[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 [email protected] 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
-