priorities
    Development of a Community Dental Clinic.--+$162,000
        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. 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. We plan to serve Tribal Members and
    Medicaid enrollees from the community at our own facilities. The Tribe
    will be constructing a 3,300 square foot dental clinic with 4 chairs,
    offices, and laboratory facilities at our Tribal complex. Total project
    development and start up costs are $610,000. Construction funding of
    $348,000 has been obtained from the Indian Community Development Block
    Grant program and grants of $50,000 each have been received from the
    Washington State Department of Health and the Paul Allen Foundation
    have been obtained for equipment. An additional $162,000 is needed to
    complete development and initiate operation of the Tribal Dental
    Clinic.
    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.
    Increase in BIA tribal base funding for fisheries management.--
            +$100,000
        When the JST was recognized in 1981 and fishing rights affirmed,
    the Tribe joined the Point No Point (PNP) Treaty Council, a fisheries
    management consortium comprised of the 3 S'Klallam Tribes and the
    Skokomish Tribe (successors in interest to the Treaty of Point No
    Point). At that time, PNPTC had a base budget of $691,000 for the 3
    tribes. By pro-rating that amount, it equated to a budget of $230,000
    per tribe. Due to funding limitations, and the conclusion that adding a
    fourth tribe would not require an equal amount of add-on, the BIA only
    provided an add-on of $133,000 for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.
    Following Self-Governance, this unequal base was passed through to PNP.
    This base was never been brought up to the full level for Jamestown.
    Consequently, whereas the other 3 tribes have a base of over $200,000,
    Jamestown cannot pass through an equal amount. This has created a
    perception that Jamestown is not contributing their ``fair share'' to
    the organization. Additionally, PNPTC is strapped because pay costs
    have not been provided to them as they have to tribes, creating a
    continuous erosion in the amount available to provide COLAS and other
    adjustments to their employees.
                  local/regional requests and recommendations
        The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is a direct beneficiary of the
    collective Tribal efforts and continues to support the requests and
    recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians,
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian
    Fisheries Commission.
               self-governance and other national considerations
        Restore $256,000 and Provide $100,000 Increase to Self-Governance
    Office.--In order to fund the on-going Self-Governance Communication
    and Education Project (SGCE) 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 11 years, the SGCE has
    provided technical assistance and factual information about Self-
    Governance. There are now over 220 Tribes implementing Self-Governance
    and the request for information regarding this initiative continues to
    increase. The SGCE 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 an 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. For several years, the BIA and IHS have
    openly acknowledged that they are tens of millions dollars short each
    year in CSC funding. However, neither the BIA nor IHS has formally
    reported these shortfalls and no Presidential budget request during
    this period has included the necessary funds to close the shortfall and
    fully fund CSC. An additional $70 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). CSC funding is not discretionary and should be fully paid
    consistent with tribal self-determination legislation.
        Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustments.--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
    Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report on Indian-related federal
    spending trends for fiscal year 1975-fiscal year 2000 states that
    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 $314 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services.--IHS
    and Tribal programs have had to absorb inflationary cost increases for
    the last nine 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.
        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
    United States to Indian people to provide basic health, safety,
    education and economic security. We appreciate this Subcommittee's
    continued support and urge that Tribal government operations be
    afforded the highest priority in your appropriation decisions.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Pueblo of Jemez
        The Pueblo of Jemez is a federally recognized American Indian tribe
    with just over 3,300 tribal members, most of whom reside in the single
    village that is known as Walatowa. Walatowa is located in Sandoval
    County New Mexico, within the southern end of the majestic Canon de San
    Diego. It is situated on State Highway 4, approximately 55 miles
    northwest of Albuquerque and 42 miles southwest of Santa Fe. The Pueblo
    of Jemez is a ``non-gaming'' tribe and does not have financial
    resources available to fortify basic community infrastructure
    requirements.
        The Pueblo of Jemez Tribal Government hereby submits testimony to
    the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations. The following issues
    are of tremendous concern to the tribal leadership of our Pueblo and
    have been placed on high priority status. We are seeking federal
    assistance in developing solutions to these basic ``quality of life''
    issues.
                 community water system improvements: $776,000
    Drinking Water Delivery System: $446,000
        The Problem.--The Pueblo has experienced 50 years of unplanned and
    inefficient drinking water systems construction. This has led to the
    development of a drinking water delivery system that is difficult to
    control and sanitize. Monthly water quality sampling throughout the
    Pueblo has revealed that chlorine residuals are not evenly distributed
    throughout the system. Homes closest to the treated water receive high
    concentrations of chlorinated water, while homes farthest away
    typically receive water that is not properly disinfected.
        The lack of disinfecting control of the Pueblo's drinking water has
    created a multitude of administrative, operational and water quality
    problems. Households that can afford it have drinking water delivered
    to their homes and place of business. Others simply refuse to pay their
    water bills creating shortfalls in revenues that impact the Pueblo's
    operation and maintenance capabilities. At present the Pueblo's water
    bill collection is facing a $120,000 deficit. A shortfall in O&M
    capabilities translates into declining services, which means poor
    drinking water services.
        Proposed Solution.--To remedy this problem the Pueblo of Jemez is
    proposing to construct a new well and water line. The new water line
    will be dedicated to the water storage tanks, simplifying the control
    of disinfected water. Indian Health Service (IHS) engineers have
    estimated the total cost of the project to be approximately $446,000.
    Completing this project will ensure that drinking water is properly
    disinfected prior to its distribution to the community. The added
    control of water disinfecting and distribution will create better
    drinking water quality and help to preserve the Pueblo's utility
    management capabilities.
    Drinking Water for the Jemez ``Red Rocks'' Public Access Area: $330,000
        The Problem.--There are many serious problems with the drinking
    water system located at the Jemez Red Rocks public access and
    recreation area. The Jemez Red Rocks is a scenic area along NM State
    Highway 4, and is considered the ``gateway'' to numerous state and
    federally designated recreation areas. Visitor traffic is increasing
    every year; however, there are inadequate water and sewer systems in
    this area to serve the visiting public. Currently, the production well
    is located in a ``tight'' sandstone geologic formation, making water
    production to multiple facilities difficult. Wastewater management is
    also problematic due to the inadequate size of existing leach fields.
    Existing leach fields are failing and could become a source of drinking
    water contamination. Furthermore, the production well is located in a
    gradient depression adjacent to a large septic leach field and
    underground gasoline storage. The well's proximity to these potential
    sources of contamination increases the risk of drinking water
    contamination to the public.
        Proposed Solution.--To eliminate the problems of the Red Rocks
    water system the Pueblo of Jemez is proposing to abandon the existing
    well and extend water lines from the community drinking water system to
    the Red Rocks area. A new wastewater septic system and drain field will
    also be developed to accommodate for future growth at this site. This
    project will eliminate the need for a new well or water storage tanks
    and the need to treat and filter water from a newly established well.
    Therefore, operation and maintenance costs will be significantly
    reduced. In addition, the wastewater leach field and underground
    storage tank will no longer be a significant health risk. The overall
    cost of this project has been estimated by IHS to be $330,000.
                   geothermal investigation project: $442,000
        Background.--The Pueblo of Jemez is located on the southwestern
    slopes of the Jemez Mountains in north-central New Mexico. The Jemez
    Mountains are volcanic in origin and support a geothermal system that
    lies beneath Jemez Tribal lands. This geothermal reservoir has yet to
    be investigated thoroughly. Limited surveys and a well drilling project
    coordinated with New Mexico State University and the Council of Energy
    Resource Tribes (CERT) were performed in the late 1980's and early
    1990's. Subterranean surveys and well drilling results indicated that
    the Pueblo of Jemez has the potential to develop geothermal resources
    to support limited economic enterprises. Examples include: Spa/bath
    house, greenhouse and aquaculture. However, these studies also
    concluded that additional field investigations should be concluded to
    fully determine geothermal potentials.
        Proposal.--The Pueblo of Jemez is requesting funding to continue
    investigations to better understand the capacity of its geothermal
    resources. These investigations will be coordinated with Natural
    Resource Consulting Engineers, Inc. (NRCE) and New Mexico State
    University College of Engineering Southwest Technology Development
    Institute (NMSU). NMSU and NRCE shall provide technical assistance and
    oversight of all investigation activities. Estimated cost for
    investigation and assessment activities is estimated at approximately
    $408,000. Funding will be used by the Pueblo to drill exploratory
    wells, conduct laboratory water analysis, and conduct subterranean
    geologic surveys on a 6 mile stretch of the Jemez geologic fault
    system. Please see detailed itemized cost estimates below.
        Zia Sand Aquifer Geothermal Test.--A test well was drilled in 1991
    to a depth of 240 feet into the Zia Sand aquifer. The well flowed 150
    gpm with a temperature of 136 deg.F from a fracture zone at 225 to 240
    feet. The well is located about 2 miles southwest of Jemez Pueblo.
    Other areas of the Zia Sand aquifer near the Jemez River should be
    explored, both north and south of Jemez Pueblo.
        Madera Limestone Aquifer.--No deep wells have been drilled in areas
    where the Madera Limestone is confined by overlying beds of low
    permeability. The Madera Limestone aquifer should be explored for
    potential high-permeability fractured-faulted zones with possible caves
    formed by geothermal dissolution.
                              bia--law enforcement
        The Pueblo of Jemez supported the $18 million increase for Bureau
    of Indian Affairs and the $82 million in increased funds for Department
    of Justice for law enforcement programs. The Indian Country Law
    Enforcement Initiative is especially important to our community. The
    Pueblo does not have a tribal police department and instead depends
    upon BIA law enforcement. Although funding for the Presidential
    Initiative on Law Enforcement in fiscal year 1999 permitted the BIA to
    hire an additional police officer for Jemez, the Pueblo still suffers
    from a critical shortage of law enforcement personnel. Two police
    officers patrol the Pueblo. At times, only one BIA Police Officer is on
    duty and must cover a 65-70 mile radius for five different Pueblos.
    This means that one officer must meet the law enforcement needs of over
    10,000 people including Jemez Pueblo, which is impossible. Because of
    this shortage, the Governor of the Pueblo of Jemez, must assume the
    role of Police Officer, despite the lack of formal police training. If
    funding levels were adequate, this grave situation could be avoided.
    Because the need for law enforcement is so critical, the Pueblo is
    exploring the possibility of assuming responsibility for this function
    through a Public Law 93-638 contract with the BIA.
        The BIA had a police substation at the Pueblo of Jemez during the
    1990's. The tribe eliminated this substation due to a shortage of
    office space and manpower (trained Police Officers). However, in view
    of the critical issues associated with the lack of law enforcement at
    Jemez Pueblo, we must re-establish the police substation. The proposed
    facility will house tribal law enforcement officers, BIA Officers, and
    officers from the tribal conservation program. The Pueblo is seeking
    $400,000 to establish a substation to be located at the Jemez Red Rocks
    area. These funds will support establishment of the new facility,
    required equipment, and subsidize existing funds for required staff.
                               bia--tribal courts
        Since the passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993, there
    has been no allocation made of these monies to Tribal Courts throughout
    Indian Country, including our jurisdiction, the Pueblo of Jemez. It is
    critical for the Pueblo of Jemez to continue our tribal court system
    and provide fair justice as do our fellow federal and state courts. We
    have seen a steady increase in criminal, civil, and traffic cases filed
    in the Pueblo of Jemez Tribal Court for adults and juveniles.
        The Pueblo of Jemez is requesting an additional $80,000 per year to
    operate an efficient Tribal Court Office. These funds will be utilized
    to compensate critical staff and provide much needed training in the
    field of criminal justice systems.
                          bia--social service funding
        The Pueblo of Jemez, which is a Public Law 101-638 contractor, is
    urging the Committee to continue funding BIA Social Service and Indian
    Child Welfare Act (ICWA) programs. The programs offer services to
    children, youth, and families including the elderly.
        Services offered under the Pueblo of Jemez Social Service program
    are crisis intervention for child abuse, neglect and sexual abuse,
    counseling for children, elders and families and child welfare
    placement, including out of home placements to foster homes and
    referrals to residential treatment centers due to child abuse and
    neglect. Most cases are crisis calls, which require immediate
    intervention. Referrals are made to other tribal resources such as
    Behavioral Health, Tribal Courts or the Health clinic.
        The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) program offers prevention and
    intervention services. Parenting classes are offered to the community
    with childcare being provided. Prevention classes are also held at the
    three local schools on a weekly basis.
        The caseload in fiscal year 2000 for the Social Service program was
    20 cases and currently the cases remain at 20 open cases.
        We have one Social Service Worker. If we are to adequately address
    these problems and implement the new Federal mandated Social Service
    requirements and requirements with no increase in funding, it is
    critical that this Committee increase funding for these programs. The
    Pueblo of Jemez has not seen any increase for either program in over 10
    years. The Pueblo's current budget of $104,016 is grossly inadequate to
    address the existing needs in the area of Social Service and ICWA for
    our community. The services provided with the current budget are mostly
    crisis-oriented services and limited case management.
        Therefore, we are requesting an increase of $200,000 to increase
    services to address transportation problems, long-term services which
    require extra time such as foster care placement for children, an
    additional caseworker, and to compensate the Social Service Program
    Manager who is currently not funded for managing both the Social
    Service and ICWA programs. There is a lack of infrastructure for the
    Pueblo of Jemez Social Service program. We provide services to the
    community and we do not have adequate space to provide confidential
    counseling sessions, educational classes such as our parenting classes
    and training for the community. Childcare facilities are important for
    our participating clients. These additional services are important to
    run an effective quality Social Service Program in the Pueblo of Jemez.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Indian Education Association
        The National Indian Education Association (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 student members. NIEA would like to submit this statement on the
    President's fiscal year 2003 budget as it affects American Indian,
    Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian education.
        The federal government is responsible for only two school systems
    in this country--the schools of the Department of Defense (DOD) and
    those operated by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs
    (BIA). Ideally, these schools should be the ``state of the art'' when
    it comes to education as federal policy, especially when major
    educational mandates are approved by Congress and the Administration.
    In terms of funding, DOD schools compare with BIA schools on a per
    pupil basis. In terms of academic success, however, BIA schools lag
    behind their counterpart. If you were to look at the education levels
    of American Indians thirty to 50 years earlier, you would find dropout
    rates approaching 100 percent in some areas and few graduates exiting
    high school. Even fewer still were attending college. The legacy of the
    boarding school era was still a factor and children who were removed
    from their parents were becoming parents themselves. All of these
    factors and the insistence of Indian people to retain their culture
    effectively countered termination and assimilation efforts, including
    those carried out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        When you look at what has been the history of Indian education,
    Indian people have indeed come a long way over the last half century.
    All of the impediments that are now affecting academic achievement
    among American Indian students all have their history in the
    inconsistency of Indian education policy. Today is no different as in
    the signing of the recently passed No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
    which promises to up the ante and require higher levels of academic
    achievement among all students. How will Indian students fare under
    this scenario? For starters, Indian students are already being
    identified as being the lowest performers among all students. The
    Administration has made plans to privatize the lowest performing
    schools which equates to one third of the schools in the BIA system.
    How this initiative was conceived, the cost, and how Indian country was
    involved in the planning, are all factors into whether this plan will
    get off the ground. The legality of such a proposal is also in
    question. Indeed, in the long term, the administration is trying to
    help Indian communities, but is removing school governance the best
    way?
        According to the 1990 Census, there are 600,000 American Indian
    students in grades K through 12. Approximately eight percent (50,000)
    are educated through BIA schools on primarily Indian reservations. The
    majority of Indian students, however, attend public schools and are
    eligible for a number of education programs that are funded by the
    Department of Education. Specific programs for Indian students include
    those administered the department's Office of Indian Education. In
    terms of funding priorities, NIEA recommends targeted increases to the
    following programs with summaries on all programs benefitting Indian
    students.
                  bureau of indian affairs education programs
        While many domestic programs have been cut back to fund the War on
    Terrorism and to increase domestic security, BIA Education programs
    have not been reduced. This may be good news, but the 1.5 percent is
    insufficient to cover pay cost increases resulting in a slight decrease
    in the dollars available for program purposes. The increase for BIA
    education programs is significantly less than that proposed for the
    Department of Education programs, bringing into question whether BIA
    funded school students are being left out of the President's education
    initiative. The best news is that the Construction funds continue to
    flow in amounts designed to eliminate the school facilities backlog by
    fiscal year 2006.
        There is an unfortunate budget initiative, heralded as a
    ``centerpiece'' of the Bureau's education program to ``privatize'' the
    lowest performing BIA operated schools. Early reports concerning the
    details are inconsistent and contradictory. What seems clear is that
    the Bureau is proceeding without legal authority on an initiative that
    appears to violate self-determination policy and laws. It is an
    unwelcome distraction during a period when the Bureau should be
    focusing on how to improve educational performance under the new ESEA
    requirements and assisting tribal initiatives to assume a greater role
    in their educational programs.
        Below are the major Indian education programs in the BIA's fiscal
    year 2003 budget request and NIEA's recommendations for appropriate
    funding increases.
    Indian School Equalization Program.--Increase from $347,475,000 to
            $353,475,000
        This number includes a $3,542,000 increase over fiscal year 2002
    and is $2,000,000 short of covering the required pay adjustments. While
    there is an estimated decrease in student enrollment, it is unlikely
    that this will be the case in SY 2003-2004 when these forward funded
    dollars become available.
        While NIEA understands that there is little chance of substantial
    increases in domestic programs this year, we believe that the costs for
    pay adjustments under ISEP should be fully met. NIEA believes that the
    amounts of increase in the BIA education should be commensurate with
    increases in the Department of Education. We support an increase of no
    less than $6 million so that the pay adjustments can be made without a
    reduction in the program. An increase commensurate with Title I funding
    in the Department of Education would require an increase of over $34
    million.
    Indian School Equalization Program (Program Adjustments).--$5,675,000
        This line item is increased by over $5,000,000 and its use is
    clearly being expanded. This is where the Bureau has included dollars
    for the ``privatization'' initiative; $2 million for employee
    displacement (transferred from the ``Special Projects and Pooled
    Overhead'' portion of the Budget) and $3 million for costs to implement
    privatization that are unclear.
        NIEA has strong reservations concerning the ``privatization''
    initiative. NIEA supports additional resources to encourage self-
    determination, namely increases in employee displacement funding and
    administrative cost grants. The lack of funding in these two line items
    has squelched granting and contracting of schools in the past and
    continues to do so today. NIEA recommends that the $3 million be used
    for planning by tribal organizations that are interested in assuming
    more control of their educational programs.
    Early Childhood Education.--$15,263,000
        This increase of $3,053,000 over last year will add about seven
    more schools to the popular FACE program in keeping with the Education
    initiative of this Administration. NIEA strongly supports this request
    and the continuing expansion of this program.
    Student transportation.--Increase from $38,506,000 to $50,000,000
        This item contains a welcome increase of $1,960,000 for this
    perennially under-funded part of school operations. These additional
    dollars will reduce the amount that ISEP dollars must pay to get the
    students to school; therefore, this counts as an actual increase for
    instruction. NIEA supports full funding for this line item which would
    be around $50 million. While any increase is appreciated, the NIEA must
    go on record to state that it is not enough. The failure to fully fund
    this line item drains instructional dollars from the schools.
    Facilities Operations.--Increase from $57,687,000 to $70,000,000
        This seriously under-funded program receives an increase of
    $2,214,000, very welcome, though it will not be anywhere near enough to
    end the under-funding. As in the case with Student Transportation, this
    increase will decrease the amount that ISEP must pay each year on
    facilities costs, but schools will still have to pay out large amounts
    for basic facilities operation from their ISEP funding. NIEA supports
    full funding under the needs based formula which would require over $70
    million. Failure of the Congress to provide this money results in
    school facilities that deteriorate more rapidly than they should.
    Schools, in order to keep the lights on and the facility in good
    repair, must cover the costs from amounts appropriated for instruction.
    No school should have to make this decision.
    Administrative Costs Grants.--Increase from $46,065,000 to $60,000,000
        As in years past, the BIA has requested an increase for this under-
    funded line item; this year totaling $3,000,000. This amount falls far
    short of fully funding the statutory formula. Congress has repeatedly
    failed to appropriate the amount requested by the BIA, much less fully
    fund the formula. This increase may not even be adequate to cover the
    administrative cost grants needed for the new grants and contracts that
    should be in place by SY 2004, when this money becomes available.
        The amount requested in this line item is inconsistent with the
    BIA's stated initiative to encourage tribes to contract/grant the
    remaining BIA schools. Failure to fully fund administrative cost grants
    prevents tribes from authorizing additional grants/contracts due to
    adverse impact on schools that are already operating under grant/
    contract. The $3 million increase will probably not be adequate to fund
    new grant schools, nor would it be sufficient to fully fund the
    statutory formula even if there were no new schools converting. The BIA
    states that the current level of funding for administrative cost grants
    is at the seventy percent level and that the $3 million would increase
    that level to 75 percent. NIEA supports full funding of these grants,
    requiring an increase to at least $60 million. Since this line item is
    forward funded, even that amount will be inadequate by SY 2004 if the
    schools currently expected to convert to grant do so.
    Tribal Education Departments.--Increase from $0 to $5,000,000
        The Bureau's Tribal Education Departments program has been funded
    except on one occasion. NIEA recommends funding this line item at least
    $5 million to ensure that tribal education departments are given the
    best opportunity to fulfill there roles in the event the privatization
    initiative moves forward.
    Tribally Controlled Colleges.--Increase from $38,029,000 to $42,000,000
        This line item contains a cut of $2,000,000, seemingly unrelated to
    any cutbacks in TCCC programs. This program has been successful in
    getting increases over the past few years, but here they seem to be
    losing ground. NIEA opposes this cut in the college fund. Community
    colleges are playing an increasingly important role in Indian country,
    as they are called upon to support the activities of the local schools
    in many ways. This cut would be very detrimental to these important
    efforts. NIEA supports an increase in this program of $2,000,000 rather
    than a cut, resulting in a level of about $42 million.
    Employee Displacement.--$2,235,000
        This line item that pays severance costs to Federal employees who
    lose their jobs when programs are contracted/granted is reduced by
    $2,000,000 from last year. The BIA is obviously expected very little by
    way of new grants/contracts next year. This reduction seems at odds
    with the idea of an initiative to encourage tribal or private grants/
    contracts of school programs.
        The cut in this line item is inconsistent with the
    ``privatization'' initiative. As with Administrative Costs Grants, any
    real move to increase the amount of contracting/granting would require
    an increase in this line item. As it is, we do not believe that this
    amount will be sufficient to fund even those schools already in the
    pipeline for conversion this coming July, and this fund pays severance
    costs for any Public Law 93-638 contracting/compacting as well as grant
    conversions.
        It is very difficult to estimate the amounts needed very far in
    advance and a better method for determining or meeting the needs should
    be considered. It appears that $2 million has been transferred from
    this line item to ISEP Program Adjustments. It is unclear whether this
    is only for severance pay in cases where ``privatization'' is occurring
    and whether the regular employee displacement line item would still be
    used for tribal grant conversions.
    Replacement School Construction.--$125,223,000
        The steady flow of construction dollars continues. Though this line
    item is reduced by $2,576,000, it is more than made up in the FI&R line
    item for renovation. NIEA strongly supports the funding level in this
    request.
    Facilities Improvement and Repair.--$164,374,000
        This line contains an increase of $2,784,000 over last year as the
    Administration continues with its commitment to eliminate the backlog
    of school facilities by fiscal year 2006. NIEA strongly supports and is
    very appreciative of the funding level of this line item.
    Special Programs and Pooled Overhead, Postsecondary Training
            Programs.--Increase from $0 to $7,071,000
        Several training programs are recommended for zero funding,
    including, United Tribes Technical College, United Sioux Tribe
    Development Corporation, National Ironworkers Training Program, Alaska
    Native Aviation Training Program, Yuut Elitnauviat People's Learning
    Center and the Crownpoint Institute of Technology. NIEA supports
    continuation funding these post secondary training programs since they
    are vital for the economic development of the reservations they serve.
    This will further exacerbate unemployment and the resulting problems on
    reservations. These programs give people hope for a better life.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the Yakama Nation
                                   background
        Location, Size, & Composition of Reservation.--The Yakama
    Reservation is located in south central Washington on the east slope of
    the Cascade Mountain range. We have approximately 10,000 enrolled
    members, have a reservation of approximately 1.3 million acres, of
    which 613,200 acres are forested, and have treaty-based interests and
    rights in a ceded area of more than 10 million acres of Washington.
        Spruce Budworm Epidemic.--Our forest is currently experiencing an
    epidemic spruce budworm infestation resulting from past management
    practices by the Federal government. The epidemic threatens our economy
    and increases the risk of catastrophic fires that threaten our lands
    and the adjacent federal, state and private forestlands. At great
    expense, we are having to vastly exceed our normal harvest to salvage
    budworm damaged timber. If budworm infected timber is not harvested at
    a certain stage, its value is profoundly reduced and after it dies, it
    becomes highly ignitable. We must have help from the United States on
    this matter. It should be noted that the mismanagement of this timber
    by the federal government is going to leave the United States in a
    position of major liability.
        Wapato Irrigation Project (WIP).--WIP is the largest Indian
    irrigation project administered by the BIA, serving predominantly non-
    tribal agricultural interests that generate crops (predominantly fruit,
    hops and hay). It is the largest irrigation district in the Yakima
    Basin annually delivering 655,000 acre-ft of water to more than 140,000
    acres of irrigated land on the Yakama Reservation.
        Our economy is based in forestry and our lands support an enormous
    local agricultural industry. Income we realize from timber sales is
    used for forestry management, Tribal government and services, and
    nominal per capita payments to Tribal members. Our large land base
    requires an enormous effort to manage natural resources. We realize
    that our needs are unlikely to be fully met by the likely budget for
    natural resources or any other component of the BIA and IHS budgets. We
    hope they will dramatize the extreme need and gross underfunding of
    these programs, and that the Subcommittee will begin to address our
    needs and those of Indian country generally.
                                water resources
        Water Planning and Pre-Development.--We participate in the Yakima
    River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP) that includes the
    Irrigation Water Conservation Plan for the Wapato Irrigation Project,
    the Toppenish Creek Corridor Enhancement Project, and the Irrigation
    Demonstration Project. We are currently preparing a Comprehensive Water
    Management Plan for the Toppenish and Simcoe Basin. Information in this
    plan and other existing reports can supplement the preparation of a
    needed reservation-wide Comprehensive Water Management Plan. A
    Secretary-approved plan is required so that the WIP can comply with
    ESA. We request $125,000 for fiscal year 2003 to hire Natural Resources
    Consulting Engineers, Inc. (NRCE) to prepare a draft plan.
        Upgrading of WIP Facility to Comply with the Endangered Species Act
    (ESA).--Operation and maintenance procedures of the WIP negatively
    impact the listed Bull Trout and Yakima Basin Steelhead Trout (an
    andromous species). The BIA is currently developing a Biological
    Assessment (BA) of WIP operations to determine how operating procedures
    will need to be changed and upgraded. Initial findings indicate that
    WIP is deficient in many areas and immediate action is necessary to
    avoid jeopardizing the project's ability to deliver irrigation water.
    The Yakama Nation and WIP have recently cooperated on the development
    of the ``Irrigation Water Conservation and Management Plan for the
    Wapato Irrigation Project'' utilizing NRCE. This study indicates that
    it will require a capital investment in excess of $150,000,000 to
    upgrade the project to current standards and address project ESA
    concerns. To begin addressing these urgent needs we request a non-
    reimbursable funding of $1,000,000 to begin to develop a Tribal
    resource management plan for the WIP.
        Additional needs for the WIP facility include unmet costs of
    $1,080,000 for personnel, idle land water payments, and major
    construction of $3,000,000 to replace the main diversion facility on
    the Yakama River.
                          wildlife management program
        By ensuring compliance with NEPA and the ESA, the Wildlife
    Management Program plays a key role in keeping the BIA's timber sale
    program running. The $527,000 (plus the contracted $38,365 that goes to
    the Yakama Agency) annual BIA Spotted Owl Inventory and Monitoring
    Grant is critical for ensuring ESA compliance. These funds ensure that
    our timber harvest, the basis of our economy, can take place each year
    in compliance with the law.
        We request that the Subcommittee restore funding in the following
    line items in the BIA budget. In the ``Other Recurring Program Funds''
    category:

    BIA 638 funds for YN Wildlife Program Operations..............  $220,336
    BIA-Funded ``Klickitat Basin Deer Study''.....................    95,776
    Washington State Timber-Fish-Wildlife (all WA tribes)......... 3,041,000
    Under ``Non-Recurring Programs'': Endangered Species..........   541,000

        Washington State Timber-Fish-Wildlife (T-F-W).--The YN is a
    subsistence hunting and fishing culture, it is important to have a
    presence as a co-manager of these critically important resources within
    its ceded area. The right to utilize these resources were guaranteed
    under the Treaty of 1855. T-F-W in the BIA budget supplies critical
    funding to the Yakama Nation and 26 other tribes in Washington State to
    evaluate the effects of state and private forest practices on tribal
    resources, conduct adaptive management work to improve forest land
    management, and advocate for proper protection measures for tribal and
    public resources with other forestland stakeholders.
                                    forestry
    Spruce Budworm Epidemic
        We have identified 200,000 acres in need of forest development
    treatment, which was acknowledged by the BIA Central Forestry Office.
    GAO report GAO/RCED-91-53 states that the Yakama Nation was not able to
    accomplish all of the regular forest development work even when
    approximately one-half of the projects are paid for with tribal funds.
        In order to continue the sound forest management practices which
    preserve our resources while at the same time protects the welfare of
    the Yakama People, we request $1,000,000 of new Forest Development Add-
    on funds for forest development treatments on approximately 76,000
    acres of the most severely Spruce Budworm infected stands. Forest
    development activities include reforestation, timber stand
    improvements, and related investments that enhance productivity.
    Personnel, Supplies, & Equipment
        Forestry's fiscal year 2002 recurring budget totaled $3,244,398 and
    employed about 54 fulltime personnel. The fiscal year 2002 funds were
    insufficient to properly and efficiently manage and protect the forest
    resource. Severe forest health problems such as the spruce budworm
    epidemic and bark beetle infestations threaten over 200,000 acres and
    hundreds of millions of board feet of our commercial timber. Additional
    funds totaling $1,846,000 would add 32 forestry personnel along with
    supplies and equipment. This increase in staffing would boost
    Forestry's capability to gain control of the budworm epidemic. The
    additional personnel would write silvicultural prescriptions, plan
    timber sales and contracts, designate timber for harvest, administer
    timber sale contracts, and supervise the Fire Management Section to
    integrate wildfire control and prescribed fire projects into forest-
    wide planning and management of our natural resources.
        Vegetation Management.--We utilize Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
    techniques to protect our reservation and ceded lands from invasive,
    non-native plant species. IPM uses cultural, mechanical, biological and
    chemical management aspects to control foreign plant pests. Herbicides,
    equipment, vegetative seeding, and equipment repair costs are incurred
    at a level of approximately $100,000 annually from a BIA funding
    source. Additional funding is always welcome to upgrade our computer
    technology that is applied such as Global Positioning System (GPS),
    Geographic Information System (GIS), and associated hardware.
                              real estate services
        The Real Estate Services section is the key to all other agency
    functions. Their records must be accurate and up to date for all trust
    lands and individuals with interest in trust lands because all land and
    financial transactions relating to these lands and individuals depend
    upon these records. Responsibilities of Real Estate Services include
    leasing and distribution of income (>1,300 active leases), acquisition
    and disposal of real property, including fee to trust conversions,
    probates and wills.
        Real Estate Services is understaffed and backlogged, affecting
    Leasing, Probates, and Acquisition and Disposal (A&D), including fee to
    trust conversions, and our computer files are not current with paper
    records. This latter is critical for proper distribution of trust funds
    and furnishing accurate information to our clients. The need for
    increased staff is also critical. Part of the problems with Realty can
    be dealt with by a temporary increase in the budget to bring on or
    detail personnel to deal with the backlogs. However, additional funding
    is also required for additional permanent personnel. Our present budget
    is $671,735 and we request an increase of $293,825 to bring us to a
    total of $965,560.
                       law enforcement and public safety
        Our Department of Public Safety's police officers and game wardens
    patrol over 1.3 million acres. As grant funding will be running out for
    the COPS program there is a need to fund the officers hired under that
    program at the current level of $395,836. Along with salaries there is
    a need to keep the maintenance on the patrol vehicles, a cost of
    $50,000 a year.
        The Tribe's Justice Service Department consists of the court
    system, Probation Department, and Public Defender's office. The
    Department needs a computer technology overhaul of computers and
    software at a cost of $50,000. We also need a new court building. The
    original study for the new Law and Justice Center estimated costs at
    $25,000,000. Today it would cost $29,000,000.
                                 human services
        IHS Budget.--The Yakama Nation supports the $1 billion increase for
    the IHS in the Senate Budget Resolution. Of particular concern is the
    need for an increase to Contract Health Service (CHS) funding which
    pays for health care from private providers for eligible patients. CHS
    costs are seriously affected by Medicaid Reductions, high
    pharmaceutical costs, medical and general inflation, population growth,
    pay costs, population growth, new tribes funding, staffing new
    facilities and Contract Support Costs.
        Homeland Security.--We urge the Subcommittee to include IHS and
    Tribes into any comprehensive plan developed to improve our public
    health and tribal health systems' security and protection from
    potential terrorist threats. For distribution purposes, we urge
    Congress to treat the tribes as states and, thus, fund the tribes
    directly for Homeland Security.
        Adult Vocational Training Program.--Currently the program serves
    25-50 clients a year, but 200-300 clients are turned away due to lack
    of funding. These individuals are waiting for an opportunity to improve
    their work skills so that they can secure a job and become productive
    citizens. We are requesting a funding level of $300,000.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the Navajo Nation
        There is good new and bad news in the President's fiscal year 2003
    Budget Request for BIA Education. While many domestic programs have
    been cut back to funds the War on Terrorism and to beef up domestic
    security, BIA Education programs have not been reduced. They have
    instead received a slight increase, about 1\1/2\ percent. This amount
    is not sufficient to cover pay cost increases, so the net result is a
    slight decrease in the dollars available for program purposes even
    though there is an $18.8 million increase over last year in School
    Operations funding.

    ISEP....................................................    $347,475,000

        This number includes a $3,542,000 increase over last year; however
    it comes about $2,000,000 short of covering the required pay
    adjustments. This affects BIA operated schools more than grant schools
    since BIA operated schools are required to provide the increase to
    staff while grant/contract schools are not.
        While the Navajo Nation understands that there is little chance of
    substantial increases in domestic programs this year, we believe that
    the costs for pay adjustments under ISEP should be met in full. We
    support an increase of no less than $5.5 million.

    ISEP (Program Adjustments)..............................      $5,675,000

        This line item is increased by over $5,000,000 and its use is
    clearly being expanded. This is reportedly where the Bureau has
    included dollars for the ``privatization'' initiative; $2 million for
    employee displacement (transferred from the ``Special Projects and
    Pooled Overhead'' portion of the Budget) and $3 million for costs that
    are as yet unclear.
        The Navajo Nation might support this request if the $3 million is
    available to the Nation for planning the Navajo Education System.

    Early Childhood Education...............................     $15,263,000

        This increase of $3,053,000 over last year will add about 10 more
    schools to the popular FACE program in keeping with the Education
    initiative of this Administration.
        The Navajo Nation strongly supports this request.

    Student transportation..................................     $38,506,000

        This item contains a welcome increase of $1,960,000 for this
    perennially under-funded part of school operations. These additional
    dollars will reduce the amount that ISEP dollars must pay to get the
    students to school; therefore, this counts as an actual increase for
    instruction.
        Full funding for this line item would be about $50 million. While
    any increase is appreciated, the Navajo Nation must go on record to
    state that it is not enough. The failure to fully fund this line item
    drains instructional dollars from the schools.

    Facilities Operations...................................     $57,687,000

        This seriously under-funded program receives an increase of
    $2,214,000, very welcome though it will not be enough to end the under-
    funding. As in the case with Student Transportation, this increase will
    decrease the amount that ISEP must pay each year on facilities costs.
        Full funding under the needs based formula would provide over $70
    million. Failure of the Congress to provide this money results in
    school facilities that deteriorate more rapidly than they should.
    Schools, in order to keep the lights on and the facility in good
    repair, must cover the costs from amounts appropriated for instruction.
    No school should have to make this decision.

    Administrative Costs Grants.............................     $46,065,000

        As in years past, the BIA has requested an increase for this under-
    funded line item; this year totaling $3,000,000. This amount falls far
    short of fully funding the statutory formula. Congress has repeatedly
    failed to appropriate the amount requested by the BIA, much less fully
    fund the formula. This increase may not be adequate to cover the
    administrative cost grants needed for the new grants and contracts that
    should be in place by SY 2004, when this money becomes available.
        The amount requested in this line item is inconsistent with the
    BIA's stated initiative to encourage tribes to contract/grant the
    remaining BIA schools. Failure to fully fund administrative cost grants
    prevents tribes from authorizing additional grants/contracts due to
    adverse impact on schools that are already operating under grant/
    contract. The $3 million increase will probably not be adequate to fund
    new grants on Navajo alone, nor would it be sufficient to fully fund
    the statutory formula even if there were no new schools converting. The
    Navajo Nation supports an increase to at least $55 million. Since this
    line item is forward funded, even that amount will be inadequate by SY
    2004 if the schools currently expected to convert to grant do so. The
    Navajo Nation strongly recommends that the BIA conduct the study called
    for in the newly enacted ESEA to develop an empirical basis for
    standard amounts that are used in the formula. The formula seems to
    have no credibility with the Congress and increases have not been
    forthcoming.

    Tribally Controlled Colleges............................     $38,029,000

        This line item contains a cut of $2,000,000, seemingly unrelated to
    any cutbacks in TCCC programs. This program has been successful in
    getting increases over the past few years, but here they seem to be
    losing ground.
        The Navajo Nation opposes this cut in the college fund. Community
    colleges are playing an increasingly important role in Indian country,
    as they are called upon to support the activities of the local schools
    in many ways. This cut would be very detrimental to these important
    efforts. The Navajo Nation supports an increase in this program of
    $2,000,000 rather than a cut.

    Employee Displacement...................................      $2,235,000

        This line item that pays severance costs to Federal employees who
    lose their jobs when programs are contracted/granted is reduced by
    $2,000,000 from last year. The BIA is obviously expected very little by
    way of new grants/contracts next year. This reduction seems at odds
    with the idea of an initiative to encourage tribal or private grants/
    contracts of school programs.
        The cut in this line item is inconsistent with the
    ``privatization'' initiative. As with Administrative Costs Grants, any
    real move to increase the amount of contracting/ganting would require
    an increase in this line item. As it is, we do not believe that is
    amount will be sufficient to fund even those schools already in the
    pipeline for conversion this coming July, and this fund pays severance
    costs for any Public Law 93-638 contracting/compacting as well as grant
    conversions. It is very difficult to estimate the amounts needed very
    far in advance and a better method for determining or meeting the needs
    should be considered.

    Replacement School Construction.........................    $125,223,000

        The steady flow of construction dollars continues. Though this line
    item is reduced by $2,576,000, it is more than made up in the FI&R line
    item for renovation.
        While the Navajo Nation strongly supports the funding level in this
    request, we also express our concern with the current method of
    determining priorities. It appears that there is little assurance that
    the schools identified for projects are actually the schools most in
    need of replacement. There needs to be a more objective process for
    setting the priority listing and for setting limits on the costs that
    can incurred for new schools. The Bureau's credibility in this area
    both with Indian country and the Congress is at stake.

    Facilities Improvement and Repair.......................    $164,374,000

        This line contains an increase of $2,784,000 over last year as the
    Administration continues with its commitment to eliminate the backlog
    of school facilities by fiscal year 2006.
        The Navajo Nation strongly supports and is very appreciative of the
    funding level of this line item.

    Special Programs and Pooled Overhead--Crownpoint
        Institute of Technology.............................              $0

        In 2002, CIT received $1.2 million. This year, along with several
    other training programs in this budget category, the President proposes
    to zero them Out.
        The Navajo Nation supports continuation funding for CIT at the $1.2
    million level. Technology training such as is offered by CIT is
    critical in developing the kind of job skills so necessary in today's
    world.
        We thank the Committee for this opportunity to submit testimony. If
    there are any questions, please direct them to Ms. Merlee Arviso,
    Director, Division of Dine' Education.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the Navajo Nation
        The Navajo Nation welcomes this opportunity to provide
    recommendations on the proposed federal fiscal year 2003 budget for the
    Interior, including the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs requested budgets. The Navajo Nation requests that:
        The Appropriation Subcommittee not appropriate funding for the
    Department of the Interior's proposed BIA Reorganization.--The Navajo
    Nation is opposed to the Interior's proposal due to lack of tribal
    consultation. The Interior has yet to submit a formal proposal to
    Congress, the Navajo Nation or Indian tribes to consult and comment on.
        The Appropriation Subcommittee not appropriate funding for the
    Proposed BIA ``Privatization'' School Initiative.--In the President's
    budget, increased funds were requested to make BIA schools attractive
    for private educational companies, yet the Navajo Nation and other
    tribes have repeatedly asked the BIA to increase funds for its BIA
    schools but have been constantly denied. The BIA has yet to have
    consultation to fully discuss tribal education plans.
        The Navajo Nation requests fiscal year 2003 appropriations in the
    amount of:
        Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP)--$30,000,000.--The Navajo
    Nation does not support the President's request of $13,095,000, which
    is a $12,230,000 decrease from the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. NIIP
    construction is a legal obligation of the federal government based on
    statute.
        Navajo Southwest Judicial Complex--$20,000,000.-- Current court
    facilities built in the 1950's are dilapidated. This funding would
    enhance self-determination and encourage economic self-sufficiency.
        Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT)--$1,200,000.--The
    President did not request funding for fiscal year 2003, which is a
    $1,200,000 decrease from the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. CIT is a
    critically important educational institution that reduces unemployment
    and attracts businesses to the Navajo Nation.
        Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI)--$5,730,000.--The
    Navajo Nation supports the President's request. SIPI is one of two
    fully accredited universities in the Bureau's education system.
                             indian health service
        Contract Support Cost Grants--$20,000,000.--Contract support costs
    are necessary to fund the Navajo Nation's self-administered healthcare
    to the Nation's approximately 250,000 citizens.
        Facilities.--The Navajo Nation supports the President's request for
    $20,400,000 for Fort Defiance Hospital Staff Quarters; $13,900,000 for
    the Pinon Health Center; and $7,658,000 for the Red Mesa Health Center.
        Services.--$10,000,000 for full time positions at Fort Defiance
    Hospital. The Navajo Nation supports the President's request.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        BIA Roads Maintenance--$30,000,000.--The Navajo Nation does not
    support the President's request of $27,672,000. Tribes are in need of
    solid infrastructure and the funds to maintain existing roads and new
    road construction.
        Law Enforcement--$158,989,000.--The Navajo Nation supports the
    President's request. The Navajo ratio of 0.3 police officers per 1,000
    population is dangerously below the necessary minimum rural-setting
    ratio of 3 officers per 1,000 population.
        Indian Police Academy--$2,379,000.--The Navajo Nation supports the
    President's request. The Indian Police Academy provides basic and
    advanced law enforcement training for Bureau law enforcement and
    detention officers.
        Justice Systems--$10,000,000.--Congress passed the Indian Tribal
    Justice Act of 1993, but has never provided appropriations for adequate
    based funding for tribal courts.
        Tribal Courts--$17,096,000.--The Navajo Nation supports the
    President's request. Tribal courts have long been under funded and
    under developed. The Navajo Nation is focusing on strengthening its
    courts as a means for creating safe communities and building
    infrastructure for economic development.
        Tribal Education Department (TEDs)--$500,000.--Congress authorized
    appropriations for the development of TEDs in Public Law 95-561, but
    has never appropriated this initiative.
        School Construction.--The Navajo Nation supports President Bush's
    request for the following school replacement for the Navajo Nation:
    $33,605,000 for Kayenta Boarding School; $21,215,000 for Wide Ruins
    Boarding School and $22,500,000 for Low Mountain Boarding School.
        Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R)--$164,374,000.--The Navajo
    Nation supports the President's request, which includes the following
    schools: Hunters Point Boarding School, Hunters Point, AZ; Wingate High
    School, Fort Wingate, NM; and Chilchinbito Day School, Chilchinbito,
    AZ. This funding will correct backlogged repairs at these schools.
        Education Facilities Operations--$70,000,000.--The Navajo Nation
    does not support the President's request of $57,687,000. If the
    Administration requested full funding, then schools would not have to
    cover operations from funds appropriated for instruction.
        Minor Improvement and Repair (MI&R).--$16,586,441, of which the
    Navajo Nation requests $3,000,000 for the Navajo Area. The Navajo
    Nation does not support the President's request of $16,425,000. The
    Navajo Nation has the majority of BIA education facilities to maintain.
        Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP)--$349,500,000.--The
    Navajo Nation does not support the President's request of $347,475,000,
    which is a $2,000,000 decrease from fiscal year 2002. This amount will
    at least cover the required pay cost adjustments and prevent actual
    declines in the instructional program. However, since education is a
    priority of the President and the Congress, it is disappointing that
    there is not a significant increase in this line item.
        ISEP-Program Adjustments--$5,675,000.--The Navajo Nation supports
    the President's request. This amount would allow tribes to plan and
    assume greater control of their educational programs.
        Administrative Cost Grants (ACG)--$50,000,000.--The Navajo Nation
    does not support the President's request of $46,065,000. The Navajo
    Nation's request is consistent with the BIA's stated initiative to
    encourage tribes to contract/grant the remaining BIA schools.
        Student Transportation--$50,000,000.--The Navajo Nation does not
    support the President's request of $38,506,000. The Navajo Nation's
    request would help to fully implement President Bush's education
    policies, as funds for Indian student transportation is a must.
        Family and Child Education Expansion (FACE)--$15,264,000.--The
    Navajo Nation supports the President's request to expand the FACE
    program.
        New Schools and Program Expansion.--The Navajo Nation requests that
    the Appropriations Committee lift the 1992 Appropriation Act moratorium
    on BIA program expansion and new BIA schools so that the Navajo Nation
    may better serve its students.
        Johnson O'Malley Program (JOM)--$17,113,000.--The Navajo Nation
    supports the President's request.
        Scholarship Funding--$30,000,000.--The Navajo Nation does not
    support the President's request of $27,953,000. If the President is
    committed to education, there needs to be a strong commitment to assist
    students in Higher Education.
        Adult Education Scholarships--$3,000,000.--The Navajo Nation does
    not support the President's request of $2,696,000. While the
    Administration may emphasize elementary and secondary education, the
    Navajo Nation still believes in including all of its citizens to gain
    education opportunities.
        Special Higher Education Scholarships--$1,500,000.--The Navajo
    Nation does not support the President's request of $1,328,000. There
    must be an emphasis on adults achieving higher education. BIA
    Scholarship provides supplemental financial assistance to Indians for
    graduate level study.
        Tribally Controlled Community Colleges (TCCCs).--$42,000,000 of
    which, $40,029,000 would be for Operating Grants. The Navajo Nation
    does not support the President's request of $39,118,000, which is a
    $2,000,000 decrease from Operating Grants enacted in fiscal year 2002.
    TCCCs encourage tribal members to attend school, obtain new skills and
    a better quality of life.
        Environmental Projects/Assessments/Inspections/Abatement--
    $11,651,000.--The Navajo Nation does not support the President's
    request of $11,000,000, which is decrease of $651,000 from fiscal year
    2002. Funding should be maintained at the fiscal year 2002 level to
    address three schools (underground storage tank and asbestos vinyl
    floor removal) and to establish an Environmental Regulatory Specialist
    position on the Navajo Nation to provide regulatory oversight of the
    Bureau's asbestos abatement program. EPA eliminated the Navajo Nation's
    asbestos program under the Asbestos Hazardous Emergency Response Act
    (AHERA), which concentrated primarily on Bureau schools.
        Environmental Management--$10,805,000.--The Navajo Nation does not
    support the President's request of $9,805,000, which is a decrease of
    $11,000 from fiscal year 2002. Illegal dumping and cleanup of open
    dumps remain a major public health concern for Indian Country. The
    Navajo Nation requests a gradual increase in its contribution to the
    Interagency Solid Waste Workgroup by $100,000 ($1,500,000 contribution)
    increasing the fiscal year 2003 funding level to $10,805,000.
        Social Services under Tribal Priority Allocations--$31,177,000.--
    The Navajo Nation supports the President's request.
        Indian Child Welfare Act--$11,645,000.--The Navajo Nation does not
    support the President's request of $11,112,000, which is a decrease of
    $523,000 from fiscal year 2002. Protecting Navajo children is a duty
    for creating healthy families and strong communities. Reducing these
    funds does neither.
        Housing Improvement Program (HIP)--$33,000,000.--The Navajo Nation
    does not support the President's request of $19,621,000, which is a
    decrease of $13,000 from fiscal year 2002. The Navajo Nation strongly
    encourages full funding of HIP to maintain safe living environments for
    Indian people living in harsh and economic deprived environments.
        Public Safety Minor Improvement and Repair (MI&R)--$801,000.--The
    Navajo Nation does not support the President's request of $776,000. The
    Navajo Nation requests $75,000 for the Navajo Area as it has many
    facilities that need immediate repair to keep its Public Safety
    facilities safe. The Navajo Area receives the lowest of the BIA regions
    and is requested at only $50,000.
        Navajo-Hopi Settlement Program--$1,525,000.--The Navajo Nation does
    not support the President's request of $1,153,000, which is a decrease
    of $186,000 from fiscal year 2002.
        Water Management, Planning, and Pre-Development--$8,052,000.--The
    Navajo Nation supports the President's request.
        Safety of Dams--$20,975,000.--The Navajo Nation supports the
    President's request, which will modify construction activities for the
    Canyon Diablo Dam and Conceptual and Final Design for Asaayi Dam,
    Tsaile Dam and Wheatfields Dam, all on the Navajo Nation.
         bureau of reclamation (bor)--bureau of reclamation efficiency
                               incentives program
        Ganado Water Conservation and Management Project--$300,000.--This
    amount will allow irrigators to have access to water from the Ganado
    Resevoir. This is the second phase of the BOR and BIA supported
    project.
        Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project--$300,000.--This amount would
    complete the EIS and draft legislation to be submitted in fiscal year
    2004, which will authorize the project.
                  office of navajo and hopi indian relocation
        Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation--$30,000,000.--ONHIR received
    $15 million in fiscal year 2001 and again in fiscal year 2002. Many
    Navajos continue to wait to receive housing and other promised benefits
    under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. In order to accelerate the
    provision of such benefits, the Navajo Nation requests that this
    federal agency's budget be doubled to $30 million.
        Bennett Freeze Area Rehabilitation--$20,000,000.--As a result of
    the Bennett Freeze, construction and development in the western portion
    of the Navajo Nation has been impossible for nearly 40 years. During
    these 40 years, Navajo families living in the Bennett Freeze area could
    not take advantage of federal, state or tribal programs. The area is in
    severe need of these development funds.
        Relocation Act Study--$1,000,000.--The relocation law has resulted
    in the dislocation of 10,000 Navajos, dramatically impacted local
    Navajo and non-Indian communities, and cost the federal government
    approximately $400 million. The time has come for a comprehensive study
    of the effects of the relocation law, with a focus on long-term impacts
    that may have to be mitigated over the next 20 years.
        HPL Community Center--$1,000,000.--Due to construction and
    development freezes, Navajo families who reside on the Hopi Partitioned
    Lands, have never had any facilities developed to support their
    community. This funding would facilitate badly needed community
    services.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the BIA/Tribal Budget Advisory Committee
        This testimony is submitted by the Data Management Subcommittee of
    the BIA/Tribal Budget Advisory Committee concerning our data management
    and information technologyrecommendations and requests on the fiscal
    year 2003 BIA budget.
        Appropriation Funding Priorities.--Increase of $289 million to
    implement the eGovernment and Information Technology (IT) projects
    within the BIA. This budget estimate attempts to correct the continuing
    technology gap between the current infrastructure and the information
    technology services needed to support a modern, efficient and effective
    Bureau of Indian Affairs.
                      bia/tribal budget advisory committee
        The BIA/Tribal Budget Advisory Council was established
    approximately 2 years ago to provide a forum wherein BIA Administration
    could meet with tribal representatives to: (1) assess the BIA budgets
    relative to the needs of BIA administration, Tribal governments, and
    individual Indian and Alaska Native beneficiaries, (2) recommend
    improvements the BIA budgeting process, (3) recommend strategies to
    increase budget amounts to meet unmet needs, and (4) recommend policy
    changes that improve BIA budgeting for the long-term.
                             data management policy
        Both Tribal governments and the BIA recognize the importance of
    credible data for the purposes of justifying needs and showing progress
    and measuring outcomes that result from program activities. The
    complexity of determining ``Tribal unmet needs'' or to measure the
    current status of Indian Country as compared to mainstream America is
    difficult due to the differences among tribes' geography, demographics,
    economics, government structure, etc.
        Notwithstanding these complexities, the Data Management
    Subcommittee has as its mission to establish standards and benchmarks:
    (1) to measure existing needs and conditions in American Indian and
    Alaska Native communities to support the goal of bringing about a level
    of service provided in Indian tribes, which at the very least, is equal
    to conditions enjoyed by the balance of America; and (2) to provide for
    a data collection system that accounts for the performance and use of
    federal funds provided to the BIA and Tribes serving the Indian
    communities.
        The Budget Advisory Committee formally adopted a Data Management
    Policy to provide guidance to the task of collecting useful data in
    collaboration with Tribes, Tribal organizations and other federal
    agencies.
                        bia/tribal data collection forms
        The Data Management Sub-committee developed separate forms to
    report unmet needs for five Tribal programs, including (1) welfare
    assistance; (2) housing improvement program; (3) higher education/
    scholarships; (4) tribal courts; and (5) law enforcement. These forms
    have been used in the fiscal year 2004 budget formulation process. We
    anticipate expanding the use of these forms for other programs.
        It is the Data Management Sub-committee's intent to have the data
    collection automated. However, give the unique circumstances
    surrounding the current shut-down of the Department's automated data
    systems, this activity has been deferred for future action.
        The Subcommittee is also aware of the importance of the goals and
    objectives used by the BIA pursuant to the Government Performance and
    Results Act. Future activities of the Subcommittee may involve an
    effort to strengthen these goals and objectives to ensure that they
    reflect Tribal priorities and directions.
                                strategic goals
        The following goals and objectives are paramount to the
    establishment of a comprehensive database IT system within the BIA:
        Enhance information collection and sharing;
        Improve data analysis and reporting;
        Provide the essential and appropriate IT tools to Indian Affairs
    and Tribal staff;
        Work with businesses (Tribes, Regional & Central Offices) to
    automate business processes and meet program needs;
        Leverage and coordinate information sharing across all BIA
    programs;
        Enhance internal administrative processes;
        Improve IT governance & coordination processes; and
        Improve services to tribal governments.

                 egovernment and information technology project

        According to the President's fiscal year 2002 Management Agenda,
    Initiative 4-Expanded Electronic Government, the Federal government has
    spent billions of dollars on IT, but this expenditure has not produced
    measurable gains in public-sector worker productivity. Hence, the
    Federal government must secure greater services at a lower cost through
    implementing and deploying eGovernment.
        The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) requires that
    Federal agencies provide individuals or other entities the option to
    submit information or transact other business with Indian Affairs
    electronically, when practicable, and to maintain records
    electronically by October 21, 2003. The Office of Management & Budget
    (OMB) has been tasked with the responsibility of overseeing the
    implementation of GPEA. In a recent memorandum to Federal Chief
    Information Officers, OMB advises that ``effective implementation of
    GPEA is an essential building block in our collective efforts to move
    to electronic government.''
        Clearly, the current emphasis on eGovernment provides Indian
    Affairs an opportunity to implement an eGovernment strategy and deploy
    electronic transactional services.
        To achieve the objectives and desired outcomes of the eGovernment/
    GPEA Implementation and Deployment Plan, the following must be
    involved:
        American Indian & Native Alaskan Tribes and individuals.
        The Office of the Secretary, Department of Interior.
        The Office of the Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs.
        Central Office and Regional Directors.
        Office of Audit and Evaluation.
        Office of American Indian Trust.
        Office of Self Governance.
        Office of Indian Education Programs.
        The request of $289 million will be used to begin the first phase
    of development to enhance information technology. This funding will be
    used to:
        Electronically automate BIA information collections;
        Reengineer, consolidate, and automate business transactions, and
    consolidate and web enable Bureau databases where feasible to better
    serve citizens needs;
        Ensure that Indian Affairs business systems are interoperable;
        Implement workflow and document/content management solutions;
        Develop eGovernment and GPEA performance measures & relationships
    to the IT strategic plan; and,
        Develop eGovernment and GPEA process models.
        Successful implementation of this Project will:
        Provide high quality customer service to Indian country;
        Reduce the expense and difficulty of doing business with Indian
    Affairs;
        Reduce Indian Affairs operating costs;
        Provide program recipients with easier access to Indian Affairs
    programs & services;
        Increase access for persons with disabilities to Indian Affairs web
    sites and eGovernment applications; and
        Make Indian Affairs more transparent and accountable.
                                   conclusion
        This Plan relies upon significant technology improvements in BIA
    information systems and expanded use of electronic communications with
    clients and business partners to do business with the BIA's clients.
    Congress must make information technology investments to support the
    BIA; its Trust Responsibility and the changing technology and delivery
    of BIA products and services to Tribes and Native Americans. The
    proposed budget will significantly enhance the information capacity of
    Indian Affairs to account for the performance and need of resources to
    responsibly address the federal government's duty to the Tribes and
    their communities.
        Tribes and their leadership must be in control of their future and
    the sufficiency of the BIA budget for the Tribes as well as the
    Bureau's operations is essential to achieve this goal. While the Bureau
    has made very modest budgetary progress over the past several years,
    Tribal governments have developed many innovative approaches to these
    issues and stand ready to continue the work with BIA to advocate these
    initiatives to others within the federal government and to Congress.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Lummi Indian Nation
        My name is Darrell Hillaire, Chairman of the Lummi Nation. The
    Lummi Nation, is located on the northern coastline of Washington State,
    and is the third largest tribe in Washington State serving a population
    of over 5,200. On behalf of the Lummi 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 2003 BIA, IHS
    appropriation allocations and funding needs of the Lummi Nation.
        The following written testimony presents the Lummi Indian Nation's
    funding priorities, as well as regional and national concerns and
    recommendations for your consideration. Further, the Lummi Nation
    strongly opposes any bill, language or legislative riders that
    undermine tribal sovereignty. The Lummi Nation desires to have direct
    consultation and formal hearings, with respect to our long-standing
    government-to-government relationship, on issues that will alter this
    relationship, in the future.
        Tribal Specific 2002 Appropriation Priorities:
              +$1,500,000 Semiahmoo Memorial Park and Heritage Center.--
            Provide the Lummi Nation with National Park Service,
            Conservation and Historical Preservation construction program
            funds. Provide the Lummi Nation with initial planning and
            design phase funding for a Semiahmah Memorial Park and Heritage
            Center preserve ancestral burial grounds that were desecrated
            by non-Indian officials in 1999 and to commemorate this
            traditional village encampment.
              +$1,076,000 BIA-Financial and Social Service ``General
            Assistance'' program.--Funds for the Lummi Nation to
            effectively respond to a critical need for tribal fisherman to
            receive disaster relief assistance in response to 1999-2001
            unrealized revenue from the local commercial fishing industry
            and inability to exercise ``treaty'' protected fishing rights.
              +$500,000 Water & Sewer Infrastructure Planning.--Provide the
            IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program with tribally
            earmarked funds to support the planning of water and sewage
            system infrastructure development project.
              +$1,150,000 BIA Economic Development Program.--Lummi Nation
            is requesting resources to establish a Small Business
            Development Office to provide over 500 dislocated fisherman
            with economic and business assistance services from: technical
            assistance, support services, training services, business
            planning, and loan services.
              +$350,000 BIA-Office of Indian Education Programs, Facility
            Management and Construction Contract (FMCC) for provision of
            ``Quarters''.--Lummi Nation seeks funds to cover planning and
            construction costs for development of school based housing
            units through the BIA-FMCC ``Quarters program'' that remains an
            unbudgeted need.
              +$500,000 Lummi Youth Safe House.--Provide Lummi Nation with
            earmarked line-item 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.
              +$1,300,000 BIA Tribal Government Services--Water
            Negotiations.--Provide for the following water negotiation
            costs: $300,000 for attorney fees, $400,000 for on-Reservation
            technical studies, and $600,000 for Nooksack River Basin
            technical studies.
              +$2,000,000 BIA Office of Indian Education Programs.--The
            Lummi Nation reports the new tribal school facility possess a
            student enrollment of 750. Lummi Nation anticipates that the
            new school shall require additional revenue to provide quality
            educational services to a student population that is up to
            three times the current service level. The new Lummi Nation
            School is a BIA operated school (elementary and secondary
            educational services for grades K-12) located on the Lummi
            Indian reservation.
              +$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 Pt. Elliot Treaty right to harvest, manage
            shellfish resources.
              +$740,000 Support Realty.--Provide the Lummi Nation with
            funding to ensure the major elements such as land
            consolidation, land records management, tribal probate, and
            training services are available to effectively manage tribal
            realty resources.
    Tribal Specific Appropriation Summaries, Justification Semiahmoo
            Memorial Park and Heritage Center--+$1,500,000
        Provide the Lummi Nation with National Park Service, Conservation
    and Historical Preservation construction program funds. Provide the
    Lummi Nation with initial planning and design phase one funding for
    construction of a Memorial Park and Heritage Center to commemorate and
    preserve ancestral burial grounds that were desecrated by non-Indian
    officials in 1999. The National Park Service, National Registry of
    Historic Places, lists the site. The desecration of over 100 human
    remains and graves was primarily due to the expansion of a local sewage
    treatment plant financed with federal funds and permitted by the state.
    The Lummi Nation has created a Memorandum of Agreement that includes
    terms to relocate the existing non-Indian treatment plant. The Memorial
    Park is to be constructed on the existing site as a unique tribute to
    promote regional education of the traditional Indian encampments
    reflecting the culture and lifestyle of the Coastal Salish people in
    Northwest America. Planning and design of a Heritage Center is
    envisioned to house educational, social, and economic events and
    meetings.
    BIA-Financial and Social Service ``General Assistance'' program--
            +$1,076,000
        Lummi Nation seeks disaster relief assistance to 500 fishermen to
    meet their basic needs for housing, food and clothing assistance. The
    Lummi Nation declared the Lummi Indian reservation as an Economic
    Fishery Resource Disaster Area for the third consecutive year. These
    funds will enable the tribe to effectively respond to a critical need
    for tribal fishers to receive disaster assistance in response to the
    1999-2001 unforeseen and unrealized revenue loss from the local
    commercial fishing industry. The Lummi Nation has historically relied
    upon the salmon resource and it's cultural and economic value to the
    tribe and membership is irreplaceable.
    Water & Sewer Infrastructure Planning--+$500,000
        The Lummi Reservation supports a population of nearly 5,200
    persons, which has pushed water and sewer system capacities to their
    limit. Additional capacity must be obtained now to support the existing
    population. In the short-term, water and sewer systems redesign and
    upgrades will handle the problem. However, the long-term solution must
    include additional treatment capacity and water source location and
    development. Public Works infrastructure development and investments
    like these require substantial planning. The Lummi Nation is not able
    to undertake this level of planning without the assistance requested
    herein. Lummi Nation recommends that the IHS Sanitation Facilities
    Construction Program to receive funds to support tribal planning of
    water delivery and sewage treatment system infrastructure for the
    existing and projected population of the Lummi Indian Reservation.
    BIA Economic Development Program--+$1,150,000
        Lummi Nation is seeking funds to create a tribal Small Business
    Development Office to provide fisherman with economic and business
    training technical assistance services. Approximately $250,000 is
    requested to establish the Small Business Development Office with the
    goal of aiding fisherman to utilize profits horizontally within the
    fish marketing industry and/or create new small business opportunities
    to sustain self-sufficiency. Another $900,000 is requested form the BIA
    Credit Services program to enable the Lummi Nation to establish a
    fisherman revolving loan fund to enable participants to access
    development capital to support their small business plans.
    BIA-Office of Indian Education Programs, Facility Management and
            Construction Contracts (FMCC) for provision of ``Quarters''--
            +$350,000
        Lummi Nation seeks additional finances to cover planning and
    construction costs for development housing units through the BIA-FMCC
    Quarters program that remains an unbudgeted need in the Portland Area
    budget. The Lummi Nation's new school facility site is located in a
    rural area and is eligible to receive construction revenue for housing
    units for administrative and security staffing needs. No funds are
    allocated to fulfill the Lummi Nation need for the provision of staff
    quarters.
    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.
    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 conflict, which were and still are,
    attributable to the non-Indians disregard for treaty-reserved water and
    fishing rights in the Nooksack River Watershed. Many difficult issues
    remain to be resolved which require significant technical studies and
    legal consultation before a final agreement may be produced and signed.
    To complete this work the Lummi Nation is requesting $1.3 million
    during fiscal year 2003: $300,000 to defray legal consultation costs,
    $400,000 for on-reservation technical studies, and $600,000 for
    technical studies in the Nooksack River Basin. Lummi Nation recommends
    this support be included in the BIA Water Rights Negotiation/
    Litigation, Attorney fees and technical studies.
    BIA Office of Indian Education Programs--+$2,000,000
        Lummi Nation seeks increased school operational revenue to cover
    increased expenditures for the new tribal school in fiscal year 2003.
    The new school is projected to house 750 students that is over three
    times the current fiscal year 2002 Lummi Tribal School student
    enrollment level. The Lummi Nation anticipates that the new school
    shall need increased funds to cover expanded operational expenses in
    the areas of: Administrative Cost Grants, Maintenance and Improvement
    funds, Transportation services; Special Education funds; High School
    and Tribal school operational funds. The Lummi Nation is reporting that
    this large school facility and increased student enrollment shall
    require additional revenue to provide quality educational services.
    Lummi Nation Shellfish Hatchery Operation +$700,000
        The 30-year old hatchery supplies oyster and clam seeds to a
    majority Northwest Washington Indian tribes and growers. The recent SC
    decision to uphold the shellfish ruling supports the need to provide
    both the treaty and non-treaty growers for oyster seed, clam seed,
    enhancement projects. These dollars benefit both the tribal government
    and Washington State. The Lummi Nation recommends that $350,000
    increase be identified for this effort in 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, revision of realty
    procedures, backlog elimination, and training. Land consolidation
    requires untangling the heir ship disarray by conducting research to
    land titles, appraisals, surveys, subdivision and other technical work.
    Land records management requires development of a tribal land database
    with electronic connection to BIA databases. Existing process of tribal
    probates is time consuming and a contributive factor land is so
    fractionated. Development of an on-site process using Lummi Tribal
    Court is needed to shorten the processing time.
        Self-Governance and Other National Considerations:
        The Lummi Indian Nation supports the IHS, Office of Tribal Self-
    governance, Tribal Self-governance Advisory Committee fiscal year 2003
    Health Care Priorities and the Appropriation request. This includes the
    following IHS line-item allocation request for increases:
      --Full Funding for Contract Support Costs--+$150,000,000
      --Full funding for Contract Health Services Care--+$150,000,000
      --Appropriation increases for the Indian Health Care Improvement
            Fund--+$160,000,000
      --Increase to IHS Alcohol & Substance Abuse program services--
            +$150,446,000
        I appreciate your consideration of the fiscal year 2003 requests
    and recommendations of appropriations for the BIA, IHS resources on
    behalf of the Lummi Nation. Thank you.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
        The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe respectfully submits this written
    statement on the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations for the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. We ask the Subcommittee
    on Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, to consider holding
    hearings for oral testimony in the future to allow Native Americans and
    Alaskan Natives to present our requests to Congress on a government-to-
    government level rather than this in this informal manner.
                                 tribal request
        Supports the Administration request for $18 million for the removal
    of the Elwha Restoration Project, the Environmental Impact Study and
    the Protection of Water Rights and Water Resources.
                               regional requests
        Restore $500,000 for the Western Washington Tribal Shellfish
    Management Initiative and increase this amount by $6.3 million to
    implement tribal treaty rights through the further establishment of
    tribal shellfish programs.
        Restore $320,000 to the Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights
    account.
        Support the base funding level of $3.048 for the Timber-Fish-
    Wildlife Agreement, and increase this amount by $1.0 million to
    implement tribal obligations under new state and private forest
    practices rules and regulations pertaining to ESA obligations.
        The Lower Elwha 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 national requests
        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 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 $314,000,000 increase for IHS unfunded mandatory,
    medical inflation, pay costs and population growth needed to maintain
    existing health care services; and,
        5. Support all requests and recommendations of the National
    Congress of American Indians.
                        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 and razor 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 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.
        As tribal shellfish programs develop and expand, other needs have
    arisen. 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 regarding shellfish sanitation.
    This agreement 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 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
    restore last years funding of $500,000, and add an additional $6.3
    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. We ask that the Subcommittee direct the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs to include this amount in their fiscal year
    2003 budget.
                         unresolved hunting and fishing
        The quality and quantity of the habitat upon which the wildlife
    resources in Western Washington depend are declining rapidly. Tribal
    members have been forced to hunt farther and farther away from home to
    harvest their treaty-reserved share of wildlife resources. They are
    constantly challenged, limited or restricted from access to these
    resources and may be forced to seek a clarification of their treaty
    hunting and fishing rights through the federal courts. In 1974 and
    again in 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld federal court rulings on
    tribal treaty rights. The treaty tribes in Western Washington have a
    cultural and spiritual bond with the wildlife resources of the region.
    These tribes, as responsible co-managers with the state of Washington,
    have as a primary goal to ensure the health of these resources for
    future generations. Western Washington Tribes have developed and
    nurtured a co-management relationship with the State of Washington to
    protect, restore and enhance the productivity of natural resources in
    the state. Treaty tribal hunters account for only about 2 percent of
    the total combined deer and elk harvesters in the state, whereas the
    ratio of take by non-Indian hunters compared to tribal harvesters is
    43-1.
        There are many factors surrounding the protection and management of
    these resources, which continue to impinge on tribal unresolved hunting
    and fishing rights. An Inter-tribal Wildlife Committee of the Northwest
    Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) provides a unified voice in
    discussions with state and federal wildlife managers. In addition the
    NWIFC serves as the grassroots technical resource to tribes on resource
    assessments, data collection, and design, fieldwork and implementation
    of research projects and a myriad of other skills.
        I would hope that this Committee sees the importance of re-
    establishing this funding which was eliminated from the BIA base budget
    for the western Washington tribes. This program will allow these tribes
    to develop cooperative and collaborative management efforts with the
    state and federal governments that work to resolve highly contentious
    issues in lieu of litigation. The cost to protect this unresolved
    hunting and fishing right is the trust responsibility and treaty
    obligation of the federal government.
                    timber-fish-wildlife agreement expansion
        We are supporting additional funding to tribes for expansion of our
    Timber-Fish-Wildlife program that cooperatively and collaboratively
    allows tribes to actively participate in state forest practice rules
    and regulations that have an affect on listed salmon populations.
    Tribes, as a result of their co-management status, are deeply involved
    in this management forum. Tribes bring to the table a very high level
    of skills and technical capabilities that if appropriately funded,
    would greatly facilitate a successful outcome. 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 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 2003, we are requesting $3.048 million be restored
    to the base, plus an additional $1.0 million to further develop tribal
    participation in the TFW Forest and Fish effort. We are further
    requesting that the committee direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs to
    include this amount in their fiscal year 2004 budget.
        On behalf of the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe, thank you for
    considering these requests.
                                     ______

        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 2003 fisheries and habitat
    management needs that fall within the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget.
               summary of fiscal year 2003 appropriations request
        The NWIFC generally supports the enacted fiscal year 2002
    appropriation levels. We request funding and direction which will
    achieve the following for fiscal year 2003:
      --Restore $320,000 to the Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights
            account;
      --Restore $500,000 for western Washington tribal shellfish management
            and enforcement funding request and increase this amount by
            $6.3 million to implement tribal treaty rights through the
            further establishment of tribal shellfish programs;
      --Continued support of the existing $3.0 million Bureau of Indian
            Affairs, Forest Development, Woodland Management, Northwest
            Forest Plan, ``Jobs in the Woods'' Initiative line item and
            from this amount a continued earmarking of $400,000 for the
            Wild Stock Restoration Initiative;
      --Support the base funding level of $3.048 for the Timber-Fish-
            Wildlife Agreement, and increase this amount by $1.0 million to
            implement tribal obligations under new state and private forest
            practices rules and regulations pertaining to ESA obligations;
      --Support, at a minimum, existing funding levels within the Bureau
            for Trust Responsibility, Tribal Priority Allocation, and Self
            Governance that pertain to Fisheries Management and U.S.-Canada
            Pacific Salmon Treaty at fiscal year 2002 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 in not only fisheries management
    in the Pacific Northwest, but have also fostered a nationwide quest for
    tribal self-determination and self-governance led in part by the
    Northwest tribal leadership.
             tribal and nwifc base programs need continued support
        We are at a turning point in natural resource management in the
    Pacific Northwest. Tribes have made great strides in institutionalizing
    management consistent with tribal values, treaty rights and federal
    court decisions. Tribes have developed great professional capabilities
    and policy respect, and are efficient and effective, but find ourselves
    far short of where we would like to be in our capabilities. And, while
    we have efficiently organized our tasks and assigned responsibilities
    between our tribal communities to extend our collective efforts, the
    management obligations are many. New and highly difficult complexities
    abound, many are precipitated by the demands of the Endangered Species
    Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Treaty rights to harvest
    shellfish are thwarted due to pollution in marine waters. To meet this
    challenge, we will need all of our existing funding and additional new
    resources.
        Over the past decade, tribes have been able to secure new monies
    for additional responsibilities. However, over the same time, tribes
    have seen other monies they once received for other duties diminish,
    either through inflation or through the elimination of program and
    support funding. And in this process, Indian natural resource
    management capacity has been unfairly affected. 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 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 appropriation.
    We note with concern the reduction of $320,000 from the Unresolved
    Hunting and Fishing Rights line item. These funds have been utilized by
    our member tribes in support of co-management programs that facilitate
    cooperative resolution of issues that respect tribal treaty rights to
    fish, hunt and gather. Tribes are using these monies to develop in-
    common and co-management databases with the state of Washington to work
    through hunting and wildlife management.
                        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 and razor 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 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.
        As tribal shellfish programs develop and expand, other needs have
    arisen. 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 regarding shellfish sanitation.
    This agreement 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 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
    restore last years funding of $500,000, and add an additional $6.3
    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. We ask that the Subcommittee direct the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs to include this amount in their fiscal year
    2003 budget.
      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 fisherman, the
    listing raises serious questions about the status of the stocks and
    poses a threat to the individual's opportunity to continue to harvest
    this salmon, a treaty-secured resource. As governments, the ESA process
    places inordinate demands upon the tribes as co-managers of the
    resource. Biological Reviews, Listing Decisions, 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 through the risks imposed by this federal mandate. It is partly
    for these reasons that the tribes have worked very hard over the years
    to bring about positive and effective change in resource management.
    Unfortunately, the process has overtaken tribal efforts, and new
    obligations are upon us.
        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 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 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 2003, we are requesting $3.048 million be restored
    to the base, plus an additional $1.0 million to further develop tribal
    participation in the TFW Forest and Fish effort. We are further
    requesting that the committee direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs to
    include this amount in their fiscal year 2004 budget.
            contract support funding is essential to tribal programs
        We continue to have concerns that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has
    failed to fully request Contract Support Funds for tribal programs. We
    are also concerned that Congress has not fully appropriated their
    necessary funds. An artificial cap upon the funding pool for indirect
    cost reimbursements places a huge burden on tribal fisheries programs.
    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.
                                     ______

        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 2003 Budget.
                                indian education
        The Tribal membership continues to express to me the need to
    educate our youth. Education is one of the Band's top priorities and we
    look for congressional support on this issue. We strongly support the
    Administration's proposed increase of $3 million for early childhood
    development programs. However, while the Budget does provide increases
    in early childhood education and construction, there is still a need to
    increase funding for higher education and Johnson O'Malley programs.
        The Band's specific concern is the funding levels associated with
    higher education programs. There has not been an increase in the BIA's
    higher education funding for 6 years. In the last 3 years, the Band had
    130 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 of funding for Lac du Flambeau is
    required.
        With the understanding that the Johnson O'Malley program is funded
    through the Tribal Priority Allocation system, the Band has identified
    a funding shortfall. Our Education Program receives $55,967 to operate
    this program in which we concentrate all our efforts and funding to
    high school students only. We have 495 students in grade school and
    because of the lack in funding, they do not receive any of the services
    provide by Johnson O'Malley. To fully fund this program at Lac du
    Flambeau an additional $84,000 would be required.
                               natural resources
        I have always been proud of the work the Band's Natural Resource
    Department staff conducts to protect and conserve the natural resources
    on the reservation for the Seventh Generation. The Lac du Flambeau
    Indian Reservation is located in northern Wisconsin and is in the heart
    of the ``north woods'' and lakes area. The reservation is 86,000 acres
    with 46,000 acres of forested land, 20,000 surface acres of water and
    14,000 acres of wetland. The land, air and water resources and
    associated fish, wildlife and plants are very important to the well
    being and culture of the Band. These resources are what we are as
    people; they support a subsistence way of life, our culture and are an
    integral part of our economy. The comprehensive Department includes the
    following programs: Fish Culture, Fisheries Management, Wildlife, Water
    Resources, Environmental Protection, Forestry, Conservation Law
    Enforcement, Parks and Recreation, Land Management and Tribal Historic
    Preservation. The primary goal of all the programs is to assure that
    the natural and cultural resources; the Band's most precious assets are
    protected and preserved. The following lists our funding needs.
    Circle of Flight--Great Lakes Wetland/Water Fowl Management Program
        We strongly urge the Committee to restore $$593,000 for the Great
    Lakes Wetland/Water Foul Management Program (Circle of Flight) that the
    Administration proposes to eliminate entirely.
        Since 1991, the Circle of Flight Program has been dedicated to
    preserving and rehabilitating our Nation's wetlands and waterfowl
    populations. Over the last 11 years, 60,000 acres of wetland have been
    managed, 8,000 acres of lakes were planted with wild rice, 6,000 acres
    of grassland and prairies have been restored and more than 1,000
    waterfowl nesting structures have been constructed. The preservation
    and restoration of wetlands are vital to the culture and economy of the
    region, as they are the foundation areas for traditional gathering, as
    well as recreational hunting. Moreover, in addition to waterfowl
    habitat, wetlands are important in providing flood control, clean water
    and recreation. Thus, not only have tribes benefited from this
    important program, but all of the residents of the region and up and
    down the Mississippi Flyway have benefited from this program.
        With the funds that the Tribes have received from Circle of Flight,
    we have been able to work with Ducks Unlimited, the North American
    Waterfowl Plan, USDA, USFWS and State Natural Resource Agencies to
    leverage additional funds to accomplish joint goals. Last year, Lac du
    Flambeau Band was able to use the $13,000 it received to assist the
    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in replacing and repairing
    water control structures on the State's portion of the Powell Marsh.
    Because the Tribes work with so many private and public agencies, we
    have leveraged the $6.7 million in Circle of Flight funds into $18
    million dedicated to wetland and waterfowl restoration projects
    throughout the region.
        The Circle of Flight Program is a great success and the Tribes and
    Congress should be proud of the work that has been accomplished.
    Unfortunately, the President's proposed budget has cut this very
    important program. We strongly urge the Committee to restore the
    $593,000 that funds this program. In addition, the program has
    identified $915,000 for activities within the thirty-one reservations
    and the 61 million acres of ceded territory land base serviced by the
    program, a $322,000 shortfall. In light of this significant shortfall,
    we request that in addition to restoring the $593,000 base funds, the
    Committee consider increasing the funds for this important program.
    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 significantly since 1990. An increase will ensure we can
    maintain our current staff and critical natural resource programs.
    Forestry
        Within the 86,000-acre reservation, we have 46,000 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 Programs, consisting of 2
    foresters and 2 technicians, undertakes a broad range of management
    activities including tree planting, prescribed burning, timber road
    design and maintenance and timber sale administration.
        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. We are very pleased to see that
    the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2003 Budget includes a $1.8
    million increase for BIA Forestry. We not only respectfully request
    that the Committee support the President's budget increase, but we
    would urge the Committee to earmark $188,000 for the Lac du Flambeau
    Forestry Program. This program has not received any substantial funding
    increases since fiscal year 1991.
    Tribal Historic Preservation
        Tribal Historic Preservation Offices are programs that have assumed
    the functions of the State Historic Preservation Officers on tribal
    lands in accordance within the provisions of Section 101(d)2 of the
    National Historic Preservation Act. The Historic Preservation Fund
    (HPF) administered by the National Park Service (NPS) provides major
    funding for the THPOs and SHPOs. In fiscal year 2002, this funding was
    severely cut, which resulted in a fifty percent decrease in funding for
    the Lac Du Flambeau Historic Preservation Office. The fiscal year 2001
    funding was $140,000. This was reduced to $70,000, in fiscal year 2002.
    Based on the fiscal year 2003 budget numbers, many THPOs across the
    country will have to close their doors. This means these critical
    resource agencies will not be unable to assist to ensure compliance
    with the Act.
                           law enforcement and courts
        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
    2001, the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Police Department logged 30,000 man-
    hours answering 3,937 complaints. The eleven-member Police Department
    consists of ten full time officers and one administrative assistant
    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. The Lac du
    Flambeau Tribal Police Department is in dire need of space. Currently,
    the 50-year-old converted hardware store houses the Tribal Court
    System, Tribal Attorney's Office, Probation and Parole Department,
    Child Support Agency, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
    Commission Wardens and Tribal Police. The cramp conditions do not allow
    our police officers to conduct private interviews without compromising
    confidentiality. The lack of an interview area jeopardizes the
    officer's ability to solve cases and is time consuming because not more
    than one person can be interviewed at a time.
        Because of these difficult conditions, the Lac du Flambeau Band
    needs a new Police Department building. It is estimated that the new
    building will cost $800,000. We respectfully request Congress to help
    us in our effort to provide adequate space for the Police Department.
        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 2001, our Court System had
    1,378 cases filed and conducted 1,791 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 under funded 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. Currently, the Band is
    receiving $76,454 from the BIA to support our court system. This only
    represents 24 percent of the total Tribal Court operating budget. Thus,
    the Band respectfully requests that Congress support the President's
    proposed fiscal year 2003 Budget of $17 million for Tribal courts. An
    additional $156,315 is needed to fully fund the Lac du Flambeau Tribal
    Court System.
                great lakes indian fish and wildlife commission
        The Band supports the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
    Commission request of $4,063,000 to meet the needs outlined in the
    Commission's testimony submitted to the Committee. 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. We would urge the
    Committee to restore the proposed $3 million cut to this program. Land
    consolidation is vital to any trust reform initiative, as fractionation
    is at the heart of all of the difficulties that any trust reform effort
    intends to correct. We suggest that in order to improve upon the
    implementation of this Project, that Congress allow tribes to
    administer the project through a Public Law 93-638 contract or some
    other cooperative agreement.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission
        We appreciate the opportunity to provide this written testimony to
    the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.
    This testimony is directed toward the fiscal year 2003 Bureau of Indian
    Affairs budget, specifically in regards to the Fish, Wildlife and Parks
    Program.
        The Tribes of the Chugach Region, who make up the Chugach Regional
    Resources Commision (CRRC), are requesting the support of the House
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies to restore
    the $350,000 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs fiscal year 2003 Fish,
    Wildlife and Parks budget earmarked for CRRC and add it to the base
    budget as permanent funding. This funding has been included in the
    BIA's Fish, Wildlife and Parks budget for the past 12 years, but has
    been zeroed out for fiscal year 2003. CRRC is a non-profit Alaska
    Native organization with seven member Tribes located in Prince William
    Sound and Lower Cook Inlet of Alaska. The mission of CRRC is to work
    with the Tribes to promote and develop sound economic resource based-
    projects and to work collectively to address any natural resource and
    environmentally related issues that affect the Native people of the
    Chugach Region.
        This funding, over the past 12 years, has supported the development
    and operation of many programs that have assisted communities in
    providing meaningful employment opportunities as well as valuable
    services and products to the people of the State of Alaska. If this
    funding is not restored, 35 Native people in the Chugach Region will
    lose their jobs. With the scarcity of employment opportunities in rural
    Alaska, the impact of approximately six families per village losing
    this income in a village with an average population of 100, strikes a
    devastating blow to the local community economy. In addition, these 20
    families will create a much larger burden on state and federal
    financial resources as they will be forced to depend upon state and
    federal welfare programs to provide funding for necessary living
    expenses. This funding also supports the base operating expenses of
    CRRC, and without this funding, our work will not be able to continue.
    A summary of some of these programs supported by this funding is
    provided to give you a better understanding of the integral role this
    funding plays in Tribal community development.
        The Port Graham Salmon Hatchery has been in operation since 1990,
    and raises sockeye, pink, and Coho salmon. CRRC provided Port Graham
    with the technical and administrative assistance necessary to build the
    hatchery program. The hatchery's goal is to rebuild local pink salmon
    runs and provide economic opportunities for village residents. The
    original hatchery was located in an old cannery building which was
    later destroyed by a fire in January of 1998. CRRC worked closely with
    the Port Graham Village Council to obtain funding and help to build a
    new hatchery. CRRC funded the hatchery operations for many years and
    employed the hatchery staff consisting of 5-7 full time and seasonal
    employees. The new hatchery was completed in 2000 and is now entering
    its full production program. The hatchery currently produces local
    stock Pink Salmon and incubates the sockeye salmon eggs for the nearby
    Native Village of Nanwalek. The new hatchery has a capacity of 110
    million pink salmon eggs, 5 million sockeye eggs and 2 million Coho
    eggs. The hatchery is expecting back over a million adult pink salmon
    to return this year which will enable the first full production egg
    take of 110 million eggs. The future production is expected to reach
    about 3 million adult pink salmon annually beginning in 2004 with an
    expected 100,000 to 200,000 adult sockeye salmon returning annually
    beginning in 2006.
        The Nanwalek Sockeye Enhancement Program (NSEP) was also initiated
    in 1990. The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC) provided
    funding, technical and administrative assistance to develop a fry
    stocking program that would supplement wild fry production and help
    rebuild the depleted English Bay Sockeye runs. This program was then
    turned over to the Nanwalek IRA Council with project administration and
    support coming from CRRC. It is the only program of its kind currently
    permitted in the State of Alaska and employs one full time and ten
    seasonal workers. Pen rearing of sockeye fry in the English Bay Lakes
    commenced in 1991 and has occurred annually since that time. Over four
    million sockeye fingerlings and pre-smolts have been successfully
    released which produced well over 150,000 adult sockeye salmon that
    have returned to the English Bay River and associated fisheries. CRRC
    helped to develop the technology and procedures needed to re-establish
    the English Bay River sockeye salmon run which is expecting about
    50,000 adults to return in 2002 and 100,000 adults in 2003. Under a
    cooperative agreement between the Port Graham Village Council and the
    Nanwalek IRA Council, the eggs are taken from the salmon in Nanwalek,
    transported to Port Graham to be hatched and reared to fingerling size,
    and returned to Nanwalek for further rearing before they are released
    into the wild. Due to this cooperative remote release program, the
    community was able to enjoy the first subsistence and commercial
    fishery after 10 years. This important program is expected to reach a
    peak production of about 150,000 adult sockeye salmon returning every
    year beginning in 2007. English Bay River sockeye salmon are a
    principal source of subsistence food and commercial fishing income for
    the Nanwalek and the nearby Port Graham villages. CRRC continues to
    provide consulting and technical assistance for this project which will
    help provide a sustainable economic base for the village of Nanwalek.
        The Qutekcak Shellfish Hatchery in Seward has been a major
    accomplishment for both the Qutekcak Native Tribe and CRRC. The
    operation began in a small pilot hatchery with funding provided from
    CRRC BIA funds, and is now operating out of a new state-of-the-art
    facility, spawning, hatching, and rearing Littleneck clams and Pacific
    oysters for sale to shellfish farms in Alaska. This hatchery is now
    operated by the Tribe under a contract with the State and employs 4
    full time employees. This is the only shellfish hatchery in the State
    of Alaska, and has the capacity to serve all shellfish farms in the
    state. The Tribal hatchery staff is currently conducting research on
    the culture techniques of Purple-hinged Rock Scallops, Geoducks, and
    Cockles. CRRC has supported this research and development and without
    this funding, this much needed research would not be able to continue.
    This would devastate not only the Tribal hatchery, but the shellfish
    farmers in Alaska who depend upon seed for their own operations.
    Further, one condition of the hatchery operating contract stipulated
    that the Tribe put up $100,000 bond to cover the cost of mothballing
    the hatchery should the Tribe pull out and no one else found to take
    its place. Operating costs are approximately $340,000 per year for the
    hatchery. Without the BIA funding, hatchery operations would have to be
    cut back. This would reduce seed production that, in turn, would reduce
    income. This likely would force the Tribe to back out of its operating
    contract. This would mean that some or all of its $100,000 bond would
    be forfeited if no one else could be found to take over hatchery
    operations. Closing the hatchery would also doom the state's
    mariculture industry; reducing it to a very small number of farmers
    supplying oysters to the tourists.
        The Tatitlek IRA Council has operated the Alutiiq Pride Oyster Farm
    since 1992 and is one of those farms that depend upon seed from the
    Qutekcak Shellfish Hatchery for their operation. The oyster farm has
    produced some of the best oysters in the country and is well known
    throughout Alaska. The operation sells their product primarily in
    Anchorage at this time, marketing approximately 200-300 dozen per week.
    Funding for this project is slowly being phased out as their profit
    margin increases. Sales currently account for about $80,000 of its
    $145,000 budget. About $35,000 of the remainder comes from the CRRC's
    BIA natural resources program and the rest from village funding
    sources. This is one of the bigger mariculture operations in the state,
    providing 3 full time and several part time employment opportunities
    for Tribal members. The Tribe recently completed construction of a
    processing facility to process the oysters and prepare them for
    shipping. Losing the BIA funding would likely result in a reduction in
    employment and production, and possibly the end of the program. This in
    turn would hurt the Qutekcak shellfish hatchery since Tatitlek is one
    of the hatchery's bigger customers.
        In a related project, the Chenega IRA Council operates the Chenega
    Floating Nursery System for oysters and other shellfish in Chenega Bay.
    With this nursery system, they are able to raise shellfish to a size
    larger than what can legally be imported into Alaska. The ability to
    purchase larger seed means shorter grow-out time, and higher
    profitability for the shellfish farms. So, this program fills a niche
    in the shellfish market that did not exist prior to its inception
    anywhere in the state. This program employs one full time community
    member.
        In addition to these projects, this funding has also supported the
    development of Tribal Natural Resource Programs in the region in an
    effort to be more meaningfully involved in the natural resource
    management projects and decisions that affect the Tribes' traditional
    subsistence lifestyle. Active participation by the Tribes in such
    current initiatives as the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council's Gulf
    Ecosystem Monitoring Program, the federal subsistence fisheries
    management projects occurring in traditional use areas, and the
    potential co-management of the Outer Continental Shelf fisheries is
    vital to the overall success of each of these programs. We have also
    been able to start new projects with this funding, such as providing
    much needed training in natural resource management so that the
    communities are better prepared to participate in state and federal
    agency management efforts. Funding from this initial appropriation also
    supports the base operations of the organization, such as salaries,
    travel, telephone, office space, office supplies, and professional
    biological assistance, which are vital to the CRRC's very existence. We
    have been very successful at utilizing these funds to use as match for
    other grants as well, oftentimes doubling or even tripling the initial
    investment.
        As you can see, this funding has played an integral role in
    allowing CRRC to develop and implement important community-based
    programs such as those described above. The over 35 Native people
    employed under this funding, the majority of which are located in the
    villages, will lose their jobs if this funding is not restored; CRRC
    will be without operating funds, thus unable to facilitate the
    development of local community economies, and Tribes will no longer
    have a collective voice to address the environmental and resource
    issues that affect their lives.
        We are respectfully requesting the Committee's support to restore
    the original amount of $350,000 to the BIA Fish, Wildlife and Parks
    Budget for the Chugach Regional Resources Commission. Due to the
    magnitude of this program to the people of the Chugach, as well as its
    far reaching impacts and high cost to benefit ratio, we are also
    requesting that this funding be included in the budget as part of the
    permanent base.
        In a related matter, we also support the restoration of funds to
    other Tribal fish and wildlife programs that were cut from the BIA
    budget, including $69,000 to the Alaska Sea Otter and Stellar Sea Lion
    Commission, $454,000 to the Bison Restoration Program, $593,000 in
    Wetlands/Waterfowl Management, and $320,000 in Unresolved Hunting and
    Fishing Rights for Tribal management of shellfish resources and
    associated treaty harvest in the Northwest Region.
        In regards to the budget of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, we
    feel it is vitally important to include funding for a permanent Native
    American Liaison for Alaska, particularly since the Service has assumed
    management of subsistence fisheries in the State. The Native American
    Liaison plays a key role in ensuring the involvement of Tribes in these
    and other projects. We were also pleased to see that Congress
    appropriated $5 million for Tribal Wildlife Grants, and $4 million for
    the Tribal Landowner Incentive Program in fiscal year 2002. We are
    hopeful that this funding will continue and encourage you to consider
    increasing this amount for the benefit of the endangered species and
    wildlife resources we all enjoy.
        Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide this written
    testimony. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
    907/284-2212 or Patty Brown-Schwalenberg, Executive Director, at 907/
    562-6647.
                                     ______

                     Departmental Offices--Insular Affairs
      Prepared Statement of the Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council
        Thank you for providing this opportunity to the people of Enewetak
    to describe issues that relate to our ability to live on Enewetak
    Atoll. Of immediate concern is increased funding of Enewetak Food and
    Agriculture Program. Consequently, this statement includes a request to
    increase the funding of the Department of Interior funded Enewetak Food
    and Agriculture Program by $309,000 from $1.391 million to $1.7
    million.
        Other issues that relate to our ability to live on Enewetak Atoll
    are: Funding of the just compensation award issued by the Nuclear
    Claims Tribunal; resettlement of the Enjebi people on their home island
    of Enjebi; monitoring of the our 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.
        Continued and increased funding of the Enewetak Food and
    Agriculture Program.--This program is necessary because over one-half
    of Enewetak remains contaminated by radiation. The remaining fifty
    percent of the 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 Enewetak atoll to
    support the people.
        Congress recognized the predicament of the Enewetak people 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. Such funding provides imported food and an agriculture
    rehabilitation program.
        Much progress has occurred over the past several years with regard
    to the agriculture rehabilitation effort. In addition, we have become
    more and more involved with the soil rehabilitation effort and the
    planting and maintenance of food bearing plants. Increase in the
    funding from $1.1 million to approximately $1.4 million these past 2
    years has helped the program keep up with inflation and has created a
    momentum that we would like to maintain.
        However, 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 2003. 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), $859,000; 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 2003 by the amount of $309,00, for a total of
    $1.7 million.
        We would now like to describe the 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.
        Funding of the just compensation award issued by the Nuclear Claims
    Tribunal.--The issue most important to us is the funding of the $386
    million award for just compensation made to the Enewetak people by the
    Nuclear Claims Tribunal. Enewetak was the site for forty-three of the
    sixty-seven nuclear bombs detonated by the United States in the
    Marshall Islands. The damages of the U.S. Nuclear Testing Program
    affect us to this day. It is important to remember that in 1947, prior
    to the removal of our people 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 made to us, the United States in the Compact (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 (``Tribunal'') make a final
    determination of the amount that would satisfy the constitutional
    requirement of just compensation.
        The 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
    we received or will be received under the Compact. The funding of this
    amount by the United States would satisfy its constitutional obligation
    to us. This funding could be provided through the Changed Circumstances
    Petition process that has been presented to the U.S. Congress.
        This funding would provide us with the resources 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.--
    We, 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 Enjebi people have
    been exiled from their home island for a period of over 55 years. They
    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 1977-80 partial cleanup
    activities. In order to make the island habitable again, it requires
    radiological remediation and soil and plant rehabilitation. As
    determined by the experts, the cost for the radiological remediation
    and soil and plant rehabilitation is approximately $118 million, which
    includes the cleanup and rehabilitation of the other northern islands
    which are part of the Enjebi people's resources for food from land and
    marine areas. These costs are part of the just compensation award made
    to the Enewetak people by the Tribunal.
        In addition, the people require the housing, infrastructure, and
    other buildings necessary to permit them to live on the island while
    the rehabilitation is ongoing. These costs are estimated at $30
    million. Nonetheless, these costs were not awarded by the Tribunal
    because the Tribunal opined that such costs could be funded from the
    loss of use portion of the award.
        In short, the cleanup and resettlement of Enjebi is projected to
    cost $148 million. The best solution is for the funding of the Tribunal
    award which would provide the funding for the cleanup and
    rehabilitation of all the northern islands including Enjebi, and which
    would provide the funding for the housing and other necessary
    infrastructure at Enjebi.
        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 U.S. Department
    of Energy (DOE) and the Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council have
    reached an agreement on 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 material including plutonium and other
    radioactive debris. 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 us. To effect the foregoing, a
    long-term stewardship program of the Runit Dome needs to be implemented
    by the United States.
        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 has 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
        We thank the Congress for its past funding of the Enewetak Food and
    Agriculture Program and request that it provide funding for fiscal year
    2003 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 other issues described in this statement.
                                     ______

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
                                 Forest Service
              Prepared Statement of the Eastern Forest Partnership
    Overview
        The eastern forests 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 (86 percent) and unprotected
    from development. Our ability to provide clean air and water, wildlife,
    and recreation far over half of the American people will rest in large
    part on our ability to conserve enough of this unprotected land in the
    coming decades. In order to achieve this goal, we request that you make
    an appropriation of $100 million for the Forest Legacy Program
    administered by the USDA Forest Service and $900 million for the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund administered by the Department of the
    Interior.
    Threats to Easters Forests
        Development and the attendant loss of forestland pose the most
    widespread threat to eastern forests. Population growth connected to
    economically thriving urban areas like Philadelphia, Atlanta and Boston
    combined with inefficient land use patterns is leading to rapid sprawl
    development that consumes natural areas, including forests. From 1992
    to 1997, over 8 million acres of rural land were developed in the
    eastern states, an area larger than New Hampshire.\1\ All trends
    suggest that this rate of forest and farmland conversion will only
    increase--sales of new homes set a record in 2001.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. ``State Rankings
    by Acreage and Rate of Non-Federal Land Developed.''
        \2\ U.S. Commerce Department.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Eastern forests, shrinking before sprawl, have also seen a boom in
    logging over the last decade and now produce over 70 percent of the
    nation's timber, with removals exceeding growth in many areas.\3\ This
    rapid growth of eastern timber harvest is likely to increase. The
    Forest Service projects that timber production from non-industrial
    private forestlands will increase by 64 percent over the next 50
    years.\4\ Almost two-thirds of the timber removals in eastern forests
    are from the lands of non-industrial private landowners, land that is
    largely unprotected.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ USDA Forest Service. ``Net Annual Growth, Removals and
    Mortality of Growing Stock on Timberland in the United States.'' 1996.
        \4\ Hertel, Gerard ``The Eastern Non-industrial Private Forests.''
    USDA Forest Service. 2000.
        \5\ Hertel, ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Impacts of Forest Loss
        The loss of eastern forestland to development and intensive timber
    harvest has serious implications for the residents of the eastern
    states. Most importantly, eastern forestlands and open space are
    cleansing sponges that collect and filter the region's drinking water.
    The widespread eastern drought has highlighted the importance of this
    natural waterworks. Far example, the 2 million acres of forestland and
    pure waterways in the Highlands region filter water supplies for 12
    million Americans living in and around New York City.\6\ Without the
    Highlands, life in this densely populated region would become near
    impossible.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Highlands Coalition.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        No less important is the impact of these lands on quality of life
    in the densely populated eastern states. In our heavily urbanized
    landscape, large tracts of forestland like the 37 million acre Southern
    Appalachian region and 26 million acre Northern Forest are a critical
    refuge for wildlife and recreationists alike. Eastern forests contain
    the nation's most biologically diverse forestlands and waterways,
    treasures that are being lost each year. Our forests also give the
    eastern states the natural amenities that are increasingly important to
    Americans from all walks of life. Conserving our forests assures access
    to a treasured piece of green refuge for every resident in the eastern
    states.
    Public Attitudes
        The public is fully aware of the importance of our forests, and
    open space, and is waiting for the government to take action. In the
    2002 National Survey on Biodiversity, conducted in January by the
    polling firm of Belden, Russonello and Stewart, 26 percent of
    respondents ranked the loss of natural areas to development as an
    ``extremely serious'' problem. This was the highest percentage for any
    of the problems listed in the survey, outdistancing toxic waste, air
    pollution, and water pollution. If we invest in greater land
    protection, we will address a clearly identified public concern.
    Looking Forward
        With a mere 14 percent of eastern forestland protected from
    development, and even less land protected from intensive logging, it is
    critical to protect more forestland for public needs. These are the
    lands that will assure an enduring water supply, clean air, wildlife,
    and recreational opportunities for the more than half of the American
    people living in the East. In order to achieve this protection, we will
    need a renewed investment in our federal land protection programs.
                             forest legacy program
        The Forest Legacy Program can help provide adequate protection of
    eastern forestland 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.
        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 2002 of $65 million was only
    half of the almost $130 million in requests that came in from the
    eastern states in the program.
        Now even more states have joined the program, including states like
    Georgia, Alabama, and Pennsylvania that have some of the nation's
    highest rates, of timber removals and development. Forest Legacy
    Program requests for this year could easily exceed $200 million. In the
    eastern forests alone there are over $129 million in identified Forest
    Legacy projects for fiscal year 2003 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 appropriation for the Forest Legacy
    Program in fiscal year 2003.
                      the land and water conservation fund
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund, like the Forest Legacy
    Program, is an important resource for increasing our base of protected
    forestland. Acquisitions funded by the LWCF create parks and forests
    that filter public water supplies, purify our air, and provide
    guaranteed access for millions of Americans to natural areas. Full
    funding for the LWCF would have a profound effect on the lives of
    millions of Americans living in the eastern states.
        The LWCF state matching grants program is particularly important
    now that many state governments are facing serious fiscal challenges.
    Eastern states such as New Jersey and North Carolina have made a
    commitment to protecting more open space for public needs. Full funding
    for the state matching grants program will help these states keep this
    important promise in difficult financial times.
        The LWCF federal program is also vitally important to eastern
    states because we have such a shortage of federal public land. In
    particular, eastern national forests are in desperate need of new
    acquisition dollars to seize historic opportunities to consolidate
    fragmented public lands. Many eastern national forests are only half of
    their authorized size, depriving millions of Americans of the full
    promise of the Weeks Act that there would be enough national forest to
    serve the needs of every American. We need to deliver on the other half
    of this legacy by funding completion of our eastern national forests.
    Summary
        The densely populated eastern states are deeply dependent on the
    eastern forests for clean water and air, wildlife habitat, recreational
    opportunities, and as an enduring economic engine. Without a dramatic
    increase in funding for the Forest Legacy Program and Land and Water
    Conservation Fund, we will continue to lose natural areas at a
    tremendous rate. This loss of natural lands is already having serious
    consequences, and events like the current drought are only highlighting
    the potential consequences of further neglecting to protect our green
    infrastructure in the eastern forests. Greater funding for land
    protection will help us avert this crisis while improving the quality
    of life for millions of Americans. This seems a worthy federal
    investment.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Outdoor Industry Association
        The Outdoor Industry Association urges the Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee to substantially increase funding for recreation and
    conservation. Our highest priority for fiscal year 2003 is $1.44
    billion for year three of the Conservation Trust created in Title XIII
    of the fiscal year 2001 Interior Appropriations bill. In addition, we
    urge you to provide a major investment in recreation management dollars
    at the USDA Forest Service: $317 million for Forest Service recreation
    management; and $100 million for capital improvement and maintenance
    for Forest Service trails.
        Outdoor Industry Association is the trade association of the $18
    billion human-powered outdoor recreation industry. Our members include
    1,100 manufacturers, retailers, and distributors of outdoor products
    and services associated with hiking, backpacking, climbing, canoeing,
    kayaking, and backcountry skiing. In 2000, Outdoor Industry
    Association's Participation Study found that hiking and mountain
    bicycling each had over 70 million participants; 34 million went trail
    running; 5 million went snowshoeing; 18 million canoed; and rock
    climbing and kayaking had 5 million and 6 million participants,
    respectively. In total, about 149 million Americans participated in
    these active outdoor activities last year.
        Recreation is an important use of our public lands. The Forest
    Service estimates they have 209 million visitors per year; the National
    Park Service attracts 285 million; and the Bureau of Land Management
    estimates 62 million visitor days per year.
        After September 11, the need for protecting our public lands for
    respite and renewal is more important than ever. According to the
    Outdoor Industry Association Special Report: ``The Effects of September
    11 on Recreation, Travel and Leisure,'' 29 percent of Americans changed
    their travel plans for the six months following September 11. When
    exploring what types of vacations or activities that Americans may take
    in future months, 58 percent of Americans say they would feel safest
    visiting National Parks; 57 percent also say they would feel ``very
    safe'' at a winter mountain resort. These activities scored far higher
    than cities or theme parks. Clearly, Americans are seeking outdoor
    experiences in these uncertain times.
        In addition, Outdoor Industry Association believes strongly that
    more investment in the health of our public lands is necessary to
    maintain quality recreation opportunities for our future.
    Land Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Trust--$1.44 billion
        This new Trust represents a significant commitment to invest in
    natural resource protection as demands on those resources increase.
    Strong congressional support for the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
    (CARA) in 2001 (House vote of 315-102) demonstrated the broad
    constituency for adequate and dependable funding for state and local
    programs as well as public land maintenance and urban park, historic
    preservation and wildlife programs. We urge the Committee to fully fund
    the Trust in recognition of the compromise struck in 2001.
        The outdoor industry sees an incredible need for these dollars.
    Trail and recreation facility maintenance backlogs are at an all time
    high. Demand for recreation opportunities is increasing, and the
    pressure on open space and public lands from development is growing.
        Outdoor Industry Association believes it is essential that the
    federal estate be taken care of with dollars from the Trust, but also
    that states receive their fair share. We encourage Congress to commit
    to spending all of the dollars in the Trust each year through fiscal
    year 2006, using the fiscal year 2001 and 2002 funding levels for
    programs in the Trust as a base to build on in future years. We
    respectfully request expenditures of $1.44 billion in this category in
    the Interior bill in fiscal year 2003.

        REQUESTED BASELINES FOR PROGRAMS IN LAND CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT TRUST
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal years
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005       2006
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Interior Subcomittee:
        Fed, and State LWCF Funding...............        540        540        540        540        540        540
        State & other conservation programs.......        300        300        300        300        300        300
        Urban & Historic Preservation.............        160        160        160        160        160        160
        Maintenance Backlog.......................        150        150        150        150        150        150
        Payments in Lieu of Taxes.................         50         50         50         50         50         50
        Funds used for steady growth for each       .........        120        240        360        480        600
         program (particularly state and local
         programs)................................
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
            Interior Total........................      1,200      1,320      1,440      1,560      1,680      1,800
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        We have particular interest in three programs inside the Trust:
    Land & Water Conservation Fund--$900 million
        Outdoor Industry Association strongly supports full funding for
    LWCF in fiscal year 2003, however, we have great concern that the
    President would fund non-LWCF projects in the LWCF category. We believe
    this sets a bad precedent for the program for the future, and strongly
    oppose this approach.
        For more than three decades, the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) has played a crucial role in American conservation and
    recreation. Through its early history, the LWCF generally received and
    allocated close to $900 million annually. In the 1980s and 1990s,
    however, annual appropriations averaged far less. For many years, the
    state grant program received no money at all. The creation of the Land
    Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement Trust
    provides a great opportunity to make good on the earlier promise of
    this program.
        Needs at the state level are particularly great. The demand for
    outdoor recreation opportunities is increasing. More Americans are
    participating in activities like hiking, backpacking, climbing and
    kayaking. To meet the demand, and to address the problem of limited and
    fragmented leisure time, we must provide more access to recreation
    close to home.
    Urban Parks and Recreation Fund--$75 million
        Urban parks are crucial to increasing the quality of life in
    cities. This program provides places for children to play and for
    families to go for a respite from their hectic lives. Title VIII
    dollars should make a significant increase in the program for fiscal
    year 2003 possible.
    Maintenance Backlog Account--$250 million
        Maintaining recreation facilities is extremely important for
    promoting and protecting the outdoor recreation experience. All of the
    public land agencies are suffering from severe maintenance backlogs.
    This account is key for bringing these facilities back into repair.
    USDA Forest Service Recreation Management--$317 million
        The USDA Forest Service is the nation's largest outdoor recreation
    provider, managing over 133,000 miles of trails--including all or part
    of 6 national scenic and 11 national historic trails--more than 277,000
    heritage sites, over 4,300 campgrounds, and 31 national recreation
    areas. The Forest Service provides a broad range of outdoor activities
    including hiking, biking, climbing and paddling. Recreation creates
    about 75 percent of the Gross Domestic Product generated from Forest
    Service land, yet only about 10 percent of the Forest Service budget
    supports recreation.
        We encourage the Appropriations Committee to provide $317 million
    for the Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness program at the
    Forest Service.
        An increase will begin to close the gap between the huge need and
    current low investment in this growth area for national forests. We
    urge the agency to use these funds to increase the number of recreation
    staff at the local level, including volunteer support and trail crews,
    where the need is great and demand is growing. The number of recreation
    management personnel in the Forest Service decreased from 2,309 in
    fiscal year 1998 to 1,934 in 1999. Very few forests have even one full-
    time staff person on trails. Some offices fail to adequately process
    and supervise outfitters and guides, competitive event promoters,
    educational institutions, and other commercial and organized groups,
    and support for volunteer efforts is lacking.
    Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails--$100 million
        Trail maintenance is a basic component of a quality recreation
    experience. Ensuring visitor safety, protecting natural resources,
    maintaining visitor access and improving the backcountry and recreation
    experience require a greater investment in trail maintenance. The
    Forest Service trail maintenance backlog totals over $118 million. Many
    trails are so far in disrepair from overuse and long-term under-funding
    that they need to be completely re-constructed. Increasing the trails
    budget is crucial to enable the agency to begin to address this
    tremendous recreational infrastructure need, including bridge
    replacement, trail relocation, and tread replacement. Without increased
    funding, trails will continue to deteriorate, costs will increase
    exponentially and resources will continue to suffer.
        Thank you for your consideration of our request. We look forward to
    working with you to ensure quality backcountry recreation opportunities
    for all Americans.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the International Research Institute for Climate
       Prediction, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
                                    request
        This request for $1.5 million within the Forest Service (USDA)
    appropriation for Forest Service Research and the National Fire Plan
    concerns the use of available research tools and scientific expertise
    that could preserve resources destroyed annually due to forest fires.
    Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate
    Prediction (IRI) produces interannual to seasonal forecasts on
    variability in precipitation and temperature, the two most naturally
    occurring critical factors related to forest fires.
                                   background
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the
    Department of Commerce selected the IRI, through a peer review process,
    to provide long-term climate forecasts and experimental modeling. The
    IRI is located at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth
    Observatory. The IRI produces interannual to season forecasts on
    probability of variance in precipitation and temperature, primarily
    based on computer modeling and the influence of major climate forcing
    agents, such as the emerging El Nino in the Pacific Ocean. The IRI
    conducts climate forecasts based on numerous international models
    utilizing multiple sources of sea surface temperature data and
    satellite analysis. The IRI provides the most accurate long-term
    forecasts for severe climate-driven events worldwide.
        The National Fire Plan identifies several factors that need further
    research and refinement for the preparedness related to minimizing the
    damage and destruction caused by forest fires. The plan sets forth
    goals in (1) Fuel Conditions, Risk Assessment and Fire Management, and
    (2) Weather and Smoke. These research elements could be greatly
    enhanced through collaboration with the IRI, which could provide
    intermediate and long-term forecasts on fuels assessment, precipitation
    forecasts, and temperature conditions that make fire conditions more
    probable.
        The Forest Service fiscal year 2003 Budget is approximately $4.1
    billion, of which $1.457 billion is requested for the National Fire
    Plan.
                                   rationale
        The IRI is prepared to provide its expertise in additional areas of
    national benefit. The mission of protection and preservation of natural
    resources could be enhanced with the use of tools and expertise
    currently available through IRI products and services. The
    collaboration of the IRI with the Forest Service would result in
    improved knowledge and performance in the preparation for forest fire
    conditions.
                                    summary
        In your deliberations on the fiscal year 2003 Interior
    Appropriations bill, I respectfully request that you provide in the
    USDA-Forest Service appropriations accounts $1.5 million for an
    extramural, collaborative research agreement with the International
    Research Institute for Climate Prediction to assist in implementation
    of the National Fire Plan and provide long-term precipitation and
    temperature probability forecasts related to preparedness and fuels
    assessment.
        Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Mother Lode Chapter, Sierra Club
        The Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club urges the Subcommittee
    to recommend $2.7 million in Land and Water Conservation Fund
    appropriations for the North Fork American Wild River in Tahoe National
    Forest.
        This appropriation is needed to purchase 2,700 acres of private
    lands along and near the North Fork American Wild River in Tahoe
    National Forest, California, from a willing seller. The Forest Service
    has already acquired 6,900 acres along the Wild River, and the proposed
    purchase will complete the acquisitions of presently available private
    lands in and adjacent to the Wild River Zone.
        The North Fork American River flows down the western slope of the
    Sierra Nevada in a beautiful wild rugged canyon more than half a mile
    deep. Most of the canyon is steep-walled and narrow. Almost all the
    private lands to be acquired, originally part of the checkerboard land
    grant to the Southern Pacific Railroad, lie within the canyon and two
    major side canyons. Just south of the canyon's rim is a 640-acre
    inholding within Duncan Canyon's 8,000 acres of old-growth mixed
    conifer forest. Highquality old-growth mixed conifer forest is now rare
    in the Sierra Nevada.
        Both the Federal Government and the State of California designated
    a 38-mile stretch of the North Fork American as a Wild River in the
    1970's. The designations recognized the river's outstanding wildness
    and beauty and its exceptionally pure waters.
        The river supports an excellent self-sustaining trout fishery
    managed as a Wild Trout Stream by the State of California. The canyon
    is home to numerous large mammals, including black bear and mountain
    lion, and provides habitat for 150 species of birds, including
    peregrine falcons, golden eagles, and goshawks. The canyon's varied
    ecosystems and vegetation, including a large acreage of old-growth
    forest, are almost unspoiled. Ten challenging trails descend steeply
    into the canyon, providing access for rugged hikers, backpackers, and
    fishermen seeking solitude and strenuous adventure.
        Though the canyon is remote and rugged, development which would
    degrade the pristineness of these private lands could still occur. A
    previous owner filed helicopter logging plans on several of the
    parcels. Cabin sites could be developed on some of the parcels,
    degrading their naturalness and limiting public recreational access.
        A fiscal year 2003 appropriation of $2.7 million from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund is needed to acquire these exceptional lands
    along the North Fork American Wild River and preserve them from
    potential development. The Mother Lode Chapter urges the Subcommittee
    to recommend this appropriation.
        This appropriation is supported by the Placer County Board of
    Supervisors, the Board of Directors of the Placer County Water Agency,
    and civic and environmental organizations in Placer County.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society
        The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to submit
    testimony on the fiscal year 2003 budget for the U.S. Forest Service
    (FS). In particular, we recommend maintaining the fiscal year 2002
    funding level for Forest and Rangeland Research; increasing the
    Administration's request for Wildlife, Fish and Threatened & Endangered
    Species by $17.7 million; and increasing the Stewardship Incentives
    Program by $3 million. The Wildlife Society is the association of
    professional wildlife biologists dedicated to responsible wildlife
    stewardship through science and education. The Society is interested in
    all aspects of federal programs that affect wildlife and habitat
    management on public lands.
                         forest and rangeland research
        The Wildlife Society is very concerned about the Administration's
    proposed shift in FS research, which would result in crippling
    reductions to research vital to fish and wildlife management. The
    programs slated for reduction include long-term research that, once
    halted, will be difficult if not impossible to resume. Natural
    resources research requires many years of data collection and analysis
    before yielding the most valuable results, and a spending reduction
    will limit the extent to which researchers can analyze and use recently
    collected data. We recommend that new research initiatives not be
    implemented at the expense of other critical, long-term research
    projects.
        The proposed fiscal year 2003 Forest and Rangeland Research budget
    represents an increase of $1.877 million over fiscal year 2002.
    However, the proposal also allocates $37.8 million to five new research
    and technology initiatives. Consequently, $35.924 million worth of
    existing research programs must be terminated to support the new
    initiatives. This 15 percent reduction will result in dramatic cuts,
    closures, and terminations of important research projects that provide
    critical information for forest and rangeland management on National
    Forests lands. At least 16 Research Work Units will be terminated and
    275 research positions will be discontinued. These impacts will curtail
    research that wildlife biologists need to develop, adapt and evaluate
    management and restoration plans for wildlife and its habitat. The
    Wildlife Society is strongly opposed to these reductions to forest and
    rangeland research, and we urge you to maintain the fiscal year 2002
    enacted levels for each of the following programs: $51.702 million for
    wildlife, fish, water and air research; $107.24 million for vegetation
    management and protection research; and $38.739 million for resource
    valuation and use research.
                      wildlife and fish habitat management
        The Wildlife Society continues to object to the FS budget
    structure. The fiscal year 2003 budget approach (initiated for fiscal
    year 2001) makes it difficult to understand the budget request and to
    make any kind of meaningful comparison with previous year
    appropriations. Without budget line items detailing specific
    expenditures, the current approach does not promote accountability to
    state partners or the public. We recognize that Congress wants to
    reduce the number of budget line items, but we believe a better system
    is needed to show accountability for allocated monies. We request the
    FS budget include specific line items for: (1) wildlife and vegetation,
    and (2) watersheds and fisheries, both of which would specify
    threatened and endangered species efforts within each.
        The Wildlife Society is concerned about the nominal increases in
    the Wildlife ($1 million) and Threatened & Endangered (T&E) Species
    ($1.3 million) programs in fiscal year 2002. Since 1994, the FS has
    shifted many wildlife biologists and other resource specialists from
    on-the-ground projects to writing NEPA documents, processing appeals,
    and responding to litigation. Today at least 90 FTE wildlife biologists
    and 85 range scientists are needed at the Ranger District level to
    address the large backlog of management, monitoring, and research
    needs. As staffing needs are being met for fire management and the
    replacement of retiring professionals, we think that maintaining fish
    and wildlife skills in the workforce should be part of the agency's
    focus.
        The Wildlife Society recommends a $17.7 million increase above the
    Administration's request of $139.48 million for the Wildlife, Fish and
    Threatened & Endangered Species program in fiscal year 2003. Of the
    total amount provided, we recommend making $44.25 million available to
    ensure that each National Forest has a base infrastructure of personnel
    to administer viable Wildlife Biology, Terrestrial Threatened,
    Endangered and Sensitive Species, Botany and other natural resource
    programs. We also request that $10.8 million of the total amount be
    provided as base level funding for Forest and District biologists to
    implement proactive management, monitoring, and research projects.
        The Wildlife Society is pleased that the fiscal year 2002 funding
    for FS wildlife and T&E species habitat management programs is
    generating improvements for wildlife conservation. FS staff believes
    that in fiscal year 2002, through the facilitation of nine challenge
    cost share programs, the agency will reduce the conservation needs of
    wild turkey, wild sheep, elk, quail, waterfowl, grouse, and woodcock.
    However, the agency projects an increase in deferred costs for land
    bird conservation (Partners in Flight) and several critical habitat
    communities like aspen, sagebrush, fire dependant forests, and early-
    successional forests. We strongly support the challenge cost share
    programs that support these wildlife resources and encourage Congress
    to appropriate money for these specific projects as supplements to a
    fully funded wildlife program rather than as a substitute for needed
    appropriations. Since 1996, nonprofit partners of the Forest Service
    have financed almost two-thirds of the cost needed to implement the
    agency's cost share programs. It is becoming increasingly important
    that the Forest Service shares the financial responsibility with its
    partners.
                           state and private forestry
        The Wildlife Society supports the Cooperative Forestry programs
    that assist States and private landowners in improving and enhancing
    fish and wildlife habitat, protecting watersheds, and contributing to
    the economic and environmental well being of urban and rural America.
        The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) and Stewardship Incentives
    Program (SIP) collectively contribute to sustainable forestry
    management and wildlife habitat enhancement on 48 percent of the
    nation's non-industrial private forestlands. Under FSP, FS officials
    work with non-industrial private landowners to develop land management
    plans that improve the quality of forest, riparian and wildlife
    resources and improve the supply of seeds and planting stock for
    reforestation. The Wildlife Society supports the Administration's
    request of a $17.365 million increase for this program. Through SIP,
    the agency helps landowners cover the cost of implementing the land
    management plans, but the Administration requested no funds for this
    program in fiscal year 2003. The Wildlife Society requests that
    Congress restore SIP to the fiscal year 2002 funding level of $3
    million.
        The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is another successful State and
    Private Forestry Program that The Wildlife Society supports. Through
    FLP, the FS and participating states identify private forestlands that
    contain unique environmental features and yield critical resource
    values (e.g., connectivity of wildlife corridors, clean drinking water)
    and traditional forest uses that demand protection from land
    development. With the FS's financial assistance, participating states
    can acquire lands or interests in lands through a conservation
    easement. The Wildlife Society supports the Administration's $69.9
    million request for this program, which represents a 7.5 percent
    increase over the enacted fiscal year 2002 spending level.
        Thank you for considering the comments of wildlife professionals.
    We are available to work with you and your staff throughout the
    appropriations process.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the American Hiking Society
                    subject: trails and recreation programs
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I represent American
    Hiking Society's more than 5,000 members and the 500,000 members of our
    160 affiliated organizations. American Hiking Society (AHS) is a non-
    profit recreation-based conservation organization that works with the
    hiking community to promote and protect foot trails and the hiking
    experience. We urge you to support funding increases that will protect
    trails and recreation resources for the benefit of the nation. American
    Hiking makes the following recreation and conservation funding
    recommendations for fiscal year 2003:

    USDA Forest Service:    [In millions of dollars]
        Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness............   317.000
            Recreation Management (increase)......................    40.000
            Wilderness Management (increase)......................    15.000
        Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails...............   100.000
    National Park Service:
        Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program........    13.000
        National Trails System....................................    10.850
        Geographic Information System Network for National Trails.     1.200
    Bureau of Land Management:
        Recreation................................................   210.000
            Recreation Management (increase)......................    16.000
        National Landscape Conservation System....................   117.000
    Land and Water Conservation Fund:
        Appalachian National Scenic Trail, USDA Forest Service....     4.000
        Florida National Scenic Trail, USDA Forest Service........     6.000
        Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, USDA Forest Service..     5.000
        Ice Age National Scenic Trail, National Park Service......     7.000
        Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, Bureau of Land
          Management..............................................     1.000
        Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, Bureau of Land
          Management..............................................     0.584

                         trails and recreation funding
        Human powered recreation, especially hiking, 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. 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. The solution is
    not just to 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. The 16 national scenic and
    historic trails administered by the National Park Service require a
    minimum of $10.85 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 other
    public agencies and non-profit volunteer partner organizations. In
    2000, national trail volunteer organizations contributed $5.8 million
    in financial resources and over 593,000 volunteer hours with an
    estimated labor value of $8.8 million to the national scenic and
    historic trails. Volunteer partnerships and contributions leverage
    federal funding significantly, but they must not be considered a
    substitute for appropriations. Many of the national scenic trails have
    made significant strides in trail maintenance and protection efforts,
    but much work remains for these trails to become the continuous
    footpaths that Congress intended. 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 $1.2 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
    5 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 applies state-of-the-art technology and techniques to better
    administer, manage, and protect trail resources and landscapes. It will
    also increase efficiency through interagency coordination of staff,
    data, and resources.
        The NPS' Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program
    requires a $5 million increase to help communities manage and protect
    their recreational and natural resources. Despite the program's
    successes, RTCA funding has remained relatively stagnant for the last 8
    years. RTCA has experienced a dramatic increase in requests for
    assistance but is only able to assist half of all applicants. Because
    of funding shortfalls in fiscal year 2002, RTCA is presently suffering
    from significant cutbacks to staff, travel, and projects. With its
    strong focus on partnerships, RTCA is exceptionally cost efficient and
    effective. In fiscal year 2001, RTCA helped develop more than 2,000
    trail miles, protect more than 500 river miles, and preserve almost
    50,000 acres of open space. RTCA-assisted projects accomplish much more
    than conservation goals. They promote physical activity, encourage
    smart growth, minimize flood loss, provide opportunities for close-to-
    home recreation and renewal, and revitalize inner-city communities.
        We strongly support increased funding for two primary USDA Forest
    Service programs--Recreation Management, Heritage, and Wilderness and
    Capital Improvement and Maintenance for trails. The current investment
    in Forest Service lands does not match the role recreation plays in the
    agency, yet the Forest Service itself highlights the growing importance
    of recreation through the continued implementation of its Recreation
    Agenda released in September 2000.
        The Forest Service estimates that recreation creates about 75
    percent of the Gross Domestic Product generated from Forest Service
    land, yet only about 10 percent of the Forest Service budget is for
    recreation. The Forest Service requires increased funding to restore
    and maintain thousands of miles of trails; protect and preserve natural
    and cultural resources; upgrade inadequate, insufficient, and/or poorly
    maintained recreation facilities; reduce the maintenance backlog;
    augment on-the-ground recreation staff; and more effectively utilize
    volunteers. Increased funding is especially crucial to successful and
    timely implementation of the Recreation Agenda, including reducing the
    current $298 recreation maintenance backlog by one-quarter, and placing
    trail and volunteer coordinators and/or recreation planners at each
    national forest and for each nationally designated area or trail. Just
    as the Administration is focused on eliminating the maintenance
    backlogs for the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service,
    we urge Congress to eliminate the Forest Service and Bureau of Land
    Management maintenance backlogs.
        Despite the agency's increased emphasis on recreation, 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. Understaffing often results in volunteers performing
    essential functions--such as recreational supervision, resource
    protection, visitor services, and maintenance--instead of agency
    personnel. And despite the number of hiking and other recreation
    organizations that offer to volunteer to build and maintain trails in
    national forests, very few forests have a volunteer coordinator.
    Ironically, volunteer trail crews have been turned away because of the
    agency's inability to provide even minimal supervision or support. In
    2000, more than 90,000 volunteers contributed millions of hours in
    labor to the Forest Service with an estimated value of $35.8 million.
    Clearly, their efforts warrant an expanded commitment to trails and
    recreation funding, notably funding for recreation staff on the ground.
        The Forest Service must receive additional funding to manage
    Wilderness effectively and appropriately. With 33,000 miles of trail in
    FS Wilderness, and an estimated 17.2 million visits in fiscal year
    1999, increased funding is necessary to provide quality recreation
    experiences with minimal impact to the environment. Maintaining the
    integrity of the land and resources is essential for ecosystem
    viability and to keep these places truly wild for future generations.
        Ensuring visitor safety, protecting natural resources, maintaining
    visitor access, and improving the backcountry and recreation experience
    require a greater investment in trails. The Forest Service trail
    maintenance backlog now totals over $118 million. Inadequately
    maintained or poorly constructed trails suffer from excessive erosion
    and trail widening, braiding, and the creation of new ``social''
    trails. Many trails are so far in disrepair from overuse and long-term
    underfunding that they require re-construction. Increasing the trails
    budget is crucial to enable the agency to begin to address this
    tremendous recreational infrastructure need, including bridge
    replacement, trail relocation, and tread replacement.
        The Forest Service administers four national scenic and historic
    trails and manages significant portions of 11 other national trails.
    Responsible administration requires the full-time attention of an
    inter-regional administrator for each trail and continual collaboration
    with other federal and state agencies and nonprofit partner
    organizations. Land acquisition by dedicated land teams is underway for
    the Florida and Pacific Crest Trails. New sections of the Continental
    Divide, Florida and Pacific Crest Trails must be constructed to fill in
    gaps in these long-distance trails.
        The Bureau of Land Management manages over 4,700 miles of national
    scenic, historic, and recreational trails as well as thousands of miles
    of multiple use trails. 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 National Landscape
    Conservation System. Outdoor recreation is an important public use of
    these lands and management of outdoor recreation resources, facilities,
    and visitor use are important components of the BLM's multiple use
    mission, yet the agency remains severely underfunded and understaffed.
        BLM requires additional funding to manage existing recreation
    programs, protect resources, upgrade planning and infrastructure
    development, adapt to increasing visitor demands, and to manage all-
    terrain recreational vehicle usage more effectively. Recreation
    facilities are inadequate in many areas, and staff shortages place
    recreational, natural, and cultural resources at risk. Additional
    staffing is especially needed to meet the management demands for each
    of the National Monuments and National Conservation Areas.
        AHS strongly supports Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
    appropriations for the Appalachian, Continental Divide, Florida, Ice
    Age, and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails. Only one of the national
    scenic trails--the Appalachian Trail--is nearly complete; we urge you
    to turn your support toward the remaining national scenic 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.
        AHS recognizes that the Recreational Fee Demo Program is an attempt
    to meet the growing needs of recreationists at a time when
    appropriations are not keeping pace with demand, yet recreation fees
    should not be considered a panacea to this funding shortfall. We urge
    the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to continue to oppose any
    trail and recreation appropriations offsets with Fee Demo revenues. The
    inequities and inconsistencies in the implementation and administration
    of the program, combined with the continual extension of Fee Demo
    through the appropriations process, warrant further evaluation,
    oversight, and congressional hearings.
        On June 1, 2002, American Hiking Society will coordinate the tenth
    National Trails Day to raise public awareness and appreciation for
    trails. Participants will gather at more than 2,000 National Trails Day
    events nationwide. Greater investment in our public lands today is
    essential to protect and maintain our outstanding natural and
    recreational resources, including trails, for future generations of
    hikers. We urge Congress to support these programs and projects that
    represent investments in both people and natural resources, and benefit
    the environment, the economy, public health, and communities. 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.
                                     ______

          Letters From the International Society of Tropical Foresters
                                                        March 27, 2002.
    Hon. Robert Byrd,
    Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Byrd: My name is Warren T. Doolittle, the elected
    President of the 1,500 member International Society of Tropical
    Foresters (ISTF). Our society has members in some 120 countries,
    including tropical, developing countries and most developed countries.
        ISTF publishes a quarterly newsletter in both English and Spanish;
    publishes an annual Membership Directory; distributes publications on
    tropical forests; sponsors workshops and symposia; organizes chapters
    of ISTF; and generally serves as a source of information for ISTF
    members.
                     forest service international programs
        The President's fiscal year 2003 budget for the Forest Service
    International Programs (within the State, Private, and International
    Programs Line Item) is $5,000,000. Last year International Programs for
    the Forest Service were funded at a $5,250,000 level. I recommend that
    the $5,250,000 be restored in fiscal year 2003 and if possible be
    increased to $10,000,000.
        There is a great need for solid U.S. leadership and demonstration
    in forestry worldwide. Currently there is an effort by industry, other
    governments, and environmental organizations to provide guidelines and
    assistance for the sustained management of forests--especially in the
    developing countries. Many of the problems faced by the United States
    involve these other countries.
        For example, the United States depends upon sustainable management
    of other countries' forests in order to provide long-term availability
    of their forest products for the United States and also to prevent
    unfair competition to the United States timber industry. Forest fires
    in Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, and elsewhere represent a growing threat
    to forests. The U.S. forests are threatened by invasive plants,
    insects, and diseases from other countries. Over 20 destructive forest
    pests are likely to enter the United States during the next 10 years.
    Migratory birds to the United States from other countries are important
    to forest recreation areas in the United States. Protection of birds
    and other facets of biodiversity in these other countries is important
    to the interests of the U.S. Experts of the Forest Service working in
    cooperation with counterparts in other countries can provide solutions
    to many of the above problems.
        However, United States efforts in international activities have
    been seriously restricted by a low budget ($5,250,000) in fiscal year
    2002, and a lack of personnel to lead our government in helping to
    carry out cooperative programs with other countries and with the United
    Nations. The world's forests provide wood and non-wood products, soil
    and water protection, recreation, biodiversity, and sequestration of
    carbon dioxide. The Forest Service can provide some of the leadership
    and programs needed; but, it means a larger budget for International
    Programs. In summary, I recommend for fiscal year 2003 a restoration of
    the fiscal year 2002 appropriation of $2,250,000, and if possible
    increase the budget to $10,000,000.
        Let me know if I can provide further information on international
    forestry programs.
                Sincerely,
                                           Warren T. Doolittle,
                                                             President.
                                                        March 27, 2002.
    Hon. Robert Byrd,
    Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Byrd: As a former Associate Deputy Chief for Forest
    Service Research, I would like to point out that the fiscal year 2003
    President's Budget for Forest Service Research & Development (FS R&D)
    is not in America's best interest. It funds new initiatives by
    redirecting $36 million from existing programs, which substantially
    erodes the forestry research capacity of the United States. If enacted
    as proposed, the jobs of 275 people would disappear, 18 research work
    units would be closed and 12 research locations would be abandoned.
        Rather than focusing your efforts on restoring funding to specific
    units, I ask you to adopt a broader perspective and undo the proposal's
    harm in its entirety. Use the fiscal year 2002 appropriation for FS R&D
    as the basis for building the fiscal year 2003 appropriation rather
    than the President's proposal. Make clear that fiscal year 2002 and
    prior year Congressional direction must be continued.
        In past years, FS R&D has gotten $6.2 million from the National
    Forest System (NFS) appropriation for Forest Inventory and Analysis
    (FIA) on national forests. The Administration deleted those funds from
    the NFS appropriation and did not add them to the R&D appropriation,
    where those funds belong. Add $6.2 million to the R&D budget for FIA on
    national forests to restore the program to the fiscal year 2002 level.
        The FIA program is the only program to provide credible and
    consistent information on the health and productivity of forests across
    the United States. Its data are extremely valuable to universities,
    landowners, firms, and interest groups. In addition to the $6.2 million
    mentioned above, I recommend an additional $7.1 million in new funding
    to expand the FIA program. This would allow the agency to continue
    making progress in expanding the coverage to more states.
        There is a significant problem with non-native invasive species in
    the United States. On western forests and rangelands, exotic plants are
    out-competing native vegetation, damaging the health, diversity, and
    productivity of ecosystems. The Department's proposal to expand the
    fight against invasive species lacks a strong research component. I
    recommend adding $4 million to the fiscal year 2003 budget to provide a
    sound scientific basis for combating invasive species.
        The fixed costs of doing research continue to escalate. Add $7.1
    million for fixed costs so the agency can continue work in fiscal year
    2003 at the same scale as this year.
        I believe the restoration of research funds to the fiscal year 2002
    appropriation level and the increased funding for Forest Inventory and
    Analysis and non-native invasive species are badly needed.
        The Research Institute programs described below are a part of the
    overall Research budget covered above, but as President of the
    International Society of Tropical Foresters, I would like to add a
    little special detail on these two institutes.
          international institute of tropical forestry in puerto rico
        The International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF) has a
    mission of generating and disseminating scientific information in
    support of sustainable use of tropical forests, the conservation of
    primary forests, the rehabilitation of degraded lands, and the
    management of wildlife and watersheds. Research on these programs is
    conducted in Puerto Rico, the Caribbean, and Latin America.
        The President's fiscal year 2003 budget has a decrease of $300,000
    over the fiscal year 2002 appropriation for the IITF. This is a drastic
    reduction and will eliminate collaborative research on carbon
    sequestration and carbon cycle research with the U.S. National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration in Brazil. It will also reduce
    efforts on remote sensing on carbon dynamics and research on water
    quality and in stream flow.
        I would like to be sure that restoration to overall Forest Service
    Research programs includes restoration of the $300,000 at IITF.
                institute of pacific islands forestry in hawaii
        The Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry (IPIF) in Hawaii has
    three multi-disciplinary science teams dealing with ecosystem
    restoration, forested wetlands, and invasive species. This work is
    conducted in Hawaii and on several Pacific islands.
        The President's fiscal year 2003 budget has a decrease of $168,000
    over the fiscal year 2002 appropriation for IPIF. This would terminate
    research on biological control for Hawaii's invasive weeds, close the
    insect quarantine facility in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and
    affect increased fixed costs.
        I believe the President's fiscal year 2003 budget includes
    $1,000,000 for the construction of a new headquarters building for IITF
    in Hilo, Hawaii.
        I would like to be sure that the restoration to overall Forest
    Service Research programs include restoration of the $168,000 at IPIF
    as well as the $1,000,000 construction funds at Hilo.
                Sincerely,
                                           Warren T. Doolittle,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                  Prepared Statement of Technology Acumentrics
         nature of request before interior appropriations subcommittee
        Acumentrics is seeking an increase (to $52M) for the line item:
    Innovative Systems and Concepts/Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance
    (SECA) in the Fossil Energy R&D budget. OMB has proposed a reduction in
    this line item to $22.5M. This is counter to the National Energy
    Policy, which supports increased application of fuel cells.
                                 what is seca?
        The Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) comprises
    government agencies, commercial developers, universities, and national
    laboratories committed to the development of low-cost, high power
    density, solid state fuel cells for a broad range of applications.
    Industrial teams, research and development performers, and funding
    organizations are part of the alliance. SECA is being formed to
    accelerate the development of the industrial base needed to
    commercially produce low-cost solid state fuel cells in the near
    future. Two U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories, the
    National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and Pacific Northwest
    National Laboratory (PNNL), are the driving forces behind SECA,
    providing the leadership, focus, and integration needed to bring solid
    state fuels cell technology into near-term markets.
                        rationale for increased funding
        The need for increased funding for SECA in 2003 was recognized in
    the Conference Report H.R. 107-234, which is excerpted below:
        Page 118:

        ``9. The increase above the budget request for solid-state energy
    conversion alliance under distributed generation/innovative concepts is
    to be added to the base funding for planar solid oxide fuel cell
    programs and is to be used to continue existing projects, consistent
    with program plans developed in cooperation with industry partners. The
    managers understand that base funding for this program will need to be
    increased substantially in fiscal year 2003 to keep this program on
    schedule to meet critical program goals.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and Related
    Agencies, Fiscal Year 2002 Conference Report, H.R. 107-234.

        An increase in SECA funding is necessary for the following reasons:
      --To support the National Energy Policy which calls for an
            accelerating the development and commercialization of fuel
            cells. Quoting from the Report of the National Energy Policy
            Development Group: ``Despite technical progress, high costs
            remain the main deterrent to widespread fuel cell use.
            Significant cost reductions must be achieved before fuel cells
            will be competitive.'' It is the goal of the SECA program to
            reduce costs of fuel cells and thus remove the barrier to their
            widespread use.
      --In order to achieve the aggressive program goal of $400/kW for
            solid oxide fuel cells, multiple approaches must be taken by
            Industry Teams to insure success. SECA has not had the funding
            to fully implement this multiple team approach.
      --Multiple teams required to insure a robust fuel cell industry is
            developed in the United States as no one player will be able to
            supply the worldwide demand for fuel cells.
      --The United States needs to remain economically competitive with
            Japan and the European Union, both of which are committed to
            the commercialization of fuel cells. Under the Fifth Framework
            Programme (FP5), the E.U. is spending $30M euros on fuel cell
            commercialization, additionally E.U. member states are
            committing money for this purpose.\2\ Japan hopes to generate
            about 2.2 million kilowatts of power by 2010 and has increased
            its fuel cell research budget this year to $76.9 million in an
            effort to reduce dependence upon nuclear power.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Prospects for Fuel Cells in Europe'', Grilles Lequeux,
    Scientific Officer General Research Division European Commission.
        \3\ ``Cell Power'', Stephen H. Daniels TheSourceMag.Com Building
    Industry News and Views.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --According to a report from the Northeast-Midwest Institute: \4\
            ``technological innovation in the production of electricity is
            one of the most effective means to keep costs low and
            productivity high in the long run.'' Furthermore according to
            the report electric industry restructuring alone is not
            sufficient to achieve innovation. The SECA program will
            facilitate technological innovation in the production of
            electricity through the development of highly efficient and
            clean fuel cell electrical generation technology.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ ``Electricity Restructuring, Innovation, and Efficiency,''
    Julie Fox Gorte, Tina M. Kaarsberg, The Northeast-Midwest Institute and
    John A. ``Skip'' Laitner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           description of fuel cells
        Fuel cells are electrochemical devices that direct-convert fuel
    into electricity without combustion or moving parts. They are
    environmentally friendly, particularly when run directly on hydrogen
    where the output is only electricity, water vapor and heat. The
    prevalent types of fuel cells are proton exchange membrane (PEM),
    phosphoric acid (PAFC), molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC), and solid
    oxide fuel cell (SOFC).
        The goal of the SECA program is to facilitate the commercial
    development of solid oxide fuel cell technology. Solid oxide fuel cells
    are seen as the ``end game'' in fuel cell technology and are under
    development by notable companies such as Acumentrics, Honeywell,
    McDermott, Siemens-Westinghouse, Sulzer-Hexis (Switzerland), Global
    Thermoelectric (Canada), and Ceramic Fuel Cells (Australia). SOFC's
    share the following desirable characteristics:
      --Solid state--all components are ceramics and metals, no corrosive
            liquid electrolyte;
      --High temperature, useful heat for cogeneration applications such as
            hot water heating, turbines and chillers;
      --Internal or integral reforming, using hydrocarbon fuels directly,
            delivers the benefits of a hydrogen economy without the need
            for building a hydrogen infrastructure; and
      --Based on inexpensive ceramic materials.
                        national benefits of fuel cells
      --Enhances National Security by providing a distributed electrical
            generation technology which is inherently more robust than a
            centralized generation/transmission infrastructure;
      --Reduces greenhouse gas emissions through efficiency gains and
            potential renewable resource use;
      --Responds to increasing energy demands and pollutant emission
            concerns while providing low-cost, reliable energy essential to
            maintaining competitiveness in the world market;
      --Positions the United States to export distributed generation in a
            rapidly growing world energy market, the largest portion of
            which is devoid of a transmission and distribution grid;
      --Establishes a new industry worth billions of dollars in sales and
            hundreds of thousands of jobs; and
      --Enhances productivity through improved reliability and quality of
            power delivered, valued at billions of dollars per year.
                  why a new solid state fuel cell technology?
        Solid state fuel cell technology as the basic building block for
    multiple applications offers several advantages. It offers inherently
    high efficiency 60 to 70 percent in individual systems and up to 80
    percent in staged or hybrid systems. It can handle available liquid
    fuels, such as gasoline and diesel. High-temperature solid state fuel
    cells couple easily with the high-temperature reformation of liquid
    fuels. Solid state fuel cells have simple and efficient heat removal
    designs when operated at high power densities, an important advantage
    for compact systems. Planar solid state fuel cells can produce the very
    high power densities needed to meet tough size/weight requirements
    needed for stationary, transportation, and military markets. Finally,
    solid state components can be fabricated with advanced manufacturing
    technology much like computer chips.
                                    why now?
        The stage for low-cost solid state fuel cell technology has been
    set. Recent breakthroughs in ceramic materials, fuel cell design, and
    manufacturing technology are converging. These include advances in
    thin-film capabilities with solid state fuel cell materials; high power
    density enabling innovations, such as anode supported cells; compact
    fuel processing technology; improvements in power electronics at the
    device level; and integration of manufacturing technology from related
    industries, such as the semiconductor industry.
        Market forces are also playing an important role. Deregulation is
    favoring distributed generation technologies, such as fuel cells. In
    addition, the Department of Defense (DOD) recently committed to using
    electric drive for future ship propulsion systems, and it continues to
    embrace dual use technology development. Moreover, the utility and
    transportation industries, which are concerned with global impacts of
    carbon emissions, are exploring advanced technology solutions that will
    permit the continued use of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
                                  applications
    Stationary
      --Existing fuel cell technologies are likely to plateau at a capital
            cost of $1,000 to $1,500/kW. Reduction below this plateau
            requires breakthrough developments for existing technologies.
      --High-volume fuel cell applications will require a cost at or below
            $400/kW.
      --Competing technologies have lower system efficiencies and
            environmental issues, such as NOX production.
    Transportation
      --Solid oxide technology offers potentially low system costs when
            operating on available fuels.
      --Solid oxide fuel cell systems are readily adaptable to standard
            transportation fuels.
      --Efficiencies of solid oxide fuel cell systems are very high. When
            closely coupled with high temperature on-board reforming,
            overall ``wellhead-to-wheels'' efficiency can be high.
      --No other technologies offer both high efficiency and low emissions.
    Military
      --Fuel logistics are critical to military applications. Seventy
            percent of military logistical deployment is the transportation
            of fuel; increased fuel efficiency will have a dramatic impact.
      --There is a strong need for reliable high-efficiency, quiet power
            sources compatible with defense logistic fuels.
      --Future ship propulsion systems will use electric drives and
            distributed power sources.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc.
        My name is Dr. L. R. Lawrence, Jr. and I am President of Bob
    Lawrence & Associates, Inc., a consulting firm located in Alexandria,
    Virginia. Testifying with me today is Ms. Patrice Courtney, a Senior
    Associate with my firm. We are requesting full funding for the
    Department of Energy's Building Technology Programs. Specifically, we
    request fiscal year 2003 funding of $408.8M for these programs within
    which Weatherization and State Grants would receive no more than
    $277.1M. I and my firm have been involved in issues of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy since 1975, when this Subcom-mittee
    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 in both national and
    statewide forums, with a particular focus on New York State.
        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. The GAO has documented $30 billion in savings
    from just five BTS technologies: building design software, electronic
    fluorescent lamp ballasts, low emissivity windows, advanced oil
    burners, and efficient refrigerator compressors. At the same time,
    these technologies have prevented the emission of millions of metric
    tons of atmospheric pollutants. Along with BTS's programmatic successes
    such as Weatherization, EnergyStar and Rebuild America,
    technologies like these have become a critical piece in securing our
    nation's energy independence, a goal that has become even more
    meaningful in the wake of the tragic events of September 11.
        The 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. These developments have important
    implications for energy efficiency in building technology.
        Commercial buildings, homes, factories, and schools continue to be
    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 are saving
    energy and dollars:
        Building Research and Development.--We have made great strides as a
    nation in the way we construct and operate our buildings. We have
    documented energy savings of 30-50 percent at little or no cost
    increase. But there's much more work to be done. Next generation
    lighting, windows, envelope, heating and cooling equipment and
    sophisticated controls can revolutionize the way we design and maintain
    our buildings. Proper design and advanced energy saving products can
    result in net zero energy buildings, homes and offices that use so
    little energy, and generate their own, so that they can give back to
    the electric grid. Sophisticated controls and indoor environmental
    quality can reduce the vulnerability of our buildings, a critical
    factor in the post-9/11 world. We can and must reduce our dependence on
    foreign oil: to heat our homes annually requires an amount of energy
    equivalent to all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia. With further
    research, we will discover many methods to increase comfort and
    productivity. But the BTS budget was cut by $10 million in the R&D
    line. By adding $10 million to the Equipment, Materials and Tools line
    item of the Building Research & Development portion of the BTS budget,
    we can assure progress in achieving the ambitious goals of making our
    buildings much more energy efficient.
        State and Community Programs.--The State Energy Program is a strong
    foundation for success in reducing energy use in buildings. SEP was
    appropriated at $45 million in fiscal year 2002 but DOE is asking for
    $38 million. BTS needs restoration of that $6.2 million and an
    additional $3M for the Community Energy Programs. So much of the work
    really goes on at the community level.
        Rebuild America has been a great part of the SEP's success as it
    delivers technical support that states and localities require. In
    addition, BTS must increase its capability to apply technologies that
    have come out of the BTS R&D programs. For example, Building America
    has demonstrated 50 percent energy savings with major homebuilders like
    Pulte and Beazer and Ryan Homes. In order to expand that information
    nationwide and give it credibility in each community, BTS needs to
    utilize the Rebuild America network. Additional funding of $3 million
    would let BTS reach more homebuilders, community leaders and lenders
    and provide for builder and building code training.
        Rebuild America is a leading example of BTS's ability to build
    partnerships with local government and the private sector. Three years
    ahead of schedule, BTS had 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 big part of Rebuild America's focus. A nationwide
    survey conducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office estimated a
    conservative $112 billion to complete needed repairs, renovations, and
    modernizations for the 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
    ``EnergySmart'' school designs. Clark County, Nevada, for example, is
    building upwards of 100 new schools at a cost of $4 billion over the
    next several years. That school district and others are working with
    BTS to incorporate the just-released high performance school design
    guidelines, which have been developed with varying recommendations
    based on climate, geography and energy mix.
        The joint DOE-EPA EnergyStar 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. EnergyStar
    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 EnergyStar, 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 EnergyStar label; and a new generation
    of Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) have been introduced, which
    meet the stringent criteria of EnergyStar.
        High Performance Buildings are a BTS area where research has given
    way to action and the result is savings. 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. DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse has
    received upwards of 80 calls a day from architects requesting Energy
    Design Guidelines for High Performance Schools: Hot and Dry Climates,
    after the American Institute of Architects' electronic newsletter
    publicized the guidelines' availability. Hot and Dry Climates is the
    first volume in a series of guidelines to help the nation's K-12
    schools save millions of dollars on their annual energy costs, which
    now top $6 billion a year. The guidelines are available at
    www.energysmartschools.gov, or on a free CD-ROM by calling the
    Clearinghouse at 800-DOE-3732. BTS will release six more sets of
    guidelines geared to specific U.S. climate zones this year.
        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.
                              what's the payback?
        Five years ago, GAO documented $30 billion in just five BTS
    technologies. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report last
    year, ``DOE funding, was it worth it?'' That NAS report reaffirmed the
    savings in building technologies developed by BTS has been $30 billion
    annually. With a track record like that and savings potential of
    literally tens of billions of dollars, adding $20 million to the non-
    grants part of BTS is a cheap price that will pay off handsomely in
    reduced energy use, increased health and productivity and a better
    environment.
        We thank you for your attention to this testimony.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of FuelCell Energy, Inc.
        This testimony requests the following funds for FuelCell Energy,
    Inc. (FCE) programs with the DOE's Fossil Energy fiscal year 2003
    budget.
      --$13.5 million (an additional $3.6 million over the $9.9 million DOE
            request) for the Direct Fuel Cell Program under Distributed
            Generation/Fuel Cell Systems budget,
      --$3.0 million for Vision 21 Fuel Cell/Turbine High Efficiency Power
            Plant Development under Central Systems/Advanced Systems/
            Turbines budget,
      --$1.0 million for Recovery and Utilization of Coal Mine Methane
            (subcategory not indicted in DOE budget),
        In addition, FuelCell Energy also strongly supports at least
    doubling the $22.5 million budget request for the SECA program under
    Distributed Generation/Innovative Systems Concepts budget.
        This statement is provided in support of the U.S. Department of
    Energy's (DOE) Fossil Energy Fuel Cell Program.
                                    summary
        The DOE/FuelCell Energy (FCE) Cooperative Agreement (DE-FC21-
    95MC3118) defines that $13.5 million is needed in fiscal year 2003.
    This Product Design Improvement (PDI) cooperative program has been
    cost-shared by FCE at the 37 percent rate to date. DOE funding for 2003
    is directed at further performance enhancements derived from feedback
    from a broad-based field test program being conducted throughout the
    United States. FCE has also increased its production capacity to 50 MW/
    year in 2001 with further increases contemplated for 2002.
        Under a Vision 21 Program, FCE has been developing ultra high
    efficiency Direct FuelCell/Turbine system. A 250 kW fuel cell has
    already been integrated with a Capstone microturbine. Packaging and
    engineering of a submegawatt-class system is being initiated in 2002,
    with participation from Montana State University and CTA Architect
    Engineers. The requested funds will be used to conduct a submegawatt
    demonstration in 2003.
        Coal Mine Methane is a potentially valuable fuel source if
    harvested and used in fuel cells to generate electricity. Unharvested,
    it leaks into the atmosphere with negative impact on the ozone layer
    with twenty times more impact than an equivalent amount of carbon
    dioxide. The requested funds will complete the coal mine fuel cell
    demonstration program initiated 2 years ago.
        SECA is a recent DOE initiative to develop high efficiency low-cost
    modular SOFC power plants with $400/kW cost target. The latest
    developments in the thin film technology have made this high power
    density solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) power plants feasible. These power
    plants promise dramatic cost reduction by mass production using a
    common module approach for multiple applications such as stationary
    power, automotive and military applications. The requested funds will
    allow awarding additional industrial team(s) to provide unique market
    and product design approaches, and to assume successful development of
    the potentially versatile, low-cost product.
        FCE expresses its appreciation of the Subcommittee for its support
    of the stationary fuel cell programs and the U.S. developers during the
    2002 appropriations process. Federal support for the program makes the
    impressive accomplishments and worldwide implications of the DOE
    program possible.
                                   background
        Fossil fuels provide approximately 75 percent of the U.S.
    electricity. Coal, oil and gas fueled stationary power plants of
    various sizes connected by a well-developed infrastructure provides
    this needed energy in the form of electricity. While this system works
    well, it uses far more fuel than necessary. Generally, U.S. power plant
    efficiencies vary from 25 percent to 50 percent with a national average
    of about 35 percent. Widespread use of high efficiency stationary fuel
    cell power plants using the existing fuel infrastructure for
    electricity production or in combination with electricity plus heat
    cogeneration could dramatically reduce the fossil fuel required. This
    improvement in fuel usage would have a major impact on reducing carbon
    dioxide, SOX and NOX production. The latter would
    have broad benefits, political, economic, and defense worldwide.
        FuelCell Energy, Inc. is a world leader in the development and
    manufacturing of the highest efficiency fuel cells. By using fossil
    fuels directly, we have reduced the complexity of fuel cell power
    plants and greatly raised their efficiencies.
        A simple cycle fuel cell power plant can achieve 47-55 percent
    efficiency, while a combined cycle fuel cell/turbine power plant is
    projected by both the company and DOE to achieve 70 percent plus
    efficiencies. Recently, our partner in Germany, DaimlerChrysler's MTU
    subsidiary, has reported operating a 95 percent efficient cogeneration
    Direct Fuel Cell power plant at a hospital complex.
        FuelCell Energy currently has Direct Fuel Cell field trials in
    progress or under contract in California, Alabama, Connecticut, Ohio,
    Washington, and Kentucky. The Company has operated the largest fuel
    cell demonstration project in the United States in 1996-1997--2,000 kW
    and achieved a record 44 percent efficiency for a power plant of that
    size.
                         nationwide interest is growing
        States, recognizing the above results and other achievements, have
    initiated their own fuel cell programs to reduce pollution and increase
    fuel efficiency. Some of the leaders are CA, CT, MA, NY, NJ, and PA
    with others in the study process.
        Forward looking electric utilities such as Los Angeles Department
    of Water and Power, Alabama Municipal Electric Authority, PPL, and
    Southern Company are directly involved with us in these field trials.
    Additionally, our partners in Japan and Europe are continuing their
    initiatives and receiving orders for field trial power plants.
        FuelCell Energy and DOE have been working together on a Cooperative
    Agreement since the early 1990's. The results so far from this
    agreement have been very good leading to the aforementioned
    demonstration in California of the largest, cleanest and most efficient
    fuel cell power plant operated in North America. Under a separate
    project as a spin-off of the cooperative agreement, the first hybrid
    fuel cell/turbine power plant was successfully demonstrated on a small
    scale.
        Over the past 10 years related programs to the Cooperative
    Agreement have resulted in demonstrations of Direct Fuel Cell operating
    on coal gas, natural gas and liquid fossil fuels. The latter has
    resulted in our ongoing project with the U.S. Navy for ship power
    applications. In the world, only Fuel Cell Energy has demonstrated the
    capability of operation on such a diverse mixture of fossil fuels.
        We would like the Congress to encourage all of the States to
    initiate programs that use stationary fuel cells that save energy and
    reduce pollution.
                      importance of distributed generation
        Distributed Generation has always been an attractive concept from a
    reliability and security vantage point. Until now, it was difficult to
    institute because of low efficiencies and air and noise pollution of
    existing equipment. FCE's Direct Fuel Cell eliminates these latter
    issues since it delivers high fuel efficiencies, is quiet, and
    virtually non-polluting. By locating these stationary fuel cell power
    plants near the customer, the need for transmission and distribution
    lines are minimized. This enhances both reliability and security since
    many smaller power plants distributed at the user sites are less
    vulnerable to events, which can occur over long transmission lines.
    Moreover, the aforementioned combined with heat and power efficiency
    gains are a valuable additional benefit.
        Further, we believe the Congress should pass legislation that
    offers tax credits for users of fuel cells. Those credits should be
    tied to the actual improved operating efficiency of the installed power
    plants. For example, credits should be extended to fuel cell power
    plants producing electricity above an efficiency of 40 percent and
    electricity plus heat at a combined efficiency above 70 percent. The
    power plants should operate at least 4,000 hours per year to receive
    the credit. In Germany, the government has announced a 10-year, $8
    billion program providing a subsidy of 5 eurocents per kW-hour, which
    is equivalent to about a $3,000 per kW for fuel cell power plant
    installations. In England, a $100/ton carbon credit has been recently
    initiated. Rewarding the good guys for reducing both pollution and fuel
    consumption is a worthy national priority to stimulate use of equipment
    in which the U.S. has worldwide leadership. Moreover, a tax credit
    based on both performance and usage is a win/win for everyone.
        Bipartisan support has propelled the stationary fuel cell program
    through the many years of study, experimentation and testing. Today, at
    the threshold of market entry, support is needed to continue the fuel
    cell development at the aggressive pace. FCE sincerely appreciates the
    work of the Subcommittee and the Department of Energy on behalf of the
    stationary fuel cell program. We request that the funds requested in
    the first paragraph be provided within the Fossil Energy budget.
                                     ______

              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 2003 budget requests for Fossil
    Energy and Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency programs. The
    testimony addresses several high priority Department of Energy
    programs: High Efficiency Engines and Turbines, Integrated Gasification
    Combined Cycle, the Clean Coal Power Initiative and Distributed Energy
    Resources.
        The support for technology advancement provided through DOE's
    Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs is
    critical to the development of advanced power generation technologies
    that utilize a diverse mix of domestic energy resources. DOE's Energy
    Information Administration predicts that demand for electricity will
    grow at a rate of 1.8 percent per year until 2020. DOE's cooperative
    efforts with industry will help to assure that this demand can be met
    with environmentally superior technologies that enable us to harness
    our domestic fossil fuel resources.
        Continued advancements in turbine technology are a key to realizing
    the potential for cleaner, more efficient fossil fuel power generation.
    There still remain formidable challenges in several technology areas,
    including materials, processing, sensor software diagnostics/
    prognostics, controls and combustion. By improving the U.S. technology
    base, government-private sector programs to address these challenges
    also enhance the international competitiveness of U.S. industry.
    Several DOE programs will make important contributions in this area,
    and deserve the Committee's support.
              high efficiency engines and turbines (heet) program
        The HEET program is directed at producing the technology base
    needed to enable the development of advanced turbines and engine
    modules for 21st century energy plants. It represents the Department
    and industry's continued commitment to cleaner, more efficient power
    generation from fossil fuels. The HEET program is designed to develop
    the ``game changing'' technology for new systems that will foster U.S.
    competitiveness, offer improved environmental performance and preserve
    the options for using our fossil fuel resources.
        GE Power Systems has worked cooperatively with the Department of
    Energy in the development of innovative power generation technologies,
    and fully supports the HEET program. GE has been an active participant
    in the DOE stakeholder meetings, workshops and surveys to define the
    research and development needs for the HEET program and to develop the
    roadmap to fulfill these needs.
        Fuel diversity is a leading objective of national energy policy.
    However, fuel diversity is not rewarded in day-to-day investment
    decisions on commercial projects. Fuel diversity is at the foundation
    of the HEET program, and continued advancements in turbine technologies
    are essential to realizing this goal, as many advanced, coal-fired
    power generation systems will incorporate turbine technologies. There
    is a high degree of risk inherent in the aggressive efficiency, cost
    and reliability objectives for next generation turbine technologies.
    The collaborative opportunities available through the HEET program
    provide an important means to assure continued technological advances
    that the private sector alone may be unable to support due to competing
    demands.
        Achieving the goals of HEET is, therefore, vital to providing a
    solid private investment framework for solid fuels such as coal,
    biomass and opportunity fuels. The HEET program has a central role to
    play in developing a robust and diverse portfolio of energy supply and
    its corollary, energy security. Gas turbine technology can provide a
    powerful means to use our abundant coal resources to best advantage.
    Without an adequately funded program focused on advanced turbines,
    there is a substantial national risk of not fully utilizing our solid
    fossil fuel resources.
        The HEET program in fiscal year 2003 will emphasize both the
    adaptation of turbine systems for use in coal-based systems and the
    integration of turbines and fuel cells into hybrid systems. In the near
    term, the new technologies supported through the HEET program will
    provide conservation of natural gas. These advancements will also
    benefit coal fueled, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
    which has already been demonstrated to provide high efficiency with low
    emissions. The support for IGCC technology through HEET can provide the
    United States with the catalyst for the environmentally compatible
    growth of coal-and-biomass-based power.
        A very important element of the program will be its focus on
    reliability, availability and maintainability (RAM) technologies,
    including advanced sensors, diagnostics, and condition monitoring
    technology. Research and development focused on RAM is critical to
    improving powerplant operability. 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. This in turn 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. Advances in RAM technology can be moved into the
    marketplace quickly and applied to the installed base, including
    current coal based systems, thus enabling the nation to rapidly
    recognize the benefits of investment in this area.
        Fuel cell hybrids are another important area of concentration
    within the HEET program. A Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC)--Gas Turbine
    hybrid is a high risk, high payoff potential product that can offer
    tremendous flexibility and can move us toward achieving the performance
    goals of Vision 21. The SOFC/gas turbine hybrid represents a power
    generation technology with potential simple cycle generation efficiency
    above 50 percent and in excess of 65 percent to 70 percent when
    combined with gas turbine-based bottoming cycles. Current state of the
    art technology is burdened by high production cost, low power density,
    rapid performance degradation and inadequate hybridization platforms.
    Technology demonstrated through DOE supported projects will be critical
    to defining requirements for these longer term, larger-size hybrid
    products using multi-megawatt gas and/or steam turbines for baseload
    applications.
        The $14 million requested for the HEET program represents a
    reduction of $4.5 million from the fiscal year 2002 funding level. This
    reduction will not allow adequate funding for all of the technology
    development work that is necessary within this important program. GE
    recommends that funding for the HEET program be increased.
                     integrated gasification combined cycle
        GE shares the commitment to Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
    (IGCC) technology evidenced in the Administration's budget request.
    IGCC is a leading option for achieving a robust, environmentally
    superior and secure national power system utilizing abundant and
    indigenous fuel sources. It has flexibility to deal with a wide variety
    of feedstocks--including coal, petroleum coke and biomass.
        IGCC is the cleanest and most efficient technology for power
    generation from coal. If IGCC is adopted as the preferred coal based
    power generation technology, it will help the country and power
    producers meet the environmental goals of reducing NOx, mercury, and
    other air pollutants, while also advancing sound energy policy goals of
    retaining a secure and diverse mix of fuels for electric power
    generation and improving the efficiency of coal based power generation.
    The synthetic gas produced from feedstock gasification in an IGCC
    system permits the economical removal of carbon to provide a hydrogen-
    rich feedstock for either low-CO2 combustion in a turbine,
    direct export or chemical production. IGCC offers the opportunity for
    the first commercially relevant steps to a hydrogen economy based on
    our most abundant domestic energy resource--coal.
        GE recommends that Congress and DOE support research that will
    provide the continued development of IGCC as an environmentally
    superior technology for all solid fuels. GE recommends support for
    research that is focused on materials for extending gasifier refractory
    life and in syngas treatment and combustion systems for air blown
    gasification. Gasifier refractory failures and scheduled replacements
    are a key contributor to unavailability of IGCC. Air blown gasification
    is well suited to biomass and renewables, but faces challenges in the
    disposition of high levels of ammonia in the syngas which is converted
    to NOx in combustion. Research and development work also is needed for
    fuel control systems and combustors to deal with the high temperature
    (greater than 750 degrees Fahrenheit) syngas typical of air blown
    gasification. Both air blown and oxygen blown gasification IGCC systems
    will benefit from advances in NOx and mercury removal strategies. These
    include development of removal techniques allowing lower levels of
    emission as well as process cost reduction and simplification. All of
    these efforts will contribute to the increased use of the U.S. coal,
    petroleum coke and biomass reserves for clean and low cost electric
    power generation, in keeping with the overall goals expressed by the
    Department for the ``Vision 21'' emissions-free powerplant of the
    future.
                          clean coal power initiative
        GE supports DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) as an
    effective vehicle to move state-of-the-art improvements in IGCC
    environmental performance, reliability and efficiency forward to
    commercial scale demonstration. The structure of the program as a joint
    government-industry funded program will enable the CCPI to benefit from
    GE's own investments in combustion development for fuel-flexible, low
    NOx power generation systems. The CCPI is the right way to build on the
    experience of Rounds III and IV of the Clean Coal Technology Program
    and the Public Service of Indiana (now Cinergy) Wabash IGCC repowering
    and the Tampa Electric Company Polk IGCC demonstration. These two
    plants, utilizing GE gas turbines, have successfully logged over 50,000
    hours operating on coal synthesis gas.
        Achieving the maximum benefits of the CCPI needs the engagement of
    EPA and the regulatory community to identify and remove regulatory
    barriers and uncertainty in the ultimate commercial deployment of the
    technologies to be supported through the program.
                          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 3,000 kW.
        The Department's budget request for distributed generation programs
    in the fossil energy budget account includes funding for the continued
    development of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell technology. GE strongly supports
    this activity leading to development of a commercial prototype of a
    solid oxide fuel cell/turbine hybrid power systems in the multi-
    megawatt size range. 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.
        In addition to the current programs supported by DOE, other efforts
    should be supported. GE recommends funding of a program to develop
    technology for high-speed turbines coupled directly to generators and
    power conversion equipment in the 2-10 MW range. This DG technology
    will offer energy consumers opportunities to reduce emissions, reduce
    the size and cost of generation facilities, and the ability to
    diversify their energy sources. This additional flexibility in energy
    supply could be quite valuable to owners of factories, refineries,
    Internet server farms, and other bulk energy users. This technology can
    displace some generation alternatives, such as diesel-generator sets,
    with cleaner, less expensive alternatives.
        Programs focused on grid interconnection cost reduction,
    distributed control and dispatch of DG's, 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. DOE and GE funded research aimed at addressing
    system integration issues for distributed generation has made
    substantial progress in addressing technical concerns and barriers with
    respect to existing electric power infrastructure and businesses. This
    effort should be continued and expanded.
                                   conclusion
        Investments in fossil energy programs remain essential to achieving
    energy security through a robust portfolio of fuels including coal and
    renewables. Advanced turbine technologies are critical to achieve the
    fuel diversity goals of the National Energy Policy. Continued
    technology development remains vital to assure that a range of options
    is available for power generation in this country, and to support U.S.
    technology leadership in export markets.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy
                                  introduction
        The Business Council for Sustainable Energy offers testimony on the
    role it foresees for the Department of Energy's (DOE) energy efficiency
    and natural gas research, development, demonstration and deployment
    programs.
        The Council was formed one decade ago by businesses and industry
    trade associations sharing a commitment to achieve 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 and
    international trade associations.
        We thank the Congress for its exceptional work in crafting the
    fiscal year 2002 funding bill but have mixed observations on the
    Administration's fiscal year 2003 proposals. More so now than ever, it
    is critical that we put American energy security under the control of
    American technology and take it, to the greatest extent possible, out
    of the hands of potentially unreliable international energy suppliers.
                    a federal energy commitment is critical
        Although circumstances today appear radically different from those
    of 1 year ago, we remain in fundamentally the same situation from an
    energy security perspective; the reality has only become that much more
    stark. While blackouts and price swings abated, a revived economy may
    see their return. Furthermore, the events of September 11 have renewed
    attention on energy security in a way that had been completely
    unimaginable. The importance of energy security, due to our energy
    vulnerability, now claims great interest.
        Given the breadth of DOE activities, we will not attempt to address
    all 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.
                           natural gas infrastructure
        The Administration requested no funding for natural gas
    infrastructure research in its fiscal year 2003 budget, compared with
    $10 million appropriated by Congress for the current year. We
    respectfully request an increase to $25 million for Infrastructure
    programs.
        We strongly support DOE's program for natural gas industry
    Infrastructure and Operations. This program was initiated in fiscal
    year 2001 with an appropriation of $4.9 million for infrastructure and
    has been met by tremendous enthusiasm and project cost sharing within
    the natural gas industry. More than 70 proposals, totaling in excess of
    $45 million, were submitted by industry partners in response to the
    first year's program funding. These proposals exceeded the available
    dollars by a nine-to-one margin. All proposals met or exceeded DOE's 35
    percent cost-sharing requirement. Congress appropriated $10 million for
    fiscal year 2002 and all indications are that industry partners will
    respond at least as enthusiastically as last year.
        In general, DOE's infrastructure R&D is geared to its mission to
    make the nation's energy infrastructure more reliable, efficient and
    able to meet the needs of the economy. It tends toward longer-term
    benefits. DOE's programs include projects such as: more corrosion-
    resistant material that can transport gas at higher pressure, more
    fuel-efficient compressors that are capable of flexible compression
    operation, improved automated data acquisition, system monitoring and
    control techniques, no dig technologies, innovative excavation and
    restoration systems and plastic pipe technology. All of these
    contribute to public benefits in terms of additional domestic energy
    supply, increased safety and reliability, lower cost to consumers, and
    improved environmental performance.
        Some argue that all natural gas infrastructure research should be
    conducted by the Department of Transportation. The Office of Pipeline
    Safety (OPS) in DOT does conduct limited infrastructure-related work.
    Consistent with its role as a pipeline safety regulatory agency, OPS's
    pipeline R&D has focused on near term safety, security and damage
    prevention projects and technologies and codes and standards
    development. DOE focuses on the long term energy delivery issues
    related to natural gas infrastructure. Although both departments are
    involved in R&D, the departments have different but extremely essential
    missions and their programs reflect it.
        Meeting a large increase in demand efficiently will require
    continued cooperation between DOE, DOT and the natural gas industry to
    develop the necessary research tools. It is clear that immediate and
    substantial investment in research supporting natural gas
    infrastructure is essential to ensuring energy reliability and security
    in our nation.
                          distributed energy resources
        Reliable, on-site generated power continues to increase in its
    importance as more and more manufacturing processes and information
    technologies become dependent upon a continuous supply of high-quality
    power. Whether energy is produced by microturbines, reciprocating
    engines, fuel cells or other gas-fueled systems or by renewable energy
    technologies, challenges to widespread deployment remain. Some of these
    technologies need further refinement, while all need federal
    intervention in the development of interconnect standards to gain
    access to the electricity grid. Also, many of these technologies
    benefit from integration into energy delivery systems, a challenge not
    undertaken within individual technology development programs. In
    essence, despite the pull from the marketplace, the federal role
    remains strong. We request a $90 million appropriation for fiscal year
    2003.
        The DER program is significantly under-funded. The Office of Power
    Technologies receives nearly ten solicitation applications for every
    award it makes. While more manufacturers are entering the market,
    significant RD&D requirements abound. DER provides the opportunity for
    more efficient use of waste heat to achieve total system efficiency
    levels as high as 80 percent. Further, the higher efficiency of DER
    systems inherently leads to lower emissions since they typically use
    cleaner feedstock fuels than many central power plants. Developing
    technologies through such efforts as a special heat engine initiative
    utilizing Rankine Organic Cycle and Stirling engines utilizing was heat
    and biogas would move these concepts forward. It is important to move
    ahead on development of these and thermally activated equipment for
    combined heat and power applications.
        The national economy is inextricably linked to information and
    electronically sensitive computer systems that require uninterruptible
    power that the 50+ year old electric grid is increasingly challenged to
    serve. Many utilities are now exploring the utilization of DER to
    reduce the strain on congested transmission systems. On-site DER
    systems are especially important for high-tech and mission-critical
    facilities as they offer dramatic power quality and reliability
    increases. Mission-critical systems, be it in high-tech, healthcare,
    manufacturing or government facilities, are enhanced by DER.
        We are very supportive of the modest $7.5 million proposal for
    proton membrane exchange fuel cell program within the Office of Power
    Technologies. We highlight the need for these resources to be
    concentrated toward the research needs to develop a robust and reliable
    power generation unit.
        Collectively, tremendous work remains in the areas of system
    development, advanced batteries, smart controls and sensors, power
    quality and reliability, storage, and interconnection. DOE has studied
    the technical, regulatory, market and institutional barriers to
    widespread utilization of DER, is working in partnership with industry
    to advance the state of the art of these technologies and is working to
    promote commercial acceptance.
    Alternative Fuel and Natural Gas 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 and shift it
    over to a far cleaner, more secure and abundant hemispheric resource
    that virtually eliminates emissions of criteria air pollutants.
        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.
    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 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.
                                 other programs
        We are disturbed by a variety of certain proposed cuts and
    recommend 20 percent funding increases for programs such as thermal
    insulation and building materials and Clean Cities. We are supportive
    of increases to programs such as Building America.
    Federal Energy Management Program
        The BCSE is very supportive and appreciative of the Congress'
    support of the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) for this fiscal
    year and lauds the Administration for recognizing the value of this
    program in their budget request. 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 pays
    dividends to the government, taxpayers and the environment. The
    proposed budget for fiscal year 2003 should be enthusiastically
    supported.
    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 American Council for an Energy-Efficient
                                Economy (ACEEE)
        DOE's decision not to seek the broad R&D cuts that characterized
    the 2002 request indicates recognition of the need for a sustained
    commitment to energy efficiency research, development, and deployment
    as part of a balanced energy policy. While some programs received
    deserved increases, DOE's RD&D programs remain well short of the
    funding levels recommended by independent review panels. ACEEE requests
    the subcommittee increase funding for 11 programs for a total of $35.8
    million. Our analysis of the high-priority program areas meriting
    increased support are described below.
                                buildings sector
        Space conditioning and refrigeration R&D.--The budget request cuts
    this program by $2.7 million, or 47 percent. We recommend this proposed
    cut be restored and that this program be continued at the 2002 level.
    DOE needs to be able to pursue its important work in the areas of
    reducing peak impacts of residential and commercial AC systems,
    improved air distribution systems, improved AC field performance, and
    AC system retrofits, which our research has shown are the top
    priorities for efficiency improvement in HVAC systems. Recommended
    funding level: $5.8 million.
        Appliances and Emerging Technologies.--This program is proposed to
    take a 22 percent cut; we recommend that it be funded at the 2002
    level. Promising work, especially in the areas of heat pump water
    heaters and commercial refrigerators, needs to be continued to bring
    important new technologies to market. Recommended funding level: $2.25
    million.
        Windows R&D.--The 2003 request calls for a $2.7 million, 43 percent
    cut in windows RD&D. ACEEE's research as well as the National Research
    Council's review of DOE R&D programs have shown DOE's windows program
    to be one of the Department's best success stories. We recommend that
    the proposed $2.7 million cut be restored to the 2002 level. The
    proposed reduction would create severe damage to the cost-effective
    activities this program has created, especially in field testing of
    advanced fenestration technology, development of retrofit fenestration
    products, and education through the Efficient Windows Collaborative.
    Recommended funding level: $6.2 million.
        Appliance Standards and Building Codes.--DOE standards produce the
    greatest energy savings of any DOE program. DOE has taken on new
    commitments in the appliance standards area, based on the objectives of
    the National Energy Plan. Current legislation is also very likely to
    add new rulemakings to the Department's agenda. While the 2003 request
    contains a small 9 percent increase for this program, that would only
    serve to restore the cut that occurred in 2002. We recommend that an
    additional $2 million be added to this vital and cost-effective
    program. Building codes also need increased support as states respond
    to their EPAct mandate to review and adopt the 2000 International
    Energy Conservation Code. State technical assistance and grant support
    was cut from $4.2 million to $1.8 million in fiscal year 2002. The 2003
    request remains at the 2002 level; we recommend it be restored to the
    2001 level of $4.2 million. Recommended funding levels:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    Lighting and Appliance Standards..................................  11.2
    Updating and Implementing State Energy Codes......................   4.2
                             transportation sector
        Materials Technologies.--The 2003 request cuts materials
    technologies by $10.5 million (26 percent), with the bulk of the cuts
    coming from the light duty vehicle program. High-strength, lightweight
    materials, along with hybrid vehicles, have been one of the success
    stories of DOE's transportation technologies program and there is much
    left to be done here, such as work with carbon composites, magnesium,
    and titanium. This program should be at least sustained at 2002 levels.
    Recommended funding level: $40.3 million.
        Vehicle Technologies R&D.--Hybrid Systems would be cut 8.6 percent
    in the 2003 request, from $46.6 to $42.6 million. Most of the cut is on
    the light duty side, where hybrids have been a notable success. Further
    technological advances will help to accelerate hybrids' market
    penetration, so this is not the time to reduce DOE commitment to this
    technology. Heavy-duty hybrids are lagging behind light duty hybrids,
    despite their enormous energy savings potential. Yet the budget request
    proposes to slow the pace of this work. We recommend that both light-
    duty and heavy-duty hybrid technology funding be sustained at 2002
    levels. Recommended funding level: $46.6 million.
        Advanced Combustion Engine R&D.--This program is reduced 17
    percent, from $49.1 million last year to $40.7 million in the budget
    request. We recommend restoring funding to 2002 levels if the funds are
    used for improvements to heavy vehicle engines, which are already
    overwhelmingly diesel, or for light-duty diesel engines that are as
    clean or cleaner than gasoline engines. Recommended funding level:
    $49.1 million.
        Technology Deployment.--The budget proposal for Technology
    Deployment is essentially level funding. This program houses some of
    DOE's most effective and publicly popular efforts, such as the Clean
    Cities program. Moreover, without a commitment to regulatory solutions
    such as CAFE to push the market, DOE must increase its commitment to
    market pull through voluntary deployment programs. It should also be
    noted that initiatives such as a nationwide Green School Bus Pilot
    Program that may arise from the energy bill will necessitate
    significant additional funding for Technology Deployment. We recommend
    an increase in this program area of at least 10 percent. Recommended
    funding level: $16.5 million.
                               industrial sector
        While the overall funding for OIT programs is appropriate, we
    recommend that funding be increased for the Industrial Best Practices
    program by at least 10 percent. This program offers crosscutting
    benefits to the industrial sector, and based on ACEEE analysis has
    proven to be very cost effective. The Motor Best Practices part of the
    program has been an effective market deployment effort, but has been
    under-funded in recent years. The assessment activities (i.e.,
    Industrial Assessment Centers, Targeted Assessments and Plant Wide
    Assessments) within the Best Practices program are very important, and
    could benefit from expanded funding of 10 percent. Recommended funding
    levels:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    Industrial Assessment Centers.....................................   8.5
    Industrial Best Practices.........................................   9.1
                       energy information administration
        EIA needs additional funding for its critical market data
    collection and analysis programs within the Energy Markets and End Use
    office. The residential (RECS), commercial (CBECS), and industrial
    (MECS) surveys have been under-funded in recent years. This has forced
    EIA to reduce the frequency and the level of detail in these survey
    efforts. Without this critical data, it is impossible to measure the
    effects of several important policy initiatives. For example, voluntary
    climate change programs will need regular, detailed information on
    energy use by sector and end use to assess the impact of various
    programs. We recommend at least a $1.2 million increase for these
    program activities. Recommended funding level: Energy Markets and End
    Use, $13.8 million.

         DOE FISCAL YEAR 2003 ENERGY EFFICIENCY BUDGET SUMMARY OF ACEEE
                      RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Buildings                 Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Space Conditioning and Refrigeration      2,700  Restore to 2002 level.
     R&D.
    Appliances and Emerging Technologies        500  Restore to 2002 level.
     R&D.
    Windows R&D.........................  \1\ 2,700  Restore windows program
                                                      to 2002 level.
    Appliance Standards and Building      \2\ 2,000  Needed for likely new
     Codes.                                           mandated rulemakings.
          ..............................  \3\ 2,400  Needed for mandated
                                                      state code reviews.
    Transportation:
        Materials Technologies R&D......     10,300  Restore to 2002 levels.
        Vehicles Technologies R&D.......      4,000  Restore to 2002 levels.
        Advanced Combustion Engine R&D..      8,400  Restore to 2002 levels.
    Industrial:
         Industrial Assessment Centers..        800  10 percent increase.
        Industrial Best Practices.......        800  10 percent increase.
    Energy Information Administration:        1,200  10 percent increase in
     Energy Markets and End Use.                      end use surveys .
                                         -----------
          Total.........................     35,800  4 percent overall
                                                      increase in efficiency
                                                      budget.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ To windows program.
    \2\ To appliance standards.
    \3\ To state grants.

                                     ______

                        Prepared Statement of Honeywell
        On behalf of Honeywell, I am submitting testimony related to the
    Energy Efficiency (EE) programs at the Department of Energy (DOE). We
    request that the total Energy Efficiency Research and Development
    Budget be appropriated in fiscal year 2003 at the fiscal year 2002
    level of $636.0 million. Under the Distributed Energy Resources Program
    (DER) Office of Power Technology, we recommend $11.0 million in funding
    for microturbines in fiscal year 2003; $9.3 million for Advanced
    Materials and Sensors to include high and medium velocity rigs; and
    $2.0 million within the budget request for the Federal Energy
    Management Program technical assistance program for specific
    technologies. In the Office of Transportation Technology (OTT), we
    request $5.5 million for engine boosting technology research for both
    diesel and gasoline engines.
              transportation (office of transportation technology)
        To meet the Department of Energy's vehicle technologies research
    and development goals, key technologies are needed, including
    electrically assisted turbocharging (EAT) and adequate funding is
    required. Under the Vehicle Technology, R&D, Light Truck Engines,
    Advanced Combustion Engine R&D program, Honeywell has been conducting a
    development program for EAT which will demonstrate improved vehicle
    response, reduced fuel consumption for light trucks and SUVs. Honeywell
    requests an additional $1.0 million to the DOE fiscal year 2003 budget
    request of $500,000 to continue this program. So far, Honeywell has
    designed, developed and procured prototype hardware for small diesel
    engines and diesel manufactures have tested this hardware successfully
    on their engines/vehicles. The additional funding would be used to test
    two small turbochargers on a large SUV size engine, identify issues
    with electrically assisted turbocharging on large engines and develop
    scale factors from small to large turbochargers. Honeywell also
    recommends that a $1.0 million heavy-duty diesel engine EAT program
    feasibility study be initiated.
        Honeywell also requests $3.0 million to demonstrate advanced engine
    downsizing to engine/vehicle manufacturers. Engines in passenger
    vehicles are sized to give good acceleration and driveability
    performance. The result is that engines are oversized by a factor of
    two.
        Under normal, road load, cruise conditions the large engine is
    underused and is therefore inefficient, resulting in poor fuel economy.
    If a downsized engine is used, it gives better fuel economy but poor
    driveability performance.
        Turbocharging enables the best of both worlds--a small engine for
    cruising, turbocharged to supply high power as needed, for
    driveability. Data taken from European gasoline engines in 1992-1993
    model years and 2000-2001 model years indicates that for the same
    power, a turbocharged gasoline engine is fifty percent smaller (2 litre
    versus 3 litre) and gives about 8 to 10 percent better fuel economy.
        Turbocharging technology needs to be adapted to American driving
    conditions and emissions standards, for gasoline and diesel engines,
    for various size vehicles. Funding would be used to reduce cold start
    emissions to meet more stringent emissions regulations, improve
    materials to withstand higher temperatures under highway conditions and
    to improve turbocharger response to make it completely transparent to
    the user.
        Honeywell also recommends an increase of $1.0 million so that the
    DOE can carry out the high temperature foil bearing development program
    being conducted at Garrett Engine Boosting Systems and Engine Systems &
    Services.
        For Advanced Combustion Engine R&D, Honeywell recommends that the
    Committee restore the fiscal year 2003 budget request of $17.6 million
    to the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $19.9 million. Honeywell
    is in the process of negotiating the final contract to complete an
    ambitious program to develop an emission control device for diesel
    vehicles that will allow them to meet the new lower emission standards
    expected to be effective in 2007 for NOX emissions. The
    original plan called for a $2.4 million budget over 3 fiscal years
    beginning in fiscal year 2002. Funding for this program was reduced in
    fiscal year 2002, thus causing concern that the program will extend
    past the 3 year time frame and delay the introduction of the product
    into the marketplace. This will mean that the 2007 target will be
    missed. An additional $400,000 should be added to the fiscal year 2003
    budget request to put the program back on schedule so that EPA and DOE
    timetables can be met.
           distributed energy resources (office of power technology)
        Honeywell remains concerned about the delivery of constant, quality
    power. It is estimated that power interruptions cost the nation's
    economy approximately $50 billion annually. Potential threats to large
    generating systems and the transmission network in the wake of the
    events of September 11 cause additional concern regarding the delivery
    of power.
        Honeywell introduced the Parallon 75 microturbine in 2000. The
    Parallon, a 75kW microturbine, creates energy by compressing and
    combusting gaseous or liquid fuels at a high temperature to operate a
    high-speed generator.
        As the Committee will recall, last year, General Electric attempted
    to acquire Honeywell. In the aftermath of that failed acquisition and,
    as part of the settlement between the two companies, Honeywell sold its
    microturbine business to General Electric. Honeywell, however, in the
    on-going microturbine contract still retains a forty-percent interest
    in the contract and remains committed to seeing efficient microturbines
    reach the marketplace. Honeywell recommends that the budget request of
    $7.0 million be increased to $11.0 million for fiscal year 2003, the
    same level as provided for in fiscal year 2002. Within an appropriation
    of $11.0 million, an increase of $1.0 million should be included for
    the advanced microturbine system program so that Honeywell can carry
    out its ceramic development engine test activities as proposed in a
    revised microturbines statement of work.
        Achieving significant improvements in efficiency, emission and
    durability for all prime mover technologies require new approaches to
    the various components and the use of materials like metals and
    ceramics. DOE has funded and advanced materials development for turbine
    and engine components such as combustion liners, turbine tips, and
    engine shrouds. Advanced ceramics for turbine engine applications has
    been a major thrust at Honeywell and several other engine companies to
    overcome the limitation set by the metallic parts in turbine engines.
    As a result of collaborative efforts between industry, government and
    national laboratories, particularly Oak Ridge National Laboratory
    (ORNL), significant advances in a ceramic engine design and silicon
    nitride materials and fabrication technologies have been achieved. A
    number of silicon nitride components are in production and being
    implemented in gas turbine applications; some are in final stages for
    commercialization, others are in development programs from the
    Department of Defense (DOD), NASA and DOE. A large part of the success
    of these ceramic components is due to the continued support of this
    Committee.
        Honeywell Ceramic Components is in production with several silicon
    nitride parts. The work includes 30,000 seal runners (oil seals) for
    the Honeywell 731-series turbofan propulsion engine installed with over
    6 million operating hours for the accumulated fleet and gerotor silicon
    nitride rings for Honeywell Auxillary Power Units (APUs) on Boeing and
    Airbus aircraft. In January 2002, a 2-year ceramic blisk field
    evaluation was launched in an ASE8-800 industrial engine at Questar Gas
    Company in Salt Lake City. A field evaluation on two ceramic nozzles on
    APUs on a Lufthansa A300-600 has accumulated over 6,000 hours of
    reliable operation. A third evaluation was begun in February for Royal
    Jordanian Airlines. Honeywell Engine Systems & Services is developing a
    high-speed burner oxidation rig at its facility which will be available
    for use in the testing of ceramics for DOE's contractors.
        This should be ready for operation in early 2003. Honeywell
    recommends an additional $1.0 million for the multi-functional high-
    speed burner rig to complete its development and cover start-up costs
    for the first year of operation. Honeywell also recommends $1.0 million
    for the low-flow burner oxidation user rig at ORNL. Honeywell is
    requesting an increase of $2.0 million for these programs funded
    through the Technology Based Advanced Materials and Sensors program.
        Honeywell Engines and Systems has continued to work with its
    partners Precision Combustion (PCI) and Texas A&M University on the
    Fuel-Flexible Ultra-Low Emissions Combustion System for Industrial Gas
    Turbines program.
        In the last year, sub-scale catalyst modules were manufactured and
    conversion rate testing was completed on various fuels. Results were
    sufficiently encouraging to proceed to the sub-scale combustion tests.
    These were completed on natural gas, diesel and a simulated landfill
    gas at conditions appropriate for the ASE50DLE engine. Target
    NOX emissions below 5ppm were achieved on both the gaseous
    fuels at 100 percent simulated power, with part power diesel emission
    below 9ppm. The study to integrate the catalyst modules into the
    ASE50DLE engine is nearing completion at Honeywell. Texas A&M has
    completed the laboratory demonstration of the NOX sensing
    system and is working on the CO system. Immediate plans are to complete
    the integration study and perform a demonstration test on the emissions
    sensing system in an engine environment at Honeywell. Honeywell
    recommends that $500,000 be added to the fiscal year 2003 budget for
    continued development of emissions and flame temperature sensing
    technology leading to testing.
        Honeywell is working on a Building, Cooling, Heating and Power
    (BCHP) development program that packages technologies that will include
    operational optimization in real time and automate the make-buy
    decision for on-site generation. The reference package designs will
    allow BCHP systems to be applied to a variety of customer sites.
    Honeywell supports the $2.8 million for this program in fiscal year
    2003 within the $19.4 million budget request for End-Use Systems
    Integration and Interfaces, Cooling, Heating and Power (CHP).
                    federal energy management program (femp)
        Honeywell is a leader in Energy Savings Performance Contracting
    (ESPC) and commends the Administration's budget request for the FEMP
    that reflects an increase over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level.
    Within the fiscal year 2003 budget request of $27.8 million, $2.0
    million should be provided for technical guidance and assistance for
    design and procurement for new distributed energy, energy efficient and
    renewable technologies.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Detroit Diesel Corporation
        Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC), a DaimlerChrysler Powersystems
    Company, provides this statement for the record addressing the
    Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget request for the Department of
    Energy's Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT). We have been made
    aware of the just announced reorganization of the Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy (EERE) Office into eleven new integrated program
    offices. Nevertheless, we provide this statement relative to the
    Administration's formal submission to the Legislators. We generally
    support the Administration's budget request for ``OTT'', but we
    respectfully urge the Committee to consider further enhancements to
    critical key line items that require prompt and immediate attention to
    reduce the U.S. demand for petroleum. These key line items will have
    immediate near-term impact on energy security, will decrease emissions
    of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases, and will enable the
    U.S. transportation industry to sustain a strong and competitive
    position in the domestic and world markets. Specific relevant OTT R&D
    programs enjoy substantial industry cost share demonstrating a matched
    commitment by the U.S. industry. In order to bring to fruition the
    intended results, these programs require sustained or increased levels
    of funding.
        DDC's world headquarters and its main manufacturing plant are
    located in Detroit, Michigan. DDC employs over 6,000 persons who
    design, manufacture, sell and service engines for the transportation
    and power markets. Our products cater to heavy-duty trucks, coach and
    bus, automobiles, construction, mining, marine, industrial, power
    generation and the military. DDC has operations and manufacturing
    centers in various regions of the United States, along with a network
    of over 100 distributors and 2,700 dealers throughout the United States
    and worldwide. The DDC Series 60 engine has revolutionized the truck
    engine technology, consistently setting new global performance, fuel
    economy and life cycle cost standards. It has been the most popular
    heavy-duty truck engine in the United States for over a decade.
        Detroit Diesel recognizes the Administration's FreedomCAR agenda,
    and its attention to both near-term and long-term energy sufficiency.
    The long-term vision focuses on potential emerging technologies, such
    as fuel cells and hydrogen-based transportation energy. This ``next
    generation'' technology requires substantial level of new inventions.
    However, we believe that it is equally important to support the
    ``bridge technologies'' to meet our near and mid-term transportation
    needs, as the Energy Secretary clearly affirmed during his statement
    before the Senate on March 7, 2002. The CIDI (clean diesel) engine
    technology, along with the mandated low sulfur fuel, is well positioned
    to be our nation's prime mover for goods and people in the near-term
    and through the middle of this century, essentially following Europe's
    lead. In this regard, our comments will focus on the program line items
    that provide substantial potential payback for this important area of
    national interest.
        Three line items under the proposed fiscal year 2003 Advanced
    Combustion Engine R&D program element are CIDI Combustion and Emission
    Control, Heavy Truck Engine and Light Truck Engine. The CIDI Combustion
    and Emission Control activity focuses on the development of advanced
    emission control technologies for clean diesel engines for U.S.
    personal transportation vehicle applications. For decades to come,
    clean diesel engines are the most relevant solution offering
    significant fuel economy savings with cleaner environments. Initial
    developments show potential for lower emissions meeting the mandated
    2007/08 Tier-II levels while maintaining the diesel engine's inherently
    superior fuel efficiency. The initial performance results are
    compelling, but many questions remain unanswered regarding emerging
    technologies for aftertreatment and integration of a total technically
    viable system. We suggest enhancing the Administration's $17.6M request
    in this area by an additional $5.5M (Total = $23.1M) to handle the
    urgent technical issues of the relevant emerging technologies.
        The Heavy Truck Engine has an fiscal year 2003 request of $6.979M,
    less than the fiscal year 2002 enacted $9.396M budget! The new 2007
    Federal emissions mandates require an extremely aggressive R&D
    development plan to identify and implement new technologies. Recent
    specific findings suggest that EPA's initial estimates have
    underestimated the negative economic impact of the U.S. 2004
    regulations by an order of magnitude. The 2007 mandates will further
    reduce both NOx and particulate emissions by an additional 90 percent
    from the yet-to-be practically demonstrated 2004 levels. The
    technological complexities of meeting highly stringent emissions
    reduction while maintaining and ultimately improving the fuel economy
    within an extremely short time frame is the toughest challenge ever
    faced by the U.S. heavy-duty transportation industry. We believe this
    provides the strongest rationale for significant increases in the
    Government support to these competitively bid, collaborative, 50-50
    cost-shared R&D programs. DDC is investigating advanced combustion
    systems, alternative emissions reduction technologies including engine
    and exhaust aftertreatment systems, and smart control strategies within
    an integrated powertrain. We urge the committee to consider increasing
    the Heavy Truck Engine line item by an additional $6.5M (Total =
    $13.5M) to assert and support the urgency of accelerated development of
    these related high risk emerging technologies.
        The Light Truck Program fiscal year 2003 budget request of
    $13.106M, less than the fiscal year 2002 enacted $17.783M budget,
    targets the development of clean diesel engine technologies for light
    and medium trucks. This area of collaboration is at a critical stage of
    development, having been a competitively bid highly cost-shared effort
    which is targeted for completion by fiscal year 2004. This program line
    item includes multiple industry teams that are near the culmination of
    their R&D efforts aiming towards demonstration of viable technologies
    to meet stringent future Tier-II emissions levels. We believe that
    increasing the funding level to at least $16M would help harvesting the
    fruits of the already initiated efforts. This would help in decreasing
    the technical risks for launching its application into this significant
    market segment, thus making the technology ready for further
    developments via independent industry R&D investments.
        The Materials Technologies is a separate OTT program element having
    a budget request of $18.8M, a reduction from the $21.22M enacted in
    fiscal year 2002. This program element incorporates Propulsion
    Materials Technology, Lightweight Materials Technology and High
    Temperature Materials Laboratory. It has been long recognized that
    advanced materials are a key critical technology area for U.S. global
    competitiveness. For many years, the most popular DDC Series 60 truck
    engine has touted the first worldwide application of structural ceramic
    and advanced tribological coatings. We request the restoration of the
    funding back to the fiscal year 2002 $21.22M level to leverage the
    insertion of advanced materials into applications supporting the
    previously mentioned emerging technologies.
        Once again, we applaud the Administration's initiative to develop a
    National Energy Policy, the Department Energy's FreedomCAR initiative
    and the new EERE reorganization. We take this opportunity to affirm our
    strong endorsement to the proposed Department of Energy's fiscal year
    2003 referenced budget requests with the stated specific enhancements.
        The trend setting partnership between the U.S. Government and a key
    industrial base addresses this country's and world needs in critical
    areas of transportation, energy security, economy and environment. The
    exemplary track record through competitive leveraging of Government
    funding by substantial industry cost share and the emerging high
    potential results of these partnerships warrant strong Congressional
    endorsement. This affords a unique opportunity for a justifiable and a
    highly effective return on investment of the U.S. taxpayers' money.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
                                   Officials
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the National
    Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) submits this testimony in
    support of funding for the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy, energy conservation programs.
    Specifically, we are testifying in support of no less than $68 million
    for the State Energy Program (SEP) and the President's request of $277
    million for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). These funding
    levels move towards President Bush's promise included in his campaign
    issue paper on energy to double Weatherization and SEP. We also support
    an important program which has been a dramatic success, the State
    Energy Programs Special Projects account, which should receive at least
    $18 million, consistent with the fiscal year 2002 funding levels. NASEO
    also endorses funding for the State cooperative RD&D initiative at no
    less than the $6 million provided in fiscal year 2002. While this
    program was not included in the President's budget request it is
    strongly supported by the states and the Subcommittee. This effort has
    been successful and enormous opportunities for future work is
    available.
        NASEO supports increased funding for the Energy Information
    Administration (EIA), including especially updates for the State
    Heating Oil and Propane Program (SHOPP) and other state data sets.
    Doubling of the frequency of information collection, the addition of
    natural gas and increasing the number of state participants is
    critical.
        NASEO supports funding for DOE's Building and Industrial efforts,
    as well as the increased funding requested by the Administration for
    the Rebuild America program within the Buildings division. Rebuild
    America delivers technical assistance and project funds to state and
    community partnerships to implement building retrofit projects,
    utilizing public and private financing. NASEO also endorses funding
    equivalent to fiscal year 2001 levels for the Committee on Energy
    Efficiency Commerce and Trade (COEECT), which has not been supported by
    the Administration. Within the international line item, the states are
    actively involved in energy export promotion.
        As you prepare your mark for fiscal year 2003 energy efficiency
    funding we ask that you fund the State Energy Program at least at a
    level of $68 million. We also ask that you fund the Administration's
    request of at least $277 million for the Weatherization Assistance
    Program. Our request is consistent with a bi-partisan letter currently
    being circulated throughout the House and Senate. Mr. Chairman, these
    programs are successful and have a strong record of delivering energy
    savings to low-income Americans, homeowners, businesses and industry.
        The state energy offices that operate SEP focus on balanced energy
    programs, including the utilization of all resources. Funding of SEP is
    critical to this effort. It leverages an enormous amount of non-federal
    funds, from private, state and local sources.
        Another critical piece of the energy puzzle is the necessity to
    respond and prepare for energy emergencies. Certainly, after September
    11 there has been a renewed focus both nationally and on the state
    level on addressing these serious energy security needs. This has
    placed enormous additional burdens on the energy offices. With
    increased energy price volatility, as evidenced by the unprecedented
    run-up in gasoline prices this month, state efforts are pressed to the
    limits. Energy offices have responsibilities to ensure that energy
    infrastructure is operational and the offices work with industry to
    improve operations. These offices also coordinate with law enforcement
    and emergency teams to address ongoing needs. Our infrastructure is
    being severely tested. SEP funds are utilized to prepare for these
    emergencies. We have seen during the past 3 years dramatic price spikes
    in a variety of fuels, historically low inventory levels and multiple
    problems across the country ranging from the western electricity crisis
    to midwestern natural gas and gasoline price spike issues.
        As we consider comprehensive energy legislation, the importance of
    the work and the funding support of this Subcommittee has certainly
    been placed more clearly in the forefront. SEP is critical to a
    balanced national energy strategy.
        The State Energy Program provides tremendous benefits to energy
    consumers while leveraging significant private sector resources. In
    particular, SEP has documented a return of over $4 in private sector
    funds for every Federal dollar contributed. SEP also allows states and
    regions to implement their own energy programs targeting state
    priorities. The State Energy Program provides assistance to virtually
    every sector of the economy. While there are examples from every state,
    a few are as follows:
      --Alabama has operated a water efficiency program for a number of
            years, including leak detection. The production, treatment and
            distribution of water is highly energy-intensive. During the
            year 2000, 20 systems with 50 operators were surveyed, with
            changes producing monetary savings of over $400,000. Since this
            program began operations over 7.5 billion gallons of water have
            been saved with a corresponding savings of $9 million.
      --In California, SEP provided approximately $2 million while the
            state provided base funding of $85 million in 2000-2001, with
            additional one-time funds of $390 million in 2001. New energy
            efficient building and appliance standards have produced
            savings on reduced utility bills of approximately $16 billion
            since the program began. New initiatives in the area of ``cool
            roofs'', efficient vehicle incentive programs, energy efficient
            technology programs, etc. have produced savings in the
            billions.
      --Kentucky has matched an array of SEP activities with industrial
            energy efficiency, Energy Star partnerships, Rebuild America
            and performance contracting to produce a number of successful
            initiatives. In the industrial area enormous savings and
            research has been developed to help reduce energy use and
            preserve jobs covering 21 percent of the state's manufacturing
            sector.
      --Iowa's building program has helped schools, hospitals, local
            governments and community facilities reduce energy use through
            energy efficient financing of projects. $150 million in
            improvements have been implemented with cumulative savings of
            $134.7 million in energy costs thus far. During the past 2
            years alone Iowa received approximately $950,000 in SEP funds
            and has leveraged $27.4 million in improvements.
      --Maryland's activities have ranged from alternative fuels promotion
            to energy efficiency in public buildings to the development and
            enforcement of new building codes and renewable energy
            activities. Maryland has implemented a new tax credit for
            energy efficient buildings. The state has leveraged Federal
            dollars at a ratio of over 3:1.
      --Missouri has focused attention on energy efficiency in schools,
            with 315 loans and $33 million in investment, with estimated
            annual energy savings of $6.6 million. The Pattonville School
            District in St. Louis borrowed $112,000 to utilize methane gas
            from a nearby landfill to power school boilers. This is saving
            $40,000/year, thus paying for itself in approximately 3 years.
            Kansas City replaced 4,000 red stop lights with light emitting
            diodes (L.E.D.s), saving $125,000 per year.
      --Nebraska created an energy savings loan program capitalized with
            $10 million. A total of $14.14 million has been added to the
            loan pool. Revolving loan funds of this type are operated
            throughout the nation. In a study done a few years ago, the
            program had saved $17 million through 1997, with significant
            reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide.
      --Nevada has initiated a number of programs including the development
            of a new biodiesel industry. Performance contracting has become
            commonplace through the work of the energy offices, leading to
            successful programs of the type implemented at the White Pine
            County courthouse.
      --Ohio has implemented programs across a variety of sectors,
            including industrial activities with the glass, metal casting
            and steel industries. A program to implement ``best practices''
            in public housing has led to the redesign and investment of
            $6.5 million in buildings with an investment of $174,000 from
            SEP. The energy office is now operating an energy efficiency
            revolving loan fund totaling $15 million/year for low-income
            households and $100 million over 4 years for other households.
            SEP is a key component to help implement this program.
      --Oregon has used SEP funds to help leverage and operate its energy
            loan program for renewable resources and alternative fuels.
            Since this program began, $291 million in investments have been
            made. A business tax credit of 35 percent for investments in
            efficiency, renewables and recycling has produced $467 million
            in investments and a residential energy tax credit for energy
            efficient appliances, heat pumps, air conditioners, etc., has
            produced $124 million in investments.
      --Pennsylvania has focused on integrating their energy and
            environmental programs, emphasizing pollution prevention. The
            state has recently arranged the purchase of 100 million
            kilowatt-hours of green power over 2 years. The state has also
            begun a high performance schools program for energy and
            environment. The state has also implemented a compressed
            natural gas alternative fuels program, which has avoided 2
            million gasoline gallon equivalents since the program began.
      --Texas has focused on promotion of alternative fuels, implementation
            of a housing partnership program, a renewable energy
            demonstration program and the implementation of schools and
            local government efficiency programs. The Texas ``LoanSTAR''
            program has saved Texas consumers over $100 million through
            energy efficiency projects in taxpayer-supported institutions.
            Interest rates are set at 3.0 percent at the present time. SEP
            has been critical in implementing these activities.
      --Utah has focused on energy improvements in schools. For the
            University of Utah, $19,000 in technical assistance to allow
            them to implement performance contracting has netted $44
            million in energy upgrades. Schools throughout the state have
            utilized these funds to implement similar projects.
      --West Virginia has operated innovative industrial efficiency
            programs in industries including aluminum, chemical, forest
            products, glass, metal casting, mining and steel. The state has
            also implemented projects in utilizing poultry litter,
            developing a poplar plantation for biomass and energy
            efficiency projects in historic structures.
      --Wisconsin operates its Wisconsin Energy Initiative for elementary
            and secondary schools. Through the most recent data available,
            314 projects were implemented in 32.3 million square feet,
            reducing electricity consumption by 34 million kilowatthours
            and reducing natural gas consumption by 3.9 million therms,
            while saving $3.4 million/year.
        As noted earlier, SEP Special Projects has been a dramatic success.
    It permits the states to compete for funds distributed by DOE to expand
    the reach and leverage of funding for priorities set forth by Congress.
    This allows the states to develop innovative projects with non-federal
    partners and promotes replicability of these efforts. We hope the
    Subcommittee can support funding equal to fiscal year 2002 efforts of
    over $18 million.
        In conclusion, we would urge the Subcommittee to fund SEP at a
    level of $68 million. SEP allows the energy offices to deliver
    significant savings to the taxpayer with a small federal investment.
    The states' success is based upon our ability to directly meet the
    needs of consumers, small businesses, farmers and industry.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Caterpillar, Inc.
        Caterpillar, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to present its
    comments for the record addressing the Department of Energy fiscal year
    2003 budget request for the Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies
    (OHVT). Caterpillar, Inc., a Fortune 100 company headquartered in
    Peoria, Illinois, is the world's largest manufacturer of construction
    and mining equipment and diesel and natural gas engines used in a
    variety of applications. Caterpillar is the leading worldwide supplier
    of heavy-duty off-road vehicles and diesel engines for medium- and
    heavy-duty on-road trucks. We are only one of a hand-full of major
    companies that compete globally primarily from a U.S. manufacturing
    base, making Caterpillar one of our nation's largest net exporters.
        Caterpillar is involved in a number of projects managed by the
    Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies. Our longstanding partnership with
    the Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies has resulted in the
    development of a technology road map to assure that the project goals
    are consistent with national priorities and are fiscally responsible.
        In general, Caterpillar is concerned with the significant
    reductions in key line items in the Office of Heavy Vehicle
    Technologies contained in the Department's fiscal year 2003 budget
    submission to Congress. These cost-shared programs focus on developing
    technologies to maximize energy efficiency while reducing exhaust
    emissions . . . addressing national goals that have taken on increased
    importance and significance in recent months. Yet these same program
    areas have been targeted for substantial funding reductions.
        Caterpillar understands the need for the Department of Energy to
    focus attention on emerging technologies such as fuel cells and
    hydrogen power. But we believe it is equally important to maintain and
    accelerate R&D efforts that will provide ``bridge technologies'' to
    meet the needs of our transportation industry through this decade and
    the next. Our comments will focus on five programs that will provide
    the collaboration and funding of these ``bridge technologies'' that are
    essential to retaining the competitiveness of our nation's commercial
    transportation sector.
                               heavy truck engine
        The Heavy Truck Engine Program, with a fiscal year 2003 agency
    request of $7.0 million, is competitively bid and designed to respond
    to federal emissions requirements that demand an aggressive development
    plan. These emissions reduction requirements, targeted for 2007 and
    beyond, could result in a 5 to 10 percent fuel penalty for heavy-duty
    trucks, which currently consume 30 percent of on-road transportation
    fuel.
        The primary focus of this program is to develop technologies that
    will enable engine manufacturers to meet federal emissions requirements
    by 2006 while improving fuel economy by ten percent. The technological
    complexities of meeting this goal in such a short time frame
    necessitates a collaborative, 50-50 cost shared effort with the
    Department of Energy and the federal laboratories to maximize R&D
    resources. Caterpillar's focus in this program includes the development
    of advanced fuel and combustion systems, exhaust aftertreatment systems
    and friction reduction to help improve fuel efficiency.
        Now that we are 2 years into this program, we have learned that the
    technical challenges are even greater than originally expected. Very
    significant fuel penalties are a near certainty unless a technology
    breakthrough is created through this well focused, competitively bid,
    collaborative program. Progress on HCCI (homogeneous charge compression
    ignition) combustion with near zero emissions has been encouraging and
    holds great promise for all commercial trucks and off-road equipment.
    However, much work remains to provide the overall control and power
    capability needed for market acceptance. In addition, the application
    of exhaust aftertreatment technologies has numerous challenges that
    this program is addressing. If adequate funding is provided, there is a
    reasonable possibility to deliver a diesel engine demonstration by 2006
    that will enable the industry to meet the 2007 emissions regulations
    with improved fuel efficiency.
        Therefore, Caterpillar strongly urges the committee to consider an
    increase in this line item to $13.5 million to reflect the urgency of
    pulling forward advanced technologies to meet the environmental and
    commercial challenges facing our transportation system.
                               light truck engine
        This program, with an agency request of $13.1 million (a $3.7
    million decrease from fiscal year 2002), targets the development of
    compression ignition engine technologies for light-duty applications
    (trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans). It is focused on achieving a
    50 percent improvement in vehicle miles per gallon over comparable
    production vehicles. This 50 percent cost-shared program involves
    multiple industry teams comprised of both heavy-duty engine and light-
    duty vehicle manufacturers, plus significant involvement of the DOE
    laboratories in developing breakthrough emissions reduction
    technologies.
        Like the Heavy Truck Engine Program, the Light Truck Engine Program
    addresses national energy security concerns and offers a tremendous
    return on taxpayer investment. For example, a 50 percent market
    penetration of fuel efficient light trucks could result in a half-
    million barrels per day of oil saved, reducing our dependence on
    imported Mideast OPEC oil by over 20 percent. This could translate into
    a $10.7 billion annual saving in fuel costs to our economy. As our
    reliance on foreign oil continues unabated, the development of fuel
    efficient, cleaner burning technologies for the largest segment of the
    light-duty vehicle market is critically important.
        Caterpillar's focus in the program is to maximize key enabling
    technologies essential to improving fuel efficiency and emissions
    reductions. Elements of the corporation's research will include
    development of advanced fuel and combustion systems. Again, HCCI is a
    key building block of our strategy to achieve the ultra low emission
    levels required for light duty trucks. The HCCI combustion approach
    applies even better to the typical light duty operating cycle. Light
    trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles spend the vast majority of
    their time at light loads where HCCI works best. The fundamental HCCI
    work is similar to the effort underway in the Heavy Truck Engine
    program. However, the light-duty application is different, especially
    its duty cycle, aftertreatment and systems integration requirements.
    Caterpillar's strategy is to develop the fuel system technology that is
    the key enabler for HCCI combustion and work with light truck makers to
    incorporate this technology into vehicles to dramatically reduce
    emissions of their diesel engines.
        Based on the genuine progress made in this program to date, and the
    enormous potential impact on fuel efficiency, Caterpillar strongly
    urges the committee to increase the funding for this program to $15
    million, which still represents a decrease of $1.8 million when
    compared to the fiscal year 2002 spending level.
                             off-highway engine r&d
        According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nonroad
    diesel engine emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) will
    comprise 38 percent of all mobile source NOX emissions by
    2010 with diesel particulates (PM) accounting for 60 percent of all
    mobile source PM emissions. The USEPA has initiated a phased-in
    emission reduction timetable to control pollution from mobile off-
    highway equipment. Tier 2 regulations began in 2001. Tier 3 regulations
    are scheduled for implementation beginning in 2006. Without major
    technological breakthroughs, these emission requirements will cause a
    significant increase in fuel use. And while some technologies developed
    for on-road engines can be transferred to non-road applications, the
    lack of cooling air flow to the engines, differing power demands, and
    use of extremely high sulfur fuel necessitate the development of new
    technologies to meet the demands of off-highway equipment. Caterpillar
    intends to leverage fuel system and combustion technology from the
    heavy and light truck engine programs described above while adding
    advanced cooling system and specialized aftertreatment.
        In fiscal year 2002, the first year of the program, the funding
    level was a modest $500,000. However, for 2003 Caterpillar strongly
    supports an increase in the level to $2.0 million to assure that
    government and industry can work collaboratively to pull forward the
    needed technology to provide cleaner air without unacceptable fuel use
    penalties.
                        combustion and emissions control
        Caterpillar supports the DOE request of $17.6 million for diesel
    combustion and aftertreatment R&D. However, we strongly disagree with
    the allocation of this funding between the Office of Heavy Vehicle
    Technologies, which would receive $3.6 million and the Office of
    Advanced Automotive Technologies, which would receive $14.0 million.
    This program, currently underway at Sandia Livermore, Lawrence
    Livermore and Los Alamos national laboratories, addresses the need to
    understand fundamental combustion processes and involves the
    development of computer modeling of these processes and validation on
    laboratory engines. The development of sophisticated computer modeling
    is critically important for the timely, cost-effective introduction of
    future clean and efficient power systems for a variety of engine
    applications. This program funds several Cooperative Research and
    Development Agreements (CRADAs) working on the development of exhaust
    aftertreatment technologies requiring the unique equipment and
    personnel expertise of the DOE national laboratories.
        The development of this technology is critically important to the
    heavy-duty diesel engine companies as we face more stringent emissions
    standards and associated fuel economy penalties. Therefore, we urge the
    committee to support the allocation of a majority of this line item to
    OHVT where the development and commercialization of clean diesel
    technologies is the top priority for the heavy-duty engine and vehicle
    sector.
                              more electric truck
        The More Electric Truck program, included in the Vehicle Systems
    Optimization line item, is focused on developing technologies to
    convert various truck accessories, currently operating on engine belt
    and drive gear, to electricity. The economic and environmental
    implications of this initiative are impressive. When fully implemented,
    trucks could realize a 9-18 percent annual fuel savings. And by
    providing heating, cooling and accessory power without idling of the
    truck, the environmental benefits can be significant. Reducing truck
    idling was targeted in the National Energy Plan. This program
    specifically addresses our nation's goals of reduced fuel consumption
    and emissions. Caterpillar continues to fully support this important
    DOE initiative.
                         21st century truck partnership
        The 21st Century Truck Partnership was created to provide a
    systems-wide approach to addressing our national transportation
    priorities. This collaborative effort includes 16 companies and the
    Departments of Energy, Defense and Transportation and the Environmental
    Protection Agency. The partnership embraces 214 projects with annual
    federal funding approaching $120 million. Operating within the 21st
    Century Partnership, industry and government will develop critical R&D
    synergies and establish technology priorities to avoid funding
    duplication and redundancies. All of the above mentioned OHVT programs
    except the Off-Highway Engine R&D program are included under the 21st
    Century Truck Partnership. Caterpillar supports this unique R&D
    collaborative effort and commends the Department of Energy for its
    leadership.
        Mr. Chairman, Caterpillar believes that the OHVT programs
    effectively address real-world technology challenges through the
    leveraging of public and private sector resources. Achieving the goals
    set forth in these programs is critically important to meeting our
    nation's energy and environmental imperatives while maintaining the
    competitiveness of our transportation sector.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of Cummins, Inc.
        Cummins, Inc is pleased to provide the following statement for the
    record regarding the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2003 budget for
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Fossil Energy programs.
    Cummins is the only independent diesel engine manufacturer in the
    United States and we are the world's largest producer of commercial
    engines over 50 horsepower. We share the goal of improving our air
    quality and we are committed to pursuing technologies that benefit the
    environment.
           advanced combustion engine r&d--heavy truck engine (ohvt)
        The EPA 2007 Diesel Rule represents the biggest challenge ever
    faced by the diesel engine industry, and has the potential to
    significantly increase the cost of transporting goods in the United
    States. From 1970 to 2002, the NOX and particulate emissions
    of heavy-duty diesel engines were reduced by 90 percent through a
    series of very costly new product launches. The 2007 Rule requires a
    further reduction of 90 percent between 2002 and 2007, and the
    technology to achieve this reduction has not been developed. The DOE-
    OHVT created the Heavy Truck Engine program in fiscal year 2000 to fund
    research, on a 50/50 cost-shared basis, that would focus on developing
    the technology to both meet more stringent emissions standards and to
    improve fuel economy over today's levels. The considerable progress on
    this research program has served to bring the underlying technical
    challenges into focus: system performance to 435,000 miles, sulfur
    tolerance, overall emissions degradation, and fuel economy penalties
    that may be as high as 5-10 percent. The Administration's fiscal year
    2003 funding request of $6.98M is below the $8.9M level appropriated in
    fiscal year 2002. The reduced funding level will inhibit the focus and
    acceleration of research that is required to meet the very challenging
    goals of the 2007 emissions standards along with approximately 10
    percent higher energy conversion efficiency than current production
    engines. Cummins urges that this program be funded at $13.5 million for
    fiscal year 2003.
     advanced combustion engine r&d--diesel engine technologies for light
                                 trucks (ohvt)
        Over fifty percent of the total vehicles sold in the United States
    are light trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Light trucks now
    consume about 2.2 million barrels of gasoline each day. Projections
    indicate that at even moderate dieselization rates in the light truck/
    SUV sector, up to one-sixth of this fuel could be saved, translating to
    more than $5 billion in annual fuel cost savings and a 20 percent
    reduction in the 1.6 million barrels daily of imported oil. Clean
    diesel engines also produce 33 percent less CO2 emissions
    per mile traveled in light duty trucks and SUVs, when compared to
    gasoline power.
        The Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Heavy Vehicle Technology
    has developed a light truck diesel engine program to provide clean
    efficient power plant alternatives for future light trucks and sport
    utility vehicles. The light truck diesel program provides the
    technology that would decrease the foreign oil dependence, while
    continuing to satisfy the current consumer demands for light truck
    vehicles. Funding of this program allows companies to develop
    technological solutions to meet the very demanding Tier II emission
    standards for light-duty vehicles while maintaining customer values of
    reliability, performance and durability that will assure market
    acceptance and deployment.
        Although this program is scheduled to expire after fiscal year
    2004, several critical enabling technologies have yet to be proven,
    including Tier II emissions with a robust engine/aftertreatment
    solution. It is vital that the level of effort be maintained at this
    critical point through the end of the program. The Administration
    request of $13.1M will not allow sufficient effort in this critical
    period. The appropriation for fiscal year 2002 was $16.8M, and Cummins
    urges that $17.1M be appropriated for this program for fiscal year
    2003.
      advanced combustion engine r&d--combustion and emission control r&d
                                  (ohvt/oaat)
        The Combustion and Emission Control R&D program underpins the DOE
    diesel engine programs through the development of advanced component
    and subsystem technologies for emission control and fuel economy. This
    work is a combination of fundamental research at universities and
    National Laboratories and cost-shared research with industrial
    partners. Cummins supports an increase in this funding from the request
    of $17.570M by $5.5M to bring the program total to $23.070M in fiscal
    year 2003. $20.876M was appropriated in fiscal year 2002. A funding
    split between OHVT and OAAT is recommended as follows: OHVT: $5.5M.
    This increase is necessary to fund increased CRADA activities at
    National Labs on improved engine-out emissions and improved fuel
    efficiency through development of advanced combustion systems, and
    increased funding for the Multi-year HDDE Emissions Control Program at
    the National Labs. OAAT: $17.570M. The increase is necessary to
    maintain the current level of effort, which has demonstrated a complete
    aftertreatment subsystem and control on a Dodge Ram vehicle validated
    by test results. The program is facing critical hurdles and milestones
    on durability, effective operation during transient and low
    temperatures, recovery from exposure to high sulfur fuels, and
    desulfurization for peak emissions efficiency and fuel economy.
        off-highway heavy vehicle engine r&d--efficiency and emissions
                               improvement (ohvt)
        The diesel industry has invested billions of dollars in R&D and new
    products development for on road applications. Off-highway vehicles are
    another important area of investigation. Off-highway vehicles and
    machines operate under severe environmental conditions, including high
    dust, debris, wide range of altitudes, temperatures and vibration. Off-
    road engines are applied to hundreds of different types of equipment in
    a wide range of industries, such as agriculture, construction and
    mining. The lack of ram air for cooling and limited space for
    accessories and engine components present a particular challenge.
        The program focus is to deliver Tier III emissions standards with
    minimum sacrifice of fuel economy and vehicle complexity. Since Tier
    III emissions standards come into force in 2005, increases in this new
    DOE initiative are necessary to demonstrate Tier III capabilities
    within critical timing hurdles and milestones, determine system
    robustness and performance, and begin to set the technical stage for
    the development of Tier IV-compliant emissions technology. Cummins
    recommends an increase in the request ($0.50M) of $2.0M to bring
    program total to $2.5M in fiscal year 2003.
     distributed generation technology development--advanced reciprocating
                             engine systems (ares)
        Natural gas fueled reciprocating engine power plants are preferred
    for their reliability, low operating costs, and unattended operations.
    However they have not kept pace with the fuel efficiency of their
    diesel engine counterparts. As gas and electric power industry
    restructuring has created opportunities for distributed power
    generation, enhancements in fuel efficiency, reliability, operating
    costs and emissions are necessary to be competitive with other
    technologies in these applications. The purpose of this program is to
    develop advanced natural gas engine technologies and products that
    increase engine efficiency towards 50 percent and reduce NOX
    to 0.1 g/bhp-hr. These goals are very aggressive. But, when met, will
    yield consumer savings roughly 100 times greater than the program
    costs. By working in partnership with the DOE, the ARES industry
    partners will work towards removing technical barriers to energy
    efficiency and emissions enhancements. The benefits of government/
    industry collaboration are key for advanced technology development and
    integration projects like this one that would be too high risk for
    industry alone. This partnership will help create attractive natural
    gas products for North American markets as well as for the growing
    power generation markets worldwide. Cummins recommends an appropriation
    of $16M, which would increase the request of $10M by $6M in fiscal year
    2003.
                 solid state energy conversion alliance (seca)
        The goal of this cost-shared project is to develop a commercially
    viable 3-10 KW solid oxide fuel cell module for RV, commercial mobile,
    and telecommunications markets. This module will also form the building
    block for much larger stationary power systems. Fuel cells will play an
    important role in securing the nation's energy future by providing
    efficient, environmentally sound electrical energy. Fuel cell systems
    offer low-noise, highly reliable power with significantly lower fuel
    consumption and exhaust emissions compared to existing fossil fuel
    technologies. However, the high cost of fuel cell technologies prevents
    their broad public use. The goal of the SECA program is to create a
    solid oxide fuel cell that can be mass produced in modular form using
    automated manufacturing processes. Federal funding is needed to help
    support moving this technology from the laboratory to the point where a
    commercially viable development program can totally support it. This
    development of high volume production technologies for fuel cells will
    reduce the per-unit costs and allow fuel cells to be an affordable
    energy option for a variety of applications. This is a 10-year program
    that combines the efforts of the DOE national laboratories, private
    industry, universities, and other research organizations. Cummins
    supports an increase of $5M in the appropriation from the requested
    $22.5M to a total of $27.1M in fiscal year 2003. Note that there are
    currently four teams working with DOE to meet the goals of the program.
    If additional teams are added, funds beyond $27.5M would be necessary
    to maintain a level of effort sufficient to meet the program goals in
    the time frame specified.
    materials technologies r&d--propulsion materials--automotive propulsion
                                   materials
        Over the past decade, we have seen an explosion of development in
    various nano-technologies. Cummins primary research in nano-
    technologies will center on improving the utilization of nanofiber
    technology for air and liquid filtration to reduce emissions from
    mobile and stationary diesel engines. A major area of research work
    would be to overcome the technical challenges and develop a
    manufacturing method that can economically produce nano-fibers
    utilizing a number of materials, including ceramics which have the
    potential to withstand the high temperature environment of the exhaust
    system. Initial testing of nano-fiber in filters has shown that it can
    dramatically increase the particulate capture efficiency of filters
    with only minor changes in flow restrictions. Cummins urges that $1.5M
    be appropriated in fiscal year 2003 to begin a new cost-shared 3-5 year
    industry/government R&D program.
                       the 21st century truck partnership
        The 21st Century Truck Partnership is an initiative aimed at
    focusing and coordinating research and demonstration work for a future
    generation of trucks that would meet several important policy goals:
    fuel efficiency and emissions significantly improved, improved heavy
    vehicle safety, and affordability to assure wide application. Over the
    last 12 months, an unprecedented collaboration of four government
    agencies (DOE, DOD, EPA, and DOT) has developed with 16 industry
    partners, program teams that are attacking system problems on a broad
    front. These teams include: Anti-Idling, Materials, Clean Diesel,
    Hybrid Systems, and Military Requirements, with more under development.
    Cummins supports the 21st Century Truck Partnership, and urges careful
    consideration of the fiscal year 2003 priority programs put forward by
    the 21 Century Industry Working Group.
        Thank you for this opportunity to present our views on these
    programs which we believe are of great importance to the United States
    economy through viable transportation and power generation systems, to
    the public well-being through cleaner air, and to our national security
    by contributing to an energy-independent future.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Association for State Community
                               Services Programs
        The states represented by the National Association for State
    Community Services Programs (NASCSP) would like to thank the members of
    Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for their recent support in
    providing $230 million for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)
    in 2002. The positive impact of last year's funding is already being
    felt throughout the WAP service delivery network. Here are some
    examples of our expectations for these funds:
      --Nearly 6,000 full time, high skilled, higher paying jobs will be
            created within the service delivery network and in related
            manufacturing and supplier business to supplement the 11,000
            skilled staff already employed to deliver the WAP;
      --An additional 32,000 to 34,000 homes occupied by low-income
            families will receive energy efficiency services, thereby
            reducing the energy use and associated energy bills of nearly
            105,000 families;
      --Greenhouse gases and environmental pollutants will be significantly
            reduced due to the decrease in energy use by these newly
            weatherized homes; and
      --Continuation of skills training by national, state, and local
            organizations to help enhance the results of our service
            delivery and to promote new technology transfer within the
            network. Technology deployment (like the NEAT Audit, blower
            door use, and furnace efficiency improvements) has resulted in
            an increase in the energy savings achieved per household.
        As Executive Director of NASCSP, the member organization
    representing the states on issues related to the WAP and the Community
    Services Block Grant, I am pleased to submit testimony in support of
    the President's 2003 Budget request of $277.1 million for the
    Department of Energy's (DOE) WAP. These funds will be used to provide
    weatherization services to more than 123,000 eligible families
    throughout the country and will help the states to continue the
    excellent work started this year through the increase provided in 2002.
    Our organization also supports an increase in funding for the State
    Energy Programs, also funded by this Subcommittee.
        The WAP is the largest residential energy conservation program in
    the nation. Its purpose is to increase the energy efficiency of homes
    occupied by low-income persons, particularly the elderly, those with
    disabilities, and families with children, while ensuring their health
    and safety. The WAP exists in all fifty states, the District of
    Columbia, and on several Native American reservations and serves a
    vital function in helping low-income families control their energy
    consumption, thereby reducing their energy costs and increasing usable
    income to buy vital necessities like food, shelter, clothing, and
    health care. The WAP provides an energy audit for each home to identify
    the most cost-effective measures, which typically include adding
    insulation, reducing air infiltration, servicing the heating and
    cooling systems, and providing health and safety diagnostic services.
    For every dollar spent, the WAP returns $1.80 in energy savings over
    the life of the weatherized home, based on recent energy prices. Since
    the program's inception, more than 5 million homes have been
    weatherized using federal, state, utility and other monies.
        Low-income families pay a disproportionate share of their
    disposable income on energy, experiencing energy burdens equal to 14 to
    20 percent of their total income. In times of energy shortages and
    escalating energy costs, the energy burden for these families can reach
    25 to 40 percent or more of their available income as compared to the 3
    to 7 percent spent by their middle-income counterparts. There is no
    reason to believe that these families will receive relief from their
    energy burden unless programs like the WAP can be used to reduce their
    energy use and reduce their energy bills.
        The Oak Ridge National Laboratory report entitled State Level
    Evaluations of the Weatherization Program in 1990-1996: A Meta-
    evaluation That Estimates National Savings found that the WAP
    significantly improved its energy savings results during those years.
    In 1996, the Program showed savings of 33.5 percent of gas used for
    space heating--up from 18.3 percent savings in 1989. The increase in
    savings was based in large part on the introduction and use of more
    sophisticated diagnostic tools and audits. Families receiving
    weatherization services can reduce their heating energy use by an
    average of 22 percent, making the cost for heating their homes more
    affordable. The introduction of ``base load'' and cooling measures
    during recent years will help reduce overall energy use beyond simple
    heating load and cost. The Oak Ridge Meta-Evaluation report also
    concluded that the WAP possessed a favorable cost-benefit ratio of 2.40
    to 1.0. Simply stated, the federal funds provided to support the
    Program have a 140 percent return on investment, or nearly $2.50 in
    benefits for every dollar invested. By reducing overall energy use,
    families can realize average savings of $250 or more each year, thereby
    increasing disposable income and helping families move closer to
    economic self-sufficiency.
        Our organization believes that the WAP has an even greater national
    impact and serves national interests by creating a technological and
    programmatic foundation for individual state programs. When the early
    evaluations of the 1990's noted that greater savings were achieved by
    the use of more sophisticated auditing techniques, states moved
    immediately to incorporate them. Other important advances included the
    increased use of blower-door directed air infiltration reduction, in-
    depth furnace efficiency analysis, duct system diagnostics, and air
    quality improvement measures. Today, nearly 11,000 trained
    professionals employed by 970 local agencies use state of the art
    diagnostic equipment and techniques along with 26 years of practical
    experience to make homes more energy efficient, safer, and more
    affordable.
        The DOE supports state program efforts to ensure that the
    individuals involved in the implementation of the program at the local
    level have adequate training on the latest and best energy conservation
    practices. Many states have created competency standards for various
    disciplines in the field. DOE funds are used to support training
    centers in OH, IN, NC, CA, VA, PA, WV, SC, and KS to provide
    standardized skills training and technical support to local
    weatherization staff. In Florida, the Solar Energy Center provides
    training on warm climate weatherization measures. In the Seattle
    Region, a peer exchange occurs between states to help meet locally-
    determined training needs. Regardless of which option is used for
    transferring technology and skills improvement, the results are the
    same--well-trained, highly skilled, competent people using the latest
    technologies are providing the most cost effective and energy efficient
    services in low-income households throughout the country.
        The WAP serves as a testing ground and provides a fertile field for
    the deployment of research conducted by national laboratories. The Oak
    Ridge National Laboratory developed the National Energy Audit (NEAT)
    for use by local agencies in assessing cost effectiveness of service
    delivery. Oak Ridge is currently investigating the cost effectiveness
    of including certain base load measures into the Program and continues
    to test other protocols and material installation techniques to help
    state and local agencies improve their field operations. The Florida
    Solar Energy Center and the state of Hawaii are working on the
    development of cost effective solar hot water heaters. The State of New
    York, working in concert with the local utility companies and the State
    Energy Research Development Authority, has implemented a refrigerator
    replacement program to test the impact of providing base-load services
    to conserve energy and reduce costs for eligible multi-family
    residents. One of the major effects of field deployment through the WAP
    is that the private sector eventually adopts these technologies. This
    pattern has been established with several technology advancements
    including blower door-directed air infiltration, duct system testing
    and sealing, furnace efficiency standards, and insulation and
    ventilation protocols. The acceptance of these standards and protocols
    by the private sector is enormously important as builders attempt to
    construct new properties or rehabilitate existing ones using a renewed
    energy efficiency philosophy.
        Of equal importance to the technological and programmatic
    foundation for individual states are the WAP contributions in achieving
    overall national energy policies and social strategies. Some examples
    of how the Program helps achieve these goals include:
      --Reducing harmful green house gas through reduced CO2
            emissions by avoiding energy production. Each time a house is
            weatherized, the reduction in energy needs reduces the
            environmental impact associated with creating that energy--
            reduction of sulfur dioxide, carbon, and other pollutants
            spilled into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels
            like oil, coal, kerosene, wood, gas, and propane.
      --Increasing jobs in communities throughout the country. For every $1
            million invested in the WAP, more than 51 full time jobs are
            created and supported in the states. Another 20 jobs are
            created in companies who provide goods and services to the
            Program. With the $277.1 million requested in the President's
            budget, nearly 17,000 full-time, above minimum wage jobs are
            created in local communities and in related service and
            material industries. These workers will help weatherize the
            homes of more than 123,000 low-income families during the 2003
            program year.
      --Investing money into communities through job creation, local
            purchasing of goods and services, and tax revenues. These
            investments result in many secondary benefits. These residual
            benefits, known as ``economic benefit multipliers,'' are
            applied to local community investment to value the real worth
            of money used locally. This multiplier is 3.5 to 4 times the
            actual investment. This means that an investment of $277.1
            million in the WAP could yield more than $1.1 billion in
            economic benefits to local communities.
      --Reducing consumption of imported fuels by reducing residential
            energy consumption. Our country currently imports nearly 60
            percent of its oil from foreign countries. This figure is
            higher than the import percentage in the 1970s, when the oil
            embargo threatened our ability to operate as a nation. The
            conservation efforts of the WAP network will help reduce our
            country's dependency on foreign oil, thereby strengthening our
            country's national security.
        The WAP is no longer characterized as a ``cold climate'' program,
    but one that acknowledges energy as a basic commodity that every
    American household needs. Since the 1990 reauthorization in the State
    Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 101-440), the
    rules promulgated by the DOE ensure greater flexibility in the Program,
    which has led to even greater energy efficiency and savings in the
    homes of low-income families. Based on this reauthorization language,
    the Program now includes services to reduce the cost of cooling homes.
    The language also called for a review of the factors in the funding
    formula, leading to the development of an entirely new funding
    distribution method. The new formula addresses issues of equity between
    states who use energy to heat their homes (north) and those states that
    use the greatest portion of energy to cool their homes (south). At this
    higher funding level, states in the South and Southwest will receive an
    ever-greater share of the national allocation to implement the Program
    in their states.
        NASCSP is concerned about the low level of funding proposed for the
    State Energy Programs (SEP) in 2003. SEP enjoys a broad constituency,
    supporting state energy efficiency programs that include energy
    generation, fuels diversity, energy use in economic development, and
    promoting more efficient uses of traditional energy resources. SEP's
    funding has fallen steadily from a recent high in 1995 of $53 million
    to its fiscal year 2002 level of $45 million. The President's fiscal
    year 2003 request is a further cut to $38.7 million. The state energy
    offices are the crucial centers for organizing energy emergency
    preparedness. They have been asked to do much new work in the sensitive
    area of infrastructure security. Taking into consideration this growing
    burden, the increasing difficulty of managing energy resources,
    together with increasing opportunities for states to implement cost-
    saving, efficiency-enhancing measures, we are supporting their request
    of $68 million for fiscal year 2003. This level would restore the
    program's recent funding cuts and allow for inflationary impacts since
    1995.
        In summary, our organization strongly supports the President's 2003
    Budget request of $277.1 million for the Weatherization Assistance
    Program and respectfully requests this Committee to favorably consider
    funding the DOE State Energy Program at $68 million. By the evidence
    provided herein, this Committee can be assured that the increase in the
    number of low-income families served by the WAP will result in greater
    energy savings, more economic investments, increased leveraging of
    other funds, and less reliance on high cost energy like foreign oil--
    outcomes that will benefit the nation.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Southern Company
        This statement of Southern Company is in support of a $62 million
    increase in the Coal and Power Systems Programs of the U.S. Department
    of Energy (DOE) Fossil Energy R&D program for fiscal year 2003
    recommended by the Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC \1\).
    Details of the specific technology recommendations are included in
    CURC's testimony presented before this committee.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ CURC has over 35 members interested in coal-based energy
    systems including major universities, coal companies, railroads,
    electric generators, and technology suppliers. CURC members also
    include EPRI, the United Mine Workers of America, the Edison Electric
    Institute, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural
    Electric Cooperative Association.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Southern Company, through its operating companies, supports and
    conducts research to use the Nation's abundant coal resources to
    produce low-cost power and minimize environmental effects. As a result,
    Southern Company has participated extensively in cost-shared projects
    in both DOE's Clean Coal Technology (CCT) and Fossil Energy Research
    and Development programs.
        In addition to the request for an overall increase in funding for
    coal R&D, I would also like to thank this subcommittee for its past
    support for the Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF) and to
    request continued support for the PSDF as part of DOE Fossil Energy
    Research budget.
                     importance of coal to the u.s. economy
        The 1990's were a decade of great prosperity. One of the major
    contributors to this prosperity was low and stable energy prices.
    However, recent events on U.S. soil and the ongoing tensions in the
    Middle East reinforce concerns over America's large dependence on
    foreign sources of energy. Manipulation of the oil market to the
    benefit of foreign interests recently resulted in the largest increase
    in the price of gasoline since records were kept. In the short-term,
    such increases will weaken the current economic recovery. In the long-
    term, increasing energy prices will have a profound negative effect on
    the U.S. economy, producing higher inflation, increased unemployment,
    and slower growth. Potentially, the 2000's may be more like the
    economically troubled 1970's and 1980's than the prosperous 1990's.
        Until 1987 federal law prohibited electric utilities from burning
    natural gas to produce electricity. This law arose from shortages of
    natural gas and its importance to commercial and domestic heating. Over
    the past 10 years natural gas-fired power plants have captured over 90
    percent of the new electric generation market. This rapid expansion of
    usage, combined with higher oil prices and increased activity in the
    general economy, will result in upward pressure on natural gas prices
    to all consumers--domestic, commercial, and commercial. In the past
    natural gas produced only a small fraction of U.S. electricity and
    changes in its price had little effect on the price of electricity, but
    today there is an increasing connection between the price of these two
    vitally important commodities. As natural gas prices increase so too
    will the price of electricity, robbing the Nation of the benefit of
    low-cost energy. Cost-effective, environmentally acceptable coal-based
    electricity generation will preserve low-cost energy and bolster U.S.
    competitiveness in international markets.
        Coal's most valuable characteristics are its domestic abundance,
    its ready availability, and its low-cost as a fuel source for
    affordable electricity. Events outside U.S. borders need not affect
    coal's use or cost. However, coal must also be clean and efficient.
    Over the past 2 years more than 20,000 MW of new coal-based electricity
    generation has been announced in response to electricity shortages in
    the West and concerns about the near-term volatility and long-term
    price levels of natural gas. With few exceptions these plants are
    planned with conventional coal combustion technology using advanced
    emission control systems. Few of these plants will use advanced clean
    coal technologies due to the technical and financial risks associated
    with current versions of these technologies. Enormous strides have been
    made in developing clean coal technology, but more can and must be done
    reduce cost and increase reliability.
        The value of advanced coal technology to the U.S. economy is
    enormous. Southern Company estimates that past DOE coal-based research
    related to large-scale power generation will provide over $100 billion
    in benefits to the U.S. economy through 2020 at a cost to the Federal
    budget of less than $4 billion--a benefit cost ratio of 25 to 1. The
    Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) recently used the modern
    financial technique called ``Real Options'' to estimate the value of
    advanced coal research and development (R&D).\2\ The major conclusion
    is that the value to U. S. consumers of further coal R&D for the period
    2007-2050 is at least $360 billion and could reach $1.38 trillion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The technique of real options analysis is being used
    increasingly by businesses to assess investments in physical assets,
    particularly in fluctuating markets. Leaders include Chevron, Hewlett
    Packard (Business Week, June 7, 1999), Shell and IBM. Also discussed
    in: ``Real Options: A better way to make decisions about power
    plants'', Global Energy Business, March/April 2001.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In summary CURC's testimony, as presented in more detail before
    this Committee, describes a Technology Roadmap that is similar to DOE's
    Vision 21. The Roadmap identifies the technical, economic, and
    environmental performance that advanced clean coal technologies can
    achieve over the next 20 years. CURC believes that over this time
    period coal-fired power generation efficiency can be increased to over
    50 percent (compared to 40 percent today) while producing de minimis
    emissions and developing cost-effective technology for carbon dioxide
    management. The Roadmap also identifies the R&D cost to achieve this
    performance. From now until 2010 $6.5 billion is needed and over the
    following decade approximately $3.5 billion is needed--a total of
    around $10 billion. About half of these funds will come from industry
    and half from the Federal government. This is a $10 billion investment
    over the next 20 years that can be reasonably projected to return at
    least $300 million in benefits to U.S. consumers by 2050. But, for
    these benefits to be realized the critically important R&D outlined in
    the CURC Technology Roadmap must to be conducted.
      power systems development facility--an example of advanced coal r&d
                                   that works
        The Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF) near Wilsonville,
    Alabama is a key national asset for ensuring continued, cost-effective,
    environmentally acceptable coal use. It is a joint effort of DOE's
    National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and several of the world's
    leading energy technology and supply companies. Current participants
    include Southern Company, EPRI, Kellogg Brown and Root, Siemens
    Westinghouse Power Corporation, and Peabody Energy. Foster Wheeler
    Corporation is a major past participant and Air Products and Chemicals,
    Praxair, Inc., and U.S. Filter/Shumacher among others have proposed
    significant participation in the future. In addition to the Wilsonville
    plant site major work is planned, or components for the PSDF are being
    developed at the following locations: Grand Forks, ND (sub-scale
    gasifier testing), Houston, TX (gasifier development); Indianapolis, IN
    (combustion turbine development); Orlando, FL (gas turbine low-NOx
    burner), Pittsburgh, PA (filter fabrication), Allentown, PA and
    Tonawanda, NY (advanced air separation technology); and Deland, FL
    (filter fabrication).
        DOE conceived the PSDF as the world's premier advanced coal power
    generation R&D facility. Work there to date has fulfilled this
    expectation. DOE's vision is that: ``The Wilsonville PSDF will serve as
    the proving ground for many new Advanced Power Systems and Vision 21
    Technologies. . . .  The Wilsonville Power Systems Development Facility
    gives U.S. industry the world's most cost-effective flexible test
    center for testing tomorrow's coal-based power-generating equipment. .
    . .  Capable of operating at pilot to near-demonstration scales, the
    facility is large enough to give industry real-life data, yet small
    enough to be cost-effective and adaptable to a variety of industry
    needs.'' A key feature of the PSDF is the ability to test new systems
    at an integrated, semi-commercial scale. Integrated operation allows
    the effects of system interactions that are typically missed in
    unintegrated pilot-scale testing to be understood. The semi-commercial
    scale allows the maintenance, safety, and reliability issues of a
    technology to be investigated at a cost that is a factor of ten below
    the cost of testing at commercial scale.
        The PSDF staff works continuously with technology developers to
    transfer the lessons learned there. As an example, testing at the PSDF
    has progressed to where a new, more efficient coal gasifier is ready
    for commercial demonstration at the 300 MW scale. In addition, work at
    the PSDF was instrumental in advancing the design of the Foster Wheeler
    (FW) Advanced Circulating Pressurized Combustion concept. As a result,
    FW changed its approach to advanced power generation and a $400 million
    commercial demonstration plant was reconfigured to avoid significant
    problems.
        While the first phase of PSDF developed coal technologies are ready
    for commercialization, substantial further improvements are possible at
    this National test center. NETL and industry participants at the PSDF
    have developed a 5-year R&D plan for the facility. The plan's
    objectives are to support: (1) DOE's Vision 21 Program, and (2)
    commercialization of the advanced gasifier and other technologies
    currently under development at the PSDF.
        Current major subsystems at the PSDF include:
      --An air-blown, circulating bed coal gasifier called a transport
            reactor
      --Two advanced particulate removal devices to clean the product gases
      --Coal and reagent feed subsystems
      --Ash and gas disposal subsystems
      --A slipstream Direct Sulfur Recovery Process
      --Balance-of-plant subsystems for electricity, water, propane, and
            natural gas supply; waste water treatment; total electronic
            data collection, management, and dissemination; heat rejection
            and cooling; and maintenance and materials management
            facilities
      --In addition to this physical infrastructure there is a highly
            experienced staff that has a demonstrated ability to solve
            complex technical problems and rapidly move new technologies to
            commercial application.
        The 5-year plan will build on this platform and recommends the
    following modifications and subsystem additions:
      --Modify the current air-blown gasifier to also operate oxygen-blown
            (Oxygen-blown operation is necessary to support Vision 21
            objectives, including carbon capture and sequestration.)
      --Add and test advanced oxygen separation technology integrated with
            the gasifier (This technology is projected to reduce the cost
            of oxygen by one-third to one-half.)
      --Add new, improved coal feed, char cooling, and char combustion
            subsystems
      --Test an entirely new, revolutionary syngas cooling concept
      --Connect the gasifier to an existing 3.8 MW combustion turbine and a
            new syngas burner to evaluate the new burner and more fully
            evaluate system integration
      --Install new improved internals in one of the advanced particulate
            collection devices
      --Add new syngas cleanup subsystems for hydrogen sulfide and
            hydrochloric acid removal (to parts per billion levels) and
            mercury removal (to parts per trillion levels)
      --Evaluate the effect of these high levels of cleanup on a fuel cell
            stack to determine contaminant removal requirements for coal-
            based fuel cells.
      --Add advanced carbon dioxide and hydrogen separation technology
      --Install and evaluate several advanced instrumentation and gas
            analysis systems necessary for reliable, safe operation of coal
            gasification and fuel cell technology
        Work on the PSDF began in 1991. The initial 5 years were spent on
    permitting, design, and completing most of the construction. The last 5
    years have been spent advancing development of the technologies
    installed there. Annual federal funding at the PSDF during the last 5
    years averaged $24.6 million with a peak year of $40 million associated
    with construction completion. The first year of the 5-year plan is
    fiscal year 2002 and this committee provided $24 million. Because of
    new construction associated with the last 4 years of the R&D plan, $34
    million is needed for the PSDF in DOE's fiscal year 2003 budget and
    similar amounts are needed thorough fiscal year 2006.
                                    summary
        The United States has always been a leader in energy research.
    Current DOE fossil energy research and development programs for coal,
    if adequately funded, will assure that a wide range of electric
    generation technology options continue to be available for future
    needs. The choices that confront Congress when it examines the near-
    term effects of research programs on the Federal budget are difficult.
    However, significantly increased support for advanced coal-based energy
    research is essential to the long-term environmental and economic well
    being of the United States. Prior DOE clean coal research has already
    provided the basis for $100 billion in consumer benefits at a cost of
    less than $4 billion. Funding the CURC Technology Roadmap beginning
    with this year's request of $62 million above the Administration's
    budget request for DOE coal R&D can lead to additional consumer
    benefits of between $360 billion and $1.38 trillion.
        One of the key national assets for achieving these benefits is the
    Wilsonville PSDF. In order to match the research objectives that DOE's
    technical staff and the PSDF's industrial participants agree can and
    should be done there, the fiscal year 2003 funding for the PSDF in
    DOE's Coal and Power Systems budget needs to increase to $34 million.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the ASME Council on Engineering and American
                        Society of Mechanical Engineers
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The Energy Committee
    of the Council on Engineering (COE Energy Committee), American Society
    of Mechanical Engineers (ASME International)), is pleased to provide
    this testimony on the President's fiscal year 2003 budget for the
    Department of Energy (DOE). Our testimony is directed to the
    administration's budget for the Department of Energy's R&D programs in
    the areas of fossil energy and energy efficiency.
               introduction to asme and the coe energy committee
        The 125,000-member ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide educational and
    technical Society. It conducts one of the world's largest technical
    publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical conferences and 200
    professional development courses each year, and sets a significant
    number of industrial and manufacturing standards. The COE Energy
    Committee comprises 27 members from 17 Divisions of ASME, representing
    approximately 40,000 members. The Committee tracks energy legislation
    and appropriations, and provides testimony to Congress on issues of
    importance to ASME members. Last year, the COE Energy Committee
    developed a document titled ``U.S. Energy Research and Development
    Needs in the New Millennium: Securing a Sustainable Energy Future,''
    which we provided to the members of Congress, including members of this
    Subcommittee.
                                   background
        Energy has consistently emerged as one of the highest areas of
    interest to the ASME in annual surveys of our membership. In addition
    to our interests in improving technologies for energy extraction,
    generation, and use, we are also concerned about protecting our
    environment and our energy and economic security. We are pleased that
    the Department of Energy also shares these concerns.
        For power generation, the United States currently meets more than
    half its electricity needs from coal. Because its supply is plentiful,
    coal will likely dominate the power generation market for the
    foreseeable future. Natural gas, while currently an attractive fuel for
    power production, has the potential to become more scarce and more
    expensive as its expanding use causes demand to outstrip supply in the
    mid-to-long term. Petroleum-based fuels will continue to dominate the
    transportation sector into the future because of our sunken investments
    in engine technology and fuel distribution infrastructure, and the
    interdependence of motor vehicles and the American lifestyle.
        ASME has long advocated a diverse mix of resources to meet the
    nation's energy needs, including fossil fuels; nuclear; and hydropower,
    solar, and other renewable energy resources. We need a diverse, low
    cost, secure, energy supply to maintain a competitive U.S. economy. It
    is crucial that we also use our energy resources wisely and
    effectively, including improving efficiency of systems and components
    and increasing energy conservation.
        The COE Energy Committee fully supports administration and
    Congressional efforts to develop a comprehensive energy policy that
    will meet our current and future energy needs. We also believe that
    success in implementing a forward-looking energy policy will require
    enhanced, sustained levels of funding for R&D as well as government
    policies that encourage deployment and commercialization.
        Our testimony is based on an analysis of the administration's
    budget request for fiscal year 2003 for the Department of Energy's R&D
    programs in fossil energy and energy efficiency. After reviewing the
    administration's budget proposal, we have the following reactions:
      --To successfully address energy issues, the Department must take a
            leadership role in committing to adequately fund sustained
            programs that address both our short-term needs and the
            development of next generation technologies.
      --The administration's recommendations for the fiscal year 2003
            budget do not adequately fund the programs that will support
            its goals of providing a clean, affordable, abundant, and
            secure energy supply.
                                 fossil energy
        The Department's R&D program in Fossil Energy [FE] focuses on coal,
    natural gas, and oil. The fiscal year 2003 budget request for FE is $93
    million (16 percent) lower than the fiscal year 2002 enacted budget.
    The administration recommended major reductions in the Vision 21
    Program to develop low-emission, high-efficiency power plants for 2010
    and in national laboratory-industry partnerships in oil and natural gas
    research. The administration's National Energy Policy (NEP) focuses
    primarily on addressing regulatory and policy issues, e.g., providing
    access to public lands, and offshore development of fossil resources.
    However, it also targets R&D in the form of the President's Coal
    Research Initiative (PCRI), which consolidates much of the coal-related
    R&D across FE. Last year, the administration proposed a coal research
    program at a level of $2 billion over 10 years (nominally $200 million
    per year). The administration's view appears to be that these funds
    would cover both the basic R&D program and a vigorous demonstration
    program sufficient to fund highly complex, capital-intensive projects
    (the Clean Coal Power Initiative). The COE Energy Committee believes
    that accomplishing the PCRI objectives would require funding of at
    least $2 billion to support a 10-year demonstration program, in
    addition to continuing the annual support for the basic R&D program.
    Another area of R&D identified in the NEP but under-funded in the
    budget proposal is natural gas and oil exploration technologies.
    Coal, Fuels, and Power Programs
        Coal will play an important role in providing our nation's electric
    power for both the near and long term. Therefore, the Energy Committee
    recommends that DOE support a robust dual-focus coal R&D program: (1)
    to enable our current power plant fleet to meet present emissions and
    performance goals, and, (2) to develop the new coal-based systems of
    the future. Research to reduce emissions of SOX,
    NOX and mercury, as targeted in the Clear Skies Initiative
    announced by the administration, and research to reduce carbon
    emissions, are central elements of the coal and power program.
        We support the Clean Coal Power Initiative in the PCRI and urge
    Congress and the administration to commit the long-term funding
    necessary for vendors to plan effectively for demonstrating large-scale
    systems for commercial deployment. The COE Energy Committee supports
    the funding level proposed for this initiative and urges consideration
    of sustained funding in future budgets to support a robust
    demonstration program.
        The COE Energy Committee recognizes that R&D tradeoffs have to be
    made. However, we also note that essential research programs have been
    substantially scaled back in the present budget request. We recommend
    increased emphasis on coal gasification systems research to produce
    gaseous fuels such as hydrogen for fuel cells and technologies for
    firing syngas in turbines now designed for natural gas. Important
    research areas include membranes, hot gas cleanup, advanced
    gasification technologies, and char control. The COE Energy Committee
    recommends that an additional $16 million be added to the budget for
    the Central Systems program, which includes projects to improve
    existing plants and to further develop the Vision 21 enabling
    technologies. This funding will return the programs to their
    approximate fiscal year 2002 levels.
        We are disappointed to note that the administration has recommended
    only $5 million for its overall liquid fuels program. We particularly
    recommend increased emphasis on the production of liquid fuels and
    chemicals from coal as a means to reduce petroleum imports, their
    attendant balance of payment deficits, and our dependence on uncertain
    supplies to maintain our national security and strong economy. We
    recommend that an additional $32 million be added to the fuels program
    in the FE budget to meet existing mortgages and to initiate a vigorous
    coal liquids and chemicals program.
        Fuel cells, coupled with advanced turbines, and similar combined
    cycle systems offer the benefits of increased efficiency and lower
    carbon emissions. In addition to improved cycle efficiency, research is
    needed to develop carbon capture and sequestration technologies.
    Emphasis should be placed on using coal in these advanced systems. We
    support the proposed increase in the carbon sequestration program
    provided that DOE can justify this increase based on viable projects
    that advance the technology. We recommend that an additional $10
    million be added to the distributed generation program to support fuel
    cell development and advanced research in fuel cell/hybrid systems.
    Oil and Gas Programs
        We support the administration's goals of increasing our domestic
    supplies of oil and natural gas. The most significant new oil and
    natural gas deposits are likely to be found either far offshore in
    deepwater or in land-based remote locations which require new
    technologies to produce oil and gas reserves economically and in an
    environmentally sound manner. The cost and economic risk required for
    operators, equipment suppliers, and service companies to design and
    implement systems to develop deepwater fields is more than what any one
    company can reasonably provide for each field.
        In the Gulf of Mexico, companies are now drilling at water depths
    greater than 9,000 feet and producing oil and gas from greater than
    5,500 feet. As they move farther offshore, new technologies must be
    developed in areas such as lightweight composite materials, deepwater
    drilling, long distance production, and subsea processing systems. The
    National Energy Policy calls for R&D for exploration and production and
    for the development of gas hydrates. We recommend increased investments
    in analysis and modeling techniques, which are currently inadequate for
    what will be required to develop safe and effective future oil and gas
    fields in ultradeep water and remote areas. The COE Energy Committee
    supports reinstating fiscal year 2002 funding levels for exploration
    and production and gas hydrates, a net increase of $23 million over the
    administration's request.
        Federal funding to protect the environment without placing undue
    burden on the operators would be of great benefit to the recovery of
    oil and gas reserves in the United States. Such environmental efforts
    as abandoned field cleanup, hydraulic fracturing effects on drinking
    water resources, deepwater oil spill cleanup, storage vessel
    offloading, and collision prevention are some of the potential areas
    requiring further study. We recommend that an additional $2 million be
    added to the administration's request for the Effective Environmental
    Protection subelement of the Oil and Natural Gas Technologies program.
                               energy efficiency
        Funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    (EERE) supports R&D to develop technologies to improve the efficiency
    with which we use energy and also bioenergy research. The Department's
    weatherization program, which improves the energy efficiency of the
    homes of low-income families, thereby reducing their energy bills, is
    increased by $47 million (20 percent) in the administration's request.
    Weatherization is an important program, but it is not R&D. When the
    proposed increase is considered, R&D funds for energy efficiency, a
    priority in the NEP, would be reduced by $18.6 million. We recommend
    that the Weatherization Program be transferred to another
    Appropriations Subcommittee in future years.
    Integrated Biomass
        The COE Energy Committee supports the combining of the biopower and
    biofuels programs into a single integrated program. The proposed
    funding level, which is reduced slightly over fiscal year 2002, is
    acceptable. However, the distribution of funding has sacrificed
    biopower systems development at the expense of enhancing ethanol
    production. The COE Energy Committee recommends moving $5M from
    enhanced ethanol production back into biopower systems development.
    Transportation Technologies
        A new program in the EERE budget is the FreedomCAR, which is R&D to
    develop a fuel cell vehicle. FreedomCar is funded through crosscutting
    areas and by funds previously allocated for the Partnership for a New
    Generation of Vehicles. A 2-year study, conducted under the auspices of
    ASME, showed that hydrogen fuel cells are very efficient--once hydrogen
    is available. However, the inherent inefficiency in hydrogen production
    from fossil fuels results in a well-to-wheel efficiency of only 10
    percent compared with 30 percent for current hybrid (engine/battery)
    vehicles. This reduced efficiency carries with it an equivalent
    increase in the production of greenhouse gases unless hydrogen is
    produced at large-scale central plants that employ carbon sequestration
    technologies, at nuclear power plants, or at smaller installations that
    employ renewable technologies. While the COE Energy Committee supports
    the long-term development of a wide range of transportation
    technologies, we believe that the FreedomCar should not be funded for
    the economic and environmental reasons delineated above and that the
    $150M funding be re-allocated to other R&D programs.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding the
    fossil energy and energy efficiency budgets proposed for the Department
    of Energy. The COE Energy Committee believes that energy is one of the
    most important issues that will face our nation in the 21st Century. As
    the debate among the administration, Congress, and the public over a
    National Energy Policy evolves, we offer our assistance to foster a
    dialogue on the content, structure, and implementation of a plan.
    ASME's COE Energy Committee will be pleased to respond to requests for
    additional information or perspectives on other aspects of our nation's
    energy programs.
        This statement represents the views of the Energy Committee the
    ASME Council on Engineering, and is not necessarily a position of ASME
    as a whole.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of Praxair, Inc.
        This testimony is in support of the DOE programs on Integrated
    Gasification Combined Cycle (about $40 million), Transportation Fuels
    and Chemicals (Clean Fuels Program) ($24 million) both in the Office of
    Fossil Energy and the Office of Industrial Technology in EERE ($138
    million).
        Praxair, Inc. is a producer of industrial gases, specialty coatings
    and powders, and is also a very large energy user in a very competitive
    global market. Most of our major competitors are foreign-based. So, to
    succeed in the industrial gas business it is crucial that we have low
    cost, available energy to produce our products. In turn, our customers,
    notably the steel, chemical, electronics, food industries, among
    others, all depend on low cost gases (oxygen, nitrogen, argon, carbon
    dioxide, and specialty gases). While we continually strive to lower the
    capital and operating cost for producing our products, electricity and/
    or fuel is a key cost (often 50 percent or more of our operating costs)
    that is resistant to our cost-reduction efforts.
        In steel, oxygen is used in the Basic Oxygen Furnace to convert
    iron to steel and argon and oxygen are used to make stainless steel.
    Chemical manufacturers use oxygen to make ethylene oxide (used in
    polyesters and in antifreeze). In electronics, semiconductor
    manufacturers require nitrogen and specialty gases to manufacture and
    cleanse their integrated circuits (chips).
        As past experience has demonstrated, industrial gas companies, by
    partnering with the Department of Energy, can achieve significant
    advances--more quickly--in the manufacture of industrial gases by
    developing new air separation technologies--technologies that may not
    have been implemented but for the public/private partnership. An
    example is the development of VPSA oxygen production for use in oxy-
    fuel combustion in the glass industry, which was funded by OIT. And use
    of these gases, particularly oxygen, in improving the production of
    energy, for example in gasification, will benefit both industrial gas
    manufacture as well as other industries.
                     integrated gasification combined cycle
        Gasification enables the use of solid fuels in applications where
    liquid or gaseous fuels are now used. It will also enable a cleaner use
    of fuels. By reducing the cost of oxygen needed for this process and
    improving the efficiency of the process (to 45 percent by 2010 and
    higher thereafter) the cost effectiveness will be improved and it will
    be applied more broadly. Praxair and the entire economy will benefit by
    the reduced cost of electricity enabled by this technology.
                           ultra clean fuels program
        The advantages of the Ultra Clean Fuels program are many:
      --It will help meet the deadlines set in EPA's Tier 2 Diesel Fuel
            Sulfur Regulations.
      --It will promote development of domestic sources of coal bed methane
            and natural gas to make a clean burning diesel.
      --Clean liquid fuels developed under this program can use the
            country's existing transportation and storage infrastructure to
            deliver the fuel to the customer.
      --There is a significant demand for ``clean diesel'' from urban
            transit authorities and delivery vehicles that employ buses and
            trucks in heavily populated areas.
                        office of industrial technology
        The DOE Industries of the Future program is another important
    program. By developing and commercializing processes with increased
    energy efficiency for the chemicals, glass, steel and other industries,
    energy consumption will be reduced and U.S. industry will be more
    competitive. Studies of the energy savings from these programs show
    their value as indicated in the National Research Council study. The
    use of oxy-fuel combustion in glass is one example of a successful IOF
    program, which reduces energy consumption by 25 percent, NOx emissions
    by 85 percent and particulate emissions by 25 percent. Over 30 percent
    of the glass industry is now using this new technology.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation
                           summary of recommendations
        The Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation believes that energy
    technology R&D is essential to our nation's future and respectfully
    offers the following funding level recommendations in the fiscal year
    2003 DOE Fossil Energy R&D budget for Interior Appropriations:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    High Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET).......................    40
    Vision 21 Hybrids-Distributed Generation..........................    15
    Innovative Systems Concepts-Distributed Generation................    50
    Sequestration R&D.................................................    54

        The United States has placed a high priority on developing cleaner
    more efficient electric power generation technologies.
        Almost all of the new electricity generation currently under
    construction is natural gas-based, as a result of environmental, siting
    and efficiency demands, and, because prior federal and industry
    investment has demonstrated that the technology is able to meet these
    demands.
        The Administration's 2003 budget proposal correctly recognizes the
    need for continued investments in fossil fuels R&D in order to meet the
    increasingly demanding environmental , siting and efficiency demands
    for new generation technologies.
        New proposals now being debated in the Congress will significantly
    tighten environmental standards and today's technologies will not be
    able to meet these standards without additional R&D investments.
        Clean Coal Technology program is an important component in a
    National Energy Strategy that recognizes the need to use more coal, our
    most abundant, dependable and least expensive energy source. As we move
    to improve emergent coal technologies like integrated gas combined
    cycle (IGCC), both advanced gas turbines and fuel cells will play
    increasingly important roles in the United States generation supply
    mix.
        The full potential of these cleaner burning and more efficient
    coal-based generation technologies cannot be achieved without continued
    investments in advanced gas turbine and fuel cell technologies which
    will use synthetic fuel gas derived from coal.
        The Administration has correctly recognized the need for continued
    R&D funding support for the cost-shared, industry-DOE gas turbine
    program which has been refocused and renamed the High Efficiency
    Engines and Turbines (HEET) program. The Administration has also
    continued its R&D investment in the fuel cell program. However, both
    program commitments fall short of the funding needed for these two key
    technologies if we are to achieve the programs' commercialization
    objective.
        Therefore, under the Fuel and Power Systems/Turbines budget line,
    we recommend a 2003 funding level for DOE's refocused HEET program of
    $40 million. While this level is significantly above the
    Administration's recommendation of $14 million, it is nevertheless
    consistent with DOE-Stakeholder estimates that the program should be
    funded at the $240 million level over 6 years if we are to achieve the
    cost reductions necessary for widespread market penetration of high-
    efficiency coal plants.
        Under Distributed Generation we recommend a funding level of $15
    million for the Vision 21 Hybrids budget line (of which $11.5 million
    is for continued development of the existing tubular SOFC program), up
    $3.5 million from the Administration's request of $11.5 million. Past
    funding shortfalls have resulted in the fuel cell R&D program falling
    behind its commitments and the $15 million funding level will permit
    the DOE to meet its full range of contract obligations and not cause
    further delays.
        As we begin to commercialize our basic solid oxide fuel cell
    technology, a multi-year program is needed to extend the benefits of
    FC/GT hybrids in order to reach the 60-70 percent efficiency horizon.
    This program should be part of the HEET program and we therefore
    recommend that $10 million be allocated for the development of the
    tubular SOFC Fuel Cell Gas Turbine Hybrid in the 2003 appropriation.
        Under the Distributed Generation-Innovative Systems Concepts budget
    line, we also recommend that funding be increased to $50 million for
    fiscal year 2003. The Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance or SECA,
    which this budget line supports, holds great promise for delivering an
    advanced low cost solid oxide technology that will make possible
    smaller and more efficient fuel cells for the stationary and
    transportation markets.
                                  gas turbines
        During the past year the United States has experienced major energy
    supply problems, first in California, then a crisis in public
    confidence in the stability and viability of the energy industry, and
    finally economic hardship as a result of the economic recession. In
    response to these factors the House passed a comprehensive energy bill
    last year and the Senate is currently debating its own energy bill.
    While there will be healthy debate about the appropriate balance in any
    national energy legislation, several factors are clear already.
    According to Energy Secretary Abraham, demand for natural gas is
    expected to rise by 62 percent over the next 20 years. The United
    States will require substantial new energy generation over the coming
    decades--Energy Secretary Abraham also said recently that electricity
    demand is expected to grow 45 percent--and this new generation will
    have to be substantially cleaner and more efficient than is the current
    fleet.
        The Department of Energy, in cooperation with industry, has funded
    research and development through its Advanced Turbine Program that has
    made the latest generation of gas turbines, in a combined cycle
    configuration, almost twice as efficient as the existing fleet of power
    plants and has done so with significantly lower emissions. This
    generation technology can also be deployed with investment costs that
    are also among the least expensive currently available.
        The United States is in the process of committing itself to major
    improvements in both the efficiency and the emission levels of coal
    powered power plants under the Administration's Clean Coal Power
    Initiative. Over the next 20 years this program should result in
    significant improvements in emission and efficiency levels for existing
    coal burning generation facilities while at the same time moving us to
    a new generation of technologies like Integrated Gasification Combined
    Cycles (IGCC). IGCC holds the potential of using the United States'
    vast reserves of cheap and abundant coal in ways that are substantially
    cleaner and which emit lower amounts of CO2. (We might note
    that the DOE ATS program has estimated that it will result in the
    avoidance of an estimated 30 million tons of CO2 as a result
    of improvements in the operating efficiency of the advanced gas
    turbine.) Unfortunately, we do not know if today's current generation
    of gas turbines will be able to efficiently use the much lower BTU
    synthetic gas produced in the IGCC technology. Nor do we have the
    materials available that will permit these machines to operate at the
    much higher operating temperatures that will be required. Finally, the
    current generation of gas turbines does not have the integrated
    diagnostic equipment, such as on board sensors, to permit the higher
    levels of reliability needed in integrated systems.
        While the Administration has recognized the important role of the
    gas turbine in the future of U.S. coal markets by including funding for
    the HEET program in its 2003 DOE R&D budget proposal, the level is
    significantly below the levels needed to address the critical materials
    and combustion technology questions which remain. To address these
    questions and to lay the groundwork now for even cleaner and more
    efficient gas turbines that operate on natural gas or syngas from coal,
    we recommend that the funding level be increased to $40 million. Our
    recommendation reflects the technology needs identified by DOE and is
    consistent with the view that the program is an integral component of
    the National Energy Policy and the Clean Coal Power Initiative and will
    require a $240 million commitment over 6 years. This increased level of
    funding will also permit adequate support of the Cooperative University
    Gas Turbine Technology Research Program which has been very helpful in
    encouraging pre-competitive basic science program participation by the
    university community.
        A prototype tubular solid oxide fuel cell gas microturbine hybrid
    system (FC/GT hybrid) now operating at 53 percent electrical efficiency
    in California has proven the concept of FC/GT hybrids. But the
    technology is still in its infancy and a range of small GT's suitable
    for hybrids, needs to be developed to improve performance and reduce
    system costs. What is needed now is a multi-year program to extend the
    benefits of FC/GT hybrids in order to reach the 60-70 percent
    efficiency range. In 2003 such a program would require a $10 million
    commitment under the HEET program.
        Without the research and development investments recommended above,
    the long term health of the U.S. coal industry may remain in question.
    With the successful resolution of these and similar technology
    questions, the United States should be able to more advantageously
    utilize its huge coal asset base while at the same time increasing its
    national energy security and providing consumers with a low cost source
    of energy.
                                   fuel cells
        Fuel cell technology has advanced rapidly in recent years and by
    now almost everyone has recognized the technology's enormous
    environmental, reliability and efficiency advantages. In particular,
    fuel cell stationary power applications are now a technological reality
    although their high costs currently limit their application to niche
    markets where the high costs can be justified. In Secretary Abraham's
    March 7, 2002 testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Interior and
    Related Agencies, the Secretary noted the success of our solid oxide
    fuel cell technology and remarked that, ``research attention will turn
    increasingly to the next two major challenges confronting fuel cells,
    significant cost reductions and development of fuel cell-turbine
    hybrids.''
        The Siemens Westinghouse Pittsburgh-based tubular solid oxide fuel
    cell (SOFC) technology is at a critical pre-commercialization stage
    where continued prototype demonstrations are essential to product
    development and achieving the cost reductions which Secretary Abraham
    has emphasized. The current focus on cost reduction efforts enables a
    competitive technology which is also crucial to the development of high
    volume manufacturing.
        To date, our efforts have produced a superior technology that has
    demonstrated the longest running fuel cell of any kind, the longest
    running high temperature fuel cell system, and the world's first fuel
    cell mircro-turbine hybrid which is now operating in California. When
    the cost reduction efforts noted above are implemented in 2003, we
    expect to take commercial orders and begin deliveries of our 250kW CHP
    system. This schedule is longer than we had planned, due in part to
    previous year funding shortfalls. Thus increased federal support is
    critical to achieving the program's milestones and commitments. We
    recommend that the funding level of the Vision 21 Hybrids-Distributed
    Generation budget line be increased $3.5 million for a total of $15
    million.
        While the Vision 21 solid oxide fuel cell program is now nearing
    completion, a next generation of fuel cells is just getting under way.
    The Solid Energy Conversion Alliance or SECA, is being implemented
    under the Innovative Systems Concepts-Distributed Generation Systems
    budget line. SECA will take the technology lessons learned in the
    Siemens Westinghouse tubular SOFC program and apply them to in a more
    advanced SOFC program designed to reduce the costs dramatically and
    make possible the widespread deployment of stationary fuel cells in
    stationary, military and transportation markets. This program holds
    enormous potential but at the Administration recommended level of $22.5
    million, it is unlikely to achieve its goals in a timely fashion. We
    recommend therefore that the Innovative Systems Concepts budget line be
    increased to $50 million in order to achieve the cost reductions
    necessary for the technology to achieve market penetration in the time
    frames currently proposed by the program.
                               sequestration r&d
        The Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation supports the
    Administration's request for $54 million directed towards carbon
    sequestration. This forward-looking program is expected to culminate in
    the development of a virtually emissions-free generation technology. To
    support this goal, we have defined a concept that uses solid oxide fuel
    cell technology. The technology, known as the Zero Emission 250 kWe
    SOFC combined heat and power system would enable the emissions from the
    power system to be processed in such a way that the CO2
    exhaust is separated and captured. We recommend that the
    Administration's $54 million request include an allocation of $6.5
    million for the design, development and demonstration of a Zero
    Emissions Tubular SOFC 250 kWe combined heat and power system.
                           summary of recommendations
        Continue the federal government's historically important and
    successful role in funding gas turbine research and development by
    increasing the HEET funding level to $40 million.
        Increase the funding level for the Vision 21 Hybrids tubular solid
    oxide fuel cell program from $11.5 million to $15 million.
        Allocate $50 million to Innovative Systems Concepts for the SECA
    program.
        Allocate $6.5 million of the Sequestration R&D budget line to the
    design and development of a Zero Emissions Tubular SOFC 250 kWe
    combined heat and power system.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the University of Kentucky
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member and Members of the Committee:
    My testimony is relative to the fiscal year 2003 Budget for Fossil
    Energy Research Programs of the U.S. Department of Energy, specifically
    the sections of the budget titled ``Transportation Fuels and
    Chemicals'' and ``Solid Fuels and Feedstocks.'' I offer this testimony
    on behalf of the University of Kentucky and most of our colleagues and
    associates in both the coal mining industries and coal burning electric
    utilities of Kentucky. We recommend strengthening the current program
    for high efficiency transportation fuels research and for technology
    development for the recovery of fuel and adsorbent carbons from coal
    burning utility ash ponds and landfills. Specifically we call for
    increasing funding for each program by $1,000,000.
        Energy supply is a key economic security and growth factor. Our
    national energy strategy and the current energy situation require an
    alignment of strategic intent, resources, research implementation and
    technology deployment.
        We believe that our national strategy for dealing with energy
    issues must include a broad based and fundamental approach to research
    and development, with an emphasis on coal, for the medium and long
    term. We need to both deploy technologies at the industrial scale now,
    and ensure that there is continuing research at the fundamental level
    to supply new technologies for the future. The United States' vast coal
    resources represent the best means of safeguarding the nation's vital
    energy security and economic competitiveness.
             coal for energy security and economic competitiveness
        A mix of energy resources drives the United States economy but it
    is principally dependent on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are an essential
    component of the production of power for all sectors of the economy.
    Coal is by far the major fuel for power generation, representing about
    51 percent of the current generating capacity.
        About 84 percent of coal consumed in the United States is used for
    power generation. The balance of fossil fuel power generation comes
    from natural gas and crude oil products. However, over 95 percent of
    the new power generation capacity over the next 10 years is slated for
    natural gas. By 2020 the U.S. DOE projects that we may be using 60
    percent more gas than today, about 32 TCF/yr. By then, about 30 percent
    of the power generated in the United States will be based on natural
    gas. The domestic rate of discovery of gas has only been about one-
    third that of new demand (i.e. 1 to 1.5 percent versus 4 to 4.5
    percent) over the past 3 years.
        Currently 40 percent of natural gas in the United States is
    consumed by manufacturing. By diverting natural gas into electrical
    generation, we create a condition in which our manufacturing base may
    be in competition with our electric utilities for resources. This will
    have unknown but potentially very serious consequences, especially in
    times of tight gas supply.
        In comparison, coal provides the best energy value in terms of
    flexibility, availability and cost. The United States has vast proven
    reserves of coal. The average price of coal paid by utilities is
    significantly less on a Btu basis than that of oil or natural gas. All
    electricity consumers benefit from inexpensive and reliable coal-
    generated electricity.
        There are advantages in using natural gas, but too much reliance on
    it presents great risk. Because of coal's cost and abundance, it must
    remain a key energy source for some time. Coal based power however,
    must be made to be even more flexible, efficient and cleaner in the
    future.
        Major advances have been made in coal technologies that will result
    in its cleaner and more efficient use in traditional heat and power
    applications. Also, through improvements in technology, coal can
    compete with, and complement other fuels for transportation, chemicals
    and materials. This will reduce long-term price and supply volatility
    in these sectors and ensure our economic and military security.
             coal for clean electric power and transportation fuels
        Environmental concerns involving our use of coal are increasing
    even as the total and relative amount of pollution from coal is
    decreasing. These issues are wide ranging. They span from reclamation
    and post-mining land use to a diminished marsh or wetland base; from
    coal waste slurry ponds to landfills of spent ash and flue gas
    desulfurization materials; and from regional acid rain to trans-
    boundary greenhouse gases. Some of these concerns are ill founded and
    some are not; however, technology can help to reduce and mitigate all
    of them.
        Requirements under the federal Clean Air Act to limit emissions
    have already caused significant investments in pollution control
    equipment. Overall, the industry has responded well to the new quality
    requirements. Advances in technology have helped to facilitate some of
    these changes. Future emission limits require greater attention to
    controlling air toxics and greenhouse gases.
        Advancements have been made in the use of clean coal technologies.
    On the front-end, advanced coal preparation processes involve removing
    much more mineral matter and sulfur from coal prior to combustion.
    Research on the other aspects of clean coal is addressing ways to
    further reduce SO2 and NOX and to reduce the
    costs of retrofitting these new processes.
        Advanced generation systems with superior thermal efficiencies and
    environmental performance have been developed and are in the process of
    being improved. Noteworthy is the Integrated Gasification Combined-
    Cycle (IGCC) technology, which combines coal gasification and power
    generation while providing more effective gas clean up. Low grade,
    variable feeds (including biomass), can be used, resulting in major
    improvements in emissions and efficiency. An example is the Kentucky
    Pioneer Energy project of 540 MW using IGCC fired by a combination of
    coal and refuse. As an IGCC facility produces synthesis gas from coal,
    it can be coupled synergistically with other synthesis gas conversion
    technologies to produce value added clean diesel and chemicals. The
    University of Kentucky's CAER supports these and related projects.
    These are the first few steps in what could become a major national
    effort to utilize coal resource at new levels of efficiency and
    recovery.
        A growing concern is the increasing amounts of solid by-products
    from coal combustion. Almost 100 million tons of solid by-products are
    produced in the United States per year, with the expectation that
    amounts will continue to increase at a high rate, largely as a result
    of additional pollution controls. Disposal costs are high for new
    plants, and landfill space is limited, particularly in urban areas. The
    permitted facilities require more sophisticated and expensive liners
    and leachate control systems. Research focuses on the investigation of
    environmentally safe disposal methods, as well as the utilization of
    by-products for road building materials, cement, gypsum board, blasting
    grit and a variety of other applications.
         federal role and budgetary aspects in clean coal research and
                                  development
        Much has been done to advance new clean coal technologies. Such
    initiatives are making coal an increasingly environmentally acceptable
    fuel for power generation, and a cost-competitive raw material for
    producing coal-derived transportation fuels, materials and chemicals.
    The Department of Energy has played a primary role in stimulating
    development through its support of basic and applied research and
    demonstration. Also our Center has benefited over the years from cost
    sharing agreements between DOE, universities and industries. The
    government needs to continue and expand its support and to maintain a
    portfolio that balances broad based funding for R&D with technology
    implementation in these areas. The shortage of qualified research staff
    in coal science and coal conversion technology will only increase in
    the future. Efforts to build up the human and physical capital devoted
    to energy R&D must to be part of funding targets.
        The government has a special role to support the demonstration of
    emerging technologies at a scale meaningful for subsequent engineering
    scale-up. Increased operational experience together with economic
    incentives for early adopters will eventually lessen the disparity in
    risk between conventional and pioneering projects.
        Advances in basic knowledge in the energy sciences and the
    application of this knowledge toward the development of useful
    technology, are vital but long-term processes. In this regard, we
    request that the Department of Energy's research budget be strengthened
    and expanded in areas such as coal preparation and beneficiation;
    combustion and gasifier by-product management; gas clean-up and
    scrubbing; and the production of high efficiency transportation fuels
    and chemicals from coal by synthesis gas conversion.
        In the initial 2002 proposed budget, and also in the proposed 2003
    budget, two areas of research were zeroed out. Last year some earmarked
    money was put back in the budget, but that did not enable R&D
    performers in that area to compete for the funds.
        Two particular areas are the production of high efficiency
    transportation fuels from synthesis gas (President's Clean Coal
    Research Initiative; Fuels; Transportation Fuels and Chemicals) and the
    area of technology for the recovery of fuel and adsorbent carbons from
    coal burning utility ash ponds and landfills (President's Clean Coal
    Research Initiative; Fuels; Solid Fuels and Feedstocks).
                      high efficiency transportation fuels
        Indigenous liquid fuel supplies play a critical role in America's
    energy and military security. The growth in the number and capacity of
    IGCC plants, which produce and consume synthesis gas for power
    production, will provide an opportunity for converting some of that
    syngas into ultra-clean liquid fuels using the processes mentioned
    below.
        The production of ultra-clean gasoline and diesel fuels still needs
    further optimization; however there already are some overseas
    facilities in operation. Test quantities of fuels with novel chemical
    compositions are required. This involves building on the existing
    expertise to manipulate complex reactions to produce fuels that have
    superior engine performance and lower emissions in terms of
    hydrocarbons, particulates and NOX. Increasing the oxygen
    content in the synfuels products for more efficient combustion and
    reduced NOX emissions needs to be studied. The role of the
    production and composition of the feed gas, and the impact of water on
    the longevity of the catalysts, are components of further research.
        The University of Kentucky CAER has the only open access facility
    of its kind in the world. Other research in this field is mostly
    protected by industrial secrecy constraints and, although there are now
    a few overseas commercial facilities producing synfuels, little is
    publicly known about the process optimization and the composition of
    products for optimal efficiencies as fuels.
        The use of synfuels and synfuel-blends will result in improved and
    cleaner performance from the conventional vehicles of today and in the
    fuel cell vehicles of tomorrow. By providing the funding, the expertise
    to serve a number of process companies and catalyst manufacturers will
    be retained and expanded.
     recovery of fuel and adsorbent carbons from coal burning utility ash
                              ponds and landfills
        Research in this area leads to combined environmental and economic
    benefits. Success will pave the way for projects in many parts of the
    country since there are about 1.5 billion tons of ash in the United
    States that is in slurry ponds or landfills. This approach will improve
    land use by freeing space and could eliminate environmental dumping
    problems at power station sites.
        An example of such a project is the Coleman Station on the Ohio
    River, which generates approximately 100,000 tons/year of combustion
    ash that is stored in lined pond areas adjacent to the power plant.
    Preliminary studies estimated that the site contains approximately 3.4
    million tons of ash, and the storage area is very close to full
    capacity. New landfill space will be needed soon, unless uses are found
    for the material already stored. Technology now being piloted by the
    CAER at this facility recovers the following marketable products from
    the ponds: coarse ash as a lightweight aggregate; medium sized ash for
    block sand; a carbon fuel. The remaining fine ash is returned to the
    pond for storage. Additional technology can be added to the process to
    recover more marketable products from the fine ash.
        Further work in this field will lead to the recovery of fine
    materials with the purpose of scaling the technology up to full
    commercial size and to disseminate the technology for application at
    other sites.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
        EPRI is submitting this written testimony to encourage support and
    funding of the Department of Energy's (DOE) new High Efficiency Engine
    Technology (HEET) Program. EPRI believes that the benefits of improved
    Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Durability (RAM-D) for
    advanced combustion turbines are key opportunities to be achieved
    through successful application of these technologies. EPRI and its
    electric power industry members share DOE's vision of achieving cost
    effective, zero-emissions, electric power generation technology.
    Advanced combustion turbines provide the base technology for the
    development of future zero-emissions power generation. EPRI is
    currently working on two CRADAs with DOE in the Combustion Turbine RAM-
    D improvements under the Next Generation Turbine (NGT) program. The
    first is a $1.6 million project investigating advanced materials and
    repair technologies for advanced gas turbine technologies. The second
    is a $1.6 million program to develop Combustion Turbine Monitoring
    tools for improved operations and maintenance.
        EPRI, headquartered in Palo Alto and also known as the Electric
    Power Research Institute, California, was established in 1973 as the
    non-profit national center for public interest electricity and
    environmental research. EPRI's collaborative science and technology
    development program now spans nearly every aspect of power generation,
    delivery and use. More than 1,000 energy organizations and public
    institutions participate in and draw on EPRI's global network of
    technical and business expertise.
        EPRI has worked with DOE over the past few years to develop the
    Electricity Technology Roadmap which details the technological advances
    required to achieve near zero-emissions, high efficiency, electric
    power generation. The Electricity Technology Roadmap identifies highly
    efficient, hydrogen fueled, near zero-emissions engine technologies as
    one of its important strategic technology destinations. These future
    engine technologies will provide high efficiency power systems by
    linking the technological, environmental and cost benefits of fuel
    cells, gas turbines, and coal-gasification technologies for electric
    power production.
        If our nation is to succeed in developing these high efficiency
    engine technologies, it must urgently commit the R&D funding required.
    This is exceedingly difficult for the private sector alone in current
    market conditions where longer-term R&D projects are difficult to
    support irrespective of their ultimate benefits. The federal government
    must take the lead in defining the required capabilities, and providing
    initial funding and incentives needed to meet the associated strategic
    R&D goals. EPRI will work with its member companies to gain support for
    industry co-funding, development, and demonstration of these new
    technologies as a true public/private partnership.
        As mentioned earlier, EPRI and DOE are already working together
    successfully in advanced combustion turbine RAM-D technologies through
    the NGT Program. EPRI was successful in developing a joint program with
    its members and the DOE in the areas of Advanced Combustion Turbine
    Monitoring and Materials development. EPRI is anxious to provide the
    same type of funding and R&D cooperation required to develop high
    efficiency engine technologies (HEET) for large central station
    electric power production.
        The primary long-term benefit of the DOE HEET Program is
    accelerated development and deployment of highly efficient, zero-
    emissions engine technologies. However, in the absence of federal
    government initiative and funding, the delays in their development will
    prove very costly to the American economy and its environment.
    Additional benefits of the HEET Program to the United States are (1)
    enhanced fuel flexibility, (2) reduced water consumption, (3) improved
    reliability, and (4) reduced environmental impacts.
        There are also several outputs of the HEET Program that will prove
    highly useful in the short-term. The development of coal gasification
    systems to fuel combustion turbines will benefit from HEET Program
    funded projects such as advanced turbine blade materials, advanced coal
    gasification technologies, and performance monitoring strategies.
    Electric power producers are also keenly interested and will benefit
    from improvements in the Reliability, Availability and Maintainability
    of their engines.
        EPRI looks forward to working with the DOE to develop a successful
    HEET Program. Please contact me should you have any questions or
    comments that would facilitate the success of this urgent collaborative
    technology development program.
                                     ______

          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.
                  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 was
    recently updated to better reflect current and projected state of the
    art coal based technologies.
        The roadmap describes a number of advanced coal-based energy
    systems that, if fully developed, would ensure cost-effective,
    efficient and environmentally acceptable uses of coal. Also, the
    timeframes for development as well as performance requirements of these
    advanced coal-based power systems are identified. Importantly, if
    critical components of a particular system are not developed in a
    timely manner, a promising technology may not materialize in the
    recommended timeframe.
        CURC believes that funding for the Department of Energy's fiscal
    year 2003 coal-related technology development programs should be guided
    by, and judged by, the goals and objectives set forth in the CURC
    technology roadmap. To that end, we have examined the proposed fiscal
    year 2003 funding levels for several coal-based R&D programs. In order
    to achieve timely technology development, the government's long-term
    commitment must be assured and funding of programs must be substantial.
    In consideration of the technologies and goals identified in the CURC
    roadmap and the Department of Energy's Vision 21 program, the CURC is
    recommending that the Committee modify the fiscal year 2003 budget
    request as follows:
                               advanced research
        Proposed fiscal year 2003 $9.0 million; CURC Recommendation: $10.1
    million. CURC understands that $2.0 million of the fiscal year 2003
    request for advanced research is designated in the President's budget
    to support the advanced, supercritical materials consortium. Successful
    results to be achieved through this important R&D consortium will
    result in the development of critical materials needed to insure that
    advanced combustion and gasification systems can be developed. The CURC
    recommends an additional $1.1 million for this cost-shared materials
    research program to insure that the work of the consortium is conducted
    in a timely fashion.
                 integrated gasification combined cycle (igcc)
        Proposed fiscal year 2003 $40.65 million; CURC Recommendation:
    $65.0 million. Gasification of coal is projected to be the primary
    means by which significantly greater efficiency in energy conversion
    and emissions controls can be achieved over the 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. Even at the increased funding levels
    recommended by CURC for fiscal year 2003, appropriations for this
    program are far too low to achieve the goals set forth in the CURC
    roadmap. We believe that the fiscal year 2003 request is insufficient
    also for the DOE to reach its own stated goals set out in the Vision 21
    program. Future funding levels should be closer to the $125.0 million
    needed annually between now and 2010. Additional funds are needed for
    gas separation research, membranes research, gasifier development,
    gasifier char control, and improved gas cleanup.
                        pressurized fluidized bed (pfb)
        Proposed fiscal year 2003 $9.1 million; CURC Recommendation: $22.0
    million. The CURC supports the development of advanced combustion
    systems to insure that a variety of options by which coal can be
    converted to useful energy are developed. It is recommended that the
    PFB program be reoriented to encompass a variety of combustion systems,
    and to this end, the program should be designated as ``Advanced
    Combustion Systems'' in order to evidence the broader set of
    technologies. It is recommended that advanced pulverized coal systems
    (supercritical and ultra-supercritical steam power systems) along with
    atmospheric fluidized bed combustion be the focus of such a re-oriented
    program. The CURC-recommended funding level would be sufficient to
    initiate a program focused upon advanced combustion-based systems.
                                    turbines
        Proposed fiscal year 2003 $14.0; CURC Recommendation: $24.0
    million. The CURC supports the High Efficiency Engines and Turbines
    (HEET) program to the extent that program is focused upon the use of
    coal as the energy feedstock. Most of the DOE's request of $14.0
    million for fiscal year 2003 will be used to fund existing projects,
    only a portion of which would appear to benefit directly the
    utilization of coal-derived ``syngas'' in advanced turbines. The CURC
    recommends an additional $10 million over the fiscal year 2003 request
    to be used specifically to address technical issues associated with
    using coal-derived gas in advanced combustion turbines.
                       transportation fuels and chemicals
        Proposed fiscal year 2003 $5.0 million; CURC Recommendation $16.0
    million. The CURC Technology Roadmap supports funding of R&D programs
    conducted in cooperation with industry and the academic community to
    convert coal to chemicals or ultra clean transportation fuels. The
    fiscal year 2003 request has no funds to undertake RD&D programs to
    support an advanced fuels research or transportation fuels and
    chemicals program. The CURC urges the Congress to restore funding for
    the coal to chemicals program as well as the coal component of the
    ultra clean fuels program. The nation's continued dependence upon
    sources of foreign crude oil supplies remains a principal reason for
    development of technology that is able to cost-effectively convert coal
    into useful chemicals and alternative transportation fuels.
                               sequestration r&d
        Proposed fiscal year 2003 $54.0 million; CURC Recommendation:
    retain funding amounts requested. The sequestration program is
    conducting a number of projects to sequester carbon dioxide. The
    program should focus resources on technology development associated
    with the capture of CO2.
                        innovations for existing plants
        Proposed fiscal year 2003 $21.2 million; CURC Recommendation: $23.5
    million. The existing fleet of coal-based generating facilities must
    comply with a variety of stringent environmental requirements. The need
    for cost-effective compliance options is critical if the nation is to
    retain the economic benefits derived from low-cost electricity
    generation. Because the EPA and Congress are considering the need to
    impose emissions controls on mercury, as well as more stringent
    standards related to nitrogen dioxide (NOX) and sulfur
    dioxide (SO2) emissions, the CURC believes additional R&D
    funds are warranted to enable demonstration of cost-effective,
    efficient mercury-control technologies and strategies.
            specific comments regarding clean coal power initiative
        The CURC supports the $150 million requested by the President to
    initially fund the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) and urges the
    Congress to grant the appropriations requested. In addition, securing
    advance appropriations of the President's $2 billion/10 year program
    would provide industry with assurances that federal funds for the CCPI
    will be available. Knowing the funds are ``in the bank'' allows
    industry to plan ahead and when considering potential projects that are
    not ready for the solicitation this year, it allows participants to
    ready projects--and corporate board of directors--for subsequent
    solicitations. The previous ``clean coal technology demonstration
    program'' implemented in the 1980's received ``advance appropriations''
    of $2.5 billion. Industry has identified the need to advance
    appropriate the entire $2.0 billion as a key factor in giving
    confidence to potential project sponsors that the government's funds
    will be available for the entire term of the program.
        Clean coal projects that are intended to demonstrate commercial-
    scale viability are likely to be large and costly. DOE selection of
    proposals that do not provide industry with confidence that a component
    or an entire system will operate at commercial scale will not achieve
    the goals of the CCPI and only dilute a program designed to encourage
    such commercial demonstrations. To this end, the CURC suggests that the
    DOE focus selections to a very limited number of projects. Also, the
    program should adopt selection criteria so that each succeeding CCPI
    solicitation requires technology demonstrations that are superior to
    the projects selected in the previous solicitation. At the end of the
    10-year period, the CURC believes that the technology goals set forth
    in our technology roadmap will be achieved in the CCPI program if there
    is a continuing requirement to improve upon technologies with each
    succeeding solicitation.
        Finally, the CURC urges the Congress to direct the DOE to adopt the
    original repayment requirement that was included in the draft
    solicitation for the CCPI. The draft repayment provision provided that
    selected applicants would be required to repay the federal government's
    contribution to the project if the request for federal cost sharing
    amounted to 50 percent of the projects' costs. Where an applicant
    proposes 75 percent or greater cost share, the repayment requirement
    would be fully satisfied, i.e. no repayment required. Cost sharing
    between 50 percent and 75 percent would be a percent of the total
    government contribution, but not the entire amount of the DOE cost-
    sharing. The final solicitation dropped this preferred repayment
    provision where the repayment requirement would be fully satisfied if
    an applicant proposes 75 percent or greater cost-share.
        The CURC has raised the concern that advanced technology projects
    may not be forthcoming on the basis of the current repayment plan.
    First-of-a-kind technology demonstrations carry inherent high cost and
    risk. While the government's contribution to a project addresses the
    issue of risk, the issue of cost is not adequately addressed when full
    repayment is required. This is especially so where it can be expected
    that the next several iterations of the same, successfully
    demonstrated, technology are also more expensive than the market is
    willing to spend (where other, less costly, alternatives are
    available). Requiring full repayment does not address higher costs, and
    full repayment simply means the technology--that still costs more than
    the competing alternative--may not be replicated, and therefore not
    commercialized and widely used.
        Additionally, a non-repayment provision could provide an impetus
    for applicants to demonstrate advanced plant designs, such as those
    that would reach the CURC Technology Roadmap 2020 goals as well as
    DOE's Vision 21 goals. Full repayment is likely to focus applicants
    upon less risky technologies that will not yield the economic,
    environmental or performance advances that are promised from
    technologies that achieve the 2020 goals of the CURC Roadmap or the
    goals of Vision 21. Finally, by inviting applicants to contribute 75
    percent of a project's cost--because the remaining 25 percent from the
    government would not need to be repaid--the total funds available from
    the DOE could cover a greater number of projects and/or a number of
    larger-scale projects.
              conclusions and reasons for the curc recommendations
        Fluctuating 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. However, increasing gas prices not only change that outlook but,
    unless newer and 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. U.S. coal is the indigenous domestic primary
    energy source that will act as an anchor to pricing of other fuels. Use
    of domestic coal resources will impart stability when there are
    political pressures elsewhere in the world that threaten to disrupt the
    economy as well as energy markets. Technology is the key to assuring
    the long-term use of coal, and the DOE's coal RD&D programs are vital
    to that technology development.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Western Research Institute
        I write on behalf of the Western Research Institute. As you and
    your colleagues consider the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil
    Energy Research and Development fiscal year 2003 budget request, I ask
    that the following being included as part of the hearing record.
    Western Research Institute (WRI) greatly appreciates your
    Subcommittee's past support of the Cooperative Research Program and we
    are encouraged by your commitment to maintain an aggressive fossil
    energy research program. While we understand that several new budget
    priorities form the fiscal year 2003 request, we hope that you and your
    colleagues will continue to support the Cooperative Research Program.
    As we seek to build lasting programs to promote energy security, this
    program represents a meaningful response that has generated significant
    industry commitment. In the coming fiscal year, we are requesting a
    modest increase in the program to a level of $10 million. The following
    discussion reviews the successes of our activities under the program
    and our initiatives for the future.
        Over the past decade, WRI has responded to the needs of our Nation
    through the Base and Jointly Sponsored Research (JSR) Programs under
    the auspices of the DOE Cooperative Agreement. Under the Base Program:
      --WRI has developed the concept of Coking Indexes that increase
            petroleum-refining efficiency. The concept has led to the
            development of a device that allows refiners to optimize
            operations while avoiding the fouling associated with coke
            formation. Future work in this area may lead to simpler, real-
            time, on-line process control instrumentation.
      --WRI has developed a method to remove mercury from sub-bituminous
            and lignite coals before they are fired in a utility boiler.
            This approach is likely to provide a less expensive way of
            keeping mercury out of our Nation's air than removing it from
            the flue gas of a power plant after it has been combusted.
      --WRI has developed a method for the efficient recovery of coalbed
            methane. WRI scientists are working to develop treatments and
            proper uses of coalbed methane-produced waters.
        Sometimes Base Program research yields results with benefits beyond
    the original vision. For example, WRI began the development of a hand-
    held device for detecting halogenated volatile organic compounds as
    soil contaminants. With modification, this same technology may soon be
    able to warn our men and women in uniform of the presence of a chemical
    agent.
        Under the Jointly Sponsored Research program, WRI has worked with
    clients across the United States and internationally. The technology
    mix of our JSR projects is diverse, but national energy security and
    environmental quality are always the main criteria for project
    selection. Under the auspices of the JSR Program:
      --WRI has worked with several independent oil and gas producers in
            the Rocky Mountain region to implement enhanced oil recovery
            technologies. Working with Underwood Oil and Gas in Wyoming,
            WRI is demonstrating a way to bring remote, abandoned or shut-
            in natural gas fields back into production by recovering value-
            added products from the gas and putting methane back in the
            reservoir.
      --WRI is developing and testing a technology for upgrading abundant
            heavy crudes. The technology, if successfully deployed, will
            reduce our dependence on oil shipments from unstable parts of
            the world.
      --WRI is developing coal upgrading technologies to reduce the
            moisture level of western U.S. coals while producing a stable,
            higher heating value product. WRI is also working with
            utilities to evaluate the environmental benefits of using
            upgraded western U.S. coals.
      --WRI is working to develop alternate energy resources. We are
            developing a synthesis technology that can convert any
            carbonaceous feedstock into a mixture of alcohols for use as a
            replacement for MTBE in blended gasoline and diesel fuels. Also
            under development is a bio-refining technology that separates
            biomass into value-added fractions, leading to more efficient
            and cost-effective production of chemicals and fuels from
            biomass.
      --WRI is working with a consortium of government agencies and coalbed
            methane producers to assess and address the research needs
            associated with coalbed methane production. The impact of
            produced waters, potential uses of the produced waters and
            methods for cleaning the produced waters are being evaluated
            not only by WRI scientists but, under WRI leadership, by a team
            of experts from the University of Wyoming, Stanford University,
            and elsewhere across the country.
      --WRI is working to make building panels from coal combustion
            products and waste fiber that can potentially revolutionize the
            housing and construction industry and supply rapid-construction
            emergency housing.
      --Other JSR projects are addressing the technological needs for
            mitigating acid mine drainage and mine subsidence, remediating
            hydrocarbon-contaminated soils, and removing acid precursors
            and hazardous air pollutants from the stacks of utility
            boilers.
        For fiscal year 2003, WRI is establishing an ambitious research and
    technology demonstration agenda. The technology pipeline from Base to
    Jointly Sponsored Research is flowing, and concepts are moving into
    practice. As you know, it takes more funding to verify concepts at a
    scale larger than occurs in the laboratory. Several WRI technologies
    are at a stage in which pilot or demonstration plants have to be built
    and operated. For example, among the projects I've highlighted here,
    the bio-refining project, the alcohol synthesis project, the process
    for removing mercury from coal, the heavy oil upgrading project and the
    building construction panels project all are at a stage where pilot
    facilities have to be built and put into operation in fiscal year 2003.
        One of WRI's highest priorities is to maintain our progress in
    diversifying our research to ensure that we address the immediate and
    near-term needs of our clients and to establish a foundation to respond
    to future industry needs. As examples of this, we are developing
    innovative technologies for hydrogen production from fossil fuels,
    working on advanced concepts and technologies for the synthesis of
    liquid fuels from renewable and fossil resources, and searching for
    ways to convert waste streams into value-added products.
        The past year has been exceptionally productive for us. Our
    research is beginning to return benefits in the form of increased
    client interest in pursuing new research at WRI and with our various
    partners. This situation is only possible because of the support you
    have provided our efforts over the past several years. I hope we can
    count on you to support funding of the Office of Fossil Energy's
    Cooperative Agreement at the $10 million level. We thank you for your
    continuing support.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the United States Advanced Ceramics Association
        The United States Advanced Ceramics Association (USACA) a
    Washington-based association of major producers and users of advanced
    ceramic products. USACA is the premier association that champions the
    common business interests of the advanced ceramic producer and end-user
    industries.
        USACA appreciates the opportunity to provide the House of
    Representatives Appropriations Committee, Interior and Related Agencies
    Subcommittee with our industry's statement regarding the following
    fiscal year 2003 Department of Energy (DOE) Turbine R&D funding levels.
                        usaca recommended funding levels
        $14 MILLION.--ADVANCED MICROTURBINE PROGRAM (Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy)
        $40 MILLION.--HIGH EFFICIENCY ENGINES AND TURBINES PROGRAM (Office
    of Fossil Energy)
        USACA supports these programs in distributed generation
    technologies that lead our country on a path to energy infrastructure
    assurance.
        advanced microturbines (energy efficiency and renewable energy)
        Key To Distributed Energy.--The electrical power generation and
    distribution industry is vulnerable to threats to the Nation's energy
    security. Distributed generation technologies provide opportunity for
    energy infrastructure assurance. In addition, energy efficiency in both
    production and end use is becoming more critical to maintaining a
    growing national economy. Past and continuing technology advances in
    materials have contributed to the production of improved technologies
    for energy efficiency.
        One example of this is Advanced Microturbine Systems, providing
    distributed power generation typically 30 kW to 1,000 kW. Microturbines
    are capable of producing electricity more cost effectively at the
    customer site than the delivered cost of the central station. Advanced
    microturbine designs, using ceramic components that can operated at
    hundreds of degrees hotter than metal components, would theoretically
    boost efficiency from about 25 percent to over 40 percent. Improvements
    in durability will come from reliable, highly effective recuperators,
    increased load capability bearing design, and improved high temperature
    materials resulting in 11,000hr mean time between outages at less than
    $500/kW.
        The Advanced Microturbine Program will deliver fuel flexible
    systems with low environmental impact. A single design capable of
    operating on gas, liquid, biofuels (bio liquids, digester gas and
    landfill gas) and waste fuels will be coupled with ultra-low-
    NOX technology. To meet customer needs, the advanced
    microturbines will be pre-certified, packaged modules that convert
    waste heat into useful energy. The program will focus on better CHP
    performance through (1) heat exchanger technology to improve hot water
    and heating capabilities, (2) exhaust absorption chillers for cooling,
    (3) exhaust desiccant dehumidifier technology for dehumidification, and
    (4) clean CO2 rich air stream technology for direct heating.
        DOE EERE showed exceptional initiative and foresight in identifying
    the opportunity for advanced high temperature materials to improve
    efficiency in microturbines. The microturbine initiative in DOE Office
    of Power Technologies (OPT) will be an important contributor to our
    nation's energy needs. We would like to work with DOE to include
    greater opportunities for advanced materials research and development
    in these programs.
        Currently, microturbines are:
      --Best in Class for 30 to 500 kW
      --Ultra low emissions (< 5 ppm NOX)
      --Fuel flexible (gaseous and liquid fuels, renewables and hydrogen)
      --Potentially highest efficiency
      --Directly use exhaust gas for CHP
      --Lowest manufacturing cost when fully developed (high power density)
      --Lowest installed cost potential (light weight, quiet)
      --Lowest maintenance cost (few moving parts)
        In order to put the Advanced Microturbine Program in line with the
    resources specified by it's program plan, $14 million in funding is
    needed in fiscal year 2003. Additionally, enabling materials technology
    under the DER Technology Base Program should be maintained.
                    supporting materials technologies (eere)
        Vehicle Technologies.--We strongly support the part of this program
    that deals with the Light Truck Engine research and development. The
    DOE Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT) Heavy Vehicle
    Technologies has argued that utilizing clean diesel engine technology
    in light trucks and SUVs would result in significant fuel savings,
    alternate fuel utilization, and reduced pollution. Particulate traps,
    ceramic valves and fuel injection pins are some examples of advanced
    ceramic components that have demonstrated remarkable potential in
    making long life, clean and efficient, diesel engines a reality. Diesel
    engines have higher inherent efficiency than conventional piston
    engines. Europe has long recognized the potential of automotive and
    light truck diesel engines and has a technological edge over the United
    States. A modest increase in funding and activity is required to keep
    the U.S. diesel and advanced materials industries competitive. With the
    popularity of SUVs, the potential payoff in national fuel savings is
    enormous.
        High Temperature Materials Lab (HTML).--Over the past 15 to 20
    years, the DOE Office of Transportation Technologies, Ceramic
    Technology Project (CTP) and the High Temperature Materials Lab,
    through its collaborative programs with industry, national labs and
    universities has, in my opinion, done the most of any government
    program in expanding the state of the art of advanced materials.
    Several USACA member companies have been active participants in these
    Oak Ridge National Laboratories programs. The U.S. ceramics industry
    enjoys a technological leadership position in part due to these
    programs. Materials technology, as a direct result of CTP and HTML, now
    has the potential to be successfully incorporated in transportation,
    power and industrial technologies, as well as other commercial and
    military applications.
        We specifically wish to emphasize the importance of the High
    Temperature Materials Laboratory at Oak Ridge National Lab. The HTML
    through its research staff and user center, has provided cost-effective
    but critical support for materials development in energy intensive
    markets. The world-class materials research facilities at HTML has been
    particularly vital to assisting small businesses be competitive and
    technologically innovative. The HTML continues to expand our
    understanding of high temperature materials, vital for improving
    efficiencies in transportation, industrial and power generation
    systems.
        Vision Industries and Enabling Technologies.--DOE EERE Industrial
    Technologies in collaboration with industry correctly identified how
    collaborative R&D programs could significantly reduce energy
    consumption and pollution in these core United States' industries. The
    current Industries of the Future are made up of the nine U.S.
    industries that typically spend the most on energy and pollution
    control in their processes. DOE and these industries are now
    demonstrating that advanced technology can have a significant impact on
    energy security, energy demand, the environment and U.S. industrial
    competitiveness. USACA would like to specifically support the goals of
    the Crosscutting Industrial Materials for the Future (IMF) initiative.
    Like other crosscutting Enabling Technologies, the IMF program will
    incorporate energy saving technologies that benefit several of the
    Vision Industries.
                     gas turbines (eere and fossil energy)
        Currently, gas turbine power is the most fuel-efficient, cleanest,
    and consumer friendly way to generate electricity. Combined cycle gas
    turbines provide the highest efficiency and lowest emissions of all
    combustion generation technology available today (producing twice as
    much electricity and less than half the CO2 as compared to
    existing non-gas-turbine power plants). Turbine systems are cost
    effective, and can be quickly deployed to meet the country's growing
    energy needs. The gas turbine industry is currently manufacturing and
    installing these high-tech power plants across the United States to
    reduce the cost of electricity, create new jobs, and stimulate
    investment to support economic development.
        However, America's new energy policy goals require dramatic new
    technology development. The vision of a modern, secure U.S. power
    generation infrastructure that runs on domestic fuels without harming
    the environment is achievable, if the Federal government makes a
    sufficient investment in DOE/industry turbine partnership programs.
    Unfortunately, the Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget request for
    these DOE gas turbine programs is inadequate to stimulate significant
    advancement toward the ground-breaking technological changes our nation
    needs. USACA believes the above funding levels are necessary if our
    nation intends to realize the public benefits envisioned in our
    national energy policy.
              high efficiency engines and turbines (fossil energy)
        The DOE HEET Program is critical to the President's National Energy
    Policy (NEP) Clean Coal Technology goal of ``low-cost, zero emission
    power plants with efficiencies close to double that of today's fleet''.
    The DOE/industry HEET partnership will make it possible for power
    generation equipment manufacturers, as well as systems developers,
    owners and operators to create the core technology solutions necessary
    to overcome the complex challenges identified in the NEP report.
        The HEET Program turbine system efficiency goal is 60 percent for
    coal-based systems, and HEET turbo fuel cell hybrid systems that offer
    the potential for unprecedented efficiencies (in excess of 80 percent).
    The HEET near-zero emission environmental goal translates into systems
    with no carbon, and negligible NOX, SO2, and
    trace contaminants. The program is also targeting a 15 percent
    reduction life-cycle cost of electricity generated by gas turbine power
    plants.
        Federal cost sharing is needed to enable successful development
    technology improvements envisioned under the HEET, and to expedite
    commercialization of these systems. A $40 Million federal contribution
    to the HEET program in fiscal year 2003 will have a direct impact on
    the fuel-efficiency, fuel flexibility and emissions levels of America's
    coal and natural gas fired power plants.
        Our nation's investment in the HEET program will allow the United
    States to continue to serve as the world's principal source for clean
    turbine power generation systems. As the leading developer and producer
    of these clean, fossil-fueled power technologies, the United States can
    remain the leader of the international effort to lower global power
    plant emissions levels through technology innovation. Gas turbine
    equipment manufacturers, as well as systems developers, owners and
    operators have already indicated strong interest in working with DOE to
    help reach the HEET program goals. Now, Congress needs to ensure there
    is adequate fiscal year 2003 federal funding ($40 million) to
    facilitate a government/industry partnership that successfully allows
    new HEET technologies to mature in an expeditious and timely manner.
                    turbo fuel cell hybrids (fossil energy)
        The DOE Vision 21 initiative identifies Turbine Fuel Cell Hybrids
    as a key technology for enabling energy plants to serve the United
    States and global energy needs of the early 21st century. A gas turbine
    is used to pressurize fuel cells. Thus the system requires development
    of customized turbo machinery and balance of plant to reduce the
    overall cost of projected commercial systems. It is necessary to
    develop a range of hybrid systems up to multi-megawatt sizes and
    conduct extensive field demonstrations in order to achieve the goals of
    the DOE Vision 21 plan. The turbo fuel cell hybrid is expected to (1)
    achieve the ultra-high, 80+ 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).
        The HEET program, combined with DOE fuel cell program efforts, will
    lead to the required cost reductions needed to ensure the commercial
    viability of these hybrid systems. Gas turbine research is necessary to
    enable the technology to meet the pressure ratios, mass flows, and
    other critical operating and performance parameters of high-temperature
    fuel cells. Ultimately, the program will culminate with the testing a
    near-commercial-scale multi MW Vision 21 coal-fired hybrid power
    system.
                                public benefits
        DOE gas turbine EERE and FE R&D Programs stimulate economic growth,
    clean up the environment, and ensure that the U.S. has a reliable
    supply of power. 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 benefits.
      --RELIABLE POWER
      --ECONOMIC STRENGTH THROUGH IMPROVED POWER SYSTEMS
      --MEET MOUNTING DEMAND FOR INCREASED POWER PRODUCTION CAPACITY
      --A CLEANER ENVIRONMENT
      --REPLACE ENVIRONMENTALLY DEFICIENT, AGING POWER PLANTS
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Center for Advanced Separation Technologies
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we represent the
    Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST). The center is a
    consortium of seven leading mining schools in the United States, which
    conduct research in advanced separation and train future industry
    leaders. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony
    requesting $3 million for Advanced Separation as part of the Solid
    Fuels and Feedstocks Program, Fossil Energy Research and Development,
    U.S. Department of Energy.
        The U.S. mining industry is producing large quantities of waste
    products due to the inefficiencies of the various separation processes
    that are currently being used. The excessive waste generation can
    result in (i) loss of valuable national resources, (ii) damage to the
    environment, and (iii) high cost of the raw materials produced,
    including coal that is used for electricity generation. In order to
    help the industry become more efficient and competitive, Virginia Tech
    and West Virginia University established CAST in 2000. Five other
    universities are joining the consortium to develop crosscutting
    separation technologies that can be used in both the coal and minerals
    industries. These universities include: University of Kentucky, Montana
    Tech, University of Nevada Reno, New Mexico Tech, and University of
    Utah.
                                   background
        In 2000, the U.S. mining industry produced $59.7 billion of raw
    materials, which consisted of $40.1 billion from metallic and non-
    metallic minerals and $19.6 billion from coal. The mineral processing
    industries increased the value of the minerals to $429 billion, while
    the electric utilities burned 859 million tons of coal to produce 52
    percent of the nation's electricity. The value of the electricity
    generated from both coal and uranium was $182 billion. Thus, the
    minerals and coal industries together contributed $671 billion to the
    nation's wealth and accounted for approximately 6.7 percent of the U.S.
    economy in 2000. Internationally, the United States is by far the
    largest mining country of the world.
        Despite the overwhelming statistics for the U.S. mining industry,
    the country is not investing in technology development through
    research. This is particularly true for the coal and mineral processing
    industries, which are mostly concerned with separating one mineral (or
    coal) from another (i.e., solid-solid separation) and separating the
    mineral (or coal) concentrates from water (i.e., solid-liquid
    separation) in which the separation occurs. In the absence of advanced
    separation technologies, companies resort to increasing throughput (or
    capacity) rather than to improving separation efficiencies. This
    approach may produce higher rates of return on their investments, but
    entails higher losses of valuable national resources and greater
    environmental damage. Fine coal impoundments are a good example for
    such problems. These were created due to the lack of advanced solid-
    solid and solid-liquid separation technologies for processing fine
    particles.
        On October 11, 2000, near Inez, Kentucky, a 72-acre waste
    impoundment accidentally released 250 million gallons of coal slurry
    into nearby underground mines, creeks, rivers, and schoolyards. This
    incident caused the U.S. Congress to appropriate $2 million for the
    National Research Council (NRC) to study ways of reducing the potential
    for future incidents. According to the NRC report published in January
    2002, the U.S. coal industry discards 70 to 90 million tons of fine
    coal annually to 713 active impoundments, most of which are located in
    Central Appalachia. The report stressed the need for additional
    research to develop technologies that can be used to eliminate the fine
    coal impoundments in the United States.
        In 1998, the National Mining Association developed a road map for
    the research needs of the U.S. mining industry. It states that
    ``advances in mineral and coal processing technology have leveled off,
    making radical technological breakthroughs necessary for significant
    advances.'' The technology roadmap has been developed for the Industry
    of the Future Program (IOF), Office of Energy Efficiency, U.S.
    Department of Energy. The mandate for this funding program is energy
    savings rather than the production of cleaner-burning solid fuels or
    minimizing the environmental impacts of producing coal. Furthermore,
    the nature of the projects funded by this program is for near-term
    applications and its audience is primarily industries that can meet the
    requirement of 50 percent cost sharing. Historically, many of the
    breakthrough technologies have originated from fundamental research
    carried out at universities. For this reason, Virginia Tech and West
    Virginia University established the Center for Advanced Separation
    Technologies (CAST) under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy
    through a competitive solicitation (DE-PS26-00FT40756) which was issued
    in December 1999. The objective of the Center is to create a knowledge
    base for solid-solid and solid-liquid separation processes as applied
    to the mining industry, and to provide enabling sciences that can
    permit the economic recovery of the materials being lost as waste and
    those that have already been discarded in waste piles.
                                progress to date
        Since its establishment, CAST has made significant progress in
    exploring the underlying principles of some of the more important
    solid-solid and solid-liquid separation processes. Froth flotation, for
    example, is the most widely used solid-solid separation method. The
    process was developed nearly 100 years ago for the mining industry.
    Yet, it has not been possible to predict its performance from both
    surface chemistry and hydrodynamic parameters, both of which are known
    to play important roles in industrial practice. Previously, Virginia
    Tech developed a model that can predict the flotation rates under
    idealized (or quiescent) conditions; however, it could not be used for
    industrial applications. The recent work conducted at CAST laid the
    groundwork to further develop the model so that it can be used to
    predict the flotation rates under more realistic (or turbulent)
    conditions. A distinct advantage of developing a model from first
    principles is that it can be used for diagnostic purposes, that is, it
    can identify the causes of industrial problems and, at the same time,
    indicate methods of improvements.
        Since CAST was established, its research in solid-liquid separation
    has accelerated. Several coal and mineral companies are in the process
    of testing the novel chemical dewatering technology developed at the
    Center. Two other novel solid-liquid separation technologies are being
    developed, which include the hydrophobic dewatering process and a novel
    centrifuge. In the former, coal is dried by displacement rather than by
    thermal evaporation, which is costly. In the latter, the moisture is
    reduced to substantially low levels with minimal loss of coal.
        Other research activities ongoing at CAST include methods of
    extending the upper particle size limit for flotation, extracting metal
    values from low-grade ores using microorganisms, separating ultra-fine
    particles from process streams for increased separation efficiencies,
    measuring the surface forces acting between bubbles and particles in
    nano-scale, analyzing water using a novel electrochemical technique,
    etc. The results of these research projects can be used in both the
    coal and mineral industries. The scientific knowledge base gained can
    also be used for other crosscutting applications such as clean-up of
    contaminated soils and industrial effluents, recycling municipal
    wastes, separating ultra-fine particles from gas streams, and
    separating one type of gaseous molecule from another.
                                    proposal
        The solid-solid and solid-liquid separation technologies described
    above are examples of how fundamental research in universities can
    result in breakthrough technologies. Based on the promising development
    during the initial phase of the CAST activity, we have expanded our
    membership to include other universities that bring the expertise not
    readily available at the Charter Universities (Virginia Tech and West
    Virginia University), which are better known for their work in coal
    research. The other member universities are mostly located in the
    western United States and have unique expertise in minerals research
    including environmental control. By bringing different expertise from
    the various universities, CAST will be able to substantially enhance
    the probability of success in conducting long-term high-risk research
    and addressing the different geographical needs of the country.
        The CAST research will be divided into three broad areas: (i) coal,
    (ii) mineral, and (iii) environment. The following research topics may
    be listed under each of these areas:
      --Coal--dewatering, flotation, sensors, dense-medium separation,
            refuse disposal, desliming, mercury removal
      --Minerals--flotation, selective flocculation, chemical leaching,
            bioleaching, solvent extraction, classification, precious
            metals, control
      --Environment--acid mine drainage, soil remediation, reclamation,
            water treatment, recycling
        University research can easily be lost in the forest of basic
    research. In order to prevent this from happening, CAST programs will
    be conducted with close ties to industry. Two subprograms are proposed.
    In the Cooperative Research Program, CAST will bring together
    multidisciplinary expertise available at the Center to solve specific
    industrial problems that are common to several companies. The companies
    benefiting from the research results will be asked to provide
    substantial cost sharing. In the Industry Affiliate Program, companies
    will be encouraged to acquire memberships with nominal fees. In return,
    they will have access to all of the nonproprietary technical
    information available at the Center.
        To meet the objectives outlined above, CAST would need $3 million
    from the Fossil Energy R&D Program, U.S. Department of Energy, for
    fiscal year 2003. The participating universities will provide a minimum
    of 20 percent cost sharing, mainly in the form of in-kind
    contributions, and will request industrial companies to provide
    substantial financial contributions.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Optoelectronics Industry Development
                                  Association
         ``appropriations for the next generation lighting initiative''
        On behalf of the Optoelectronics Industry Development Association
    (``OIDA''), I would like to urge the Senate Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee to approve fiscal year 2003 funding of $30 million to the
    Department of Energy for the proposed Next Generation Lighting
    Initiative (``NGLI''). The NGLI, which is authorized in pending House
    and Senate energy legislation, is a government-industry initiative for
    developing a new form of energy-efficient lighting based on solid state
    light sources. It is part of the Lighting R&D budget of the Department
    of Energy's Office of Building Technology, State and Community
    Programs.
        Despite an on-going U.S. industry investment and commitment to the
    development of solid state lighting, substantial technical obstacles
    remain. Full scale commercial deployment will be significantly delayed,
    or achieved first by foreign competitors, unless an effective and
    coordinated U.S. government and industry research and development
    effort is launched. The objective of the NGLI, which would be built
    around a 10 year program with the Department of Energy and a consortium
    led by the solid state lighting industry, is to enable the U.S.-based
    research and development necessary for transforming solid state
    lighting into a primary source for the nation's and world's general
    lighting needs.
        In anticipation of the NGLI, several leading optoelectronics and
    lighting companies have already joined in a solid state lighting
    consortium. In addition to this industry support, the NGLI has strong
    support from the Department of Energy, relevant National Laboratories,
    and members of Congress. OIDA believes the critical elements for a
    successful NGLI have now come together and that coordinated research
    and development in this area should no longer be delayed.
        OIDA is a non-profit association of roughly 60 optoelectronics
    companies, national laboratories and universities established to
    strengthen and advance optoelectronics technology and help the
    competitiveness of its members.
                    need for more energy-efficient lighting
        The incandescent light bulb and the fluorescent light tube have
    long been the primary sources for the public's general lighting needs.
    Despite incremental technical improvements, neither of these light
    sources has achieved significant advancements in energy efficiency for
    several decades. Both convert only a small portion of the energy they
    consume into visible light. A 100-watt incandescent light bulb, for
    instance, emits only 5 percent of the energy it consumes as useful
    light, while the equivalent figure for the fluorescent tube is less
    than 30 percent. These inefficiencies are the result of fundamental
    physics and are not subject to significant improvement.
        Lighting consumes a large and growing portion of all energy
    generated in the United States--currently over 20 percent. Improvements
    in lighting efficiency should be a primary focus to limit this growth
    in energy consumption. The pursuit of new lighting technologies--
    principally solid state lighting, that is governed by different
    physical principles than conventional lighting--offers the best
    opportunity to meet this objective.
             solid state lighting: the technology and its benefits
        Solid state lighting technology utilizes semiconductor devices
    known as light emitting diodes (``LEDs'') and organic light emitting
    diodes (``OLEDs'') to generate light. These devices are highly energy
    efficient and long-lasting. Unlike traditional light bulbs, they
    contain no glass envelops or filaments and are very durable. In
    addition, these devices offer a variety of new consumer advantages,
    including color and brightness adjustment.
        Solid state lighting technology has existed for over 30 years. Due
    to its efficiency and dependability, this form of lighting has long
    been employed in applications such as traffic lights, highway and exit
    signs, and certain automotive lighting. However, in order to achieve
    mass market acceptance of solid state lighting, particularly as a
    source for general lighting needs, higher efficiency, cost reduction
    and ease of use must be achieved. Once these obstacles are overcome,
    the full scale deployment of solid state lighting technology offers the
    potential for substantial economic, environmental, consumer, and other
    benefits.
        Unlike incandescent and fluorescent light, solid state lighting
    technology holds the potential of achieving near 100 percent conversion
    of electricity to light inside the semiconductor material and
    harnessing over half the light from the semiconductor for lighting
    applications. While solid state lighting has not yet approached such a
    high level of efficiency at all colors, it is not bound by the inherent
    limitations of today's conventional lighting technologies and is
    capable of rapid improvements through continued technology development.
    It is estimated that, given a considerable market penetration, solid
    state lighting could reduce global electricity usage for lighting by 50
    percent over the next 20 years and reduce total global electricity
    consumption by 10 percent. These changes equate to an overall reduction
    in annual global energy needs of 1,000 terawatt-hours representing an
    annual saving of over $100 billion.
        Solid state lighting will be more cost efficient in terms of
    product maintenance and replacement. Unlike incandescent bulbs and
    fluorescent tubes, LEDs and OLEDs are durable, long-lasting, and easier
    to program and operate. The energy efficiency of these devices could
    translate into major cuts in carbon emissions if solid state lighting
    is adopted broadly. It has been estimated that the United States could
    avoid over 200 metric tons of carbon emissions by 2020 if solid state
    lighting could garner a significant share of the general lighting
    market.
        A flourishing solid state lighting industry would have important
    economic benefits to the United States in terms of employment, growth
    in supplier and equipment industries, research and development and new
    applications. Furthermore, as solid state lighting becomes a leading
    source for general lighting outside the United States, the U.S. solid
    state lighting and related industries will reap expanded economic
    benefits for the nation in terms of job creation and tax contributions.
        Solid state lighting promises better quality and more versatile
    sources of lighting, including the ability to tune colors to virtually
    any shade or tint. In addition, solid state lighting offers other
    desirable qualities, such as light-weight, thinness, flexibility in
    deployment, and compatibility with integrated circuits to produce
    ``smart'' light.
                  foreign development of solid state lighting
        Efforts are underway in other countries to rapidly develop solid
    state lighting as a viable alternative to conventional lighting
    technologies. Government-sponsored industry consortia have been
    established in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan to develop more efficient solid
    state lighting technologies. Without a substantial government-industry
    commitment in the United States, competitors such as Japan will likely
    come to dominate solid state lighting and become the standard-bearers
    of this important technology.
                   need for a government-industry initiative
        A government-industry initiative to develop this technology would
    serve the United States' economic and energy security interests. The
    United States would benefit not only from major energy and cost
    savings, improved quality of lighting, and a positive environmental
    impact, but also from the ability to enhance and maintain the
    competitiveness of the U.S. solid state lighting industry at a time
    when this technology is being aggressively pursued by other nations.
        Current technology roadmaps for solid state lighting indicate that
    the cost reductions and product development work necessary to
    commercialize this technology for the general lighting market could
    take a minimum of 12-18 years. The implementation of a focused
    government-industry initiative to further develop this technology for
    general illumination could substantially reduce this timeframe. Such a
    shared initiative would reduce the cost of research and development,
    enable important information sharing, accelerate technology innovation
    and the development of domestic and international standards.
        The optoelectronics industry in collaboration with the Department
    of Energy and several National Laboratories is developing a coordinated
    approach to solid state lighting. OIDA, DOE and the solid state
    lighting consortium are continuously updating the requirements for full
    scale development of solid state lighting. These include much basic
    research, which is especially suited for universities; harnessing work
    at the National Laboratories; and the development of an infrastructure
    of supplier and equipment firms that can be available for the
    commercialization of this new technology.
                      next generation lighting initiative
        The Initiative.--The Next Generation Lighting Initiative Act was
    introduced on July 11, 2001 by Senators Jeff Bingaman and Michael
    DeWine. The legislation was subsequently included in the Senate's
    comprehensive energy bill (S. 517). A related authorization provision
    is included in the House energy bill (H.R. 4). While H.R. 4 has passed
    the House, Senate consideration of S. 517 is still pending.
        The objective of the NGLI is to develop advanced solid state
    lighting technologies within 10 years. The legislation would involve
    two types of funding for research and development: (1) direct sponsored
    research from the Department of Energy, and (2) grants to universities,
    National Laboratories and infrastructure providers that would be
    administered by an industry-led consortium.
        The consortium would provide the framework for the entire program
    in that it would coordinate with the Department of Energy in assessing
    technology requirements, maintain technology roadmaps, and administer
    the efforts of participating universities, National Laboratories, and
    supplier and equipment infrastructure firms. All efforts would involve
    cost sharing.
        NGLI Appropriations.--While the authorization language in the House
    does not include a specific appropriations amount, the Senate
    authorization bill parallels Senator Bingaman and DeWine's original
    NGLI legislation in calling for $50 million in annual appropriations
    for the initiative through fiscal year 2011. For fiscal year 2003, the
    start-up year of the initiative, $30 million in funding would be
    authorized. Such funding would appear sufficient for complementing
    current industry efforts. Government funding is not contemplated to
    continue beyond the point at which this technology is available for
    broad-based applications.
        Though funding for the NGLI was not explicitly included in the
    President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2003, the Administration
    has requested funds for research in solid state lighting and the
    Department of Energy has been supportive of the initiative. OIDA urges
    the Subcommittee to ensure that $30 million is available in fiscal year
    2003 appropriations to support the NGLI.
        Industry Support.--In anticipation of the NGLI, various leading
    U.S. optics and lighting companies have come together to provide
    leadership in a consortium dedicated to developing advanced solid state
    lighting technology and to contribute cost sharing to this effort.
    Other members of the consortium include national and private
    laboratories, lighting and manufacturing infrastructure providers and
    over twenty universities.
        OIDA strongly endorses the creation of a Next Generation Lighting
    Initiative and urges the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to
    approve fiscal year 2003 funding for the launch of this important
    technology development initiative. NGLI offers the best approach for
    combining the resources of industry, government, and academia in an
    effort to bring to the commercial marketplace the next generation of
    lighting technology and to maintain a leadership role for the United
    States in this important field.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association
        The National Mining Association's (NMA) member companies account
    for approximately three-fourths of the coal production in the United
    States, over 1 billion tons annually, and the vast majority of mined
    minerals including iron ore, copper, gold, silver, uranium lead, zinc,
    and phosphate. The purpose of this statement is to present the mining
    industry's views on fiscal year 2003 programs for the following
    agencies: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
    Fossil Energy, Energy Information Administration, and the U.S.
    Geological Survey, Office of Surface Mining and the Bureau of Land
    Management.
        Development and use of advanced technologies to allow greater, but
    more efficient, use of our nation's vast coal resources has never been
    more important than it is today. While imports of energy are, and
    always will be, an important part of our nation's economy, it is more
    important than ever to take the steps necessary to be able to more
    fully utilize our major domestic energy resource, coal, efficiently
    while continuing to maintain and improve our environment. Technology is
    the key to achieving our goals and research and technology development
    supported by government/industry partnerships must not only be
    maintained but must increase. We urge the Congress to consider our
    energy research priorities in light of the world situation as it exists
    today and will exist for years in the future.
                            office of fossil energy
        NMA supports the Department of Energy's (DOE) Clean Coal Power
    Initiative's (CCPI) 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 (CCTP) has been one of the most
    successful cooperative research, development and demonstration efforts
    between the government and industry, due in large part to Congress
    providing it with advanced funding. This financial commitment gave
    lending institutions and industry the confidence to move forward with
    high-risk, innovative projects. The same ``up front'' commitment should
    be considered for the 10-year, $2 billion, CCPI in order to assure that
    the results of the clean coal programs contribute to our nation's
    energy and economic security in a timely and effective manner.
        At the same time, ongoing R&D activities must be maintained and
    expanded to support the greater use of coal while addressing the new
    SO2, NOX and mercury standards proposed under the
    Clear Skies Initiative. Levels of funding for many coal-based R&D
    programs must be maintained or increased in order to achieve timely
    technology development. If funding is reduced, as proposed in some
    instances by the DOE budget, these technologies will not be developed
    in the time frame required. While the overall decline in the request
    for fiscal year 2003 funding is small on a percentage basis, even a
    small decline will prevent needed research programs from continuing. We
    urge the Congress to restore the levels of funding for coal and related
    research to fiscal year 2002 levels.
        In particular, DOE has proposed that $40.65 million be allocated to
    the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle program, a reduction of
    $2.35 million from fiscal year 2002 levels. NMA supports increasing the
    budget to $65 million. The proposed fiscal year 2003 budget of $9.1
    million for Pressurized Fluidized Bed should be increased to $22
    million and the program should be renamed to ``Advanced Combustion
    Systems'' to more accurately reflect the research on going under this
    program. The extra funding would provide funds specifically for advance
    combustion systems, supercritical steam power systems, fluidized bed
    combustion and hot gas filtration. NMA recommends that the funding for
    turbine research be increased from $14 million to $24 million. The
    current budget request is just enough to maintain existing research,
    but is not enough to begin new research in this important area--
    important not just to coal but to all fuels.
        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 build on
    and incorporate many of the technologies developed in the original
    Clean Coal Technology program as well as the Clean Coal Power
    Initiative. The work that DOE is proposing for fiscal year 2003 is
    critical if Vision 21 technologies, designed to increase efficiencies
    by 60 percent and to reduce emissions to near zero levels, 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.
        Carbon Capture and Sequestration technologies promise to offer an
    alternative to emitting carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Most of these
    projects will be a longer term, but research must begin now. NMA
    supports the request for an increase in carbon capture and
    sequestration funding to $54 million. This is a vital part of any
    climate change initiative.
        Coal Research and Development.--It is important to continue funding
    for coal preparation and liquefaction technologies as 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 manufacturing advanced carbon-based
    products. Research in the areas of advanced technologies for solid-
    solid and solid-liquid separations directed toward fuel production and
    use is equally important and we support $3.0 million for advanced
    separation research.
        NMA supports continued funding of the Steubenville Comprehensive
    Air Monitoring Program (SCAMP) to develop information 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 should provide strong support for
    research on mining at the academic institutions. Several mining
    engineering departments are consolidating and even closing, due to lack
    of funding. 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, we
    urge the Fossil Energy office to institute a program to support
    academic research in mining schools.
                office of energy efficiency and renewable energy
        The Mining Industry of the Future Program.--The research priorities
    developed through this industry/government partnership offer important
    direction to the Department of Energy, industry and Congress 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. Of the total projects funded to date, industry's cost
    share is 54 percent, or about $31.5 million.
        In 2001, two new processing projects led by DOE national
    laboratories were selected from 21 proposals, bringing the total active
    projects to 28. Of these 28 projects, 10 will be completed in fiscal
    year 2002. As these projects wrap-up, several other R&D-related
    activities are underway. Another processing solicitation calling for
    industry-led proposals was issued early in 2002, with the goal of
    selecting new projects by the end of the year. A technology roadmapping
    session was held in 2001 to define research requirements that address
    the industry's mining and exploration needs; the related solicitation
    will be issued in early 2003, with project awards made in early 2004.
    The Administration has requested $5.1 million for the program in fiscal
    year 2003, the same amount as the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. NMA
    supports this request.
                    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
    governments develop policies to respond to energy price increases and/
    or to possible energy shortages. This has been very evident during this
    past year as Congress has debated both energy and environmental
    policies. From an industry perspective, 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 that accrue benefit to the nation.
        Unfortunately, the quality, consistency and timeliness of the
    underlying data collected and published by EIA--data that provides the
    basis for both industry market analysis and for public policy
    decisions--has never been worse. In particular data on coal production
    and consumption and data on the vital electric utility sector have
    deteriorated to the point that the data is virtually unusable. Data is
    incomplete and inaccurate. Consistency in data collection--even on a
    month-to-month basis--is nonexistent. EIA data--at least in the coal
    and utility sector--has become completely unreliable. Unfortunately the
    nation is considering a national energy strategy and new environmental
    policies on the basis of this flawed data. While we support the current
    funding levels suggested for EIA, and would certainly support an
    increase, we would urge that the Committee include directions to the
    EIA to quickly take steps to improve the quality of the data collected
    and published. Sound public policy cannot be made if the underlying
    information used is faulty.
                         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
    Members of 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 2003 budget request. It is already difficult to
    maintain the data quality and timeliness that is so important--not just
    to the industry for market analysis purposes--but to the Administration
    and the Congress when developing and implementing public policy. Our
    nation is becoming more dependent upon foreign sources to meet our
    metals and minerals requirements as exploration and development of
    domestic resources is declining. Development of a National Minerals
    Policy to halt and reverse this trend is vital to our nation's economic
    future and strategic defense. The information collected and made
    available by the USGS will become all the more important in future
    years as Congress begins to consider elements of a National Minerals
    Policy. It is important that it be maintained at least at current
    levels.
                         office of surface mining (osm)
        The Abandoned Mine Land (``AML'') program receives funding from
    coal operators for the purpose of providing reclamation to sites
    disturbed before the passage of the Surface Mining Control and
    Reclamation Act (SMCRA). NMA remains concerned by the high
    administrative costs associated with the AML program, which reduces
    funds available for on-the-ground reclamation. The OSM should be
    directed to provide Congress a report describing and explaining the
    costs attributable to program administration with its recommendations
    for reducing those costs.
                        bureau of land management (blm)
        BLM should have adequate funding to ensure sufficient staff and
    resources are devoted to regulating mining operations, including the
    timely processing of plans of operations and conducting activities
    necessary to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act
    (``NEPA'').
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Allison Transmission Division of General
     Motors, Indianapolis, IN; BAE SYSTEMS Controls, Johnson City, NY; and
                        Eaton Corporation, Kalamazoo, MI
        Request.--Our companies are competitively developing Heavy Duty
    hybrid electric propulsion systems (HD Hybrid) for Trucks and Buses. At
    the same time, we have pre-competitively established common objectives
    that we agree to jointly pursue in order to enable these products to
    come to market. All of our companies have encountered barriers to
    commercialization so significant that we have collectively agreed
    Federal assistance is essential to overcome them. We jointly request
    that the committee to increase the Department of Energy's 2003 budget
    for the Vehicle Technologies R&D Program, Hybrid Systems R&D sub-
    account to $16,100,000 from the 2003 budget request level of
    $4,100,000, an increase of $12,000,000. The Department of Energy should
    be instructed to use these funds for the acceleration of Heavy Duty
    Hybrid Research and Development, without stipulation of vehicle fuel
    type, architecture or configuration, to enable the Private Sector to
    develop solutions that best meet the requirements of the trucking
    industry..
        Background.--The Allison Transmission Division of General Motors
    Corporation (Allison), BAE SYSTEMS Controls (BAE SYSTEMS) and Eaton
    Corporation (Eaton) are the three major HD Hybrid developers in the
    United States. Allison is the world's leading manufacturer of automatic
    transmissions for commercial and military vehicles. BAE SYSTEMS is one
    of the largest Aerospace and Defense companies in the United States and
    is the developer of HybriDriveTM propulsion systems. Eaton
    is the world's leading manufacturer of manual/automated manual
    transmissions and collision avoidance systems for commercial trucks.
    All three Companies are members of the 21st Century Truck Partnership.
        Our goals are to develop HD Hybrid propulsion products, defeat
    overcome the technical barriers that are inhibiting the technology and
    stimulate market demand for these products. In essence, we are
    attempting to create a brand new, globally competitive industrial base
    in the United States that will significantly benefit the Transportation
    sector. Our approach is to Our approach is to create an environment
    that is conducive to the accomplishment of our goalspre-competitively
    collaborate to create an environment that is conducive to the
    accomplishment of our goals. Our plan is to educate interested parties
    as to why HD Trucks and HD Hybrids are important, explain why HD Trucks
    and HD Hybrids differ from those used in Cars, Light Duty Trucks and
    SUV's, to outline why Government assistance is needed and to summarize
    our technology priorities.
        The Dilemma of Heavy Duty (HD) Trucks.--The average American does
    not understand or care why HD Trucks are important. Quite the contrary,
    the prevailing attitude toward HD Trucks ranges from indifference to
    outright hostility. They are dirty, noisy and smelly and many of them
    aren't pretty. Americans have to share the roads with them. Such trucks
    intimidate automobile drivers, cause accidents, clog traffic and ruin
    the roads. It's no wonder that looking for public policy support for HD
    Trucks is difficult. Trucks are unpopular, but, the average American
    doesn't realize that America can't economically survive without them
    and Americans cannot live without them. The average American does not
    understand or care why HD Trucks are important. Quite the contrary, the
    prevailing attitude toward HD Trucks ranges from indifference to
    outright hostility. Many of them aren't pretty. We have to share our
    roads with them. They are dirty, noisy and smelly. They intimidate us,
    cause accidents, clog traffic and ruin the roads. It's no wonder that
    looking for support for HD Trucks is a tough job. Trucks are unpopular,
    but, the average American doesn't realize we can't live without them.
        The Importance of HD Trucks.--America's economy runs on trucks.
    Virtually everything we own was transported by a HD Truck at least
    once, if not multiple times, to bring it to our homes or the place
    where we could buy purchased it. If you have it, it came by truck and
    when you're through with it, a truck will take it away. According to
    both the 1993 and 1997 U.S. DOT Commodity Flow Survey Studies, 72
    percent of the dollar value of goods shipped in the United States was
    shipped by truck. However, trends such as Just-In-Time (JIT) delivery
    and E-commerce are pushing our dependency on shipping higher. A report
    titled ``Economic Effects of Transportation, the Freight Story'',
    January 2002 by ICF Consulting and HLB Decision Economics outlines the
    causes and effects of this paradigm shift. The Motor Carrier Act of
    1980 deregulated trucking, which led to increased competition in
    interstate transportation markets. This caused trucking companies to
    cut their profit margins and increase efficiency to survive, which led
    to lower shipping costs. Business managers soon recognized this trend
    and invented JIT delivery, exploiting the trend by trading inventory
    cost for shipping cost to save money. Inventory costs of business were
    reduced from 8.2 percent of GDP in 1981 to 3.6 percent of GDP in 1999
    and at the same time, shipping costs were reduced from 7.4 percent of
    GDP in 1980 to 6 percent of GDP in 1988 and after. This resulted in
    more money available to suppliers of goods and less to the trucking
    industry despite increasing ton-mile volumes, which helped fuel the
    pre-Y2K economic expansion we enjoyed. The other significant effect is
    that the Nation's economy is now considerably more dependent on
    reliable, low-cost freight due to reduced inventories. In summary,
    trucking is extremely important to our Nation's economy, even though
    most most of usAmericans take it for granted.
        The Importance of HD Hybrid Trucks.--HD Hybrid makes trucks cleaner
    and more efficient. In an era of increasing ton-mile shipping volumes,
    fueled by the economic phenomenon described above, this is a very
    important consideration. HD Hybrid can reduce Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
    up to 50 percent and improve fuel economy 10 percent to 50 percent,
    depending on the driving cycle. Other technologies that are being
    developed and introduced to meet EPA 2004 emissions regulations (in
    2002 for those companies that are party to the consent decree) such as
    Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) improve emissions but degrade fuel
    economy. HD Engine company representatives have stated that EGR can
    reduce fuel economy as much as 5 percent. Considering the trucking
    industry's razor thin margins, the cost increase driven by 5 percent
    poorer fuel economy could be devastating to both the trucking industry
    and the Nation's economy. With HD Hybrid, you don't have to sacrifice
    efficient for clean.
        Interestingly enough, HD Hybrid is a multiplier of other advanced
    truck and bus technologies. It complements, enhances and integrates
    with improvements in engines, aerodynamics, safety, aftertreatment
    devices, anti-idling systems, traction control and intelligent
    transportation concepts. It can does this because of its advanced
    computer control system and its inherent power management capability.
    HD Hybrid is a unifying technology that enables Engine, Truck and HD
    Component Manufacturers to work together in an Integrated Product Team
    (IPT) fashion. It HD Hybrid can have the effect on HD Trucks that
    stringent fuel economy and emissions regulations coupled with savvy
    foreign competition and increasing customer expectations has had on
    passenger cars. These market forces caused forced the automakers to
    more fully integrate their vehicles andproducts to meet emissions
    regulations, improve fuel economy and offer higher quality, more
    competitive productsand avoid fines. HD Hybrid is a unifying technology
    that enables Engine, Truck and HD Component Manufacturers to work
    together in an Integrated Product Team (IPT) fashion to enhance the
    competitiveness of their products. HD Hybrid can encourage this
    integration to the benefit of HD Truck products without the regulatory
    hammer.
        Looking forward, HD Hybrid is an integral part of the technology
    roadmap for fuel cell powered and all-electric HD Trucks and Buses. A
    fuel cell has no spinning shaft for power take-off and connection to a
    mechanical transmission and driveshaft. You put hydrogen in, and
    electricity and water vapor come out. But electricity alone cannot move
    a truck. HD Hybrid brings with it the electric drive technology that a
    fuel cell needs to become a propulsion system. And, theour Japanese
    friends are trucking industry is already moving out with HD Hybrid,
    spearheaded by a Government wide MITI initiative.
        How HD Trucks differ from LD Vehicles: This subject is worth
    discussing to address the common rationalization perception that
    investments in Passenger Car technology benefit HD Trucks. First, it is
    important to understand the definitions of Light Duty (LD) vs. Heavy
    Duty (HD) vehicles. LD vehicles (and Trucks) are those that fall into
    Classes 1 and 2a, which contain vehicles such as Passenger Cars (Pass
    Cars), Light Trucks (such as the GMC/Chevy 1500 series pick-up truck),
    Minivans and most Sport-Utility Vehicles (SUV's). HD Trucks are
    everything else, that is, all vehicles that exceed 8,500 lbs Gross
    Vehicle Weight (GVW), which are Classes 2b through 8. This cross
    section of vehiclesese includes Tractor-Trailers, Delivery Vans, Refuse
    and Dump Trucks, UPS and FedEx Package Vans, Buses, even large pick-up
    trucks such as the GMC/Chevy 2500 and 3500 series are in the HD class.
    A summary of characteristics that differ between LD and HD vehicles
    relative to North American markets is shown below.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Heavy Duty (HD)     LD Trucks and Pass.
           Characteristic                Trucks                 Cars
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)..  6,100 to 80,000 lbs.  Up to 6,100 lbs
    Duty cycle..................  Continuous daily      Intermittent light
                                   operation.            duty
    Peak horsepower.............  150 to 600..........  70 to 300
    Continuous horsepower.......  150 to 600..........  25 to 60
    Annual mileage..............  20,000 to 250,000     8,000 to 20,000
                                   miles.                miles
    Expected lifetime...........  1,000,000 miles.....  150,000 miles
    Purchase price (not incl.     $60,000 to $150,000.  $12,000 to $40,000
     bus).
    Market volume (annual)......  800,000.............  18,000,000
    # of configuration variants.  Millions............  A few thousand
    Fuel of choice..............  Diesel..............  Gasoline
    Fuel consumption............  5 to 15 MPG.........  14 to 40 MPG
    Who buys it.................  The fleet manager...  The driver
    Who drives it...............  A hired driver......  The owner
    Buyers priority.............  Reliability, Low      I like it/Want it
                                   ownership cost.
    Emissions certification.....  Engine only, grams    Vehicle level,
                                   per Brake-            chassis dyno, grams
                                   Horsepower-Hour (g/   per mile (g/mi) of
                                   BHP-hr) of            emissions certified
                                   emissions certified.
    Certification responsibility  Engine manufacturer.  Vehicle manufacturer
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There are important points to note from the chart:
      --Market volume for HD Trucks is about one-twentieth that of cars,
            and they can be bought in 1,000 times more configurations.
            Components designed for the market volume of cars, in many
            cases, cannot be made commercially viable for HD Trucks because
            the volume is not sufficient to offset development costs.
      --The HD Truck market has a completely different set of drivers than
            the car market. HD Trucks are bought to make the owner money
            and are driven by a paid driver, while cars cost their owner-/
            driver's money. An HD Truck buyer prioritizes reliability and
            low cost of ownership while a car buyer prioritizes styling and
            performance. Compared to a car, An HD Truck weighs about 2-10
            times more, has 2-10 times the horsepower and burns 3-4 times
            more fuel. HD Trucks are designed to run at full power all day
            long, while cars are used intermittently and sit idle most of
            the day. This results in completely different design priorities
            for these two populations of vehicles.
      --The exhaust emissions of a HD Truck are certified and guaranteed by
            the engine manufacturer while the vehicle manufacturer has this
            responsibility for a car.
        These factors considered together have caused HD Truck and LD
    Vehicle markets and industries to behave very differently. Their
    markets, products, business models, revenue streams and regulatory
    environ*ments are completely different. Technologies resulting from
    Basic Research can be transferable between the industries but the
    products of Applied Research and beyond are market specific. In
    summary, the HD Truck and LD Vehicle technologies and corresponding
    investments in them leverage each other only at the most basic level.
        Why Government Assistance is Needed.--The preceding paragraphs have
    established the importance of trucking to the Nation's economy and
    highlighted that HD Hybrid is a technology that offers increased
    efficiency with a simultaneous emissions reduction. HD Hybrid can
    enhance Energy and Economic Security as well as favorably impact the
    attainment of Air Quality Standards. It was also noted that technology
    investments in Light Duty vehicle technology have marginal impact on
    Heavy Duty Trucks, production volumes are much smaller than that of
    cars, and that the trucking industry operates on very slim profit
    margins due to the competition created by deregulation. As a result, HD
    Hybrid is a technology that offers significant benefit to the public
    good, but its Business Case is weak enough to discourage Industry from
    making the initial investments to develop it. This is where the
    Government can help. Through prudent investment in key technologies,
    and by assuring that sufficient testing experience is available to
    overcome consumer reluctance, the Government can help Industry get this
    technology ``over the hump'', to the point that it will stand on its
    own with a strong business case driven by proven Life Cycle Cost
    payback and superior residual value to trucking firms. Therefore, we
    respectfully ask the Subcommittee to:
        Increase the Department of Energy's 2003 budget for the Vehicle
    Technologies R&D Program, Hybrid Systems R&D sub-account to $16,100,000
    from the 2003 budget request level of $4,100,000, an increase of
    $12,000,000. The Department of Energy should be instructed to use these
    funds for the acceleration of Heavy Duty Hybrid Research and
    Development, without stipulation of vehicle fuel type, architecture or
    configuration, to enable the Private Sector to develop solutions that
    best meet the requirements of the trucking industry. .
        Our technology priorities are:
      --Power Management Technology
      --Component and System Reliability Growth
      --Engine and Aftertreatment Integration
      --Component and System Modeling and Simulation
        In addition, our group will be pursuing strategies to build the
    Component Supplier Base, influence Emissions Certification Standards to
    accommodate HD Hybrids and implement Tax and Purchase Incentives to
    accelerate the introduction of HD Hybrids into trucking Fleets.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Super Computing Science Consortium
        We are writing on behalf of the Super Computing Science Consortium.
    Members of this Consortium, including the Pittsburgh Supercomputing
    Center (co-operated by Carnegie Mellon University and the University of
    Pittsburgh), the National Energy Technology Laboratory, and the West
    Virginia University, apply their resources to problems in energy and
    the environment and to stimulate regional high-technology development.
    We request that $7 million funding be allocated in the Department of
    Energy's fiscal year 2003 budget to support the Focus Area for
    Computational Energy Sciences, Advanced Research Programs, Office of
    Fossil Energy Research and Development, of which $2 million shall be
    allocated to the Super Computing Science Consortium.
        The Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC), jointly operated by
    Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Pittsburgh and
    Westinghouse Electric Company, provides academic, government and
    industrial researchers with access to the world's most powerful public
    resource for high performance computing, communications and data
    handling. Consortium members bring to the National Energy Technology
    Laboratory (NETL) the supercomputing and networking expertise of the
    PSC and the three-dimensional visual simulations expertise of the West
    Virginia University (WVU). In addition, the Consortium supports NETL
    and its mission with the intellectual and technical resources of the
    member universities.
        The Super Computing Science Consortium is currently working on a
    variety of computational projects, conducting training and outreach
    activities, developing regional workforce capabilities, and
    participating in economic development efforts throughout western
    Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The computational projects advance the
    NETL mission utilizing state-of-the-art computational techniques and
    resources, and the expertise to experts in the field, better to
    understand and to advance the state of practice in a wide range of
    areas pertinent to the efficient extraction and use of fossil energy.
    The training, outreach and regional workforce and economic development
    activities serve the NETL mission by improving the knowledge,
    capability and skills both of the NETL staff and of the regional work
    force from which NETL draws employees.
                     representative computational projects
        MFIX Simulations
        Numerical Simulation of Unsteady Combustion
        Large Eddy Simulation (LES) of Hydrogen-Enriched Premixed
        Combustion for Ultra-Low Emission Gas-Turbine Applications
        Grant for Fluent simulations for the PC fired boiler project on the
    PSC Beowulf cluster
        Multi-Dimensional Hybrid CFD Design/Optimization of Tri-Fluid
    Pressurized Combustors
        Pore-Level Modeling of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Geologic
    Formations
        Turbulence Predictions in Reacting Multiphase Flow
        Numerical Simulation of In-Situ Reheat in Turbines
        CFD Models for Slurry Bubble Column Reactors
        Molecular Dynamics Calculations of Spin Labeled Nanometers
        Effect of baffles in partially filled heavy duty tanker
        Turbine Tip Clearance Region Desensitization
        Calculation of Point Defect Interactions: Formation of Defect
    Complexes and Clustering in Fe3Al
        First Principles Calculations of the Electronic and Chemisorption
                                    training
        Training on the applications of disperse computing systems was
    conducted for WVU and NETL researchers. The consortium is in the
    process of implementing a grid computing systems composed of a cluster
    at PSC, one at WVU and one at the NETL Morgantown site. The high-speed
    Internet service recently brought into West Virginia will allow the
    disperse clusters to work together on complex problems and to achieve
    high utilization of all three systems.
        Three papers on the consortiums activities will be presented at the
    WVU technology fair on April 23, 2002. This technology fair draws
    representatives from businesses from across West Virginia.
        A training seminar for WVU researchers on parallel computing will
    be conducted in May 2002.
        The outreach session at Waynesburg College was held on April 4 and
    5, 2002. This session presented the principles of parallel and cluster
    computer to representatives from small colleges and universities from
    West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Twenty-eight registrants from 13
    schools attended.
        Work Force Development.--The Consortium collaborated in development
    of first graduate level course in cluster computing. Twenty-three
    graduate levels students now enrolled.
        Economic Development.--The Consortium provided management guidance
    and technical consultation to Greene County government agencies in
    development and implementation of EverGreene Technology Park. Greene
    Co. has the most rural school district in Pennsylvania and an already
    high unemployment rate. It is expected that EverGreene will draw well-
    compensated, high tech jobs to this region.
        Fiscal year 2003 Activities.--Work on this project will continue to
    support the Fossil Energy Vision 21 initiative. Many of the computing
    projects initiated to date will continue within the Cluster and T3e
    computing platforms. In addition, we will extend the computational
    program to exploit the PSC terascale system in support of DOE
    objectives. The terascale machine will allow the highest level of
    computational resource to be brought to bear on critical problem facing
    fossil energy use in the future. Issues of carbon sequestration,
    methane production from methane hydrates, complex flow and chemical
    issues in future vision 21 coal utilization plants, and infrastructure
    protection will address.
      --Applications will be implemented on the grid computing system
            established in fiscal year 2002. The applications will include
            job scheduling of fossil energy computational problems from
            NETL and partnering universities and labs.
      --In collaboration with WVU virtual environments lab, distributed
            rendering of virtual plants and research results will be
            developed and performed on the grid computing system.
      --Efficient monitoring and support of hardware and software systems
            comprising the grid's distributed clusters will be established
            to provide 247 support from a central location.
      --Implement a disaster backup capability for NETL data across the
            fiber optic network.
      --Workforce development: Building on this year's program, we will
            work with the EdVenture Group, a not for profit WV state
            agency, to begin a workforce development program on a pilot
            basis with one high school in rural WV. The WVU class prepared
            this year will be simplified and taught at the high school by
            NETL, WVU and PSC personnel. This class will serve as a model
            for future sessions in the region.
      --Extend the network to Fairmont and other parts of WV.
      --Continue to increase pool of academic and research institutions
            supporting NETL's mission. This process also benefits the
            participating institutions by encouraging advances in
            computational skills and related expertise. It is expected that
            additional college level programs will also come about as these
            schools become familiar with state of the art HPC resources. A
            continuing and growing benefit will occur for NETL and the
            region.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the National Research Center for Coal and Energy,
                            West Virginia University
                                    request
        Our testimony will focus on the Fuels Program in the fiscal year
    2003 Fossil Energy R&D budget. We are very concerned about the proposed
    reduction in funding for fuels research to a level of $5 million for
    fiscal year 2003 compared to the enacted level of $32.2 million in
    fiscal year 2002. We request that $6.3 million be added to the Fuels
    Program budget to continue the work this Subcommittee has supported in
    the areas of C-1 Chemistry, Advanced Separations, and Coal Extraction.
    We also urge your continued support for strong research, development,
    and demonstration programs in the areas of coal, natural gas, and oil.
                             fossil energy programs
        For the Fossil Energy R&D Program, the Administration's fiscal year
    2003 request is approximately $93 million (16 percent) less than the
    enacted budget for fiscal year 2002. Major reductions have been
    proposed in Central Systems, Fuels, Distributed Generation, and Natural
    Gas and Oil Technologies. These budget reductions will scale back
    essential R&D programs, some of which have existing mortgages. Ensuing
    time delays in completing these programs will hamper our ability both
    to enable our existing power generation fleets meet mandated emissions
    goals and also our ability to develop new technologies which will serve
    us in the future. We urge the Subcommittee to restore these programs to
    at least their fiscal year 2002 level.
        We are pleased to note that the Administration has recommended $150
    million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative. These funds will be used
    to demonstrate technologies that are highly complex and capital
    intensive. We recommend that the $2 billion initiative announced by the
    Administration should be funded as additional money over and above the
    basic fossil energy R&D program.
        The need for separate funding for the Clean Coal Power Initiative
    (a demonstration program) and the basic R&D program can be illustrated
    by reviewing the fossil energy research overseen by the Department of
    Energy for the past 25 years. [Reference: National Research Council
    Report--Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It?]. Since 1984, the R&D
    for coal, oil, and natural gas has been funded at approximately the
    same level, around $400 million in constant dollars. Demonstrations
    supported under the previously funded Clean Coal Technology [CCT]
    Program were treated separately from the base R&D program. Legislation
    enacted by Congress committed CCT funding for the outyears, thereby
    assuring participants that continuing appropriations would be available
    to complete their projects.
        Our nation's needs for low cost, clean, abundant energy are even
    more acute as we face both shortages of supply and uncertainties about
    the source of supply. We must both adequately fund our R&D programs and
    support the demonstration program by appropriating additional funding
    for the Fossil Energy budget. As was the case with the Clean Coal
    Technology Program, we urge both Congress and the Administration to
    commit the long-term funding necessary to permit successful
    demonstration of the technologies that evolve from the basic R&D
    program.
                                 fuels program
        The Fuels Program of the Office of Fossil Energy has three
    important subelements which would be affected by the budget cut
    proposed by the Administration: Transportation Fuels and Chemicals,
    Solid Fuels and Feedstocks, and Advanced Research. Our nation needs
    alternative sources of transportation fuels to supplement our oil
    reserves and reduce imports. Coal can play an essential role in
    producing liquid fuels, chemicals, and is the most viable long-term
    source of hydrogen. Advanced research is necessary to improve our
    technologies. Solid fuels research programs help us save energy and
    resources through the application of new processes and the manufacture
    of new products from coal.
    C-1 Chemistry Program
        The C-1 Chemistry program is the only element of the Fuels Program
    which addresses advanced research for new technologies to reduce the
    cost of producing alternative fuels from a wide variety of feedstocks,
    including coal, natural gas, and biomass. Research conducted by the
    Consortium for Fossil Fuel Science [CFFS] has led to innovations for
    the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) process that improve our ability to produce
    ultra-clean, high efficiency transportation fuels. Cleaner
    transportation fuels are needed to meet present and future emissions
    requirements, such as lower sulfur, NOX, and particulate
    emissions, advanced by the Environmental Protection Agency.
        CFFS researchers have also developed new catalysts and processes
    for producing oxygenated compounds for additives to diesel fuel or
    gasoline, and for the production of hydrogen. The program has developed
    ways to produce carbon nanotubes which can be used for hydrogen gas
    storage and also a wide variety of other products. The CFFS is guided
    by an Industrial Advisory Board whose critiques and recommendations
    ensure the relevance this long term research program. The program is
    also maintaining our resource base of human capital with expertise in
    coal science.
        New technologies for fuel production will make advanced coal power
    plants being developed under Vision 21 programs more economical.
    Successful Vision 21 plants will lead not only to supplemental supplies
    of transportation fuels and chemicals from indigenous resources, but
    also to a continuation of our inexpensive supply of electric power. We
    request that C-1 Chemistry be funded at a level of $2 million in fiscal
    year 2003, an increase of $0.5 million over the fiscal year 2002
    appropriation. The CFFS will provide $0.5 million in cost sharing to
    supplement the federal funding.
    Advanced separations
        In 2000, the U.S. mining industry produced $60 billion worth of raw
    materials and the mineral processing industries increased the value of
    this production to $429 billion. The electricity generated from mining
    coal and uranium was worth $182 billion. Overall, the mining industry
    contributed approximately 6.7 percent of the U.S. economy in 2000.
    However, the mining industry is also producing a large amount of waste
    products and loses much of its recovered resource due to inefficiencies
    in the various separation processes that are currently being used. In
    some cases, such as the October 11, 2000 catastrophic coal waste
    impoundment failure near Inez, Kentucky, damage is done to the
    environment from the release of the discarded material into streams,
    creeks, and rivers. The damage to the environment from the coal fines
    released at Inez resulted in $500 million in clean-up costs. The recent
    National Research Council study recommended that additional research is
    needed to prevent such disasters. Advanced separations technologies
    would recover more of the coal fines, thereby reducing the need for,
    and size of, such impoundments.
        The Advanced Separations research supported under the Fuels Program
    is focused on high-risk innovative projects to develop new technologies
    for the recovery of resources and to minimize waste releases to the
    environment. The Advanced Separations program is particularly important
    for the collection and sequestration of ash, minerals, and sulfur from
    coal, and will become increasingly more relevant to address the removal
    and sequestration of heavy metals, including mercury. Industry
    continues to show interest in a federally sponsored academic-style
    research program in this area.
        The Center for Advanced Separations Technology [CAST] is conducting
    crosscutting research in the solids-solids and solids-liquids
    separations areas by working closely with the mining industry on the
    underlying science and technology that will be the basis of new
    processing techniques. Areas being researched are crosscutting in
    nature and can be applied to both the coal and minerals area. Member
    universities in the Center include Virginia Tech, West Virginia, New
    Mexico Tech, Utah, Montana Tech, Kentucky, and Nevada-Reno. In fiscal
    year 2002, the CAST initiated research programs in coal, minerals, and
    biological separations areas. In addition to the advanced technologies
    being developed, the program also helps to educate technical people to
    support the industry under the direction of researchers in the top
    mining schools in the United States.
        We request that the CAST Advanced Separations program be continued
    at the fiscal year 2002 level of $3 million. Center participants will
    provide $0.75 million in cost sharing.
    Coal Extraction Program
        The manufacture of advanced carbon-based products continues to be
    an important contributor to our economy. Lightweight carbon structures
    are integral components of transportation vehicles, leading to reduced
    weight, enhanced energy efficiency, and high strength components that
    improve the safety of vehicles in crashes. Traditionally, carbon
    products were made from petroleum cokes to produce binders and pitches
    that form the building blocks for products such as anodes for steel and
    aluminum smelting, graphite for nuclear reactors, and advanced
    composites for a variety of industrial and consumer products. Recent
    findings have shown that coal-based carbon products have superior
    properties compared to petroleum-based products.
        Petroleum-based pitches and cokes are becoming in increasingly
    short supply. These feedstocks also contain more heavy metals as we are
    forced to use the less desirable petroleum crudes for our
    transportation needs. Coal-based binders and pitches are also less
    plentiful since environmental concerns and weakening steel production
    reduce the supply available from traditional sources such as coke
    ovens.
        Research conducted under Coal Extraction program is focused on
    developing low-cost, plentiful supplies of coal-based carbon for use in
    manufacturing. The basic research conducted under this program provides
    the upstream knowledge necessary for a wide range of industries to
    manufacture useful products such as foams, fibers, beads, and graphite.
    We request funding for the Coal Extraction program for fiscal year 2003
    at a level of $1.3 million, a reduction of $0.4 million from the
    enacted fiscal year 2002 budget. An additional $325,000 will be
    contributed in cost sharing to supplement the federal award.
                              concluding comments
        The advanced research supported under the three programs discussed
    above provides the knowledge to enable further development of these
    technologies into the commercial sector. These programs also assist in
    preserving our national base of intellectual capital with expertise in
    coal chemistry. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on
    the fuels research program of the Office of Fossil Energy. We
    appreciate the continued support of the Subcommittee for the C-1
    Chemistry, Advanced Separations, and Coal Extraction programs.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Alliance to Save Energy
        The Alliance to Save Energy appreciates the opportunity to comment
    on the fiscal year 2003 budget for energy-efficiency programs at the
    Department of Energy. We believe that the funding levels for these
    critical research, development, and deployment programs should be
    significantly higher, but there are positive aspects to the current
    document.
        My name is David Hamilton. I am the Policy Director of the Alliance
    to Save Energy, a bi-partisan, non-profit coalition of business,
    government, environmental, and consumer leaders dedicated to improving
    the efficiency with which our economy uses energy. Senators Charles
    Percy and Hubert Humphrey founded the Alliance in 1977; it is currently
    led by Sen. Byron Dorgan as chair, with Sen. James Jeffords and your
    colleague, Rep. Ed Markey as vice-chairs.
        Seventy companies and organizations currently belong to the
    Alliance to Save Energy. If it pleases the Chairman I would like to
    include for the record a complete list of the Alliance's Board of
    Directors and Associate members, which includes the nation's leading
    energy efficiency firms, electric and gas utilities, and other
    companies committed to cutting their energy bills.
        The Alliance has a long history of researching and evaluating
    federal energy efficiency efforts. We also have a long history of
    supporting efforts to promote energy efficiency that rely not on
    mandatory federal regulations, but on partnerships between government
    and business and between the federal and State governments. DOE
    efficiency programs are largely voluntary programs that further the
    national goals of broad-based economic growth, environmental
    protection, national security and economic competitiveness. The Office
    of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy does this through the
    development of new energy-efficient technology in cooperation with the
    national laboratories, by working with the private sector to deploy
    that technology, and by fostering energy efficiency activities in the
    states. And they do it well.
                       a critical juncture for the nation
        In April 2002, we remain in the midst of a fierce debate on
    national energy policy. Thus far, there has been no resolution as the
    Senate continues to work on its energy bill. Meanwhile, critical
    geopolitical issues point up our continued vulnerability to supply
    disruptions and price instability. One might have thought that the
    terrorist attacks of September 11 would have changed more attitudes
    about energy than it has. While some concern is being paid to the
    physical security of energy infrastructure from terrorism surprisingly
    little has yet been done to protect the nation's economy from energy
    supply and price disruptions.
        The energy events that gave rise to the push for energy legislation
    seem like they have subsided and are further away, but I don't believe
    they are very far away, Mr. Chairman. Gasoline has risen nearly 30
    cents per gallon as the Israeli-Palestinian crisis has intensified
    during the past few weeks. The rush to build new electricity generation
    that immediately followed the California electricity crisis has greatly
    abated as prices have fallen and near-term supplies have stabilized.
    Nobody has yet come up with an adequate answer to how we maintain a
    stable and cheap natural gas supply when nearly all new generation
    coming on line is gas-fired.
                    boom and bust test our economic security
        Energy is a boom and bust business, Mr. Chairman. Supply gets tight
    and the price goes up, then there is a rush to secure greater supply.
    That additional supply creates a glut that send prices and profit
    margins falling until a combination of falling supply and rising demand
    renew the cycle.
        Mr. Chairman, it is arguable how well our economy absorbs the
    shocks of the boom and bust cycle. The oil crises of the 1970's clearly
    caused economic disruption on a large scale. The California electricity
    crisis opened a drainpipe in the state treasury, while price spikes in
    the East and mid-west during the past few years sent prices spiraling
    for short periods. The natural gas spike of two winters ago caused
    severe economic hardships for families that heat with gas.
        Energy issues are so often intermingled with ``national security''
    issues these days, it gets more and more difficult to sort out where
    they really intersect. Now viewing the world through a terrorism
    template, we talk about the physical security of nuclear power plants
    in the same breath as whether to drill for oil in the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge. The issues of physical and economic security are often
    confused.
        In the end, Mr. Chairman, what has been a blind trust in boom and
    bust markets to determine our energy supply has again and again
    jeopardized our economic security. Every oil shock in our history has
    been followed by a recession, Mr. Chairman. What's worse, Mr. Chairman,
    is that we have actively avoided taking steps to mitigate our
    vulnerability.
              energy efficiency is insurance against boom and bust
        Reducing demand in oil, electric, and home heating sectors reduces
    the impact on the economy of the boom and bust cycle. Increased energy
    efficiency in vehicles cuts the leverage that OPEC has over our oil
    supply. It keeps electricity supply clear of the crisis level that
    causes prices to spike to many times its normal level. Levels of
    electricity conservation in California of 6-10 percent since last year
    have substantially helped keep the state out of the danger zone it
    faced so recently. As we say here every year, Mr. Chairman, reducing
    demand through energy efficiency increases energy supply, often more
    quickly, cheaply, and cleanly than any other method.
                               everybody agrees?
        The one thing that everyone has agreed on Mr. Chairman, is that
    energy efficiency should be a key part of our national energy policy.
    Virtually all the chief governmental proponents of energy legislation,
    whether President Bush, Sen. Daschle, Chairman Tauzin or Sen. Murkowski
    have said it: energy efficiency (or conservation if you prefer;
    although used interchangeably, they are not the same) is a significant
    policy option available to balance the pursuit of increased supply. The
    Alliance believes we need both, but the proposals being considered fall
    far short of aggressive attempts to maximize energy efficiency.
        But what people don't agree on, Mr. Chairman, is what constitutes
    real energy efficiency. The Alliance to Save Energy believes that we
    need both new supply and aggressive demand-reduction. But H.R. 4, the
    House energy policy bill, largely ignored energy efficiency options in
    the transportation and electric sectors and thus constitutes little
    more than a missed opportunity to have a balanced national energy
    policy. A complete failure to include meaningful provisions to save oil
    and save electricity make H.R. 4 a supply bill, that--aside from some
    useful tax incentives--provides little other than window dressing on
    efficiency.
                        fiscal year 2003 budget request
        The fiscal year 2003 budget for energy efficiency programs
    submitted by the Administration makes significant changes in programs
    and process within these programs. An additional order of magnitude of
    change to be evaluated is the recent reorganization of the entire
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy announced by Assistant
    Secretary David Garman last week.
        To begin at a macro level, we are disappointed that the
    Administration's fiscal year 2003 request slates energy efficiency
    programs for a cut. The Alliance continues to believe that energy
    efficiency efforts are not funded at an adequate level. In addition,
    while we are pleased with the critical increase in the Weatherization
    Assistance Program outlined in the request, we are very concerned with
    the more than 10 percent cut in funding for research, development, and
    deployment programs.
        We cannot cease to aggressively pursue new technology options in
    the buildings, industrial and transportation sectors, Mr. Chairman. The
    breakthroughs achieved by DOE's past research into more efficient
    technology have revolutionized our buildings, our lighting, and a
    variety of commercial and industrial practices. Programs designed to
    overcome market obstacles to the adoption of existing technologies are
    just as critical. Cuts in the President's request for windows research,
    industrial Best Practices, Clean Cities, and automotive Hybrid Systems
    R&D are examples of places that need more focus and concentration, not
    less.
        In addition, the 14 percent reduction in funding for State Energy
    Programs weaken a key cog in the promotion, distribution of knowledge,
    and adoption of energy efficient technologies. The states remain strong
    and active partners, and should be on a rising, not falling, curve of
    support.
               fiscal year 2003 budget request has strong points
        In addition to a more vibrant commitment to weatherization, this
    budget has other items and increases to recommend it. The increase in
    Energy Star would finally give more adequate support to a program long
    supported strongly by the Alliance and one that is becoming an
    essential guide for consumers who wish to purchase energy efficient
    appliances, windows, and other products. A more aggressive Building
    America program will help break down the barriers that home builders
    face in incorporating energy-efficient technologies into residential
    construction. Increased support for the Federal Energy Management
    Program will enable DOE to accelerate its leadership role in gaining
    energy savings from federal facilities.
        The Alliance strongly believes that increasing fuel economy
    standards is the best and quickest way to reduce our nation's oil
    dependence, Mr. Chairman. We are wary that some of the heralding of the
    ``Freedom Car'' program may lessen the focus on standards as a way to
    reduce oil consumption. That being said, we strongly support
    accelerated work on automobile fuel cells that can perhaps shorten the
    15-20 year expected interval before fuel cell cars will be on the road
    in significant numbers.
                              eere reorganization
        The reorganization announced last week by Assistant Secretary
    Garman is broad in scope and will require significant attention in the
    coming weeks. Its basis is a 236-page strategic review that has just
    become available to the public. It eliminates the former sectors within
    energy efficiency--buildings, industrial, and transportation--reducing
    some of them to program categories. The combination of business
    functions may have larger implications for the traditional distribution
    of the functions between the Energy and Water and Interior
    Appropriations bills.
        It is critical that Congress not allow a fudging of the priorities
    that have been laid out for the Department by this reorganization. The
    Alliance is sympathetic and supportive of changes that can make energy
    efficiency programs accomplish more and use taxpayer dollars more
    efficiently, and we commend Assistant Secretary Garman for tackling
    these tough issues. When analyzing the reorganization, Mr. Chairman,
    please pay close attention to the following:
      --Does the reorganization create de facto shifts in program priority
            for EERE and what are they?
      --For which programs does the reorganization make it harder or easier
            to do business?
      --How does the mandated routing of all communication activities
            through the Assistant Secretary's office enhance or detract
            from the office's ability to get its message out?
                                recommendations
        The Alliance to Save Energy generally recommends at least a 20
    percent increase over fiscal year 2002 funding for non-grant energy
    efficiency programs.
        We are particularly disturbed about cuts in: Window Research;
    Thermal Insulation and Building Materials; Best Practices; Hybrid
    Systems R&D; Lightweight Materials Technology; Clean Cities; COEECT
    (eliminated).
        The Alliance strongly supports the included and additional
    increases for: Energy Star; Lighting and Appliance Standards; State
    Building Codes; Federal Energy Management Program; Industrial
    Assessment Centers; Building America; Auto Fuel Cell R&D.
        In addition, the Alliance recommends additional increases for:
    NICE-3; Industries of the Future--Specific; Sensors and Control
    Technologies.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for offering the Alliance to Save
    Energy the opportunity to testify before you today and for your support
    in past years for energy efficiency. I welcome any questions that you
    or the Subcommittee might have.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the American Gas Association
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    American Gas Association (AGA), comprising 185 natural gas distribution
    companies across North America, serving 60 million homes and businesses
    in all 50 states, we offer this testimony related to the U.S.
    Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year 2003 Budget. AGA is pleased
    with the productive partnership it has with DOE and this Subcommittee
    to advance cost-shared research projects that serve the national
    interest. Within the Interior Subcommittee's jurisdiction, DOE's fiscal
    year 2003 budget request for natural gas RD&D programs reside in the
    Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and Fossil
    Energy (FE). For the past decade we have provided this Subcommittee
    with a litany of technology priorities across a broad spectrum of
    programs. This year, however, marks a significant deviation from that
    policy. While AGA continues to support programs such as natural gas
    vehicles and industrial RD&D, two top priorities and programs have
    emerged: FE's natural gas infrastructure and EERE's distributed energy
    resource (DER) programs. The Administration requested no funding for
    natural gas infrastructure research in the fiscal year 2003 budget,
    compared with $10 million appropriated by Congress for the current
    year. AGA respectfully requests an increase of $25 million to the
    budget request for infrastructure programs. Justification for this $15
    million increase over the current level is discussed below. EERE's
    fiscal year 2003 DER request is virtually unchanged from fiscal year
    2002 at the level of $64 million and AGA respectfully requests an
    increase of $26 million for a total of $90 million.
        AGA's unprecedented prioritization and funding request reflects the
    nation's immediate need for and the industry's commitment to dramatic
    advancement in the areas of infrastructure and DER. The horrible
    terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 make clear the needed re-
    investment in infrastructure both to facilitate greater reliance on
    domestic energy resources and to ensure the secure distribution of
    those national assets to American consumers. Increased emphasis on
    Homeland Security also highlight the value of a power generation
    portfolio that is distributed, reliable, cost-effective and able to
    operate independently even if a central power station or the electric
    grid is compromised. Given these needs and our commitment to reliable
    and safe service for the American people, the Natural Gas Industry has
    developed two initiatives aimed at dramatically advancing
    Infrastructure and DER, they include the Natural Gas Check-Off Program
    and the National Accounts Energy Alliance.
           natural gas infrastructure--natural gas check-off program
        The Office of Management and Budget proposes to terminate funding
    for the natural gas infrastructure program in DOE. The American Gas
    Association strongly supports the DOE's program for natural gas
    industry Infrastructure and Operations. This program was initiated in
    fiscal year 2001 with an appropriation of $4.9 million for
    infrastructure and has been met by tremendous enthusiasm and project
    costsharing within the natural gas industry. More than 70 proposals,
    totaling in excess of $45 million, were submitted by industry partners
    in response to the inaugural year funding under the DOE program. These
    proposals exceeded the available dollars by a nine-to-one margin. All
    proposals met or exceeded DOE's 35 percent cost-sharing requirement.
        Congress appropriated $10 million for fiscal year 2002 and all
    indications are that industry partners will respond at least as
    enthusiastically as last year. Given the need to revitalize the
    Nation's aging natural infrastructure with new technologies and
    materials, given the heightened importance of safeguarding that
    infrastructure, and given the overwhelming response of the natural gas
    industry to partnering with the government to achieve these objectives,
    AGA highly recommends the continuation and expansion of this program by
    $15 million in fiscal year 2003.
        In general, DOE's infrastructure R&D is geared to its mission to
    make the nation's energy infrastructure more reliable, efficient and
    able to meet the needs of the economy. It tends to have longer-term
    benefits. DOE's programs include projects such as: more corrosion-
    resistant material that can transport gas at higher pressure, more fuel
    efficient compressors that are capable of flexible compression
    operation, improved automated data acquisition, system monitoring and
    control techniques, no dig technologies, innovative excavation and
    restoration systems, and plastic pipe technology. All of these
    contribute to public benefits in terms of additional domestic energy
    supply, increased safety and reliability, lower cost to consumers, and
    improved environmental performance.
        The natural gas industry provides substantial cost sharing in the
    development of the technologies necessary to develop this new
    infrastructure. We do believe that there are significant benefits that
    will accrue to all Americans as a result of an infrastructure research
    partnership. We know that major and novel system improvements are
    needed for natural gas to be delivered in the volumes that DOE believes
    will be required in the future and that these improvements are
    dependent on new, highly efficient technologies.
        Some in the Office of Management and Budget argue that all natural
    gas infrastructure research should be conducted exclusively by the
    Department of Transportation. Currently, the Office of Pipeline Safety
    (OPS) in DOT does conduct limited infrastructure-related work.
    Consistent with its role as a pipeline safety regulatory agency, OPS's
    pipeline R&D has focused on near term safety, security and damage
    prevention projects and technologies and codes and standards
    development. DOE focuses on the long term energy delivery issues
    related to natural gas infrastructure. Although, both departments are
    involved in R&D, the departments have different missions and their R&D
    programs reflect it.
        Coordination between the two departments is critical and AGA
    recommends a balance of both security, safety, reliability and
    efficiency related work. The research programs in each department are
    extremely essential.
        Meeting a large increase in demand efficiently and in a manner that
    is in the best interest of the American people will require continued
    cooperation between DOE, DOT, and the natural gas industry to develop
    the necessary research tools. It is clear that immediate and
    substantial investment in research supporting natural gas
    infrastructure is essential to ensuring energy reliability and security
    in our Nation.
        The natural gas industry's commitment to partnering with the
    Departments of Energy and Transportation is underscored by AGA's
    creation and advocacy of legislation that set aside industry funds to
    compliment federal research expenditures on natural gas infrastructure.
     distributed energy resources--national accounts energy alliance (naea)
        The DER program in EERE is significantly under-funded. The Office
    of Power Technologies receives nearly ten solicitation applications
    (each application is typically developed by an entire team of
    companies) for every award it makes. While more manufacturers are
    entering the market and dramatically more attention from states, power
    providers and end-users is focused on DER, significant RD&D
    requirements abound. DER provides the opportunity for efficient use of
    waste heat to achieve total system efficiency levels as high as 80
    percent. This compares to large central power plant efficiencies that
    are typically less than half as efficient largely due to their
    inability to productively use all of their waste heat. Further, the
    higher efficiency of DER systems inherently leads to lower emissions
    since these systems use less fuel, and typically cleaner feedstock
    fuels, than central power plants to achieve a given unit of power
    output. Many utilities are now exploring the utilization of DER to
    reduce the strain on congested transmission systems. On-site DER
    systems are especially important for high-tech and mission-critical
    facilities as they offer dramatic power quality and reliability
    increases. The national economy is inextricably linked to information
    and electronically sensitive computer systems that require
    uninterruptible power that the 50+ year old electric grid was not
    designed to serve. Mission-critical systems, be it in high-tech,
    healthcare, manufacturing, or government facilities are enhanced by
    DER.
        DOE has spent tens of millions of dollars developing individual DER
    technologies over the past decade. However, tremendous work remains in
    the areas of system development, advanced controls and sensors, power
    quality and reliability, storage, and interconnection. DOE has studied
    the technical, regulatory, market and institutional barriers to
    widespread utilization of DER and has worked to promote commercial
    acceptance. However, to date, these programs have failed to capture the
    vision of large commercial end-users at the corporate or headquarters
    level--NAEA is focused on affecting targeted change at this point.
        NAEA is a 4-year cost-shared initiative aimed at developing new
    construction and retrofit energy models for the nation's largest end-
    users in partnership with their energy providers. The American Gas
    Association, Gas Technology Institute and American Gas Foundation have
    come together to establish the National Accounts Energy Alliance
    (NAEA). NAEA has been in existence for less than 1-year, yet already
    its members are comprised of the nations largest energy providers
    (electric and natural gas) as well as end-users such as A&P,
    Albertsons, HealthSouth, H.E. Butts, Kohls, McDonalds, TJ Maxx, Wal-
    Greens, and Wal-Mart. In its inception NAEA focused on retail,
    supermarket and food service industries. In fiscal year 2003, NAEA will
    expand its membership to include a broader segment of the high-tech and
    telecommunications, health care, hotel, and targeted manufacturing
    industries.
        Many NAEA members all maintain hundreds or even thousands of
    properties across the nation and are engaged in new or retrofit
    construction on a daily basis. Typically, all of these efforts are
    based on a central construction model, with a handful of geographic-
    based options. NAEA will work with these end-users' corporate offices
    to technologically advance the base model through the use of DER
    systems. Additionally, a missing ingredient to DOE's past deployment
    programs includes an energy Technology Test and Verification Program
    (TT&VP). DER testing and technology adoption by national accounts is
    the fastest way to perform testing, disseminate the results widely,
    make necessary technology and applications corrections and subsequently
    rapidly deploy improved systems. Because of fierce competition,
    standardization, central design services and extensive building
    programs it is extremely difficult for national accounts to perform
    such tests on newly emerging technologies like DER because of their
    impact upon facility design, need for redundancy, and the technological
    risks involved.
        In fiscal year 2003, NAEA hopes to undertake at least eight highly
    publicized and replicable DER projects in partnership with DOE, across
    each region of the country and multiple industry sectors. This program
    illustrates the commitment of the natural gas industry and its partners
    to deploy the research being conducted under the DER technology areas.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, AGA is giving great emphasis to developing
    comprehensive programs across end-use sectors that complement each
    other and provide cheaper energy to the end-user, while reducing
    emissions, improving energy efficiency, quality, and reliability. And,
    the infrastructure research partnership between DOE and the natural gas
    will also have significant benefits in terms of safety, reliability,
    cleaner air and economic growth that will accrue to all Americans. AGA
    greatly appreciates your past support and consideration of these
    proposals.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Gas Turbine Association
        The Gas Turbine Association (GTA) appreciates the opportunity to
    provide the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, Interior and Related
    Agencies Subcommittee with our industry's statement regarding the
    following fiscal year 2003 Department of Energy (DOE) Turbine R&D
    funding levels.

    GTA Recommended Funding Levels

                            [In millions of dollars]

    HIGH EFFICIENCY ENGINES AND TURBINES PROGRAM (Office of Fossil
        Energy).......................................................    40
    ADVANCED MICROTURBINE PROGRAM (Office of Energy Efficiency and
        Renewable Energy).............................................    14
          clean coal--heet doubles efficiency and eliminates emissions
        The DOE High Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET) Program is
    critical to the President's National Energy Policy (NEP) Clean Coal
    Technology goal of ``low-cost, zero emission power plants with
    efficiencies close to double that of today's fleet''. The DOE/industry
    HEET partnership will make it possible for power generation equipment
    manufacturers, as well as systems developers, owners and operators to
    create the core technology solutions necessary to overcome the complex
    challenges identified in the NEP report.
        The HEET Program turbine system efficiency goal is 60 percent for
    coal-based systems, and HEET turbo fuel cell hybrid systems that offer
    the potential for unprecedented efficiencies (in excess of 80 percent).
    The HEET near-zero emission environmental goal translates into systems
    with no carbon, and negligible NOX, SO2, and
    trace contaminants. The program is also targeting a 15 percent
    reduction life-cycle cost of electricity generated by gas turbine power
    plants.
        Federal cost sharing is needed to enable successful development
    technology improvements envisioned under the HEET, and to expedite
    commercialization of these systems. A $40 Million federal contribution
    to the HEET program in fiscal year 2003 will have a direct impact on
    the fuel-efficiency, fuel flexibility and emissions levels of America's
    coal and natural gas fired power plants.
        Our nation's investment in the HEET program will allow the United
    States to continue to serve as the world's principal source for clean
    turbine power generation systems. As the leading developer and producer
    of these clean, fossil-fueled power technologies, the United States can
    remain the leader of the international effort to lower global power
    plant emissions levels through technology innovation. Gas turbine
    equipment manufacturers, as well as systems developers, owners and
    operators have already indicated strong interest in working with DOE to
    help reach the HEET program goals. Now, Congress needs to ensure there
    is adequate fiscal year 2003 federal funding ($40 million) to
    facilitate a government/industry partnership that successfully allows
    new HEET technologies to mature in an expeditious and timely manner.
                         gas turbines--powering america
        Currently, gas turbine power is the most fuel-efficient, cleanest,
    and consumer friendly way to generate electricity. Combined cycle gas
    turbines provide the highest efficiency and lowest emissions of all
    combustion generation technology available today (producing twice as
    much electricity and less than half the CO2 as compared to
    existing non-gas-turbine power plants). Turbine systems are cost
    effective, and can be quickly deployed to meet the country's growing
    energy needs. The gas turbine industry is currently manufacturing and
    installing these high-tech power plants across the United States to
    reduce the cost of electricity, create new jobs, and stimulate
    investment to support economic development.
        However, America's new energy policy goals require dramatic new
    technology development. The vision of a modern, secure U.S. power
    generation infrastructure that runs on domestic fuels without harming
    the environment is achievable, if the Federal government makes a
    sufficient investment in DOE/industry turbine partnership programs.
    Unfortunately, the Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget request for
    these DOE gas turbine programs is inadequate to stimulate significant
    advancement toward the ground-breaking technological changes our nation
    needs. GTA believes the above funding levels are necessary if our
    nation intends to realize the public benefits envisioned in our
    national energy policy.
                clean coal turbine power--technology challenges
        New combustion technology development is essential to produce clean
    electricity from coal fuels in advanced clean coal turbine power
    systems. Catalytic combustion, trapped vortex, or other advanced after-
    treatment configurations must be developed for our nation to reduce
    emissions from coal gas fired turbine plants to near zero levels.
    Advanced materials must also be developed that can withstand ultra-high
    temperature, corrosive coal-fueled environments and reduce the cooling
    loads on hot turbine parts.
        Clean coal technology systems must be low cost, reliable, available
    and maintainable to be competitive. New clean coal HEET systems must
    have low operating and maintenance costs to thrive in the marketplace.
    To improve the reliability and availability of clean coal turbine power
    plants, improvements are needed in advanced performance monitoring,
    mechanical integrity analysis, and component life management. Advanced
    monitoring will require considerable development efforts in (1)
    sensors, (2) controls, (3) condition/health monitoring systems, (4)
    expert predictive systems, and (5) turbine power-plant life-cycle
    management. Operations and maintenance costs will be reduced by (1)
    limiting degradation, (2) operating at optimal performance while the
    system is at off-design conditions, (3) improving component life, and
    (4) increasing the time between major overhauls.
        Aero-thermal technology research and development is needed in the
    areas of advanced cooling, aerodynamic designs, and durability under
    high loaded conditions. Design tools using advanced numeric simulations
    will be needed to assess new engine performance to greatly reduce the
    time needed for development and testing. With advanced computing, many
    of the component interactions can be explored before building a
    physical system, saving the time and the money required to build less-
    than-optimal prototype plants.
             turbo fuel cell hybrids--the ultimate vision 21 system
        The DOE Vision 21 initiative identifies Turbine Fuel Cell Hybrids
    as a key technology for enabling energy plants to serve the United
    States and global energy needs of the early 21st century. A gas turbine
    is used to pressurize fuel cells. Thus the system requires development
    of customized turbo machinery and balance of plant to reduce the
    overall cost of projected commercial systems. It is necessary to
    develop a range of hybrid systems up to multi-megawatt sizes and
    conduct extensive field demonstrations in order to achieve the goals of
    the DOE Vision 21 plan. The turbo fuel cell hybrid is expected to (1)
    achieve the ultra-high, 80+ 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).
        The HEET program, combined with DOE fuel cell program efforts, will
    lead to the required cost reductions needed to ensure the commercial
    viability of these hybrid systems. Gas turbine research is necessary to
    enable the technology to meet the pressure ratios, mass flows, and
    other critical operating and performance parameters of high-temperature
    fuel cells. Ultimately, the program will culminate with the testing of
    a near-commercial-scale multi MW Vision 21 coal-fired hybrid power
    system.
              advanced microturbines--enabling distributed energy
        To help meet the next century's projected demand for power,
    increased emphasis is being placed on developing distributed energy
    resource (DER) generation systems. Today, microturbines are viable now
    for DER applications with competitive costs, performance, and emissions
    in selected applications. They are ideally suited to alternate fuels,
    combined heat and power (CHP) applications, and remote siting.
        Currently, microturbines are:
      --Best in Class for 30 to 500 kW
      --Ultra low emissions (< 5 ppm NOX)
      --Fuel flexible (gaseous and liquid fuels, renewables and hydrogen)
      --Potentially highest efficiency
      --Directly use exhaust gas for CHP
      --Lowest manufacturing cost when fully developed (high power density)
      --Lowest installed cost potential (light weight, quiet)
      --Lowest maintenance cost (few moving parts)
        While microturbines are now entering the DER market, improved
    microturbine technologies are needed to expedite the installation of
    clean, efficient and affordable DER systems. Once the goals of the DOE
    Advanced Microturbine Program have been achieved, microturbines can
    significantly expand DER market potential and deliver the public
    benefits that flow from DER. Advanced microturbines, especially when
    combined with a heat recovery system will produce compact, highly
    efficient power and hot water for commercial and small industrial
    applications. High efficiency advanced microturbines will use
    significantly less fuel, conserving natural resources by converting >70
    percent fuel energy with CHP. These systems are likely to be
    environmentally preferred when compared to power generated at a non-gas
    turbine based conventional fossil fuel power plant.
                    der microturbine--technology challenges
        The goal of affordable, 40 percent efficiency microturbines will be
    achieved by raising the operating temperature. This will be
    accomplished by integrating advanced ceramics to avoid the use of
    additional cooling systems, and by developing affordable high
    temperature recuperator technologies using advanced alloys.
    Improvements in durability will come from reliable, highly effective
    recuperators, increased load capability bearing design, and improved
    high temperature materials resulting in 11,000hr mean time between
    outages at less than $500/kW.
        The Advanced Microturbine Program will deliver fuel flexible
    systems with low environmental impact. A single design capable of
    operating on gas, liquid, biofuels (bio liquids, digester gas and
    landfill gas) and waste fuels will be coupled with ultra-low-
    NOX technology. To meet customer needs, the advanced
    microturbines will be pre-certified, packaged modules that convert
    waste heat into useful energy. The program will focus on better CHP
    performance through (1) heat exchanger technology to improve hot water
    and heating capabilities, (2) exhaust absorption chillers for cooling,
    (3) exhaust desiccant dehumidifier technology for dehumidification, and
    4) clean CO2 rich air stream technology for direct heating.
        In order to put the Advanced Microturbine Program in line with the
    resources specified by it's program plan, $14 million in funding is
    needed in fiscal year 2003.
                      public benefits--doe gas turbine r&d
        DOE gas turbine R&D Programs stimulate economic growth, clean up
    the environment, and ensure that the United States has a reliable
    supply of power. 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 benefits.
    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.
    Economic strength through improved power systems
        Development and accelerated deployment of advanced turbine power
    technologies will reduce the cost of electricity, create new jobs, and
    stimulate investment to support U.S. economic development. The
    expertise American manufacturers gain in producing these sophisticated
    technologies positions our companies for success in growing
    international power generation markets.
    Meet mounting demand for increased power production capacity
        United States 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's next generation of R&D programs to
    develop state-of-the-art gas turbines for reliable, low-cost
    electricity.
    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 Fuel Cell Power Association

    Fuel Cell Power Association Fiscal Year 2003 DOE R&D Recommendations

                            [In millions of dollars]

    Office of Fossil Energy--Distribute Generation Systems--Fuel
      Cells:
        Fuel Cell Systems.............................................    15
        Vision 21 Hybrids.............................................    15
        Innovative Systems Concepts--SECA.............................    50
    Office of Enegy Efficiency and Renewabel Energy--Fuel Cells: PEM
      Fuel Cells                                                         7.5

        The Fuel Cell Power Association (FCPA) urges you to commit the
    resources needed to accelerate the pace of the Department of Energy's
    (DOE) fuel cells systems programs. To meet U.S. goals for reliable,
    clean, cost-effective power, our nation needs to increase our national
    commitment to stationary fuel cell power generation technologies.
        The Association urges Congress to, at a minimum, provide full
    program plan levels of funding of the DOE Office of Fossil Energy,
    Distributed Generation Systems--Systems Development, Vision 21-Hybrids
    and the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) fuel cells
    efforts. Similarly, the fiscal year 2003 funding level for fuel cell
    program in the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy are
    needed to support the development of ultra-clean, stationary and
    portable power systems.
        These innovative technologies will transform the way power is
    generated and delivered, because fuel cells are:
      --Fuel-efficient.--use far less fuel than comparable distributed
            generation;
      --Clean.--emit virtually no pollution during the power generation
            process;
      --Quickly installed.--provide point of demand, high-quality, reliable
            power; and
      --Multi-fuel capable.--utilize coal, natural, renewable and hydrogen
            gases, and liquid fuels.
                   fuel cell systems--office of fossil energy
        The acceleration of the Molten Carbonate and Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
    Systems programs will speed the deliver of commercially viable, fuel
    flexible, ultra-low emission, ultra-high efficiency fuel cell power.
    These systems are essential to the development of hybrid systems, and
    are the foundation for the ultimate success of DOE's Vision 21 and
    Clean Coal efforts.
        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 programs a top
    funding priority.
                    hybrid systems--office of fossil energy
        The Molten Carbonate and Solid Oxide Fuel Cell work is directly
    impacting the success of Fuel Cell/Gas Turbine Hybrid Systems.
    Combining fuel cells and gas turbines will 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.
        As a result of the DOE/fuel cell industry partnership programs, the
    Secretary of Energy recently announced that the world's first
    combination of a fuel cell and microturbine has passed a key site
    acceptance test, and that the major endurance phase of its test program
    is underway. According to the Secretary, ``It offers a preview of the
    day when more of our electricity will be generated by super-clean,
    high-efficiency power units sited near the consumer. Distributed
    generation could play a key role in strengthening the security and
    reliability of our power supply, and fuel cell-turbine hybrids could
    help make distributed power a reality.''
        By 2010, these hybrid configurations are expected to achieve
    efficiencies greater than 70 percent, and 80 percent efficiencies are
    expected by 2015. Current DOE fuel cell and gas turbine R&D programs
    are laying the technological groundwork for the hybrid systems. The
    level of fiscal year 2003 federal investment in these projects directly
    impacts the timeframe in which these hybrid technologies will be
    delivered to our nation.
                         seca--office of fossil energy
        The DOE Innovative Systems Concepts--SECA R&D program is developing
    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 will realize the full potential of
    fuel cell technology through long-term materials development. The SECA
    projects are critical to the success of DOE's fuel cell initiative.
    Under SECA, the costs of fuel cells can be reduced to as low as one-
    tenth of currently marketed systems and to one-third the cost of the
    advanced concepts that are on the verge of commercial readiness.
        Initially, 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 and system costs of
    $400/kW, with 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 and 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. The resulting research will be made available to all
    industrial teams. The National Energy Technology Laboratory and the
    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory provide the coordination and
    technical resources.
          fuel cells--office of energy efficiency and renewable energy
        The EERE fuel cell program is key to the achievement of a
    completely clean endless supply of reliable power for our nation. The
    program goals target PEM fuel cells achieving 40-50 percent electrical
    efficiency, with combined heat and power integrated efficiencies of 75-
    80 percent.
        The program will focus on testing of laboratory prototypes for
    natural gas fuel processing with CO clean-up capability for high
    temperature stationary applications. An economical process of fuel
    reforming of natural gas will produce a hydrogen fuel that contains
    less then 10 ppm of carbon monoxide. Projects will take operating
    temperatures from the current 80 deg. to temperatures in the 120 deg.-
    150 deg. range. The program will test a laboratory prototype of a
    Membrane-Electrode-Assembly with advanced high temperature membranes.
        Phase II designs will be used to develop a 50kW high temperature
    PEM fuel cell incorporating cooling, heating and power (CHP) concepts
    for recoverable heat. The ultimate goal is PEM fuel cells with
    operating lives of over 40,000 hours priced a around $1,500/kw.
                           fuel cells and our future
        If the nation is to meet its goal of reliable, clean, cost
    effective power, we need to increase the national commitment to fuel
    cell development and the near-term commercialization of these
    technologies. Exceptionally efficient, non-polluting, and highly
    reliable fuel cells will transform the way power is generated and
    delivered since fuel cells are ideally suited for distributed
    generation.
        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. It is imperative that Congress fund these partnerships to ensure
    that our nation reaches its energy policy goals.
                    fuel cells and the national energy plan
        The National Energy Plan proposes five specific national goals: (1)
    Modernize conservation; (2) Modernize our energy infrastructure; (3)
    Increase energy supplies; (4) Accelerate the protection and improvement
    of the environment; and (5) Increase our nation's energy security. Fuel
    cells are key to meeting those goals, as discussed below:
        Fuel cells modernize conservation, raise productivity, reduce
    waste, trim costs:
      --Maximize energy efficiency for generating electricity
      --Double electrical efficiency in small distributed power
            applications
      --Promote energy independence and fuel conservation
        Fuel cells modernize energy infrastructure by eliminating
    bottlenecks, price spikes and supply disruptions. Fuel cells provide
    infrastructure reliability as follows:
      --Efficiency reduces fuel supply demand
      --Fuel cell plants are modular, can be remotely sited, supply high
            quality power and meet critical requirements for reliability
      --Reduce transmission line demand in distributed generation
            applications
      --``Premium Power'' for high tech industry needs
        Fuel cells increase energy supplies, adding supply from the
    efficient use diverse fuel sources. Multi-fuel Capable Fuel Cells can
    be powered by:
      --Fossil (natural gas, coal, hydrogen, diesel, fuel oil) or
      --Renewable (biomass or waste fuels)
      --The overall efficiency of the U.S. electricity supply system is
            improved through highly efficient fuel cells in distributed
            power applications
        Fuel cells protect and improve the environment while ensuring a
    stronger economy, and a sufficient supply of energy for our future.
    Super-clean fuel cells produce:
      --No Sulfur Oxides
      --Virtually no Nitrogen Oxides
      --Very low Carbon Dioxide emissions
        Fuel Cells increase national energy security protecting the country
    from price volatility, supply uncertainty and emergencies.
      --U.S. manufacturers are leading in the development of fuel cell
            technologies and can capture a major share of this market.
      --A solid U.S. fuel cell manufacturing base will create a new
            industry with quality high tech manufacturing jobs and
            substantial export opportunities.
      --Stable and reliable power supply from low maintenance and
            operational expenses for fuel cell power
        The Fuel Cell Power Association promotes the interests of the fuel
    cell industry by facilitating communication on the essential role the
    government plays in improving the economic and technical viability of
    fuel cells for stationary power.
                                     ______

         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 2003 appropriations for the Energy Conservation programs of the
    U.S. Department of Energy. Recognizing the contribution which energy
    efficiency and conservation programs make to cost-effective energy
    strategies, the CONEG Governors request that funding for the State
    Energy Program be increased to $68 million, and that funding for the
    Weatherization Assistance Program be increased to $277 million in
    fiscal year 2003. The Governors also request that funding for the
    Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve be maintained at $8 million in
    fiscal year 2003. The CONEG Governors appreciate the Subcommittee's
    support for these programs, and recognize the difficult funding
    decisions which confront the committee. We believe modest federal
    investment in these programs which leverage non-federal funds provides
    substantial returns to the states and the nation.
        The Department of Energy's State Energy Program and Weatherization
    Assistance 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.
        State Energy Assistance Program.--The State Energy Program (SEP) is
    the major state-federal partnership program for energy. While it
    represents only a small portion of overall funding for state energy
    activities, it is a critical nucleus for many states. SEP helps move
    energy efficiency and renewable energy technology into the marketplace.
    Equally important, as the nation moves to enhance the security of its
    energy infrastructure, SEP funds help ensure that state energy offices
    continue to serve as the essential energy emergency preparedness
    officials at the state level. Through the SEP, states also 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. SEP has documented a leverage of at least $4 in private sector
    funds for every Federal dollar, not including the state contribution.
        Weatherization Assistance Program.--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. We support the President's request of
    $277 million for WAP in fiscal year 2003.
        Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.--The nation's heightened
    emphasis on energy security places renewed importance on the Northeast
    Home Heating Oil Reserve. The Reserve provides an important buffer to
    ensure that the Northeast, with its reliance upon imported fuels for
    both residential and commercial heating, will have prompt access to
    immediate supplies in the event of supply interuptions. The CONEG
    Governors support the President's request of $8 million to continue
    operations of the Reserve.
        In conclusion, we request that the Subcommittee increase funding
    for both the State Energy Program and Weatherization Assistance
    Program; and that it maintain funding for the Northeast Home Heating
    Oil Reserve in fiscal year 2003. 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 these
    programs to the Northeast.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
                    California Ozone Study (CCOS) Coalition
        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 2003 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.
        Most of central California does not attain federal health-based
    standards for ozone and particulate matter. The San Joaquin Valley is
    developing new State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the federal ozone
    and particulate matter standards in the 2002 to 2004 timeframe. The San
    Francisco Bay Area has committed to update their ozone SIP in 2004
    based on new technical data. In addition, none of these areas attain
    the new federal 8-hour ozone standard. SIPs for the 8-hour standard
    will be due in the 2007 timeframe--and must include an evaluation of
    the impact of transported air pollution on downwind areas such as the
    Mountain Counties. Photochemical air quality modeling will be necessary
    to prepare SIPs that are approvable by the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency.
        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 better understand 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 upcoming ozone
            attainment plans
        The CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting
    of representatives from Federal, State and local governments, as well
    as private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
    Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
    Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
    environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
    provide a solid foundation for CCOS. The sponsors of CCOS, representing
    state, local government and industry, have contributed approximately
    $8.7 million for the field study. The federal government has
    contributed $2.15 million to support some data analysis and modeling.
    In addition, CCOS sponsors are providing $2 million of in-kind support.
    The Policy Committee is seeking federal co-funding of an additional
    $6.75 million to complete the remaining 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 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 the
    efforts of 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.
        For fiscal year 2003, 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 memorandum of understanding between the California
    Energy Commission and the DOE, joint participation in the CCOS will
    result in: (1) enhanced public interest in programs on energy research,
    development, and demonstration; (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 obtain
    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 2003, 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 emission 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 SAGE Electrochromics, Inc.
        SAGE Electrochromics, Inc., located in Faribault, Minnesota, is a
    developer of energy saving electrochromic (EC) window products and is
    working in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE.) We at
    SAGE urge you to recommend a total of $8 million for DOE's budget for
    the EC initiative in the Office of Building Technology, State and
    Community Programs.
                      brief description of electrochromics
        An electrochromic window (door or skylight) is a solar control
    device that regulates the flow of light and heat with the push of a
    button. In this way the window tint can be varied from fully colored to
    completely clear or anywhere in between. The electrochromic (EC)
    properties are achieved through vacuum deposited thin films on one of
    the glass surfaces, with the rest of the construction being very
    similar to the standard insulated glass used in millions of homes and
    office buildings.
       unique benefits of electrochromics and why they are good for the
                                    country
        Industrial and government partners in the DOE EC program are
    performing cost shared research and development that will lead to
    significant energy and cost savings by fundamentally changing the
    nature and function of window products for tomorrow's buildings.
    Significant savings in the cooling and lighting loads can be achieved
    while reducing peak electricity demand. Just as important is the
    ability of EC technologies to improve visual and thermal comfort and
    thereby increase worker productivity and the aesthetics of the home or
    office space.
        Traditionally, adding windows to a building envelope has meant
    reducing energy efficiency because the other materials in the structure
    are much more energy efficient. However, with EC technology, windows
    will become multifunctional energy saving appliances in the home or
    office space and thereby will allow increased use of windows for
    aesthetic reasons. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories (LBNL)
    estimated that the use of EC in average size windows in commercial
    buildings will reduce cooling electricity consumption by up to 28
    percent, lower peak electrical power demand by 6 percent and decrease
    lighting costs by up to 19 percent for the entire building perimeter
    zone.
        In the residential sector, use of electrochromic windows could lead
    to a 65 percent reduction in cooling over the existing installed base
    and a 47 percent reduction in cooling over the best performing glass
    used today--spectrally selective low-E. Heating savings based on the
    weighted average U-value and shading coefficients for the installed
    base and new construction are 61 percent and 31 percent respectively.
    This will be even more important for the customer's bottom line as the
    cost of energy becomes increasingly market driven.
        National energy savings are also impressive. The calculated
    national total energy savings for all market segments due to EC glazing
    adoptions show energy savings of 0.71 quads across all market sectors,
    which translates into total annual national energy cost savings of
    $11.5 billion. These estimates are based on current EC technology,
    which is expected to improve during the marketing period. Additionally,
    the LBNL estimates do not include the use of occupancy sensors, which
    could substantially reduce cooling costs in the summer and heating
    costs in the winter simply by switching the EC glass to the completely
    darkened or clear states at the appropriate time.
        Although energy and energy-related costs savings are significant,
    additional benefits accrue from using EC technology and may even be
    more important. Reduced fading of fabrics has significant cost impacts
    in many installations. Glare control and greater thermal comfort, as
    well as the ability for full daylighting have been shown to increase
    worker productivity and reduce absenteeism. Ability to change building
    design to take advantage of more window space is a significant
    architectural benefit and may additionally reduce energy use as a side
    benefit. And the EC industry could easily grow to over $15 billion.
             additional work to be done requires further investment
        The Department of Energy has supported this research and
    development for the past few years, but insufficient funding has been
    split among a number of players in the industry. Traditionally,
    activities have focused on development of durable electrochromic
    materials and devices for use in building applications. This has moved
    the technology so far; however, it has become clear that the industry
    needs and will cost share pre-competitive research in three areas.
    First, continued materials and basic component research for EC windows,
    which is the principal area funded by the DOE EC program in prior
    years. Second, technology and engineering activities focused on volume
    manufacturing processes for improved performance, yields and
    reliability. And third, systems engineering and applications research
    focused on design, specifications, installation and lifetime of the
    products in building applications.
        In Materials and Components Research and Development, near term
    activities must focus on continued optimization of the device and the
    individual thin film layers further improving optical performance and
    achieving coloration desired by architects and building owners. These
    advancements will be very important--to maximize market penetration and
    hence the total national energy savings provided by electrochromic
    windows. Modifications to achieve more rapid switching will be required
    for those applications in which glare must be reduced quickly (e.g.
    workplaces with computer display terminals). Additionally, advanced,
    durable window controls technology must be developed that can
    reproducibly switch EC glazings to appropriate transmission states for
    occupant comfort and/or optimum energy savings.
        With respect to Manufacturing Technology and Engineering, future
    activities should apply basic knowledge developed from the materials
    and components R&D to design for volume production and the
    implementation of in-situ diagnostics for rapidly and automatically
    controlling EC window fabrication processes. Additionally, consensus EC
    window performance requirements must be developed together with
    standards setting organizations and will entail significant testing in
    the initial stage to establish the technical basis for performance
    requirements. Testing needs to include laboratory testing of large
    electrochromic windows under simulated solar irradiation and
    accelerated temperature conditions, and towards the end of 2003,
    extensive outdoor testing in which windows can be exposed to a range of
    real world environmental conditions.
        In Systems Engineering and Application, the DOE program must begin
    initial field trials of EC windows in occupied buildings. The first
    installations will have fairly simple controls and elicit user feedback
    on performance comfort level and other parameters. Multiple window
    control must be developed and demonstrated so we can learn how to tie
    the adjacent windows together for control of the overall space.
        Research needs include a sustained R&D effort of approximately $4.5
    million, while initiating a manufacturing technology and engineering
    program of $2.0 million and a systems integration program of $1.5
    million, for a total budget request of $8.0 million in 2003.
        In summary, SAGE Electrochromics, Inc. supports an increase in
    DOE's budget for the EC initiative in the Office of Building
    Technology, State and Community Programs. It is obvious that with
    continued public and private partnership, EC research will open the
    door for significant energy and cost savings in the United States.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Integrated Building and Construction Solutions
                                 (IBACOS), Inc.
        IBACOS (Integrated Building And Construction Solutions) urges the
    Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies to provide $14 million
    for the Department of Energy (DOE) fiscal year 2003 Residential
    Buildings Program.
    IBACOS, through the DOE, has significantly improved the efficiency and
            livability of U.S. homes
        IBACOS is a founding partner in the DOE's Building America Program,
    which consists of five industry consortiums (teams). IBACOS is made up
    of more than 30 leading companies from the home building industry,
    including equipment manufacturers, builders, design firms, and other
    parties interested in improving the overall quality, affordability, and
    efficiency of our nation's homes and communities. Although we are
    located in Pittsburgh, PA, our Network membership is derived from
    across the country. Our associated building product manufacturers
    include: Carrier Corporation of Indianapolis, IN; GE Appliances of
    Louisville, KY; USG Corporation of Chicago, IL; Owens Corning of
    Toledo, OH; and Andersen Corporation of Bayport, MN. Our builder
    partners includes such large builders and developers as Pulte Homes of
    Bloomfield Hills, MI; RGC of Newport Beach, CA; Civano Development
    Partners of Tucson, AZ; Beazer Homes of VA; Washington Homes (a
    division of K. Hovnanian) of VA; and John Laing Homes of Denver, CO.
    Other builders and developers in CA, CO, GA, IN, NC, NJ, NY, NV, SC and
    TX also participate.
        Through these and other partners, Building America has had direct
    influence in increasing the efficiency of nearly 10,000 homes to date.
    All of these homes use 30 percent less energy than a code compliant
    home, and many exceed 50 percent in savings.
        We have been working with the DOE's Residential Building Program
    since the start of the Building America Program in 1993. Along with the
    four other teams, we represent more than 200 residential builders,
    developers, designers, equipment suppliers, and community planners. All
    Building America partners have a common interest in improving the
    energy efficiency and livability of America's housing stock, while
    minimizing any increase in home costs. Many of the products used
    actually result in a lower cost, while others experience only marginal
    increases in first cost and absolute reductions in cash flow. In
    pursuit of this common interest, the five Building America teams pursue
    common activities that will ultimately assist all homebuilders and
    benefit the nations' homebuyers.
    Building America partners, such as IBACOS, have the ability to
            demonstrate and diffuse information throughout the building
            community
        We are working to significantly expand the active team membership
    of Building America, but, perhaps more importantly, we are diffusing
    information to hundreds of builders through participation in national
    conferences, technical committees and the Internet. In fact, in working
    with Owens Corning, we helped introduce a market based program, System
    Thinking, in which Owens Corning is applying lessons from Building
    America to more than 100 builders in all regions of the country. Other
    Building America teams have had similar success with national programs
    such as Environments for Living. All of the teams are partnering with
    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/DOE Energy
    Starprogram.
    The DOE helps implement widespread innovation in the fragmented
            residential construction industry
        The new residential construction industry accounts for the
    production of 1.6 million single family homes per year (over $70
    billion in revenue) and approximately 20 percent of total energy use in
    the United States.
        Despite its size and impact, the industry is exceptionally
    fragmented. It comprises nearly 100,000 builders, many building only a
    few homes per year, others as many as 35,000. A multitude of
    residential product manufacturers, architects, trades, and developers
    further compound the problem of an industry in which it is very
    difficult to implement widespread technological innovation. Building
    America acts as an aggregator for identifying research needs and
    consolidating relationships between the industry and National Labs.
        Additionally, there has been little incentive for builders to
    improve on energy efficiency for a number of reasons. First, energy and
    resource efficiency does not necessarily contribute to the bottom line
    of the builder; instead, it benefits the homeowner and the nation.
    Second, because builders cannot directly recoup costs for up front
    investments through energy savings (since they do not own the homes),
    they have little reason to spend more initially. Third, adopting new
    technologies and training staff and trades to properly install new
    systems and products is costly and problem-ridden. Fourth, builders are
    not good at sharing knowledge between competitors, so the DOE's role is
    critical to expanding the practices beyond the first builders in.
        For these reasons, we are working to create higher quality homes
    for no incremental costs, along with associated training, management,
    and technology transfer methodologies. We believe that because of this
    work, energy and resource efficiency, durability, and affordability
    will, eventually, be commonplace in the home building industry.
        Because the home building industry is made up of so many differing
    parties, it is virtually impossible for them to come together to
    perform common research without a third party.
        The DOE plays a critical role in bringing this research,
    development, and deployment agenda to the marketplace.
        Current research activities include:
      --systems integration research and development to improve energy
            efficiency
      --indoor air quality
      --safety, health, and durability of housing
      --thermal distribution efficiency
      --incorporation of passive and active solar techniques
      --techniques that increase builder productivity and product quality
      --reduction of material waste at building sites
      --use of recycled and recyclable materials
      --building materials improvements
      --envelope load reduction and durability
      --mechanical systems efficiencies and appropriate sizing
        The DOE's role in bringing together the right entities and cost
    sharing common research is invaluable in improving our nation's
    building stock, while we work to reduce up front builder costs.
    Through the DOE, significant energy saving results have been achieved
            in residential construction, and encouraging research results
            on systems integration have helped to increase overall energy
            efficiency
        Results of the experience gained by the Building America teams has
    been reflected in both DOE and HUD roadmapping sessions, development of
    research priorities for National Labs, and cooperation on programs
    within DOE/BTS. For example, the Building America Program is working
    cooperatively with the Windows program at BTS to ensure that advanced
    window products are incorporated into high efficiency residential
    housing. The Building America Program is also partnering in the Zero
    Energy Buildings effort. Additionally, collaborative research
    activities with the National Labs, including NREL, ORNL, and LBNL have
    resulted in the sharing of knowledge and resources that bridges the gap
    between Federal research programs and the industry.
        The Residential Buildings Program improves the affordability of
    homes by reduced energy use, and results in better use of capital and
    natural resources. The scale of impact is exemplified by the 50 percent
    savings in the average new home built today-the equivalent of the
    energy used by a sports utility vehicle for 1 year. And, the home will
    have a useful life of 100 years.
        Investing in residential construction technology makes economic and
    market sense. By using improved materials and techniques, the
    Residential Buildings partners promote wiser use of resources and
    reduce the amount of waste produced in the construction process.
    Because of the homes' improved efficiency, emissions from electrical
    power will be reduced, potentially eliminating 1.4 million tons of
    carbon from the atmosphere over the next 10 years. The DOE's
    residential programs will also save consumers more than $500 million
    each year through reduced energy bills. These savings are permanent and
    significant.
        IBACOS supports efforts across the government to integrate
    activities in the residential building area. This includes work with
    the Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing (PATH), the
    National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Housing and Urban
    Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency. We at IBACOS are
    working with PATH communities as a part of Building America. One of the
    PATH communities is in Tucson, AZ. IBACOS, through the Building America
    Program, is working with the developer and builders on a 2,600-home
    sustainable new town called Civano. Through detailed monitoring, the
    first homes in this community are proving to be at least 50 percent
    more efficient than comparable homes. Many of these homes are being
    heated and cooled for less than $1 a day. Other communities in which
    Building America is serving as a partner with developers, builders, and
    PATH are Village Green in CA, Playa Vista in CA, Summerset in PA, and
    emerging communities in Denver, CO, North Charleston, SC, and in
    Florida. Communities are now under construction that will yield upwards
    of 80,000 units over the next 7 years. All of these units will result
    in savings between 30 percent and 50 percent of their energy cost and
    serve to create market momentum, influencing many other local builders.
        Preliminary research results on systems integration are exciting
    and encouraging. One of the major hurdles in home building has been the
    issue of assembling the home on the building site in a way that
    maximizes integration of the various components and equipment within
    the house. Systems integration results in an airtight house in which
    subsystems are used together to optimize the home's engineering and
    otherwise increase the overall energy efficiency of the home.
        There have been a number of concrete and encouraging results from
    research, development and demonstration activities in cooperation with
    the Federal government. In fact, IBACOS, as a part of the Building
    America Program, has been able to demonstrate to production builders
    such as Hedgewood Homes in Atlanta, GA that they can build homes that
    save more than 30 percent to 50 percent in energy costs while avoiding
    any increase in initial construction costs. Medallion Homes in Texas
    markets to first time home builders and offers up to 50 percent
    reductions in energy; they have had excellent market success. The rapid
    adoption of new technologies from the National Labs and the industry to
    the marketplace requires additional demonstration opportunities. We are
    pleased to be working with the DOE towards this end.
        Additionally, IBACOS has been participating in road mapping
    processes for residential buildings. We have partnered with the DOE to
    ensure that renewable energy technologies are incorporated, where cost
    effective, into Building America research and development activities.
    We feel very strongly that the integration of the systems into a home
    is as important, or even more important, than the individual pieces of
    equipment that are installed. We have proven the ability to work with
    builders to build single pilot homes and support them through early
    adoption in their production lines.
        Now, we are very excited about our work with community planning and
    larger scale projects. We look forward to continuing to work with the
    DOE to bring energy efficiency to housing at no incremental first cost,
    while building markets for more efficient equipment and technologies.
        We at IBACOS urge you to provide $14 million for the DOE fiscal
    year 2003 Residential Buildings Program. Along with the industry cost
    share in the program of at least 100 percent, this program has had and
    will continue to significantly catalyze improvements in what has
    traditionally been a very fragmented industry.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Plug Power, Inc.
        Plug Power urges the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to
    approve the President's Budget request of $7.5 million for stationary
    PEM fuel cell research in the Office of Power Technologies and to
    support the $50 million request for automotive fuel cell research in
    the Office of Transportation Technologies.
        My name is Dr. Roger Saillant, President and Chief Executive
    Officer of Plug Power, Inc., a developer of on-site energy generating
    systems utilizing proton exchange membrane (``PEM'') fuel cells for
    stationary power applications. I am particularly pleased about the
    opportunity to comment on the U.S Department Of Energy Budget. Plug
    Power, our Latham, NY-based company was founded in 1997, as a joint
    venture of DTE Energy Company and Mechanical Technology Incorporated.
    Plug Power's fuel cell systems for residential and small commercial
    stationary applications are expected to be sold globally through a
    joint venture with the General Electric Company, one of the world's
    leading suppliers of power generation technology and energy services.
        Plug Power is very enthusiastic about the attention being paid to
    the impact of fuel cell technology on energy transformation and the
    interest level in Washington. I believe that we as a nation currently
    have an opportunity to make a great difference to our economy, to our
    world position, and to the environment. As an auto company executive
    veteran of 30 years experience, who participated in the auto emission,
    safety, and fuel economy improvements, I see parallels in the magnitude
    of the challenges and the scope of the outcomes. First, the auto
    company transition costs were enormous but were forced by regulation.
    Currently, the fuel cell industry in partnership with the U.S.
    Government is trying to facilitate fuel cell based energy
    transformation improvements through R&D and buy-down incentives at a
    significant dollar cost. Second, this upcoming change in our energy
    situation is related to worldwide problems of natural resource
    depletion rates and global environmental degradation. Thus, the United
    States must be a technological leader in the emergence of this economic
    opportunity. And third, going from a centralized distribution model to
    a mosaic of centralized and distributed generation based on fossil
    fuels, wind, biomass, solar, and nuclear will require inspired
    leadership from our government over an extended period of time.
                        stationary fuel cell description
        A stationary fuel cell is an on-site power generation system that
    electrochemically combines hydrogen with oxygen in the air to form
    electricity. The hydrogen fuel can be obtained from readily available
    fuels, such as natural gas or propane, or in the longer term from
    renewable sources. It can also be generated by electrolyzing water with
    low-cost off-peak electricity, or with electricity obtained from
    renewable sources such as solar, wind, or biomass. Fuel cell systems,
    whether for the residential, commercial or institutional markets,
    produce not only electricity, but also heat that can be captured and
    beneficially utilized in these applications (combined heat and power
    (CHP)). This makes such fuel cell systems highly efficient as well as
    environmentally friendly. This is in stark contrast to central power
    plants where generally the heat is not captured or utilized. The heart
    of the stationary PEM fuel cell system is the stack, which is comprised
    of the same technology as is used in most fuel cell vehicle
    applications.
                         stationary fuel cell benefits
        Our traditional central generation model for supply of power in the
    United States is failing to meet the needs of a growing economy with
    increasing demand for high-quality power. There are weaknesses in power
    generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure that can best
    be met with the new paradigm of distributed generation: placing the
    generating assets on site, where both the thermal and electric energy
    is needed. Fuel cells will be an important technology component in our
    nation's distributed generation portfolio.
        When operating on a fossil fuel such as natural gas, stationary
    fuel cells using reformers emit less than half the CO2 (a
    primary ``greenhouse gas''), of a traditional, coal-fired power plant.
    When fueled by hydrogen from a renewable energy source such as solar,
    wind, or hydropower, or if the fuel source is bio-fuel like ethanol
    from plant wastes, CO2 emissions are net zero.
        Fuel cells can provide highly reliable electricity. Some studies
    estimate that power quality and reliability issues cost our economy as
    much as $150 billion per year in lost materials and productivity alone,
    while others have reported estimates as high as $400 billion per year
    (source: Bear Stearns, April 2000 Distributed Energy, p. 8).
        Fuel cells require hydrogen and oxygen to react chemically and
    produce electricity (and heat) and can therefore use any hydrogen rich
    fuel, or direct hydrogen. This allows fuel cell products to be
    ``customized'' for customers' available fuel. It also provides the
    option of renewably generated hydrogen for a fully renewable and zero
    emissions energy system.
        Because fuel cells provide electricity at the site of consumption,
    they reduce the load on the existing transmission and distribution
    system. Siting the fuel cells at the point of consumption also avoids
    the line losses (up to 15 percent) inherent in moving electricity and
    provides an alternative to costly and unattractive traditional power
    lines.
        Because fuel cells make both electric and thermal energy where it
    is needed, the heat can be recaptured in combined heat and power
    applications to attain combined efficiencies of over 80 percent.
        Fuel cell systems are quiet.
              stationary fuel cell research and development needs
        Our company participated in the Department of Energy road-mapping
    process for the stationary fuel cell program in February of this year.
    During that process, it became clear that the number one R&D need from
    the U.S. Government is to cost share component research and development
    for significant cost reductions, as well as life and reliability
    improvements. Additionally, the group suggested that a dedicated
    national laboratory tackle core, pre-competitive R&D issues that are
    beneficial to all of the PEM fuel cell developers.
        Clearly, some fuel cell R&D is crosscutting and has applications
    for both stationary and transportation applications. For example some
    of the basic stack improvements such as materials, catalysts,
    instrumentation and supporting controls, blowers and pumps, will help
    both applications. In fuel processing, synergies between the
    applications occur as we begin to move to a hydrogen-based system that
    is non on-board. And in the integration of fuel cell systems, some
    subsystem synergies can be co-utilized. Plug Power supports the $50
    million request for fuel cell technology in the Office of
    Transportation.
        Additionally, our company is very supportive of the comparatively
    modest stationary PEM fuel cell program of $7.5 million in the Office
    of Power Technologies and would like to see that R&D focus on research
    needs that are particular to development of a robust power generation
    unit. Where the fuel cell stack is concerned, this means critical
    research on both stack and fuel processor life and unit cost. For
    stationary applications, weight and size can be greater than in
    automotive applications; however, the life of the fuel cell must be at
    least 40,000 hours compared to an auto fuel cell life need of only
    5,000 hours. Ideally, the participants in the development of the fuel
    cell technology roadmap would like to see a 100,000-hour stack life to
    make the fuel cell system akin to other major ``appliances'' in the
    home or building.
        Fuel to feed a stationary stack will be gaseous, such as natural
    gas or propane (or direct hydrogen), therefore, reformer technology is
    very different from onboard vehicular reforming of liquid fuels.
    Research agendas include the need for significant reformer cost
    reduction, as well as life and reliability improvements. Fuel clean up
    is also important and there are hence implications for the fuel cell
    stack and how many ``impurities'' it may be able to accept.
        The integrated system design for the major fuel cell components
    including supporting subsystems (i.e., cooling, water management, etc.)
    depends on the application. Integration and systems architecture are
    very important development needs for fuel cell manufacturers, as is
    manufacturing improvements and research.
                need for government r&d and systems integration
        We have heard repeatedly over the past several months about a large
    industry wide research and development effort for fuel cells, and
    frankly, we at Plug Power are thrilled to hear it. We feel that there
    is a vital role for the U.S. Government, and specifically the
    Department of Energy, to work with industry on pre-competitive research
    and on systems architecture and integration with specific products and
    applications in mind. These efforts begin with a fundamental
    understanding of the PEM fuel cell stack membranes, catalysts, plates,
    as well as reformer fundamentals as they relate to contaminant
    resistant catalysts and hydrogen storage technology. Further, the
    availability of higher quality heat from high temperature (150C to
    200C) PEM stacks requires fundamental research on stack components and
    associated systems that further increases the value and impact of
    stationary power systems. Another area of high interest is the coupling
    of hydrogen generation for stationary and automotive applications to
    further increase overall efficiency and impact the progress toward
    widespread fuel cell use and greater energy independence. The results
    of all these efforts are universally applicable to fuel cell power
    systems, speed their commercial introduction, and move the United
    States closer to energy independence.
        Pre-competitive research is tough for industry. When I first became
    CEO of Plug Power, I wrote to many of the PEM fuel cell developers with
    a plea that we work together on fundamental research issues that are
    vital to all our interests. This is not something a competitive
    industry will readily undertake. Rather, the government has to take the
    lead in bringing us all together, ensuring that no one's rights are
    infringed upon similar to the Semetech approach used in Austin in the
    late 80's. I feel very strongly that there are ``leapfrog''
    technologies that will help all of us in the fuel cell industry, while
    helping the United States become a global technology leader in this
    field. We need to work together, with the DOE taking the lead, to find
    those leapfrog advancements. Without this private-public partnership,
    the U.S. industry will fail to develop and will allow another country
    to win the race to lead this industry.
        We urge this Subcommittee to, at the least, approve the Budget
    request of $7.5 million for stationary PEM fuel cell research in the
    Office of Power Technologies and to support the $50 million request for
    automotive fuel cell research in the Office of Transportation
    Technologies.
                                     ______

     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 4 fiscal
    years (fiscal years 1999-2002), Congress has appropriated the funds
    necessary to pay the $36 million installment of compensation due for
    that year.
        Congress should appropriate for fiscal year 2003 the $36 million to
    fulfill the Federal Government's obligation to make the fifth annual
    installment payment of compensation, due in fiscal year 2003 under the
    settlement that Congress directed the Administration to achieve.
        The Elk Hills appropriation has the strong bipartisan support of
    the California delegation.
                                   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 years 1999-2003) and the balance of the amount due
    split evenly between years 6 and 7 (fiscal year 2004-2005).
                        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.)
        president's budget for fiscal year 2003 requests the necessary
          appropriation for the fifth annual installment of elk hills
                compensation due under the settlement agreement
        The President's Budget for fiscal year 2003 requests that Congress
    appropriate $36 million from the sales proceeds being held in escrow in
    the Elk Hills School Lands Fund to pay the fifth annual installment of
    Elk Hills compensation due to the California State Teachers' Retirement
    System in fiscal year 2003. See Budget of the United States Government
    Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, at p. 409.
      as it has in fiscal year 1999-2002, congress should appropriate the
       funds due for fiscal year 2003 under the settlement that congress
                   directed the federal government to achieve
        Congress should appropriate for fiscal year 2003 the $36 million
    requested by the President to fulfill the Federal Government's
    obligation to make the fifth annual installment payment of compensation
    due in fiscal year 2003 under the settlement that Congress directed the
    Federal Government to achieve.
                                     ______

                    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
                             Indian Health Service
         Prepared Statement of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation
        The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) submits this
    statement on the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2003 Indian
    Health Service budget. In summary, our recommendations are:
      --Increase funding for the Village Built Clinic Lease program in
            Alaska by $3 million, including adding a village-built clinic
            in Portage Creek
      --Require IHS to study and report to Congress on the underground
            seepage and beach erosion problem resulting from prior Federal
            occupation of the Kanakanak Hospital Compound (land now owned
            by IHS)
      --Increase funding for the Community Health Aide Program in Alaska by
            $9.9 million
      --Fully fund contract support costs--at least a $60 million increase
            over fiscal year 2002--and remove the statutory cap on these
            funds
      --Fund mandatory cost increases for inflation, pay and population
            growth, for a total of $323 million
      --Fund the $1 billion increase for the IHS budget as contained in the
            Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 100) approved by the Senate
            Budget Committee
      --Ensure that IHS training on the medical privacy regulations be
            provided to tribal contractors
      --Reject the Administration's proposal to consolidate the IHS
            legislative and public affairs office and other departmental
            offices under the authority of the Secretary
      --Reject the Administration's proposal to consolidate IHS
            construction and maintenance funds with other departmental
            offices under the authority of the Secretary
      --Reject the request by the Secretary of HHS to be authorized to
            reallocate, without Congressional approval, up to three percent
            of any program or agency's budget to other programs
        The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation also supports the fiscal
    year 2003 IHS budget recommendations of the Alaska Native Health Board
    of which BBAHC is a member
        Senate Budget Committee Resolution.--We greatly appreciate the
    provision in the fiscal year 2003 Budget Resolution as approved by the
    Senate Budget Committee for a $1 billion increase for the IHS budget--
    this compares to the Administration's requested increase of only $60
    million, an amount that does not even include inflation. The budget
    recommendations we propose would be included within an overall $1
    billion increase. A $1 billion increase would be a substantial down
    payment on the tribal goal of getting the IHS budget up to $18 billion
    over a period of years.
        Village-Built Clinic Leasing Program.--Through the leasing
    authority of the Alaska Area Native Health Service (AANHS) under the
    Village-Built Clinic leasing program, BBAHC has one outstanding request
    for a clinic lease, a clinic at Portage Creek. The lease agreements,
    usually with local city governments or tribal governments, enable us to
    provide health care in rural Alaskan villages. However, because of
    limited funding for the program, we have been unable to start up the
    village clinic in Portage Creek. At our existing village clinics,
    adequate space to perform on-going clinic but when visiting doctors are
    using the clinics to treat patients, staff must perform the regular
    clinic services from their homes.
        An increase of $3 million is needed to fund additional leases for
    village-built clinics, cover inflationary costs, and mitigate for lease
    income from these facilities being lower than the reasonable local
    rates. The village clinics are vital to enabling the Community Health
    Aide Practitioners, doctors, dentists and others to provide health
    services to village residents.
        IHS has no recurring capital improvement fund for the village-built
    clinics, and we ask that Congress direct it to cover these costs from
    the facilities budget.
        Study on Seepage and Erosion Problem.--Our tribal consortium
    utilizes federal property, the Kanakanak Hospital and hospital compound
    in providing health services under Title V of the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act. When we took over this
    federal facility under a use permit, the government agreed to be
    responsible for hazardous conditions resulting from prior federal use
    of the property, including pockets of oil underground due to years of
    spills, leaks and overflows.
        The erosion of the shoreline of the hospital compound has increased
    this problem. The erosion has brought oil to the surface and well as
    materials from old garbage dumps and, very disturbingly, human remains
    from a cemetery dating back to about 1900. The cemetery was used by a
    federally operated orphanage and school--and is now part of the IHS
    property on which the Kanakanak hospital is located. We need the
    resources to stop the erosion, re-locate the cemetery, and clean up the
    site. If this situation is not corrected it will eventually put the
    Kanakanak Hospital itself at risk. This problem needs to be addressed
    immediately and the cost should not diminish the resources available
    for Alaska Native health care.
        The first step should be to identify the nature and causes of the
    present condition of this portion of the compound, the correct
    methodology to address these problems, and identify the resources that
    are available from HHS or other federal agencies to correct the
    problems. We request that Congress direct IHS to conduct such a study
    and provide a report to our tribal consortium and to the Congress.
        Community Health Aide Program (CHAP) in Alaska.--We appreciate the
    increases Congress has provided over the past few years to the CHAP
    program. Community Health Aides are, as you know, a vital part of the
    health delivery system in rural Alaska, and are they often the only
    full time medical personnel in the village-built clinics.
        We recommend an increase for the CHAP program of $10 million to
    order to increase the number of CHAP positions, increase the number of
    field supervisors, increase training capacity, and continue updating
    medical manuals and other needed materials.
        Mandatory cost increases for inflation, pay and population
    growth.--The Administration has requested $46.5 million for pay
    increases but no funding for inflation and population growth. There has
    been no funding to accommodate population growth since fiscal year
    1994. The continual absorption of built-in costs is steadily eroding
    the purchasing power of our health services funds.
        The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board has calculated the
    cost of mandatories at $323 million and we urge Congress to provide
    that amount. The amount is based on a contract health services
    inflation rate of 12.5 percent, other health services inflation of 7.5
    percent, facilities inflation of 4 percent, and a population growth
    rate of 2.1 percent.
        Contract Support Costs.--The Administration has proposed a $2.5
    million increase for IHS contract support costs. We appreciate the
    recent increases provided by Congress for contract support costs, but
    urge you to not again place a statutory cap in the appropriations bill
    on these funds. We understand that the current unmet contract support
    costs is about $60 million (and may be higher depending on the amount
    of tribal contracting), and believe that there is a federal obligation
    to fund these costs.
        HHS Consolidation Proposals.--The Department of Health and Human
    Services has made dramatic proposals to consolidate all legislative and
    public affairs offices within the agency in the Secretary's office.
    Likewise, they propose to administratively consolidate all personnel
    offices within the agency into four offices in the Secretary's office.
    And the Secretary proposes to consolidate all maintenance and
    construction funds from within the Department under the Secretary's
    authority to be distributed nationally on a competitive basis--the IHS
    maintenance and construction funds are proposed to be transferred to
    the Secretary's office in fiscal year 2004. This change could severely
    impact the availability of construction funds for Indian health
    facilities as they would have to compete with other HHS facility needs.
        These are major proposals about which the Department has not
    consulted with tribes (or perhaps anyone) and for which there is little
    written explanation. We urge the Congress to ask hard questions of the
    Department about each of these proposals.
        We are concerned that a consolidation of legislative offices will
    mean that we no longer will have staff with expertise in Indian health
    law and programs and that consultation with tribes will be negatively
    affected. We are concerned about the implications for Indian preference
    in hiring within the IHS if personnel offices are consolidated. We do
    not know what would happen to the IHS construction priority system if
    those funds are placed in the Secretary's office and made part of a
    national competition--and we have the same concern about facility
    maintenance funds. We are concerned how tribal applications would fare
    under such a system.
        Three Percent Reallocation Proposal.--The Secretary has proposed
    that he be authorized to take up to 3 percent of any program or
    agency's funds within the HHS and reallocate it to another program of
    his choosing. We understand the need for flexibility. Indeed, the
    Secretary already has the authority to reallocate up to 1 percent of
    any HHS programs funding. However, if a major reallocation of funds is
    needed, then the Secretary should go through a formal reprogramming
    process. We urge you to reject the 3 percent proposal.
        Telemedicine/Epi Centers/Privacy Regulations.--Finally, we want you
    to know of our appreciation of the ongoing IHS funding for the Alaska
    telemedicine project and the Administration's requested increase of
    $1.5 million for the epidemiology centers. Congress needs to continue
    with the rural subsidy for the Wide Area Network that provides the
    ``pipeline'' or ``bandwidth'' for our telemedicine program.
        We also note the Administration's proposal for $850,000 for IHS to
    provide training regarding implementation of the new HIPAA medical
    privacy regulations. We ask this Subcommittee to ensure that tribal
    programs are included in this training.
        Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes
        The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) are pleased to
    have this opportunity to present in writing the funding needs and other
    issues of the Flathead Nation in the budgets of the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, Office of Special Trustee, and Indian Health Service. During
    this time of national crisis, as we recover from the tragic events of
    September 11 and continue with the War on Terrorism, there is a change
    in the national funding priorities. However, this change does not
    impact the unique relationship between our Tribes and the Federal
    government. In 1855 our forefathers signed the Hellgate Treaty in which
    we ceded over 20 million acres of what is now western Montana and
    reserved for ourselves and future generations the over 1.25 million
    acre Flathead Indian Reservation along with the agreement that our
    lands and treaty rights would be protected forever. The Treaty ensured
    for us the inherent right of self-governance and conveyed to the United
    States the responsibility to enhance and protect our Tribal existence.
    The CSKT have led the way in assuming responsibility for the needs of
    our membership as authorized by federal legislation especially as
    provided for in Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act of 1975, as amended. We have helped forge a
    new relationship between the federal government and tribes as one of
    the original Self-Governance Tribes. It is through this long-standing,
    innovative Indian policy that we have been able to assume the
    management and operation of federal programs, functions, services and
    activities, and yet maintain the federal trust relationship. Self-
    Determination returns the decision making to the level which is most
    impacted, a principle important to the current administration.
        Although we fully understand and support the need to shift the
    Federal priorities to increased national security and ensuring national
    defense it should not be at the expense of the Federal trust
    responsibility to tribes.
        The following is a list of our funding priorities for fiscal year
    2003 and related issues.
        The most critical funding priority for CSKT is increased funding
    for health care. The Indian Health Service (IHS) is charged with
    providing health care to American Indians and Alaska Natives. These
    health care services are the trust responsibility of the federal
    government, yet Native Americans often do not receive the most basic
    health care services due to severe IHS funding shortages. Senate
    Majority Leader Tom Daschle proposed an IHS budget increase of $4.4
    billion and the Senate Budget Committee responded to his request by
    authorizing an additional $1 billion. Should this additional funding be
    incorporated into the Budget Resolution, it would provide the
    opportunity to fulfill the Federal Government's commitment to Native
    Americans and would be a major step toward addressing unmet health care
    needs. President George W. Bush's budget is not as generous. Although
    he has proposed a 7 percent increase for the U.S. Department of Health
    and Human Services, he has proposed only a 2 percent increase for IHS.
    This is not acceptable.
        The CSKT has operated its health care delivery system under a self-
    governance compact since fiscal year 1994. We have implemented a
    business plan based on actuarial data to manage the health care
    delivery system, a first among tribes in the nation. Nonetheless, our
    system is heavily dependent on health care purchased from private
    providers on the Reservation because we do not have an IHS hospital or
    clinic to serve our beneficiaries. We have entered into contractual
    agreements with our primary care providers, specialists, and inpatient
    facilities. Although the vast majority of the IHS budget is dedicated
    toward the provision of direct care in IHS operated facilities, our
    Reservation is not on the IHS priority list for health facilities
    construction due to the availability of private sector health care. We
    understand that one of the management priorities of the Bush
    Administration is the outsourcing of services from the federal
    government to local private providers. Our efforts in the health
    service arena should be looked at as a demonstration model for other
    tribes. Although we have realized savings through our contracts,
    resulting in our health care being provided at a reduced cost when
    compared to other tribes that have direct care facilities, we are in
    desperate need of additional funds, especially in the IHS line item for
    Contract Health Care. Repeatedly, our Tribal Council, through the
    Tribal Health and Human Services Department, must deny basic health
    services that would be provided by most major health insurance plans.
    In addition, a substantial increase in funding is needed for the
    Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF) line item.
        On the Flathead Reservation, our land base encompasses over 1.25
    million acres and we serve over 10,000 IHS-eligible beneficiaries that
    reside on or near it. Our people do not receive surgery unless it
    threatens life or limb so they endure the pain of waiting for knee
    replacements, back surgery, gall bladder removals, and similar
    procedures. The alternative is to travel 300 miles round-trip to have
    the procedures performed in the nearest IHS hospital, surgical caseload
    permitting. Children may wait up to a year for dental care unless it is
    deemed an emergency. Adults cannot receive inpatient chemical
    dependency treatment. Elders may have to travel up to 80 miles round-
    trip to obtain prescriptions. Last year, a tragedy in Montana brought
    home the critical situation of health care on Indian reservations and
    could very well occur locally. A little girl died of extensive bleeding
    following a tonsillectomy that was performed 100 miles from her home.
    On the Flathead Reservation, the available dollars for health care, as
    identified by the IHS Level of Need Work Group methodology, have risen
    only 1 percent per eligible beneficiary since 1993, yet medical
    inflation has risen 18 percent in the same time period. The rosy
    picture that all Indians get free health care, courtesy of the U.S.
    Government, is a distorted image that begs correction. In the years
    fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1999 the United States spent an
    average of $5,313 a year for the health care of our Veterans, $3,347 a
    year for health care for federal prisoners, $3,262 a year for
    recipients of Medicaid and an average of only $1,279 a year for
    American Indians.
        In the near future, we are told that Congress will begin
    considering the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement
    Act. CSKT looks forward to working with the authorizing Committees on
    an amendment to ensure Tribes exercising the opportunities presented in
    Public Law 93-638 do not assume an unfair liability or risk that direct
    service tribes do not have, because federal programs (direct service
    health care) retain access to the IHS funding to cover uncontrollable
    health costs.
        In the Department of the Interior (DOI). the CSKT is extremely
    concerned about Secretary Gale Norton's proposal, supported by
    Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Neal McCaleb and Special Trustee
    Tom Slonaker, to transfer trust asset and resource management out of
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to a new Bureau of Indian Trust
    Asset Management (BITAM). We have provided our comments to Secretary
    Norton expressing our concerns regarding her proposed reorganization.
    However, we believe they are worth reiterating to this Committee, where
    DOI will need to request funding.
        CSKT is particularly concerned about the proposed reorganization in
    specific areas as follows:
        (1) Impact on Self-Governance and Self-Determination.--It is our
    experience that when programs, services, functions or activities move
    from the BIA to another part of the DOI structure there is a negative
    impact on tribal opportunities to manage and operate them under Public
    Law 93-638. There are different regulations for BIA-operated programs
    and all other non-BIA programs within DOI. The regulations governing
    tribal assumption of non-BIA programs fail to meet the intent or spirit
    of tribal self-determination by including what we believe are
    unnecessary governmental restrictions and retained federal control. The
    most glaring example of DOI resistance to tribal assumption of DOI
    programs outside the BIA is the few number of self-governance
    agreements in existence after nearly a decade since 1994, when the
    Self-Governance amendments were enacted.
        It is CSKT's utmost concern during this time of trust reform that
    Tribes do not lose the opportunity to manage and operate the trust
    resources programs. We have done an excellent job operating the trust
    programs and have audits and evaluations to prove it. We should not be
    punished for DOI's mismanagement over the past century.
        (2) Funding for the BITAM and Funding for BIA.--The BIA is
    extremely underfunded. For example, the Intertribal Timber Council
    reports that BIA receives one-tenth the amount of funding that the U.S.
    Forest Service receives to manage federal land. It is unreasonable to
    think that the BIA can manage tribal resources with such substantially
    fewer dollars on a per acre basis. BIA programs must receive full
    funding that is equivalent to funding received by other federal
    agencies to provide similar functions.
        Another concern is where the funding will come from for a new
    agency and all of its administrative costs. As you are aware, DOI
    earlier this year submitted a $300 million reprogramming request, so it
    appears DOI proposes to use the already limited program funds for this
    purpose. We urge you to oppose any transfer of funds to BITAM.
        (3) Guarantee No Diminishment of the Trust Responsibility.--It
    appears DOI is attempting to limit the federal trust responsibility to
    trust assets and resources that generate revenue by their transfer to
    BITAM. The remaining services provided to Tribes would remain in the
    BIA. We believe the trust responsibility extends to programs beyond
    those that generate revenue and the proposed structure would leave the
    remaining BIA programs vulnerable to transfer to other federal agencies
    or worse, to states. Our relationship is with the federal government
    and not with state or local governments. Although it is possible to
    develop government-to-government-relationships with other federal
    agencies, it most certainly will make it much more difficult. However,
    Tribes should not be forced to compete within their states for needed
    resources.
        (4) Signature Authority at the Local Level.--For Tribes to operate
    efficiently, the provision of federal functions should be at the local
    level--not centralized in Washington DC or some other centralized
    location.
        (5) Information Technology and Security.--As a result of the
    computer shutdown in the DOI due to security breaches, it is clear that
    major changes are imminent and needed with the BIA information
    technology systems, including appropriate security safeguards. Tribes
    that operate the trust programs and require access to BIA IT systems
    must be considered in its development and must receive the same level
    of funding that the BIA receives.
        In another area, President Bush is committed to his initiative to
    ``Leave No Child Behind.'' As Tribes, we hope his initiative will
    ensure that no Indian child is left behind by fully funding Public Law
    93-638 BIA Schools and other BIA education programs since Native
    Americans have extremely high dropout rates and lower success rates for
    college graduation.
        Finally, President Bush is calling for billions of dollars for
    Homeland Security to increase our national defense. Tribes need to be
    included in this effort. Our Tribes, with numerous dams including the
    hydroelectric generating Kerr Dam, must be secured. In addition, as the
    provider of health related services for over 10,000 beneficiaries and
    the additional 19,000 non-Indian reservation residents, any funding for
    bioterrorism provided to other health agencies should be provided to
    tribes to ensure reservations are safe for all who reside there.
        This is a time of high anxiety for all United States citizens. It
    is a time when many are willing to set aside personal differences for
    the common good. Let us remember that at the close of the 20th Century,
    there were over 190,000 Native American Veterans. Historically. Native
    Americans have the highest record of military service, per capita, when
    compared to all other ethnic groups. Today, CSKT has over 30 tribal
    members and descendents serving in the Armed Services. We are proud
    that our young tribal members serve as far away as Afghanistan to
    protect the rights and liberties that all American citizens hold dear.
        As Senators, we urge you to uphold and honor the commitments made
    to our people just as our young men and women are doing for this great
    country today.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Alaska Native Health Board
        The Alaska Native Health Board (ANHB) submits this statement on the
    fiscal year 2003 Indian Health Service budget. In summary, our fiscal
    year 2003 IHS budget recommendations are:
      --Community Health Aide Practitioner Program--an increase of $7.5
            million over a 3-year period
      --Village-Built Clinics--a $3 million increase and require IHS to be
            responsible for their maintenance
      --Medevac Transportation--a $2 million increase
      --Facilities and associated housing construction funding for St. Paul
            ($11.1 million), Metlakatla ($14 million), Arctic Slope Native
            Association in Barrow ($8 million), Bethel Quarters ($5
            million) and Nome Hospital
      --Alaska Rural Sanitation--$50 million
      --$1 billion increase for IHS as contained in the Senate Budget
            Resolution
      --Fully fund mandatory increases including pay costs, inflation, and
            population growth.
      --Fully fund contract support costs, and remove the statutory cap on
            the funding level
      --Reject the HHS proposals concerning consolidation and of
            reallocation of up to 3 percent of funds.
      --Reauthorize the Indian Diabetes entitlement program this year
        Community Health Aide Practitioner Program.--We request a $7.5
    million increase for the CHA/P program to be phased in over a 3-year
    period. CHA/P provides emergency and primary health care for 80,000
    Alaska Natives. Of the requested increase, $5 million would be used to
    increase by 115 the number of CHAP positions for a total of 615; $1.5
    million would be used to increase the number of field supervisors;
    $750,000 would be used to increase state-wide CHA/P training capacity;
    $150,000 would be for ongoing updates of materials specific to the CHA/
    P program.
        Village-Built Clinic Leasing Program.--We request a $3 million
    increase for the Village-Built Clinic program, the program through
    which IHS provides lease funds for small village-built health
    facilities. The lease agreements, usually with local city governments
    or tribal governments, enable us to provide health care in rural
    Alaskan villages.
        An increase of $3 million is needed to fund additional leases for
    village-built clinics, cover inflationary costs, and mitigate for lease
    income from these facilities being lower than the reasonable local
    rates. The village clinics are vital to enabling the Community Health
    Aide Practitioners, doctors, dentists and others to provide health
    services to village residents.
        The June 2000 report, ``Alaska Rural Primary Care Facility Needs
    Assessment Project'' prepared by the Alaska Native Tribal Health
    Consortium, Department of Health and Social Services, and the IHS notes
    that 33 percent of the 174 village-built clinics were categorized as
    needing replacement or major renovations, while 40 percent were still
    using a honey bucket and/or a pit privy system for sewage disposal. IHS
    has no recurring capital improvement fund for the village-built
    clinics, and we ask that Congress direct it to cover these costs from
    the facilities budget.
        Medevac Funding.--We request $2 million in recurring appropriations
    through the IHS for Alaska Native tribal health organizations to meet
    the escalating costs resulting from FAA requirements for the use of
    critical care air ambulance services for medical evacuations. This
    service is critical to the delivery of health care in Alaska. As
    evidence of that, the Alaska medevac planes were the first medevac
    services in the nation allowed to resume service following the
    terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
        In recent years the cost and number of medevac flights have
    continued to rise. The Alaska Native Medical Center, for instance, has
    seen a 30 percent increase in the number of medevac flights in the past
    4 years. During that time the costs increased five fold. A major factor
    has been changes in the FAA requirements regarding use of critical care
    air ambulance services for medical evacuations. In many cases now only
    critical care air services that meet new FAA requirements may transport
    patients that historically have been arranged on other aircraft (e.g.,
    transport of patients on oxygen).
          facilities at st. paul, metlakatla, barrow, bethel and nome
        St. Paul Health Center ($11.1 million).--We greatly appreciate that
    the Administration requested $11.1 million to complete construction of
    the St. Paul Health Center, and urge Congress to approve this request.
        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.
        Metlakatla Indian Community Health Center ($14 million).--We urge
    Congress to provide $14 million to complete construction of the
    outpatient health center and 8 associated quarters for the Metlakatla
    Indian Community. Metlakatla received $3.4 million in IHS funds in
    fiscal year 2002 to begin work on the facility and funding should be
    made available to complete the job.
        Clinic services are housed in four modular units that were built in
    the 1970's. The units are set on pilings and are connected by open,
    elevated, wooden walkways. The buildings have settled unevenly, posing
    an unsafe environment for people seeking health services They continue
    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.
        Barrow Hospital (Arctic Slope Native Association) ($8 million).--We
    request $8 million in fiscal year 2003 funding for the Planning and
    Site Acquisition phase of the project to replace 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 $104 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 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.
        Nome Hospital (Norton Sound Health Corporation).--We urge Congress
    to move forward to advance the projects on the outpatient priority list
    so that the critical need for an inpatient facility in Nome can be
    proceed. The Nome Hospital is fifth on the IHS outpatient priority
    list--the uncertainty with regard to the plans for the facility in
    Phoenix has unfairly delayed getting IHS funding for the Nome facility
    and perhaps others who are just below Phoenix on the priority list.
        There is an urgent need for replacement or renovation/expansion of
    the severely overcrowded Norton Sound Regional Hospital. Originally
    constructed in 1948 and since expanded, the hospital is filled with
    code violations and safety deficiencies which include unsafe wiring and
    plumbing, lack of fire sprinkler system, inadequate ventilation, and
    structural problems due to foundation movement
        Bethel Quarters.--We request $5 million in fiscal year 2003 for the
    third year of a 4-year quarters construction project. Construction is
    underway and fiscal year 2003 funds are needed in order to keep the
    project on track for completion in fiscal year 2004.
        Rural Sanitation Funding.--We give special thanks to Senator
    Stevens for his continued assistance in providing funding to deal with
    the critical shortage of sanitation facilities in Alaska. The need is
    so great that we ask for $50 million to undertake feasible sanitation
    projects in Alaska, as well as adequate funding and technical support
    for ongoing operation and maintenance needs.
        The IHS estimates that it would cost $960 million to meet the
    current sanitation needs of Alaska Native villages. The future,
    however, holds challenge as well as promise. For example, providing
    water and sewer service to the last 16 percent of households will be
    particularly difficult. In some communities, sources capable of
    producing even a modest supply of water are not available. In very
    small communities, it is hard to overcome diseconomies of scale to make
    water and sewage service affordable.
        Resources to support technical, financial, and managerial capacity
    necessary to operate the systems on an ongoing basis have not been
    proportionately increased. Many of the villages with water sanitation
    projects in place or under construction lack the financial resources to
    ensure their long-term operation and maintenance. With a limited
    economic base to pay for user fees, higher costs of shipping and
    transportation to contend with, and harsh climates and geology, among
    other mitigating factors, support for operation and maintenance is a
    vital component to assuring long-term success of sanitation projects in
    the villages.
        Mandatory cost increases for inflation, pay and population
    growth.--The Administration has requested $46.5 million for pay
    increases but no funding for inflation and population growth. There has
    been no funding to accommodate population growth since fiscal year
    1994. The continual absorption of built-in costs is steadily eroding
    the purchasing power of our health services funds.
        The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board has calculated the
    cost of mandatory increases at $323 million and we urge Congress to
    provide that amount. The amount is based on a contract health services
    inflation rate of 12.5 percent, other health services inflation of 7.5
    percent, facilities inflation of 4 percent, and a population growth
    rate of 2.1 percent.
        Contract Support Costs.--The Administration has proposed a $2.5
    million increase for IHS contract support costs. We appreciate the
    recent increases provided by Congress for contract support costs, but
    urge you to not place a statutory cap in the appropriations bill on
    these funds. We understand that the current unmet contract support
    costs is about $60 million (and may be higher depending on the amount
    of tribal contracting) and believe that there is a federal obligation
    to funds these costs.
        Diabetes.--While not under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee,
    we ask for your support in re-authorizing the special Indian diabetes
    program which was authorized in the Balanced Budget Act and which will
    expire at the end of fiscal year 2003. As you know, these are
    entitlement funds that come from the CHIP program and are passed
    through to IHS and then allocated by formula to tribal and IHS diabetes
    programs. The fiscal year 2003 funding will be $100 million.
        We point out that Alaska has the highest rate of increase in new
    diabetes cases in Indian country. As an example, the rate of diabetes
    cases in the Mt. Edgcumbe Service Unit increased 81 percent from 1985-
    1999 (from 22 to 49 per 1,000). Diabetes affects all parts of the body
    including the heart, kidneys, eyes, gums, and blood pressure. It is a
    high priority among tribes nationwide to obtain a continuing source of
    funding for diabetes programs. ANHB and the Oklahoma tribes have agreed
    to work jointly on this matter.
        HHS Consolidation and Reallocation Proposals.--We urge Congress to
    reject the HHS proposals to consolidate maintenance and construction
    funds, legislative offices, and personnel offices within the office of
    the Secretary. We need to know how this would affect the IHS
    construction priority system and tribal contracting of facilities,
    whether the Secretary would maintain persons with expertise in the area
    of Indian health law in the legislative office, whether Indian
    preference would be followed with regard to IHS hiring. And there are
    many other questions. If HHS wants to proceed with these proposals then
    they need to consult with tribal and other affected entities and
    provide detailed information about its plans. We also urge Congress to
    not approve the HHS Secretary's request for authority to reallocate up
    to 3 percent of funds from one agency or program and transfer it to
    another program. Such actions should be subject to a formal
    reprogramming process.
        Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Metlakatla Indian Community
        The Metlaktala Indian Community requests the following in the
    fiscal year 2003 Interior and Related Agencies Budget:
      --$14 million in IHS funds to complete construction of our health
            clinic and quarters
      --$2 million in BIA funds for its share of the Walden Point Road
            Project and direction to the BIA to request $2 million annually
            through fiscal year 2008 for the Project.
                           health clinic and quarters
        We ask this Subcommittee to recommend $14 million in IHS funds to
    complete construction of our replacement outpatient health clinic and
    quarters. We cannot tell you how disappointed we were that the
    Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget did not propose construction
    funding for our facility even though we received fiscal year 2001
    Denali Commission funds ($1.2 million) for planning and design and
    fiscal year 2002 IHS funds ($3.4 million) for site preparation and
    related work. It makes no sense--and is dangerous to the health of our
    residents--to stop the progress on this desperately needed health
    facility.
        Site preparation is now underway. We are currently shooting
    (breaking up) the rock on the 11-acre clinic and quarters. We will be
    ready to use fiscal year 2003 IHS construction funds for the clinic and
    eight associated housing quarters.
        We have told this Subcommittee a number of times in the past about
    the terrible physical condition of our outpatient facility and the
    ongoing and extraordinary effort it takes to keep it patched together
    enough to keep the doors open. The physical condition of the clinic has
    resulted in us being unable to meet the Joint Commission on
    Accreditation of Health Care Organizations Standards.
        Our health center consists of four modular buildings that are set
    on pilings and are connected by open, elevated wooden walkways. Over
    time the buildings have settled unevenly, the walls drop and separate
    when the temperature rises from below freezing. We have had to spend
    precious dollars on new pilings, replacement of hot and cold water
    piping, insulation, a circulation pump, repair of waste piping in the
    crawl spaces and replacement of rotting emergency room and patient room
    floors. These conditions pose an unsafe environment for people seeking
    health services.
        We point out again that our health center is the sole source of
    health care on the Annette Island Reserve, and so we have made every
    effort to keep the doors open. Inclement weather on the islands often
    isolates us for days at a time, preventing transporting patients to
    off-island locations for treatment. So the prospects of no fiscal year
    2003 construction funding, resulting in further delay on the
    replacement clinic, is a very serious matter for us.
        Lack of fiscal year 2003 IHS construction funding will result in a
    construction delay of yet another year. We are eager to finally be able
    to provide a full range of ambulatory care services and a comprehensive
    community health program to the residents of the Annette Islands
    Reserve and to provide those services in a safe facility. In our new
    clinic we will provide expanded services in the areas of laboratory
    work, radiology, emergency and urgent care, ambulatory care, community
    health services such as mental health, substance abuse services, social
    services and community health representatives, dental, pharmacy and
    physical therapy. New services to be offered include health education,
    public health nutrition and environmental health.
        The Juneau-based architectural firm Jensen Yorba Lott, Inc., is the
    lead designer of our new health facility. The IHS will manage the
    construction of the health center, while the Metlakatkla Indian
    Community is the lead contractor for site development and the housing
    quarters construction. The health facility will be managed under a
    Public Law 93-638 compact with the IHS under the direction of Rachael
    Askren, the Service Unit Director.
                               walden point road
        Under an MOU, the Metlakatla Indian Community along with the
    Department of Defense (DOD), Federal Highways Administration (FHWA),
    Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Alaska Department of Transportation
    and Public Facilities have worked jointly on a plan to alleviate the
    isolation and improve the safety of the Community. Through innovative
    planning and cooperative efforts, the joint project will result in a
    14.7-mile road (Walden Point Road) and a 3-mile ferry link to Saxman,
    Alaska. Presently the Community must rely on commercial air transport
    or the Alaska Marine Highway System (ferry service). The air service is
    costly and availability is severely impacted by the weather. The Alaska
    Marine Highway System is not a daily service and is also dependent upon
    weather conditions. There are days at a time when, due to the weather,
    neither the air nor ferry services can function and we remain isolated
    on the island.
        The Walden Point Road project has been underway since 1997 and
    should be completed in 2007, at an estimated cost of $29.8 million. So
    far the Department of Defense, under its Civil-Military Innovative
    Readiness Training Program, has completed 5 miles of construction grade
    roadway and expects to complete roadway construction by 2005. The
    paving and finishing (road signs, centerlines, guardrails) would be
    completed by 2007.
        The completion of Walden Point Road is dependent upon each party to
    the MOU carrying out the obligations they committed to perform in
    signing the agreement. In the initial years of the project, each agency
    was able to provide the funds, resources, and expertise required to get
    the project off the ground. As we get further into the actual
    construction--which is more costly than in the initial phase of
    planning, design, and environmental assessments--funding has become the
    greatest barrier to keeping the project on schedule. While the DOD and
    FHWA have been able to identify resources and are committed to seek the
    necessary funding within their respective annual appropriations
    requests, the BIA has informed us they can neither provide funds from
    existing allocations nor request for a line item appropriation in its
    annual budget requests. Due to the economic devastation the Community
    has suffered as a result of the closure of our timber processing
    facilities and the marked drop in the fishing industry in recent years,
    we are unable to provide the amounts need to ensure the necessary
    construction materials are available to continue construction on
    schedule.
        We request that the Subcommittee recommend at least $2 million in
    fiscal year 2003 BIA funds be made available to continue the Walden
    Point Road project. We further request that the Subcommittee direct the
    Bureau to include a $2 million line item request in the fiscal year
    2004 through fiscal year 2008 budgets for the Walden Point Road
    project.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
        On behalf on the National Congress of American Indians and its more
    than 200 member tribal nations, we are pleased to have the opportunity
    to present written testimony on fiscal year 2003 appropriations for the
    Indian Health Service (IHS).
        The tragic events of September 11 brought forth the strength and
    the determination of our nation to survive in the face of adversity. It
    is this same spirit that has carried Indian Country through years of
    annihilation and termination. It is this same spirit that has propelled
    Indian Nations forward into an era of self-determination and self-
    governance. And it is in this same spirit of resolve that Indian
    Nations come before Congress to talk about honoring the federal
    government's treaty obligations and trust responsibilities throughout
    the fiscal year 2003 budget and appropriations process.
        On February 4, President Bush proposed a $2.13 trillion budget for
    fiscal year 2003 that included generally level funding for Indian
    programs, continuing the trend of consistent declines in federal per
    capita spending for Indians compared to per capita expenditures for the
    population at large. This trend demonstrates the abject failure of the
    federal government to commit the serious resources needed to fully
    honor its trust commitment to Indian tribes.
        The federal trust responsibility represents the legal obligation
    made by the U.S. government to Indian tribes when their lands were
    ceded to the United States. This obligation is codified in numerous
    treaties, statutes, Presidential directives, judicial opinions, and
    international doctrines. It can be divided into three general areas--
    protection of Indian trust lands; protection of tribal self-governance;
    and provision of basic social, medical, and educational services for
    tribal members.
        NCAI realizes that Congress must make difficult budget choices this
    year. As elected officials, tribal leaders certainly understand the
    competing priorities that you must weigh over the coming months.
    However, the fact that the federal government has a solemn
    responsibility to address the serious needs facing Indian Country
    remains unchanged, whatever the economic climate.
        We at NCAI urge you to make a strong across-the-board commitment to
    meeting the federal trust obligation by fully funding those programs
    that are vital to the creation of healthy Indian Nations.
        The President has requested $2.9 billion for the Indian Health
    Service, a $60 million increase over the current funding level, but an
    effective decrease in funding when new absorption requirements and
    mandatory pay cost increases are figured in. Of the total request, $2.5
    billion is proposed for Indian health services and $370.5 million, a
    less than $1 million increase, is proposed for facilities. Because most
    of the increases under the President's budget are targeted for
    mandatory pay-cost adjustments and staffing at new facilities, the
    budget request falls far short of allowing the IHS to break even with
    fiscal year 2002 funding levels once the new absorption requirements
    under the President's budget are accounted for.
        Measured in constant dollars, per capita spending for health care
    in the IHS service population is actually lower today than it was is in
    1977. Over the past ten years alone, population growth and inflation
    costs have increased by over 46 percent, while IHS funding has risen by
    only 36 percent.
        Indian Country is all-too-familiar with the disproportionate impact
    that diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer have in
    American Indian and Alaska Native communities. In January, the Centers
    for Disease Control released a study \1\  which found that, between
    1990 and 1998, the lung cancer death rate for American Indians and
    Alaska Natives increased by 28 percent and the percent of low
    birthweight infants increased by 11 percent. The study also found that
    American Indians and Alaska Natives do not appear to have experienced
    the same improvements in suicide, breast cancer, and stroke death rates
    that other racial/ethnic groups have seen.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
    Control, Trends in Racial and Ethnic-Specific Rates for the Health
    Status Indicators: United States, 1990-98, January, 2002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To help address these health disparities in a meaningful way, the
    IHS Level-of-Need Funding Workgroup has identified an $18 billion
    needs-based budget for the IHS, including a nonrecurring $8.7 billion
    facilities request and $10 billion to fully fund the health needs for
    American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        A 10-year phase-in of the $18 billion needs-based budget can be
    achieved through several years of appropriations increases. If a first
    year increase of $2.6 billion were appropriated (a 112 percent
    increase), the following years' increases would decline to 20 percent
    in year 5 and 10 percent in year 10. The first year increase would be
    substantially more to help offset the more than $2 billion lost to
    inflation over the past 8 years.
        NCAI strongly supports the needs-based budget request for the IHS,
    and urges Congress to take actions to close the gap between IHS funding
    levels and the health care needs of American Indians and Alaska
    Natives. Unfortunately, the President's budget request fails on this
    front.
        The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board (NPAIHB) estimates
    that approximately $313 million is needed just to maintain current IHS
    services, including $51.4 million for population growth, $212 million
    for inflation, and $60 million for contract support costs. The
    Administration request is less than one-fifth of that amount, which
    means the very real likelihood of fewer services provided through
    several programs, including Alcohol and Substance Abuse, Contract
    Health Services, Health Education, Community Health Representatives,
    and Urban Health.
        With respect to contract support funding, NCAI is disappointed that
    the President has requested only a $2.5 million increase, which would
    bring funding to $270.7 million. This amount is woefully below the
    amount needed to cover the current $100 million IHS contract support
    shortfall. We fully urge the Subcommittee to support meaningful
    increases to address this shortfall so that tribes are not penalized
    for assuming program responsibility in accordance with their rights
    under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act,
    Public Law 93-638.
        NCAI is extremely troubled by the essentially level funding request
    for IHS facilities. Over the past decade, the IHS facilities
    maintenance and improvement account has increased by less than 5
    percent, even though the inventory of buildings had increased much more
    than that. The Federal Government's investment in IHS facilities is
    depreciating rapidly because of the lack of funding for regular
    maintenance activities. In fact, the IHS in January 2002 identified a
    $484 million backlog in facilities maintenance and repair.
        Finally, NCAI would like to express our concerns about the
    Administration's proposal to consolidate 50 public affairs and 20
    legislative affairs offices within the Department of Health and Human
    Services into one central office. For IHS, $838,000 and eight FTEs
    would be transferred from the IHS budget to the Office of the Secretary
    to implement this change. There are few details about this proposal,
    including whether the IHS legislative affairs office would be
    physically located away from the day-to-day IHS operations in
    Rockville, Maryland, or whether current IHS legislative affairs staff
    would be detailed to work on other issues.
        We are pleased that the Senate budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 100,
    adds $1 billion to the President's request for the IHS, which would
    increase IHS funding by 37 percent over the current level. The majority
    of the increase would go to clinical services, with the remainder for
    contract support costs and to restore the proposed cuts to facilities.
    We strongly urge you to support this funding level as the budget and
    appropriations process continues.
        Thank you for this opportunity to present written testimony
    regarding the fiscal year 2003 appropriations for the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs. The National Congress of American Indians calls upon Congress
    to fulfill the federal government's fiduciary duty to American Indians
    and Alaska Native people. This responsibility should never be
    compromised or diminished because of any political agenda or budget cut
    scenario. Tribes throughout the nation relinquished their lands and in
    return received a trust obligation, and we ask that Congress maintain
    this solemn obligation to Indian Country and continue to assist tribal
    governments as we strive to reduce the health disparities that so
    disproportionately affect our Nations.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Joslin Vision Network/Joslin Diabetes Center
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present a status
    report on the funds the Interior Subcommittee provided for the past 2
    fiscal years, and to request $2 million to continue the Indian Health
    Service/Joslin Diabetes Center telemedicine work in fiscal year 2003 in
    the Indian Health Service Medical Care Account.
                                   background
        The Interior 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 welcomed this
    opportunity to work collaboratively with IHS through the sharing of
    technology and training in a clinical setting.
        The Congress, through your Subcommittee, provided $1,500,000 in
    fiscal year 2002 to continue and expand this project.
        The fiscal year 2003 Budget contains $1,500,000 for this project.
    We are seeking an increase of $500,000 above that amount for fiscal
    year 2003.
        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 2000-2002 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 four additional sites, refinement of the IHS/JVN
    telemedicine protocol, and integrating Native-American outreach and
    education programs. It appears that the four identified additional
    sites targeted are Rocky Boy, MT, Sitka Clinic, AK, Chinle Reservation,
    AZ, and Minneapolis, MN.
        Participants from the Indian Health Services have made major
    contributions to the development of the Comprehensive Diabetes
    Management Program effort. The program now incorporates significant
    value added to existing Indian Health Services efforts such as their
    Diabetes Tracker program. Work has been completed in the design of the
    different clinical, educational and behavior/lifestyle modification
    modules and in algorithms defining dynamic alert notification and
    diabetes risk assessment that are specific for the requirements of the
    Native American populations. It is expected that a production version
    of the Diabetes Management program will be available for implementation
    in September 2002 and sites in the Indian Health Services have already
    volunteered to be involved in the initial roll out of this program.
                                fiscal year 2003
        For 2003, the President's budget Request includes $1.5 million, the
    fiscal year 2002 appropriated level. In order to accelerate the
    deployment of JVN imaging sites and increase the number of reading
    center workstations in use at the central JVN reading center in Phoenix
    Indian Medical Center, we are respectfully requesting an increase of
    $500,000 above the budget to a total of $2 million for fiscal year
    2003. This level will permit the Indian Health Service to establish and
    deploy equipment for 14 more image acquisition sites and serve a larger
    portion of the patient population.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for this opportunity to present this fiscal year 2002
    status report and this request of fiscal year 2003 funding of $2
    million for the IHS /Joslin project. This project is viewed by IHS and
    Joslin Diabetes Center as a significant medical technology breakthrough
    for the patients and health care system within the Indian Health
    Service.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
                                Chippewa Indians
        The Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians delivers
    health care services under a ``Self-Determination'' contract with the
    Indian Health Service. Lac Du Flambeau's Health Department has operated
    the Peter Christensen Health Center since 1972, and offers outpatient
    medical and dental services.
        We are pleased to present this testimony to the Subcommittee
    regarding the Band's priorities for fiscal year 2003 IHS funding.
                       challenges in the fiscal year 2003
        The Lac Du Flambeau tribal community maximizes the use of fiscal
    resources currently provided by an integrated pool from Federal, State
    and Tribal sources. The fiscal year 2003 Department of Health & Human
    Services Departmental Budget will impact the Lac Du Flambeau community
    in the following ways:
        The Lac Du Flambeau Chippewa Tribe through the comprehensive
    service delivered by the Peter Christensen Health Center will mirror
    the initiatives of the Department of Health & Human Services strategic
    initiatives for fiscal year 2003. However, in order to meet these
    strategic goals, more funding in needed. With the President's fiscal
    year 2003 Budget Request, Lac Du Flambeau will not keep pace with
    rising costs or increased patient load.
    Contract Health Services
        One specific area of concern is Contract Health Service funding.
    The Administration has requested only a $7.3 million increase for this
    vital program. Nationally, the shortfall for this program is $1.1
    billion. The shortfall at Lac Du Flambeau alone is $4 million. The
    Administration's increase will do little to improve the health of
    Indian people nationwide let alone in Lac Du Flambeau.
        The Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians requests
    $4 million for ``Contract Health Services'' to provide access to health
    care for the increasing number of tribal members.
    Health Facilities
        Another area of concern for the Band, is the proposed decrease in
    facilities construction. Like the school construction backlog
    experienced in the BIA, there is a severe backlog in health facilities
    within IHS. The Band is now developing plans for a new facility for the
    Peter Christensen Health Center. The current facility cannot meet
    accreditation standards, and is undersized for the rising number of
    patients. However, the current Indian Health Service Facilities program
    cannot provide Lac Du Flambeau with meaningful resources to help build
    a new facility. We urge the appropriators to continue to support
    innovative programs like the Joint Venture Program and the Small and
    Ambulatory Clinic funding program to address the critical backlog in
    health facilities in Indian country.
    Pay costs
        In order to attract quality medical professionals, the Band must
    pay premium salaries. This has resulted in a reduction in services at
    the clinic. In order to address this shortfall in pay costs, the Band
    requests $2 million from the resources identified for ``Tribal Pay
    Costs'' in the IHS proposed budget.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy
        Dear Chairman Byrd: On behalf of all the members of the American
    Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) please accept our
    appreciation for your support of the Indian Health Services (IHS).
        The health disparities present among the Native American and
    Alaskan Native populations has drawn increased scrutiny in recent
    months. The IOM report, ``Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and
    Ethnic Disparities in Health Care,'' confirms what you and your
    committee have been aware of for years. As difficult as the
    appropriations process will be this year, we are confident that through
    your leadership, the health and well-being of Native Americans and
    Alaskan Natives will not suffer more than it already has.
        The AACP seeks your continued support for two important IHS
    programs. The IHS pharmacy resident training program provides
    pharmacists with additional experience and education to increase their
    clinical skills. Beyond that, this program serves as an important
    recruitment tool for IHS health service sites. Pharmacists that enter
    the pharmacy resident training program are more likely to stay on once
    they complete the program. Better yet, the program provides Native
    American populations with another health care professional dedicated to
    the improvement of their health and well-being.
        There are currently 11 pharmacy residents practicing and training
    at IHS sites. There is growing concern among the sites of their ability
    to continue their support in light of increased costs associated with
    special pay requirements. Additional sites would like to start a
    pharmacy resident training program, but the special pay requirements
    keep them from initiating their development. We would ask you to
    consider funding the pharmacy resident program at $1 million in fiscal
    year 2003 to assist current sites with their special pay requirements,
    and allow additional sites to develop their programs.
        The other program that is important to recruiting and retaining
    pharmacists is the health professions loan repayment program. This
    program is essential for the IHS to remain competitive with other
    higher paying pharmacy practice sites. Last year the IHS was able to
    provide $2.8 million in loan repayment to IHS pharmacists. With the
    average student that enters the IHS having approximately $60,000 worth
    of debt, loan repayment is a real boon. 50-60 new pharmacists will be
    hired this year, helping to reduce years of double digit vacancy rates.
    Almost all will request loan repayment. Vacancies will remain high as
    retirements through out the IHS take place faster than they can be
    replaced. We would ask you to consider at least $34 million be made
    available for loan repayment, with special consideration for
    pharmacists.
        We would also ask you to look closely at a provision in the
    President's budget that states ``In 2003, this structure will be
    streamlined to create one office for public affairs and one centralized
    legislative affairs office.'' The attempt to streamline HHS
    communications seems laudable at first glance. Yet, the competing
    nature of programs and inter-departmental initiatives could quickly
    overwhelm a centralized office. The release of important information
    could be delayed at best, and possibly eliminated at worst, all
    depending on priorities of individuals with little or no connection or
    appreciation of the information they are responsible for releasing. We
    ask that you give this provision serious consideration and seek other
    ways of improving HHS communications.
        At a time when the demand for pharmacists far outpaces the ability
    of colleges and schools of pharmacy to supply graduates, the residency
    training program and the loan repayment program provide IHS with
    powerful tools to recruit and retain pharmacists. All this leads to
    improved access for Native American populations and the chance for a
    healthier life for all.
        Thank you again for your support.

                      RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal year
                                       -------------------------------------
                                               2002               2003
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total IHS Health Funding..........     $2,400,000,000     $4,400,000,000
    Loan Repayment....................         17,000,000         34,000,000
    Pharmacy Residency Training                   620,000          1,000,000
     Program..........................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``The University of Wyoming places students at various IHS sites. I
    have placed students at Winnebago, Fort Washakie, Arapahoe and Ship
    Rock. We have had several students participate in Costep-2 this past
    summer. Currently we have a 2000 alumnus participating in a 2-year
    residency at Shiprock. He completed a four week experience at our drug
    information center and is developing a drug information center at
    Shiprock as his project.'' ----Loren A. Thompson, R. Ph. Professional
    Experience Coordinator
                                     ______

                             OTHER RELATED AGENCIES
        Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
                                  Development
       Prepared Statement of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
                      Native Culture and Arts Development
                                  introduction
        On October 17, 1986, Congress enacted legislation creating the IAIA
    (Public Law 99-498, Sec. 1502, 100 Stat.). At that time, Congress
    recognized that ``Indian art and culture occupy a unique position in
    American history as being our only native art and cultural heritage.''
    Congress also found ``the enhancement and preservation of this Nation's
    native art and culture has a fundamental positive influence on the
    American people . . .''
        The Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
    Development (IAIA) respectfully requests a $6.0 million appropriation
    for fiscal year 2003--$5.0 million for core operations and $1 million
    for construction costs for our new campus on a matching basis.
        The $5.0 million requested for operations represents an increase of
    $500,000 over the 2002 appropriations. These additional dollars are
    necessary to cover the costs of the four newly accredited bachelor
    degree programs in Studio Arts, Visual Communications, and Museum
    Studies and Creative Writing. The $1 million is for construction of the
    Library and Technology Center. The construction cost of the building is
    $7.5 million, which includes furniture, computers and equipment. The $1
    million requested from Congress is requested as a match to the four
    million IAIA has already raised. IAIA has not received any construction
    dollars from Congress since 1994.
        As we approach the millennium, there is no less a need for a
    college like the IAIA than there was when it was transferred from the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs. The IAIA has many unique distinctions. It is
    the only fine arts college devoted solely to the study and practice of
    the artistic and cultural traditions of American Indian and Alaska
    Natives. It houses the National collection of Contemporary Indian Art.
    It has the designation as the National Repository for Native Languages.
    It is also the first school operated by the federal government that
    permitted the teaching of native arts and culture in an academic
    setting.
        Since 1962, the IAIA has been the birthplace of some of the most
    exciting new directions in Indian art. Students at the IAIA have
    experimented with new forms of expression and have greatly expanded the
    definition of Indian art. The IAIA is a place where traditions are
    rediscovered and reaffirmed, where it is possible for American Indian
    and Alaska Native students to celebrate their art and cultural identity
    and to receive the education needed to be successful, contributing
    members of their tribes and society at large.
        IAIA serves students, visitors, and tribes as a national college,
    museum and resource center. IAIA serves all 558 federally recognized
    Tribes in Alaska and Canada, as well as non-native students and foreign
    students. 90 tribes from 27 states were represented in the Fall 2001
    semester. The IAIA provides a tribally-diversified approach to students
    seeking to increase their economic opportunities as artists, museum
    curators, administrators, and technicians.
        The IAIA has many accolades. The artistic legacy of the Institute
    spans more than three generations. Through its alumni, the IAIA has
    contributed greatly to the world's appreciation of native arts and
    culture. The Indian arts and crafts industry is a multimillion dollar
    business and contributes to the economy at all levels. The IAIA is an
    irreplaceable asset to the Nation.
                                 budget request
        The fiscal year 2003 request for $6.0 million provides for $5.0
    million for core operations for instruction, student support services,
    administration, lease costs, and for operating the IAIA Museum. The
    IAIA has been compared to other institutions in terms of cost per
    student. In addition to the cost of operating the college, the IAIA
    operates a world class museum, which houses the National Collection of
    American Indian and Alaska Native Art and comprises more than 8,000
    pieces of art. The IAIA has the only American Indian Museum Studies
    Program. The Museum resources are used to offer students instruction
    and training in Museum Studies, Arts Management, and Indian Art
    History. Museum Studies graduates are employed in the Smithsonian
    Institution, tribal museums, cultural centers, and in state and
    historical museums. The Museum also provides public programming in
    native arts and culture. Another factor in cost, which is significant,
    is that the IAIA is located in the center of the Indian Art Market.
    This is a great advantage for the students: however, overall operations
    are impacted by the high costs associated with being located in an
    international tourist location.
        The funds requested for construction will enable IAIA to offer
    state of the art technology programs to its students. The new degree
    includes courses in digital media and digital design, enabling IAIA
    students to be competitive in the 21st century.
                                accomplishments
        This past year, the IAIA has realized a number of important goals,
    which reflect the significant progress at IAIA toward the congressional
    mandate and the expectations of Tribes. Some of the major
    accomplishments are highlighted below.
    New Campus
        The Institute has completed the first four buildings from Phase One
    of its Master Plan for New Campus Facilities; the Academic Center, the
    Student Dormitories, the Student Life Center and the Cultural Learning
    Center. The next step will be construction of IAIA's Library and
    Technology Center (LTC), scheduled to begin in Spring 2002 and to be
    completed by August 2003. Support for IAIA's buildings has come from a
    variety of sources, including the W.K.Kellogg Foundation, the Lily
    Foundation, and the American Indian College Fund.
    New 4-Year-Degree Programs
        The IAIA recently embarked on a major period of expansion as a 4-
    year tribal college. On March 1, 2002, the IAIA was formally notified
    by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools that is has
    accredited the Institute for Bachelor of Arts and Fine Arts degrees in
    four disciplines: Studio Arts, Creative Writing, Museum Studies, and
    Visual communications. The IAIA has also received formal accreditation
    for an Associate in Applied Science degree in Visual Communications and
    an Associate Arts degree in Indigenous Studies. The new programs will
    economically strengthen tribal communities by providing artists,
    creative leaders and craftsmen with cutting-edge educational
    credentials. These programs will be located in the Library Technology
    Center (LTC), which will house state-of-the-art equipment and
    facilities. The LTC addresses the reality that computes and digital
    technology have forever altered the face of fine arts, art history,
    education in the arts and museum practices.
    Product Development
        IAIA has launched the development of proprietary products in an
    effort to increase visibility for the campus and museum as well as
    generate long term revenues. Products currently produced and selling in
    the Museum shop and on IAIA's web site include a beautiful line of full
    color notecards, calendars, address books, and writing journals
    featuring art works from the National Collection as well as products
    specially created for IAIA by noted alumni artists such as Tony Abeyta.
    IAIA will continue to create unique and one of a kind items to sell in
    partnership with former and recent alumni and will be cultivating
    licensing agreements with major institutions and manufacturers.
    Museum Programs
        Last year, 46,183 people visited the IAIA Museum. In addition to
    exhibitions that are regularly featured in leading newspapers and art
    magazines, the museum has extensive public lecture series and outreach
    programs. 7,744 people attended the Museum's Public Programs in 2001
    and 3,592 visitors participate in the Museum tours program. The IAIA
    Museum has also developed very successful outreach programs, which, in
    addition to the tours, provide activities for the general public, K-12
    students, and their teachers. Last year's Children's Day event
    attracted over 850 participants.
    Library Resources
        The IAIA expanded its library resources last year by joining the
    American Indian Higher Education Consortium Virtual Library Project.
    This Internet resource aggregates information in the arts and
    humanities and social sciences, with a special emphasis on Native
    American studies. Last year, the library received three significant
    book donations totaling approximately 600 items, which increased
    holdings in Native American history, arts and culture. Library patrons
    also acquired new access to three additional databases last year.
    Including The Ethnic Newswatch database, which provides full-text
    articles of the native, ethnic and minority press.
    IAIA Goals for 2003
        The IAIA has identified major goals that will need to be
    accomplished to meet the mandates of Congress and the educational and
    cultural needs of Tribes this coming year. Major goals include those
    highlighted below.
      --Construction of the new Library & Technology Center (LTC) is IAIA's
            major goal in the coming year. The LTC will be designed to
            support the Institute's transition in to a 4-year tribal
            college and to provide its students with access to cutting-edge
            educational technology. It will house an expanded library and
            state-of-the-art equipment and facilities, such as:
            laboratories for film and video production, multi-media lecture
            halls, graphic design capabilities for both the Internet and
            print media, animation and distance learning. By offering
            distance learning programs of study, the LTC will also be a
            viable means of closing the ``digital divide,'' which has
            adversely affected Native American educational opportunities.
            Substantial funding for the new 55,000 square foot LTC has been
            secured. The State of New Mexico has contributed $1 million to
            date. Private funders, agencies, individuals, and Tribes have
            committed nearly another $3 million. However, the IAIA still
            needs $1 million from Congress to complete the construction and
            installation of technology and furnishings for the LTC.
      --It is the goal of IAIA to serve more students by providing quality
            art programs and innovative methods of instruction on the
            Internet, on a satellite campus, with continuing education
            classes, and with diverse and new degree programs. The recent
            accreditation of the college for Bachelor of Arts and Fine Arts
            degrees in four disciplines will also enable the IAIA to
            achieve this goal of enhanced recruitment. The IAIA is
            continuing with its plan to establish a branch campus at the
            Alaska Native Heritage Center which will allow students to take
            art classes for credit. By the end of the year, an educational
            plan and resource development plan should be completed. Over
            the years, IAIA has served hundreds of Alaska Natives who have
            earned degrees at the IAIA. Additionally, the implementation of
            distance learning classes will enable the IAIA to reach more
            students on other campuses. The library is gearing many of its
            activities towards the new Library and Technology Center (LTC),
            which will provide much-needed space for IAIA archives, visual
            resources including the collection of 15,000 photographs of
            Native peoples, and the newly acquired personal library of
            artist/alumnus T.C. Cannon. It is anticipated that student
            enrollment will increase substantially, with the addition of
            the LTC and the new degree and certificate programs, continuing
            education classes, distance learning, and a satellite campus.
      --The IAIA continues its fund raising for the new campus, general
            endowment, and scholarship endowment. It is the goal of the
            IAIA to significantly increase the general endowment to provide
            state-of-the-art degree and certificate programs and to provide
            revenue for campus development and maintenance. Fund raising
            provides for the much-needed scholarships for the current
            students and the future students. Student scholarships are a
            necessity for the IAIA students whose families are among the
            poorest in the nation.
        In sum, IAIA's goal is to provide the structure for the Institute
    to stabilize its operations in order to become a viable and sustainable
    center of Native American higher education. Focusing on enrollment
    management and revenue diversification involves: aggressive recruitment
    efforts; distance learning initiatives; community-based outreach
    programs; increased revenue from educational product and service sales;
    and fund raising.
        In order to be responsive to the twenty-first century needs of the
    Tribes and the students for education in the arts, the IAIA must have
    the necessary technological resources for the new Library Technology
    Center and the new degree and certificate programs. The IAIA is
    requesting from Congress $1 million to be used toward the $7.5 million
    construction and equipment costs of the LTC. In addition, the IAIA is
    requesting the continued economic support of the Congress for the IAIA
    operational budget of $5.0 million. The total request of $6.0 million
    for fiscal year 2003 ($5.0 million for IAIA operations and $1.0 million
    toward the construction of the new LTC) will:
      --Provide economic opportunities for more students,
      --Provide new programs which will economically strengthen tribal
            communities by providing artists and craftsmen with up-to-date
            creative and marketing skills,
      --Assure the continuance of quality programs of education in the
            arts,
      --Assure the continuance of a quality residential program,
      --Provide the first bachelor programs in studio arts, museum studies,
            creative writing and visual communications,
      --Offer new art degree programs based on twenty-first century
            technologies,
      --Provide distance learning,
      --Preserve Indian art and Alaskan Native art for the future
            generations of Americans,
      --Continue excellence in the arts at the IAIA through the educational
            programs on the campus and at the IAIA museum, and
      --Fulfill the Federal responsibility to sovereign Indian Nations and
            Tribes.
        The IAIA respectfully urges the approval of the 2003 budget request
    so that the Institute may continue to offer excellence in American
    Indian and Alaska Native art and culture education, art and culture
    preservation, and art and culture outreach.
                                     ______

                        National Endowment for the Arts
           Prepared Statement of the American Association of Museums
        The American Association of Museums (AAM) is pleased to submit
    testimony in support of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and
    the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The American
    Association of Museums (AAM), headquartered in Washington D.C., is the
    national service association representing the American museum
    community. AAM provides identification and dissemination of standards
    and best practices, direct services, leadership on museum issues, and
    representation in the area of government and public affairs. Since its
    founding in 1906, AAM has grown to more than 16,200 members, including
    more than 10,800 museum professionals and trustees, 3,000 museums, and
    1,900 corporate members in every State of the Union.
        The NEA and the NEH, working singularly and in partnership with the
    Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), have provided critical
    support for America's museums since their inception more then 35 years
    ago, and we fully support these valuable agencies and the good work
    they do for the American people.
        President Bush's fiscal year 2003 budget submission proposed only
    modest increases of $2 million each for the NEA and the NEH ($117
    million and $124.5 million respectively). In a time of national crisis,
    when other federal agencies are being asked to do more with less in
    order shift scarce resources towards programs that bolster national
    defense and homeland security, we appreciate and applaud the president
    for the support he has shown for the good work being done by both NEA
    and NEH through this requested increase in funding. But this support is
    in fact more symbolic then substantive. A close examination of the
    Administration's budget submission reveals that the $2 million increase
    proposed for each agency is intended to defray the costs associated
    with having the agencies assume complete financial responsibility for
    the health and pension benefits of their employees. If such a scenario
    were enacted, little if any of the proposed increases for the NEA and
    the NEH would be available to bolster existing grant programs. In
    essence, their budgets would remain flat. Even if the funding were to
    go to core programs instead of health and pension costs, the fact
    remains that the budgets of both agencies are currently simply not
    enough for them to fully perform the roles for which they were created
    in 1965. Mr. Chairman, we therefore respectfully ask you and your
    colleagues to increase the Administration's request for fiscal year
    2003 to $155 million for each agency.
        A prudent and forward thinking investment in our artistic and
    cultural institutions today will ensure that America has a strong,
    vibrant, and viable artistic and cultural community that future
    generations can enjoy and learn from tomorrow. Culture builds
    community. In cities and towns across America we have seen that arts,
    culture and the humanities are educational tools, economic engines,
    sources of civic pride, and catalysts for fostering a greater sense of
    community identity and multicultural understanding. The federal
    government, in partnership with state and local governments, private
    business and the nonprofit sector, provides the infrastructure support
    to ensure the nation's cultural and artistic well-being, which is
    critical to the economic and social vitality of our communities.
        The true value of the NEA lies in its ability to nurture the growth
    and artistic excellence of thousands of arts organizations and artists
    in every corner of the country, making the performing, visual,
    literary, media and folk arts available to millions of Americans.
    Through these community organizations, the NEA supports learning in the
    arts for small children to senior citizens through a wide range of
    projects, including educational programs for adults, collaborations
    between state arts agencies and state education agencies, and
    partnerships between arts institutions and educators. In addition, the
    nonprofit arts industry alone generates $36.8 billion annually in
    economic activity, supports 1.3 million jobs, and returns $3.4 billion
    to the federal government in income taxes. The arts also attract
    tourism dollars. Tourism is one of the fastest growing sectors of our
    economy today, and according to Travel Industry Association data,
    cultural and historic travelers spend more, stay in hotels more often,
    and visit more destinations than non-historic travelers. That
    translates into millions of extra dollars being brought into our
    communities because of arts and culture.
        The NEH also plays an important role in the American experience.
    The humanities are essential to democracy. They are the basis for
    reasoned discourse and make possible the shared reflection,
    communication, and participation upon which democratic society depends.
    The NEH is the largest single funder of humanities programs in the
    United States, enriching American intellectual and cultural life
    through support to museums, archives, libraries, colleges,
    universities, state humanities councils, public television and radio,
    and to individual scholars. Continuing this support is critical to
    addressing the nation's future needs in education. More than two-thirds
    of our nation's K-12 curriculum is dedicated to the humanities,
    including subjects such as reading, literature, history and civics; 2
    million new teachers will be needed in our classrooms over the next
    decade, and 4 out of 5 teachers feel inadequately prepared in their
    subject area. NEH summer seminars and institutes for teachers address
    these very issues, and are the catalyst for revitalized teachers for
    tens of thousands of students each year.
        In a recent national public opinion survey, almost 9 out of 10
    Americans (87 percent) said museums are one of the most trustworthy
    sources of information among a wide range of choices. This level of
    trust is due in part to the careful research that goes into developing
    a museum exhibition, and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
    grants are an invaluable tool, not only in preserving and protecting
    the vast cultural, historic, and artistic resources housed in America's
    museums but in researching those resources and putting them into
    historic context in exhibitions for the public. The activities of the
    NEH touch tens of millions of our citizens--from the youngest students
    to the most veteran professors to men and women who simply strive for a
    greater appreciation of our nation's past, present, and future. The
    tragic events of September 11 in fact underscore the importance of the
    humanities in understanding the state of our union and in responding
    effectively in times of crisis. A knowledgeable citizenry is essential
    to homeland defense--Americans need to understand the most important
    ideals, ideas and institutions that under gird our nation if we are to
    effectively rally to her defense. Thus we strongly support, for
    example, NEH Chairman Bruce Cole's intention, in his ``We the People''
    program, to encourage increased public understanding of these ideals,
    ideas, and institutions.
        Mr. Chairman, the NEA and the NEH are both wonderful resources for
    the American people. Any difficulties or inequities in the operation of
    the NEA have long been resolved. The NEA has responded to concerns
    about accountability with administrative changes. Grantees' reporting
    requirements were tightened, and final grant payment was made
    contingent upon approval of an interim report. Grants were eliminated
    to arts organizations for seasonal support or for sub granting in
    nearly every category, and for direct funding to most individual
    artists. The size of the National Council on the Arts was reduced from
    26 to 20, with six positions held by Congress, and States received an
    increase in the block grant formula to ensure they receive at least 40
    percent of NEA funds. The museum community is proud to partner with
    both the NEA and NEH and we fully support the good work these agencies
    do for the American people. Additional funding would enable the
    agencies to enhance and increase their public service activities as
    well as expand the reach of new and innovative programs and help the
    agencies rebuild after years of essentially stagnant budgets.
        We of course recognize, Mr. Chairman, that you and your colleagues
    are under intense pressure to balance the funding needs of the many
    worth programs under your jurisdiction. We would ask you to consider
    the good work being done by the NEA and NEH, and do what you can to
    fund urgently needed substantial increases for these agencies.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Americans for the Arts
        Americans for the Arts is pleased to submit written testimony to
    the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior in support of
    fiscal year 2003 appropriations for the National Endowment for the Arts
    at an increased funding level of $155 million.
        Americans for the Arts is the nation's leading nonprofit
    organization for advancing the arts. With a 40-year record of objective
    arts industry research, it is dedicated to representing and serving
    local communities and creating opportunities for every American to
    participate in and appreciate all forms of the arts.
        Local arts agencies comprise our core constituency. As important
    grantees of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), local arts
    agencies are entrusted public stewards of government funds for the
    arts. An increase in funding for the NEA means more grants for local
    arts agencies to utilize as they increase Americans' access to the arts
    at the local level and improve communities by stimulating economic
    development and improving community life. An increase in NEA funding
    would create increased funding for local arts agencies to continue
    their vital role in community building.
    local arts agency trends--the key to community development through the
                                      arts
        A local arts agency is a private community organization or local
    government agency that supports cultural organizations, provides
    services to artists or arts organizations, and/or presents arts
    programming to the public.
        Over the past 7 years, local arts agency budgets have been growing.
    In 2000, the average local arts agency budget grew 8.8 percent to $1.38
    million. Sixty-six percent of local arts agencies implement arts
    education programs and activities; in addition, some local arts
    agencies partner with or fund other agencies to address arts education.
    Arts education programs include supporting artists in the schools,
    designing curricula, and/or advocating for arts education. Nearly one
    half of local arts agencies have at least one full-time equivalent
    staff member who is dedicated to arts education.
        Local arts agencies continue to expand the role of the arts in
    their communities by using the arts to address social, educational, and
    economic development issues. Local elected leaders increasingly look to
    partner with their local arts agencies in programs dealing with
    everything from tourism to at-risk youth. In fact, 84 percent of local
    art agencies use the arts to address community development issues.
    Nearly all local arts agencies collaborate with community organizations
    or local government agencies to integrate the arts more fully into
    their community and to assist those agencies in achieving their
    missions, e.g., economic development departments to develop cultural
    districts, chambers of commerce to attract new businesses, parks and
    recreation departments to create after school programs, convention and
    visitor bureaus to increase cultural tourism, and police departments to
    prevent crime.
                      arts and healing in response to 9/11
        In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the arts emerged
    as an important source of national strength and inspiration. We saw
    their impact almost immediately in the spontaneous adoption of ``God
    Bless America'' as the song that comforted the nation and in the speed
    with which world-renowned artists collaborated to produce and televise
    numerous celebrity-filled fundraising events. Because they are unique
    to their communities, local arts agencies are in a position to respond
    directly to community changes and special needs. We saw this as
    hundreds of local arts agencies and organizations responded to the 9/11
    attacks with programs to help their communities grieve and heal. Here
    are a few examples:
    Seattle Arts Commission (Seattle, Washington)
        The Commission and Richard Hugo House co-sponsored a reading by
    Joan Fiset of Bandaged Moments, her poems about war and its aftermath,
    as well as readings from Seattle writers and performers from their
    favorite works about New York. Donations benefited a fellow local arts
    agency in New York City. The Lower Manhattan Cultural Council had
    maintained its offices inside the World Trade Center.
    Colorado Council of the Arts (Denver, Colorado)
        The Colorado Council of the Arts has created The Healing Power of
    the Arts website with funds from the National Endowment for the Arts.
    The site offers resources through which to ``investigate the power of
    the arts as a force for positive change in our lives.''
    Out of the Ashes (Albuquerque, New Mexico)
        In Albuquerque, dozens of students spent every afternoon in a
    downtown studio creating art to process their anger, sorrow, and
    bewilderment over September 11 and the retaliation against Muslims in
    the United States. The result is De las Cenizas: Altars to Victims of
    Terror and Vengeance, a collaborative installation for Day of the Dead
    that filled Visiones Gallery. To complete their work, students invited
    members of the Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, and Christian
    communities to participate by contributing coins, newspapers, photos,
    music, and mementos to provide a symbolic representation of the many
    nations where innocent people are victims of terror and vengeance. Out
    of the Ashes was open October 26-November 16.
    San Francisco Arts Commission (San Francisco, California)
        Within days of the World Trade Center attack, thousands of
    ``missing'' fliers were distributed by loved ones in an effort to trace
    survivors. With the permission of New York City authorities, hundreds
    of the fliers were collected before they could be destroyed by the
    elements. The collection was presented in San Francisco City Hall on
    February 6-26, 2002, as part of a touring exhibition visiting cities
    throughout the United States. Missing celebrates and commemorates the
    lives of the September 11 victims, giving viewers the opportunity for
    private contemplation.
    Anchorage Concert Chorus (Anchorage, Alaska)
        On September 14, the Chorus sang the opening and closing hymns at a
    community-wide memorial at the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts,
    which was broadcast on television and radio.
    Great Falls Symphony Association (Great Falls, Montana)
        On October 16, in cooperation with the Great Falls Tribune and the
    City of Great Falls, the Great Falls Symphony Association presented a
    concert to Celebrate America. Donations benefited the United Way
    September 11 fund, the American Red Cross, and the Salvation Army. All
    performance-related costs were donated.
        We are reminded of the critical service the arts provide to our
    communities. Terrorism is an act of destruction, but art one of
    creation; these local art agencies, organizations, and artists have
    been able to empower American communities with the tools, resources,
    and support necessary in their efforts to create. Art has served not
    only as a healing tool, but a cultural bridge, fostering understanding
    and tolerance. Without the proper funding, these local arts agencies
    and the organizations they support would not have been in a position to
    help their communities in this time of crisis.
              challenge america initiative is building communities
        In addition to strengthening the nation's artistic infrastructure
    by providing more programs and services, an increase in NEA funding
    would provide additional money for the Challenge America initiative to
    address four broad based goals: connect arts organizations more closely
    with families and communities, provide access to the arts in
    underserved areas, encourage the development of cultural organizations
    in communities not previously served by the NEA, and support and
    strengthen community arts organizations.
        Since its initial funding, the Challenge America community
    development grants have reached hundreds of community arts
    organizations across the country, targeting organizations in rural
    communities or inner city neighborhoods with limited arts resources.
    Using these community development grants, local arts agencies partner
    with other community organizations to tackle projects from developing
    economic cultural tourism plans to restoring historic structures. Here
    are some examples of local arts agencies and organizations using
    Challenge America grants to improve their communities:
    Arts Partnership of Greater Spartanburg, Inc. (Spartanburg, South
            Carolina)
        Project Type.--Civic Design--$10,000
        To support a partnership with the Spartanburg Little Theatre and
    Youth Theatre, Spartanburg Museum of Art, Spartanburg Historical
    Association, Ballet Spartanburg, and the Music Foundation of
    Spartanburg to design a community arts facility. The facility would
    include an art and history museum, a 500-seat theatre, and a science
    center. This proposed facility would serve as an architectural icon and
    provide a much-needed venue for community celebrations and cultural
    activities in this small rural town.
    Town of Morristown/River Arts of Morrisville, Inc. (Morrisville, VT)
        Project Type.--Cultural Tourism/District--$5,000
        To support a partnership with Morristown Community Partnership,
    Conservation Commission, and Recreation Trails Committee to develop a
    design concept to represent the community. The project is planned in
    three stages: research and development, design and review, and
    presentation and recommendations with public input solicited at each
    phase. With this strategy, the partnership hopes to raise community
    awareness and pride in its cultural and historic identity.
    Pocahontas Communications Cooperative Corporation (Dunmore, West
            Virginia)
        Project Type.--Cultural Tourism/District--$10,000
        To support an ongoing partnership with Highland County Arts
    Council, Allegheny Mountain Radio Arts Partnership, Pendleton County
    Committee for the Arts, Pocahontas County Convention & Visitors'
    Bureau, various regional libraries, and others to promote the
    activities of the arts organizations in the Highland area. The non-
    profit Radio Partnership will provide broadcast marketing for the arts
    organizations to publicize their activities. The public libraries will
    serve as conservators through the collection and documentation of local
    cultural traditions and histories of this rural region.
    Davis County Arts & Humanities Council (Layton, Utah)
        Project Type.--Cultural Assessment/Planning--$10,000
        To support a partnership with the City of Layton, Davis County and
    the Bountiful Performing Arts Center for a city and county cultural
    needs assessment. Through a series of community conversations, surveys,
    interviews, and other data gathering, the partners will evaluate the
    resources and services offered to the community by its cultural
    organizations and how best to address the significant increase in the
    area's population.
    Brookhaven Trust for the Preservation of History, Culture, and Arts
            (Brookhaven, Mississippi)
        Project Type.--Civic Design--$10,000
        To support a partnership with the Brookhaven-Lincoln Chamber of
    Commerce and the Brookhaven Arts Council to provide an architectural
    review of the Old City Hall and Fire Station to develop a plan of how
    the unused space could be used for civic events. This plan will
    facilitate historically sensitive renovation of the facility in a prime
    downtown location, providing for cultural events, and fulfilling a
    pressing need in the community.
        The fiscal year 2002 NEA budget increase is currently being used to
    fund Challenge America. This program is already enriching communities
    around the country, not only through increased access to the arts for
    community members, but also by stimulating local economies through
    tourism, urban renewal, and attracting new business. Challenge America
    is extending the nonprofit arts industry's economic impact by
    stimulating non-arts related growth at the local level.
        An increase in NEA funding will enrich the lives of more people, in
    more communities, throughout the country.--Local arts agencies are key
    players in improving community life, from offering afterschool programs
    for children to working with local law enforcement to reduce crime. By
    creating therapeutic outlets for people to express their pain,
    confusion, and anger in response to 9/11, local arts agencies and arts
    organizations have shown that their service to communities not only
    expands access to the arts but also helps touch and heal those in need.
    Local arts agencies are strengthening our communities' economies by
    increasing tourism, urban renewal, and attracting new businesses. We
    urge this subcommittee to make a commitment to supporting community
    building through local arts agencies by appropriating $155 million for
    the National Endowment for the Arts.
                                     ______

                     National Endowment for the Humanities
             Prepared Statement of the National Humanities Alliance
        The National Humanities Alliance writes to request a fiscal year
    2003 appropriation for the National Endowment for the Humanities of
    $155 million, an increase of $30.5 million over last year's enacted
    level of $124.5 million. The National Humanities Alliance is a
    coalition of more than 80 national humanities organizations
    representing scholars, teachers, librarians, archivists, museum
    professionals and others involved in delivering work in the humanities
    across the country. We submit this request today not just on behalf of
    these communities, but on behalf of the American people.
                                  introduction
        The National Endowment for the Humanities is the largest single
    funder of humanities programs in the United States. Though a relatively
    small program, the leadership provided by NEH is critical for the
    national effort to:
      --preserve and provide access to our nation's historical and cultural
            resources
      --strengthen teaching and learning in history, literature, language
            and other humanities subjects in schools and colleges
      --facilitate research and original scholarship in the humanities
      --provide opportunities for lifelong learning in the humanities for
            all Americans
      --strengthen the institutional base of the humanities
        With a relatively small investment from Congress, NEH provides
    access to high-quality educational programs and resources that reach
    millions of Americans each year. NEH grants are awarded through a
    competitive, peer-review process based on merit. Not only do NEH grants
    encourage excellence, but most NEH grants provide leveraging for
    significant private support, which stimulates millions of dollars in
    non-federal support each year. The NEH model is consistent with our
    nation's commitment to excellence, the democratic process, and the
    responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
        The President's request for fiscal year 2003 is $126.9 million.
    While this request represents a $2.4 million increase for
    administrative and treasury funds, it provides only level funding for
    endowment programs. The $155 million recommended by the National
    Humanities Alliance incorporates the necessary administrative increase,
    but also enhances the NEH's ability to support humanities projects
    throughout the United States. As outlined below, these additional funds
    would better enable NEH to carry out its mission for the American
    people, and represent a reasonable step toward addressing unmet program
    needs. In recent years, the combined impact of budget cuts and
    inflation has reduced the number, diversity and buying power of NEH
    awards. In fact, we estimate that the agency is running at about 55
    percent of its demonstrated capacity of 10 years ago. More importantly,
    current applications in all program areas demonstrate a need that
    greatly exceeds the endowment's grant-making capacity at present
    funding levels.
                                homeland defense
        We applaud the administration's special initiative, ``We the
    People,'' to encourage new project proposals that advance our knowledge
    of the events, ideas, and principles that define the American nation.
    Requiring no new funds, and working within the agency's established
    review system, the We the People initiative will call upon humanities
    scholars, teachers, filmmakers, museums, libraries, and other
    individuals and institutions engaged in the humanities to develop
    projects on the most significant events and themes in the nation's
    history and culture. As stated in the NEH Budget Request, ``The
    horrific events of September 11 have underscored the importance of the
    humanities in understanding the state of our union and in responding
    effectively in times of crisis. A knowledgeable citizenry is essential
    to homeland defense; Americans need to understand the ideals, ideas,
    and institutions that undergird our nation if we are to defend it''.
    NEH's overarching mission--to encourage the study of history,
    literature, languages, government, philosophy, ethics, religion and
    other humanities subjects--helps us not only to better understand our
    own nation, but other cultures as well.
                           federal/state partnership
        The Alliance recommends an increase of $8.4 million for the NEH
    Federal/State Partnership, bringing the budget up from $31.6 to $40
    million for fiscal year 2003. State humanities councils address
    critical needs in the areas of professional development for teachers,
    family literacy programs, and public humanities programming that in the
    broadest sense educates citizens for civic life, and strengthens the
    fabric of our democracy. The state councils are private, nonprofit,
    grassroots organizations, located in each of the 50 states, the
    District of Columbia, and five commonwealths and territories. State
    councils respond to local needs and help to ensure that the best of the
    humanities reaches Americans in nearly every district of the nation.
    This increase would guarantee at least $100,000 for each council (once
    the population formula has been applied). Every dollar appropriated for
    the state councils goes directly and immediately into local communities
    across the country.
                                challenge grants
        The Alliance recommends an increase of $3.4 million for the NEH
    Office of Challenge Grants, bringing the budget up from $10.4 to $13.8
    million for fiscal year 2003. Challenge Grants strengthen the
    institutional base for teaching, research, preservation and public
    programming in the humanities. Each year, Challenge Grants are the
    catalyst for bringing millions of dollars in private funds to colleges
    and universities, museums, libraries, humanities research centers,
    state councils, historical societies and historical sites. Challenge
    Grants provide first time grantees a $1 federal match for each $3
    raised privately, and a 1:4 match for second time recipients. The
    additional funding would stimulate at least $10.2 million in new
    private giving (for a total of at least an additional $41.4 million in
    nonfederal funds). Additional funds are needed to increase both the
    dollar amount and number of awards possible. In addition, an increase
    in the Challenge Grant program would greatly enhance the agency's
    ability to provide support for the newly created regional humanities
    centers, which are eligible to compete under the agency's regular
    review process.
                               education programs
        The Alliance recommends an increase of $3 million for the NEH
    Education Division, bringing the budget up from $12.6 to $15.6 million
    for fiscal year 2003. NEH Education programs support content-rich
    teaching and learning in the humanities for our nation's students. NEH
    Summer Seminars and Institutes offer college and K-12 teachers
    opportunities to study significant topics and fundamental texts in the
    humanities and to revitalize their understanding of history, literature
    and other humanities subjects. Humanities Teacher Leadership awards
    help elementary and secondary school teachers share the benefits of
    their participation in seminars and institutes with other educators and
    schools. Education Development and Demonstration grants support
    projects to strengthen the teaching and learning of humanities subjects
    in K-12 schools and in colleges and universities across the country.
    Additional funding would better enable these programs.
      --Each additional Summer Seminars and Institute funded would reach
            about 20 teachers and 3,100 students who would benefit from
            these teachers' experience within the year.
      --Each teacher enabled through an additional Humanities Teacher
            Leadership award would reach hundreds of other teachers and
            students.
      --Each Education Development and Demonstration project funded carries
            the potential of generating comprehensive plans for school
            improvement, innovative uses of educational technologies, and
            national models of excellence in humanities teaching.
                             preservation & access
        The Alliance recommends an increase of $4.6 million for the NEH
    Preservation & Access Division, bringing the budget up from $18.9 to
    $23.5 million for fiscal year 2003. The Preservation & Access programs
    are in the lead in the nation's efforts to preserve and increase the
    availability of cultural, historical and intellectual resources for
    generations of Americans.
        NEH supports preservation of and access to books, journals,
    newspapers, manuscript and archival collections, maps, photographs,
    films, sound recordings, oral histories, and objects of material
    culture held by libraries, archives, museums, historical organizations,
    and other repositories. NEH also supports preservation education and
    training, and the acquisition of research tools and reference works;
    and makes grants for the creation of dictionaries, atlases,
    encyclopedias, and other major reference works that preserve and
    portray the history and culture of the United States and the world.
      --Additional funding would accelerate support for the Brittle Books
            and U.S. Newspapers Programs. An estimated 25-30 percent of the
            printed holdings in the country's research libraries are
            deteriorating because of the acidity of their paper. To date,
            83 libraries and library consortia are involved in the NEH
            effort to preserve brittle books and serials--when currently
            funded newspapers projects in all 50 states are complete
            (present count is 39), records for 151,500 unique titles dating
            from 1690 will be available in a national database accessible
            at 40,000 institutions in the United States and abroad. Sixty-
            two million deteriorating newspaper pages of historical
            significance will have been microfilmed.
      --Additional funding would stimulate further development and
            implementation of preservation standards and technology, as
            well as support new reference tools to make our nation's
            historic and cultural resources available for Americans today
            and tomorrow.
                                public programs
        The Alliance recommends an increase of $3.8 million for the NEH
    Public Programs Division, bringing the budget up from $13.1 to $16.9
    million for fiscal year 2003. Each year, Public Program grants generate
    projects that reach millions of Americans in every part of the country.
    The Humanities Project in Media program supports the planning,
    scripting, and production of television and radio programs on
    significant works and subjects in the humanities. Humanities Projects
    in Museums and Historical Organizations support exhibitions of cultural
    and historical artifacts, along with related publications and
    programming. Humanities Projects in Libraries and Archives seek to
    increase public understanding of the humanities through the discovery,
    interpretation, and greater appreciation of texts, media, Internet
    resources, and other collections available to Americans in libraries
    and archives. Grants have also been made for radio call-in programs
    that in collaboration with libraries explore regional literature in
    several parts of the country. Additional funding would further enable
    these programs.
      --Each additional Media Project, including radio, television, and
            film productions, would generate an average of 2.6 hours of
            content-rich television or radio programming, each drawing an
            average of 4.8 million viewers and listeners.
      --Each additional Museum or Historical Organization Exhibition would
            reach an average of 2.7 venues, attracting more than 339,000
            visitors per exhibit.
      --Each additional Library Project represents another local community
            reached by NEH.
                            research and fellowships
        The Alliance recommends an increase of $3.9 million for the NEH
    Research Division, bringing the budget up from $13 to $16.9 million for
    fiscal year 2003. This division supports basic research, and
    contributes to faculty development, improved teaching, and quality
    public programming in the humanities across the country. Fellowships
    and Stipends support focused, sustained work by individual scholars,
    for projects that will: advance specialized areas of research,
    stimulate scholarship in related fields, inform the teaching of
    humanities subjects at all levels, and provide the foundation for
    public programs in the humanities. Collaborative Research grants
    support long-term, complex projects carried out by groups of scholars,
    including the preparation of documentary and literary editions, large-
    scale translation projects, archaeological research, wide-ranging
    studies of important topics in the humanities, and fellowship programs
    at centers for advanced study in the humanities. Additional funding
    would further enable these programs.
      --Fellowships and Stipends are an extremely effective way to support
            excellent humanities research and professional development for
            faculty. On average, one-third of awards in a given year result
            in a major publication within 5 years; most reach publication
            in subsequent years; over the years, awards have resulted in
            the publication of more than 2,600 books, including ten
            Pulitzer Prize winners.
      --Collaborative Research projects are making significant
            contributions to our knowledge and understanding of the world.
            Recent projects are increasingly making use of advanced
            technologies to produce their results in readily accessible,
            digital format.
        Thank you for your past support and consideration of this request.
                                     ______

    Letter From the Association of Research Libraries,
                                             Council on
        Library and Information Resources, National Humanities
                                                       Alliance
                                                        April 23, 2002.
    Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
    Chairman, U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
        Dear Chairman Byrd: This letter is submitted on behalf of the
    Association of Research Libraries, the Council on Library and
    Information Resources, and the National Humanities Alliance. Once
    again, these national organizations write to request increased support
    from this the distinguished Subcommittee for the preservation and
    access activities of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
        Our associations organizations support an increase of approximately
    $4.6 million in the budget for the Endowment's Preservation and Access
    Division, raising it from last year's $18,905,000 to $23,500,000 for
    fiscal year 2003.
        The flat funding proposed in the Administration's budget is
    inadequate for preserving and ensuring access to jeopardized cultural
    and intellectual resources needed by students, scholars, and the
    American people nationwide.
        Why is it so important to receive such a relatively small increase
    in preservation and access funds? Because without them our preservation
    momentum will decline, particularly in two vital programs, and material
    now in fragile condition in libraries and related repositories in
    universities, colleges, and communities across the country will be in
    even greater danger of permanent loss.
        One such project is the preservation of chemically deteriorating,
    brittle books, which are unique volumes in danger of becoming unusable
    because of acidic paper. NEH has been able to help libraries microfilm
    approximately one million brittle books. But the NEH project began with
    studies that estimated 12 million volumes could be in jeopardy and set
    a goal of preserving 3 million of the most endangered volumes. With
    only a third of the goal accomplished, we must move this project
    forward at a faster pace.
        Similarly, there has been great progress in the Endowment's U.S.
    Newspaper Project. With the help of the Congress and NEH, libraries
    across the country have completed microfilming historical newspapers,
    which are treasure troves of insight into the history of our country,
    in 39 states. But more than one-fifth of the states have yet to carry
    out newspaper preservation plans. If microfilming in all 50 states were
    completed, records for 151,000 unique newspaper titles could be made
    available in a national database through computer terminals at 40,000
    institutions in the United States and abroad. These are major goals
    toward which we can make great progress with the small increase
    requested.
        We understand fully that the nation must attend to its security and
    defense needs in the 2003 budget, but defense against deterioration of
    the holdings of America's libraries is vital as well. Information,
    education, and knowledge are the underpinnings of our country's
    domestic progress and international leadership in the 21st century. The
    nation must preserve the historical record accumulated by past
    generations for use by students and scholars today and in the future.
    On behalf of the American people, the library and humanities
    communities ask that the underfunding of NEH be reversed so that
    momentum in the race against time can be regained, in order to save and
    ensure widespread access to the holdings of the nation's libraries. The
    challenges of this specific problem are explained more fully below,
    along with dimensions of the preservation need that goes far beyond
    brittle books and newspapers.
                          preserving fragile materials
        In 1987, Congress took a significant leadership role in recognizing
    the importance of library print collections--the books, journals, and
    other historical and cultural records that are at the heart of the
    humanities. It was then estimated that more than 12 million unique
    volumes in the research libraries of this country were at risk of
    deterioration simply because they were printed on an unstable medium--
    acidic paper, commonly used between 1840 and 1980. Library stacks were
    lined with thousands of books, journals, and newspapers that were
    already so brittle that pages broke when they were turned. As a result,
    Congress allocated resources to NEH to coordinate and support efforts
    of the library community to preserve these resources through
    microfilming, the most effective means known at the time to preserve
    the intellectual content of and provide broad access to copies of
    fragile materials. The Brittle Books Program, as it has come to be
    called, was envisioned as a 20-year effort to preserve 3 million unique
    volumes.
        When current projects are completed, almost one million volumes
    will have been microfilmed through NEH-supported projects since funding
    was initiated in 1989. Many libraries and library consortia across the
    nation have participated. The coordination of effort by NEH with
    Congressionally appropriated funds has resulted in the preservation of
    a distributed, national collection of important materials, all
    microfilmed according to rigorous standards. Yet, much remains to be
    done. The nation's libraries have made every effort to meet the goals
    that were established more than a decade ago, but when the NEH budget
    was cut by 38 percent in 1996, funds for microfilm preservation grants
    were reduced proportionately. In consequence, at least two million
    volumes remain in jeopardy.
        Fortunately, there are now ways to help extend the usability of
    these volumes. Microfilming has been the method of choice when
    materials are already brittle. But with newer, less embrittled printed
    works, mass deacidification, a chemical treatment, has also proven
    effective. In other cases, improving environmental conditions for
    storage also seems significantly to extend longevity. Preservation has
    thus become a complex blend of techniques. The microfilming program
    launched in 1987 remains critically important, but it, alone, is not
    sufficient to meet the diverse preservation needs now faced by the
    nation's research libraries. They need help also to continue improving
    techniques for preservation storage and mass deacidification, and to do
    more research on acidic deterioration itself, its rates, and threats.
    Libraries need help from NEH to employ and further develop all these
    techniques.
                              beyond brittle books
        Embrittled books and newspapers are not the only irreplaceable
    materials in jeopardy. Materials documenting the past that need to be
    kept for the future include films, videos, photographs, tapes, disks,
    and audio and visual recordings. These historical materials from the
    20th and 21st centuries provide a sense of historical reality
    unattainable in print from past eras. These media capture the immediacy
    of historical experience and the diversity of American culture with
    vividness and fidelity. Regrettably, however, audiovisual materials are
    even harder to preserve than paper. Films and photographs fade and
    discolor. Audio tapes and disks break, or become unplayable as new
    recording technologies replace those with which original recordings
    were made. Without audio and visual resources, large segments of the
    record of more than a century of American experience will not survive.
    Here again, NEH grant assistance is greatly needed to preserve history.
        Additionally, our organizations associations strongly support the
    efforts of NEH to complement its preservation assistance with grants to
    help make the intellectual and cultural record of the United States
    more accessible to educators, students, and scholars. NEH does this
    with grant assistance for digitizing library materials for online
    access. Digital technology provides new opportunities to extend the
    reach of humanities resources into every classroom, every library,
    every office, and every home. Because digitization enables individuals
    everywhere to view materials on the screens of personal computers, many
    repositories of specialized and rare materials are digitizing their
    precious holdings to provide easy access to them. Moreover, libraries
    and other humanities organizations are providing online access to an
    ever-increasing body of knowledge created in electronic journals,
    books, and databases that are available only in electronic form.
        The transition to digital libraries creates new challenges. Digital
    information requires preservation, which cannot be achieved simply by
    building digital repositories. Successful digital preservation will
    require collaborative agreements and efforts involving authors,
    publishers, technologists, and librarians. The partnerships needed for
    long-term digital preservation are not now in place, although much-
    needed work toward developing a national digital preservation plan is
    now underway at the Library of Congress thanks to Congressional
    appropriations.
        The Library of Congress' effort to develop a distributed system for
    digital preservation depends upon the ability of research libraries to
    add to the whole. It will be important that e urge the National
    Endowment for the Humanities to coordinate its efforts with the Library
    of Congress' program so that the citizens of the United States can be
    assured that the raw materials of scholarship in all major repositories
    will be preserved for future generations.
        NEH also provides critical assistance to our nation's libraries,
    archives, historical societies, and other repositories for preservation
    education and training. Grants in this area help support U.S. graduate
    programs in art and material culture conservation; preservation
    workshops, surveys and information services to hundreds of cultural
    institutions; as well as targeted workshops for staff managing digital
    imaging and preservation microfilming projects.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, past support from the Congress has made it possible
    for NEH to conduct a highly successful program for preserving library
    materials that constitute our national cultural heritage. Thanks to
    that program, students, scholars, and citizens throughout the United
    States now have convenient access to unique books, manuscripts, and
    other materials that libraries have microfilmed and digitized. NEH
    recognizes the need to expand the preservation agenda to include the
    preservation of material in audiovisual and digital formats. In
    addition, NEH recognizes that the preservation of digital information
    requires new collaborations and technical research. But NEH cannot meet
    these needs--nor can it complete the preservation of brittle books and
    newspapers--without increased funding. ARL, CLIR, and NHA strongly
    support an increase for NEH's Preservation and Access program. The
    students who learn from library resources, the scholars who create new
    knowledge from them, and the citizens who turn to them for
    enlightenment all depend on adequate funding for this program.
        Thank you for your past assistance, and for this opportunity to
    explain unmet needs of high priority for the nation.

                          Duane E. Webster, Executive Director,
                                     Association of Research Libraries.

                                   Deanna B. Marcum, President,
                          Council on Library and Information Resources.

                                 John Hammer, Director and CEO,
                                          National Humanities Alliance.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Abraham, Hon. Spencer, Secretary of Energy, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of Energy................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
        Summary statement............................................     4
    Alachua County, FL, prepared statement...........................   302
    Alaska Native Health Board, prepared statement...................   500
    Alliance to Save Energy, prepared statement......................   474
    Allison Transmission Division of General Motors, Indianapolis,
      IN, prepared statement.........................................   467
    American:
        Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, prepared statement......   508
        Association of Museums, prepared statement...................   512
        Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), prepared
          statement..................................................   423
        Gas Association, prepared statement..........................   476
        Hiking Society, prepared statement...........................   406
        Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement.......   345
        Institute of Biological Sciences, prepared statement.........   315
        Rivers, prepared statement...................................   296
        Society for Microbiology, prepared statement.................   310
        Society of Mechanical Engineers, prepared statement..........   442
        Wildlands, prepared statement................................   284
    Americans for:
        National Parks, prepared statement...........................   293
        The Arts, prepared statement.................................   514
    ASME Council on Engineering, prepared statement..................   442
    Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation,
      prepared statement.............................................   361
    Association of National Park Rangers, prepared statement.........   294
    Association of Navajo Community Controlled School Boards,
      prepared statement.............................................   333

    BAE SYSTEMS Controls, Johnson City, NY, prepared statement.......   467
    Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah, opening
      statements....................................................84, 139
    BIA/Tribal Budget Advisory Committee, prepared statement.........   381
    Big Sky Brewing Co., prepared statement..........................   293
    Bob Jovick, prepared statement...................................   296
    Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., prepared statement..............   413
    Bosworth, Hon. Dale, Chief, Forest Service, Department of
      Agriculture:
        Opening statements..........................................79, 113
        Prepared statement...........................................    88
        Summary statement............................................    86
    Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, prepared statement..........   496
    Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
        Opening statements.......................................2, 81, 135
        Prepared statements.........................................82, 136
        Questions submitted by......................................46, 197
    Business Council for Sustainable Energy, prepared statement......   420
    Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia:
        Opening statements........................................... 1, 79
        Prepared statement...........................................    80
        Questions submitted by.................................38, 128, 184

    California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
      (CCOS) Coalition, prepared statement...........................   485
    Campbell, Senator Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
        Opening statements.....................................83, 113, 140
        Questions submitted by.......................................   234
    Caterpillar, Inc., prepared statement............................   431
    Center for Advanced Separation Technologies, prepared statement..   459
    Chugach Regional Resources Commission, prepared statement........   393
    City of Newark, NJ, prepared statement...........................   301
    Coal Utilization Research Council, prepared statement............   452
    Coalition of Northeastern Governors, prepared statement..........   484
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, opening
      statements....................................................24, 184
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement..   249
    Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, prepared statement......   498
    Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, prepared
      statement......................................................   364
    Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT), prepared statement.....   350
    Cummins, Inc., prepared statement................................   434

    Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statement........................   256
    Detroit Diesel Corporation, prepared statement...................   427
    DeWine, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio, question submitted
      by.............................................................   244
    Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:
        Opening statements..........................................98, 142
        Questions submitted by.......................................   239
    Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota:
        Opening statements.........................................113, 133
        Prepared statement...........................................   134
        Questions submitted by......................................72, 193

    Eastern Forest Partnership, prepared statement...................   399
    Eaton Corporation, Kalamazoo, MI, prepared statement.............   467
    Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), prepared statement.....   451
    Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council, prepared statement....   396

    Federation of Fly Fishers National Parks Conservation
      Association, prepared statement................................   284
    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening
      statement......................................................   143
    Florida State University, prepared statement.....................   325
    Friends of Back Bay, prepared statement..........................   266
    Frontera Audubon Society, prepared statement.....................   273
    Fuel Cell Power Association, prepared statement..................   482
    FuelCell Energy, Inc., prepared statement........................   415

    Gas Turbine Association, prepared statement......................   479
    General Electric Power Systems, prepared statement...............   417
    Geringer, Jim, Governor of Wyoming, letter from..................   253
    Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC),
      prepared statement.............................................   331
    Greater Yellowstone Coalition, prepared statement..............281, 284

    Honeywell, prepared statement....................................   425
    Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement..........   263

    Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, questions
      submitted by..................................................74, 224
    Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
      Development, prepared statement................................   509
    Integrated Building and Construction Solutions (IBACOS), Inc.,
      prepared statement.............................................   489
    International:
        Research Institute for Climate Prediction, Lamont-Doherty
          Earth Observatory, Columbia University, prepared statement.   403
        Society of Tropical Foresters, letters from..................   409
        Wildlife Film Festival, prepared statement...................   293
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission, prepared statement.........   326
    Intertribal Timber Council, prepared statement...................   352
    Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement....................   365
    Jeehdeez'a Academy, prepared statement...........................   342
    Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota:
        Opening statement............................................   136
        Prepared statement...........................................   137
        Questions submitted by.......................................   243
    Joslin Vision Network/Joslin Diabetes Center, prepared statement.   506

    Kashdan, Hank, Director, Program and Budget Analysis, Forest
      Service, Department of Agriculture.............................   113

    Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared
      statements...................................................391, 507
    Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, prepared statement....................   385
    Lukachukai Community School Board, Inc., prepared statement......   339
    Lummi Indian Nation, prepared statement..........................   383

    Metlakatla Indian Community, prepared statement..................   503
    Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, prepared
      statement......................................................   247
    Montana Council Trout Unlimited, prepared statement..............   284
    Montana Wildlife Federation, prepared statement..................   284
    Mother Lode Chapter, Sierra Club, prepared statement.............   404
    Mountain View Ventures, prepared statement.......................
    Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington, opening
      statements....................................................85, 142

    National:
        American Indian Court Judges Association, prepared statement.   359
        Association for State Community Services Programs, prepared
          state- ment................................................   436
        Association of State Energy Officials, prepared statement....   429
        Audubon Society, prepared statement..........................   277
        Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, prepared
          statement..................................................   299
        Congress of American Indians, prepared statements..........355, 505
        Council for Science and the Environment, prepared statement..   313
        Humanities Alliance, prepared statement......................   517
        Indian Education Association, prepared statement.............   370
        Institutes for Water Resources, prepared statement...........   319
        Mining Association, prepared statement.......................   464
        Parks Conservation Association, prepared statement...........   282
        Recreation and Park Association, prepared statement..........   304
        Research Center for Coal and Energy, West Virginia
          University, prepared statement.............................   471
    Navajo Nation, prepared statements.............................376, 378
    Nez Perce Tribe, prepared statement..............................   254
    Northern Rockies Ethnobotany Center, prepared statement..........   293
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, prepared statement........   388
    Norton, Hon. Gale A., Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Interior.....................................   133
        Prepared statement...........................................   148
        Summary statement............................................   145

    Ocean Conservancy, prepared statement............................   259
    Optoelectronics Industry Development Association, prepared
      statement......................................................   461
    Outdoor Industry Association, prepared statement.................   401

    Pacific Northwest Partnership, prepared statement................   255
    ParkWatch, prepared statement....................................   296
    Partnership for the National Trails System, prepared statement...   284
    Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation, prepared statement.......   338
    Pinon Community School Board, prepared statement.................   341
    Plug Power, Inc., prepared statement.............................   491
    Praxair, Inc., prepared statement................................   445
    Pueblo of Jemez, prepared statement..............................   368

    Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, prepared statement..................   307
    Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., prepared statement..............   336
    Reid, Senator Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada:
        Prepared statement...........................................   111
        Questions submitted by.......................................   195
    Representative Computational Projects, prepared statement........   470

    SAGE Electrochromics, Inc., prepared statement...................   487
    Scarlett, P. Lynn, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
      Budget, Department of the Interior.............................   133
    Scherf, Brian, letter from.......................................   295
    Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement....................   357
    Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation, prepared statement.......   446
    Society for Animal Protective Legislation, prepared statement....   268
    Southern Company, prepared statement.............................   439
    State Teachers' Retirement System, State of California, prepared
      statement......................................................   494
    Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, opening
      statements....................................................95, 141
    Super Computing Science Consortium, prepared statement...........   470

    Technology Acumentrics, prepared statement.......................   411
    The Wilderness Society, prepared statement.......................   275
    Trezise, John D., Director of Budget, Department of the Interior.   133
    Tribal Law & Policy Institute, prepared statement................   328

    United States Advanced Ceramics Association, prepared statement..   456
    United Tribes Technical College, prepared statement..............   347
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, prepared
      statement......................................................   311
    University of Kentucky, prepared statement.......................   449
    Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement....   271

    Western Native Trout, Trout Unlimited, prepared statement........   284
    Western Research Institute, prepared statement...................   455
    Weston Observatory of Boston College, prepared statement.........   322
    Wildlife Society, prepared statements.....................251, 262, 404
    Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, prepared statement..................   344
    Wyoming Council Trout Unlimited, prepared statement..............   284
    Wyoming Wildlife Federation, prepared statement..................   284

    Yakama Nation, prepared statement................................   373

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

    Additional committee questions...................................   128
    Aircraft security measures.......................................   119
    Alaska:
        Pulp corporation.............................................    96
        Timber industry decline......................................    95
    Analysis paralysis...............................................   127
    Appeals and litigation, cost of..................................   101
    Bark beetle infestations.........................................   101
    Borrowed fire fighting funds, sources of.........................   116
    Burned area emergency rehabilitation.............................    93
    Commercial timber sales, ending..................................   100
    Community benefits, maintaining..................................    88
    DOI versus FS efficiency.........................................   109
    EA versus EIS....................................................    93
    Economic action program elimination..............................   117
    Emergency firefighting, borrowing funds to finance...............    92
    Environmental assessments versus environmental impact statements.   121
    Financial accountability.......................................108, 131
    Financial management:
        Problems.....................................................    80
        Systems, integrity of........................................   110
    Fire:
        Budget forecasting...........................................    98
        Fighting:
            Budget formulation.......................................   124
            Costs....................................................    91
            Funding, long-term solution to...........................   128
        Funds, inequitable distribution of...........................   131
        Report, failure to provide committee with....................   128
        Season:
            Anticipated..............................................    92
            Difficult................................................   100
            Forecasting..............................................    99
        Suppression:
            Additional funds for.....................................   127
            Costs....................................................   129
            Models...................................................   114
    Forest:
        Plan revisions...............................................   106
        Service unprepared for Senate questions......................   109
    Gardner, WV lab..................................................   104
    Grazing mitigation of fire.......................................   121
    Grazing permits:
        Allotments process...........................................   120
        Reissuance backlog...........................................   122
    Gridlock.........................................................    85
    Gypsy moth defoliation in West Virginia..........................   130
    Hazardous fuels..................................................    82
        Build-up.....................................................    94
        Reduction....................................................   118
    Invasive species.................................................    88
    Laboratory closures..............................................   103
    Lawsuits:
        Frivolous....................................................   102
        Vulnerability to.............................................   107
    Minerals and oil interests.......................................   125
    Monongahela Forest plan..........................................   129
    Multiple large fires--adequate resources.........................   123
    National fire plan...............................................83, 87
        Report.......................................................    90
    National grasslands management plan.......................124, 125, 126
    Noxious weeds....................................................    94
    Princeton, WV:
        Lab..........................................................   105
            Number of scientists at..................................   105
        Unit.........................................................   104
    R&D funding redirection on WV labs, impacts of...................   110
    Research funding, redirection of...............................110, 117
    Roadless policy..................................................    97
    Santa Fe watershed and forest, city of...........................   109
    Seneca Rocks repairs/Lake Sherwood sewage improvements...........   130
    Supplemental fire funding........................................   115
    Timber:
        Sales pipeline restoration fund..............................    95
        Salvage process streamlining.................................   119
    Tongass Timber Reform Act........................................    97
    Transportation program, elimination of wood in...................   131
    Trust funds, borrowing from......................................   116
    Valles Caldera National Preserve.................................   107
    Volunteer fire departments.......................................   118
    West Virginia, research cuts and impacts to......................   130
    Wildfires, catastrophic..........................................    81
    Winter Olympics..................................................    85
    Wood Education and Resource Center...............................   129

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional committee questions...................................    38
    Budget:
        Fiscal year 2003 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation
          request....................................................    10
        Economic regulation..........................................    20
        Energy conservation..........................................    16
        Energy Information Administration............................    20
    Building:
        Envelope R&D.................................................    56
        Technology research..........................................    54
    Business, changing the way we do.................................     8
    Clean:
        Coal, mining of..............................................    30
            Solicitation.............................................    38
        Energy technology exports initiative.........................    39
        Fuels R&D....................................................    70
    Coal research initiative, the President's........................    11
    Congressional earmarks...........................................    36
    Distributed power generation systems.............................    12
    Energy:
        Bill.........................................................    53
        Conservation R&D budget cuts--contracts reduced or terminated    42
        Efficiency and renewal energy, strategic review of...........    73
        Efficiency budget cuts.......................................    73
        Efficiency science initiative................................    42
        Security and assurance.......................................    76
    Environmental Protection Agency, coordination with...............    37
    Equipment, materials and tools--management support...............    57
    Federal:
        Energy management--FEMP......................................    60
        Sector.......................................................    18
    Fossil energy:
        Budget.......................................................    10
        Carbon sequestration.........................................    70
        Production...................................................    23
        Program direction............................................    33
        Programs, top-to-bottom review of............................    21
        R&D, other...................................................    14
    Freedomcar...................................................41, 63, 75
    Fuel cells...................................................28, 29, 40
        Stationary...................................................    29
    Future energy efficiency programs................................    72
    Gas hydrates program.............................................    39
    Green tags program...............................................    73
    Heavy duty truck vehicle systems.................................    67
    Homeland security................................................    33
    Industries of the future:
        Crosscutting.................................................    62
        Specific.....................................................    60
    Industry.........................................................    18
    Integrated Biomass R&D Program...................................    19
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation, status of fiscal
      year 2002 earmarks.............................................    36
    Lighting:
        Appliance standards..........................................    56
        Research.....................................................    55
    Lignite 21 vision project........................................    72
    Major hydrogen and/or fuel cell demonstration programs...........    74
    Missions and national priorities, refocusing our.................     7
    National:
        Energy policy................................................    22
        Energy technology laboratory.................................    34
        Laboratories.................................................    32
    Natural gas:
        Infrastructure...............................................    69
            Program transfer to the Department of Transportation.....    40
        Oil exploration and production...............................    27
    Policy and management............................................    20
    Power............................................................    18
    President's:
        Management agenda, implementing the..........................     9
        Management initiative........................................    51
    Progress, reporting on...........................................     9
    Recent successes.................................................    51
    Research and development:
        Heavy duty engine............................................    68
        Hybrid vehicle...............................................    67
        Locomotive engine............................................    68
    Reserves:
        Naval petroleum..............................................    16
        Strategic petroleum and northeast home heating oil...........    15
    Space conditioning and refrigeration R&D.........................    55
    States, cooperative program with the.............................    46
    Strategic program review:
        Energy conservation..........................................    47
        Fossil energy................................................    46
    Technology:
        Clean coal...................................................    15
        Natural Gas..................................................    13
        Oil..........................................................    14
        Windows......................................................    71
    Transportation...................................................    19
        Fuel cells...................................................    66
    Weatherization...................................................    41
        State energy programs........................................    57

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    Acknowledgment and research, branch of...........................   234
    Additional committee questions...................................   184
    American Indians and Alaska Natives, needs of....................   146
    BIA..............................................................   239
        Budget contracted to tribes, percentage of...................   237
        Budget directly administered by tribes under the Self-
          Determination
          Act........................................................   165
        CBM EIS for Montana..........................................   218
        Community development........................................   222
        Detention facilities, funding for new........................   168
        Education budget (fiscal year 2003)..........................   229
        Energy and minerals..........................................   219
        Fire funding.................................................   220
        Funded tribally controlled community colleges................   168
        Nevada.......................................................   196
        PILT.........................................................   219
        School privatization.........................................   244
        Tribal community colleges....................................   222
        Zortman-Landusky mine cleanup................................   224
    Border security..................................................   209
    Budget:
        Games........................................................   237
        Highlights, other............................................   147
        Overview.....................................................   149
    Bureau of:
        Indian Affairs budget........................................   166
        Indian Trust Asset Management................................   186
    Buyout of Florida Oil & Gas leases...............................   192
    California oil leases............................................   174
    Cargill purchase.................................................   173
    Coal bed methane.................................................   214
    Collier acquisition..............................................   214
    Colorado River agreement.........................................   175
    Conservation tools, other........................................   150
    Consultation.....................................................   230
    Cooperative BIA/DOJ Law Enforcement Programs.....................   167
    Cooperative conservation initiative.......................146, 149, 197
    Department decisions, peer review of.............................   162
    Department's fiscal year 2003 budget request.....................   145
    Detention facilities.............................................   226
    DOI/Cobell case--computer shutdown...............................   222
    Drought and minnow...............................................   240
    Drought and water................................................   240
    Economic development.............................................   229
    EIS on coalbed methane...........................................   159
    Endangered Species Act...........................................   218
    Endangered species:
        Conservation.................................................   153
            Recovery.................................................   185
        Listing program system.......................................   185
    Everglades.....................................................152, 207
    Fire:
        Preparedness.................................................   164
        Suppression costs............................................   191
    Fish hatcheries..................................................   188
    Forest management..............................................158, 169
    Fort Peck, cabin sites at........................................   183
    Glacier National Park--GTS road:
        Plowing......................................................   206
        Rehabilitation...............................................   205
    Harnessing our natural resources.................................   153
    Hazardous fuels reduction........................................   235
    Homeland security..............................................155, 225
    Indian:
        Education..................................................151, 159
        Land consolidation.........................................164, 238
        Land Consolidation Program...................................   234
        Loan guaranty Program........................................   238
        Programs, funding for operation of...........................   224
        Reservations, needs on.......................................   172
        Schools and colleges, funding for............................   168
        Trust........................................................   159
    Land use planning................................................   154
    Landowner:
        Incentive and private stewardship programs.................176, 198
        Incentive program and private stewardship grants.............   187
        Partnerships.................................................   150
    Law enforcement..................................................   226
        Initiative...................................................   166
    Leavenworth fish hatchery........................................   165
    Lewis and Clark/Corps of Discovery II funding....................   194
    Litigation:
        Background...................................................   170
        Costs........................................................   160
    Management excellence............................................   155
    Minnow v. Keys...................................................   170
    National Wildlife Refuge Centennial, preparing for the...........   153
    Natural resource challenge.......................................   152
    NCTC.............................................................   186
    Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention.................   227
    Office of Inspector General......................................   216
    Office of Insular Affairs........................................   155
    Office of Surface Mining.........................................   184
        Mine Reclamation Program cuts................................   190
    Ojibwa Indian School.............................................   194
    Park maintenance backlog, managing the...........................   152
    Pecos River and compact obligations..............................   241
    Platte River endangered species..................................   234
    President's management agenda....................................   216
    Proposed Cooperative Conservation Initiative.....................   187
    Public lands, energy exploration on..............................   196
    Reprogramming funds..............................................   230
    Reservation roads................................................   239
    Salton Sea Restoration Alternatives report.......................   175
    School:
        Construction.................................................   235
        Privatization................................................   193
    Science reform...................................................   215
    Section 6 funding................................................   217
    Security.........................................................   241
    Self-determination contracting...................................   236
    Silvery minnow...................................................   170
    Social services..................................................   227
        IIM..........................................................   228
    Stewardship contracting..........................................   160
    Sun and Glacier highway, going to the............................   158
    Taxes, payments in lieu of.......................................   161
    Tribal:
        Colleges..............................................156, 162, 244
        Contracting, encouraging.....................................   237
        Energy development...........................................   236
    Tribally Controlled Community Colleges...........................   194
    Trust:
        Funds........................................................   163
        Improvement..................................................   237
        Management...................................................   243
        Programs.....................................................   150
        Reform.......................................................   231
    U.S. Geological Survey--Homeland security........................   192
    Uncontrollable and travel costs..................................   155
    United Tribes Technical College..................................   157
    Water funding and minnow.........................................   242
    Wildland fire management.........................................   154
    Yellowstone:
        Bison management at..........................................   207
        Snowmobiles in...............................................   195

                                       -